Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment period is over.

---

Please visit these pages if you are looking for submitted information about alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia. The process of gathering information and commenting on it are closed, along with the discussion of the process on the talk page. Miranche (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Molimo posjetite ove stranice ako tražite podnesene podatke o navodnim nepravilnostima na hrvatskoj Wikipediji. Postupak prikupljanja podataka i komentiranja su završeni, kao i rasprava o postupku na stranici za razgovor. Miranche (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia has hit the news lately, unfortunately not in a good way. For a brief overview see w:Croatian_Wikipedia#2013 controversy.

Today, the Croatian Minister of Education has issued a statement in which he advises all of the pupils and students to favor Wikipedia in English and other major languages, and not in Croatian, due to the fact that Croatian Wikipedia distorts facts and contains forgeries. Croatian Wikipedia has today placed a site-wide notice Službeno i javno opovrgavanje novinarskog žutila Jutarnjeg lista which translates as "Official and public refutation of yellow journalism by Jutarnji list". Jutarnji list is one of the major newspapers in Croatia (the second or third by circulation figures), and calling it yellow journalism, as well as pretending to be making "official" statements in the name of Foundation seems to me like a pretty extreme violation of NPOV as well as misguiding of general public. The content of "refutation" makes abundant use of apologetic victimhood vocabulary, shifting the blame on politicians, ex-Yugoslav secret service, calling the Jutarnji list's article slanderous and "disgusting nonsense", and claims to have been sent to several state agencies - which possibly opens up a legal front that I'm not sure the Foundation wants itself involve in.

Further context

Now, we all know that all those Balkans wikipedias are problematic because they are perceived by many respective editors not as a "Wikipedia in [the language] X" but as "X national wikipedia", with them serving as messiahs destined to preserve the core national "truths" from the interference of "others" (where others=Serbs, Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Croats etc., every nation has its favorite nemesis), and that many biased content creeps into articles dealing with historical and cultural topics...but with this disturbing statement from the official of Croatian government (Minister of Education, no less), I think we're hitting a new low.

Additionally, there is also "Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia", and I've noticed that most of the recent new contributors are in fact former Croatian wikipedia editors, who have been blocked under some silly and absurd pretense, after they fell out of favor with the hardline nationalist clique of admins. This is IMHO the most serious issue with Croatian wiki - that over the years dozens of prolific good contributors have been blocked and harassed out of editing, simply because they are liberal-minded and haven't been brainwashed to be "proper little Croats". This scandal is merely a large-scale reflection of that policy.

Discussion

Since I don't see how this could possibly be solved locally, I hereby invite interested parties to comment on this matter. Comments from editors from other ex-yu wikipedias are particularly welcome. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an "occasional" member of the Croatian Wikipedia, and I believe English Wikipedia has much better articles, because of the NPOV and the NOR. If you visit the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research you can actually see there is no "Hrvatski" (Croatian) page, and that is why a lot of Croatian users add their content regardless of the sources or the credibility of the things they write. But back to the topic, it is true that most administrators on the Croatian wikipedia feel very nationalist and right-leaning. I, for example, as I went to a language gymnasium, felt that merging the Croatian language with Serbian on Wiktionary into Serbo-Croatian because of their similarities wasn't exactly fair, because I know a lot of differences between the two, so I may have seemed right-leaning and nationalist, but really, I'm not. I honestly respect other people's opinions and will strive to change if what they say follows the idea of freedom and equality for everyone. I'm liberal and I believe Croatian wikipedia should show both sides of the coin equally. Now, I can't speak for the articles about WWII, even though I've heard the lies about how many victims dies in Jasenovac in the article of the same name and also how the fascist (basically Nazi) regime was actually fair to all, et cetera, but I can speak for the LGBT articles. For example, when I read the article U ime obitelji on Croatian Wikipedia, (U ime obitelji being a anti-LGBT organisation which organised a referendum to declare 'marriage' a union between a man and a woman) which was blatantly anti-LGBT, I edited it to sound more equal and fair to everyone. My edits were quickly reverted, and when I tried reverting them, they were reverted several times. After a while, I gave up (as most of dedicated liberal users on the Wiki probably already did), because it was obvious the administrators wouldn't do anything to stop this user from reverting my edits to the original version which was bashing against the LGBT population (I think on the page about homosexuality it says that many scientists claim it's a disease or something like that.) I know I've been rambling a lot, but I've been really hurt because, even though I may be an idealist, I truly believe that peace between people is possible and something to strive for, but not on a Wikipedia which discriminizes against anyone with other POV except for the extreme right-wing one. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Štambuk has spoken about site-wide notice, but he has not told one little detail of this notice which is saying:

"Croatian wikipedia administrators are not guilty for something written on croatian wikipedia"

This is truth under Wikipedia:General disclaimer rules, but on other side like administrator on sh wikipedia I feel moral responsibility that there is not too much "mistakes" on "my" wikipedia about anything (you can't remove all mistakes).

Defense of croatian wikipedia administrators only shows that they do not feel guilt or even simple responsibility for situation on croatian wikipedia. This is reason enough for removal of all croatian administrators sysop rights.

Only for information:"I am not NPOV in this question, because I have been 2 time warned to stop write propaganda on talk pages and then blocked for 6 months because of propaganda !?"--Rjecina2 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a Croat, but I'm feeling obligated to say something. I'm longtime sysop from neighboring Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While I am aware that making of completely unbiased encyclopedia is Sisyphean task, and as someone who all this year was trying to remove bias and errors out of sr.wiki (and I earned few sworn enemies due to that), I'm double angered with deterioration of state of hr.wiki. This RFC is just another episode in series affairs regarding hr.wiki, some even appeared here on Meta. I lost all faith in hr.wiki sysops after this episode, when they remained silent after serious abuse of sysop rights. Then came harrasing one of the most skilled hr.sysop. Aftermath of this case was promotion to sysops of users with lack knowledge and interests in technical stuff, but they were devoted to winning side. That was nail in cophin for NPOV. Next episode was one with English Wiktionary, when a hr.sysop gave interview hoping it will stop Ivan Štambuk's initiative. Closely related with this was another Rfc. Gradually, many editors left, so hr.wiki became even more safe heaven for wingnuts. They regularly mark anniversary of every event in past war, or Christmas and Easter in this way [1][2] (note that SpeedyGonsales sent copyrighted image of Easter Eggs that have Croatian checkerboard, uploading fair-use image of living persons is another issue they regularly do.). That is something that Serbian and Bosnian Wikipedias do not practice. Last straw was article Anti-fascism. Sysops did't allowed a user to edt the article which says that communists who fought against Hitler, Franco and Mussolini weren't true antifascists. (hr.wiki is like Conservapedia without creationism). After being aware of existence of FB group called Exposing shameful Croatian Wikipedia, one of first steps was calling for support from veterans of Croatian war for independence. Wth? Next step is making refutation that doesn't refute anything. Now we have that all active sysops (except user:Flopy who earlier raised his discontent) are united in view that they are true victims. -- Bojan  Talk  02:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention very recent SpeedyGonsales' biased attempt of editing article Croatian Wikipedia about this issue, where he used Wikipedia article for his personal political purpose, where he accused the other side of using "tactic... [like] comunistic regime". He tried to present the issue like an attack of communist-like regime (!?) to himself and other supposedly right-wing administrators, and while he denies of being biased or doing right-wing propaganda, by editing the article this way he actually proves what he is being accused of! By editing the article this way he brakes the rule of NPOV and propagates right-wing propaganda - he tries to make himself a victim of some fictitious communists or communist-like people. In which century and which country do current Croats live? Where does this guy see communists?! But this is expected, because when you are guilty, and you don't have valid counterarguments, playing the victim is the only to go. Marekich (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not active user on hr.wiki. I am Serbian, and I mainly contribute on sr.wiki. But I would like to add that users that have word "serb", "serbian" or "srb" in their username are blocking because inappropriate user name. I am not sure about their rules on this wiki but it is obviously that that there is discrimination against Serbians (for example User:Soundwaweserb blocked indefinitely because inappropriate user name, but there is admin with user name User:Šokac what is also nationality (article Šokci on en wiki). I also agree that all Balkan Wikipedias have problems with NPOV, but admins should be that that are resolving problems, not push POV . Unfortunately on hr.wiki this is not case, and it have much worst standards that other regional wikipedias. --Јованвб (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Discrimination against Serbians? Why don't you check Username policy and Block log before? Many users have been blocked because Username policy, and their usernames have nothing to do with Serbia, Serbs, etc...--MaGa (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not avoiding the topic. Here are things going issueses in 2013 of the Croatian Wikipedia and abuse of administrator and other rights in the Croatian Wikipedia. --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Kolega, I was answering to unfounded accusation, nothing else. Read three times (or more, if you need) before answering.--MaGa (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is grounded everything here is true. All users who want to contribute constructively they abusing with administrator rights. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Says who? You? Vandal from here [3]? As anybody can see, you are Velimir Ivanovic [4], blocked on en.wiki [5] also. Come on, don't be ridiculous. --MaGa (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The author of series of articles (Goran Penić) has been previously found guilty and appologized to M.P. Thompson for slandering (see forced appology : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtHEVNhsTQE , in Croatian, though but still clear. )

What do you man? You are a man who abuses by Wikipedia users should look at yourself. Where the edit of vandalism? You are started to defend the not-truth. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shall we ask admins on Commons and on en.wiki? Give me a break, I do not want to waste my time with you.--MaGa (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't play games with us. You have removed [6] section with your recognition that you are Velimir Ivanovic. That's so ridiculous and miserably.--MaGa (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This [7] is your credibility? Request for hiding edits on your user talk page that prove who you really are?--MaGa (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not play the victim MaGa, you and other administrator no one here not believes. A lot of funny that you are playing here on a conspiracy that all administrators, victims of Yugoslav-communist conspiracy. Enough of inventing conspiracy theories on Wikipedia by some administrators Croatian Wikipedia. A man your age should not lie and act. --Kolega2357 (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. I wrote who you really are and how reliable you are: blocked vandal at hr.wiki and blocked on en.wiki (Email harrassment, repeating the behaviour that got him blocked at sr:wp). Evidence exists. Grown up.--MaGa (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

On the so-called Croatian Wikipedia has each and all a normal person vandal. Everyone here knows that there is an aversion of current events, the administrator of the Croatian Wikipedia. More and more users in Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia because you and some other administrators blocked permanently. Caused you so much anger and rage at the people themselves. Ask yourself if the fault is in you and not in others. --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Jutarnji list has also other writers previously known for hoax such as invented interview of PM Ivo Sanader by deptuy editor Davor Butković [8]
• EPH (owner of Jutarnji list has tax debt of 1.7 billion kunas [9][10] (which is cca 224 million EUR, 0.37% of Croatian GDP ) so it is clear their owner is trying to please current government and distract attention from other crucial problems of Croatia (economy, 18,6% unemployment, outside dept et. )

....

Summa summarum, writings of Jutarnji list is bunch of crap.--Anto (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this is relevant here. You seem to be thinking that "attacking the messenger" strategy will somehow invalidate the statements made by the Minister Jovanović and professor Kurelić, which have been reported by media outlets other than Jutarnji list (Novi list, and Index.hr, respectively). Jutarnji list was the one that broke the news to the general public, that's all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

---

To begin the first of the basic things they do not know the Croatian Wikipedia administrators, such as copyright, you can send a picture of a living person on Wikipedia under fair use, there is the IP address block, after the first vandalism, everyone wants to work on the Croatian Wikipedia and point out the errors administrators receive a yellow or red card to a football game. Administrators deliberately harassing all users not having caught the grace to them, abuse and violation of their rights in order to prove that they are always right and that is what they said. All more and more users leave the Croatian Wikipedia and exceed the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Insult to his Wikipedia, other projects from pure whim, jealousy, frustration. --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and like projects are always a work in progress and some of the rules and regulations need time to trickle down and for them to establish. What exact examples of fascism is there on the Croatian Wikipedia. Please list all articles that have a fascist slant, and let's debate this issue. This needs to be done on the hr.wikipedia.org project and Meta should be consulted as well when a problem can not be adequately resolved. Let's work on the list first and let's put this then to rest. Pointing fingers is not going to resolve this issue with cool heads. Vodomar (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this up at Meta is because it cannot be solved locally. There are no editors left on Croatian Wikipedia that are not right-wingers, nationalists, pious Christians and voters of HDZ and HČSP parties [the right-wing parties]. It's impossible to provide objective, NPOV coverage of controversial issues because no one is presenting the other side of the coin. Articles such as w:hr:Istrijanstvo, w:hr:Detuđmanizacija, w:hr:Antifašizam that have been mentioned in the media smack of extremist right-wing perspective. Who is going to balance them out? Who is going to unblock dozens of editors that have been harassed and driven out over the years because of their liberal-minded worldview? Who is going to undo the site notice promoting the "refutation letter" feigning to be from the WMF, containing actionable statements (novinarsko žutilo, degutantne besmislice etc.), and sent to the State Prosecution (DORH)? You sure are not. Too much damage has been done, and after the statement of Minister it's high time to bring local issues to a wider scrutiny. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to do the same with Serbian wiki open a page and examine their possible fascist and biased articles? Here's some pointers.--Rovoobo (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You are free to open a separate RfC for unsolvable article issues on Serbian Wikipedia. From my relatively brief interaction with Serbian editors (mostly on English-speaking projects), they are generally much less radical than their Croatian counterparts, and I'm sure that any objections that you have on individual articles will be duly noted on the talk pages. In fact, the reaction on their local community discussion board on this media fiasco of Croatian Wikipedia was mostly along the lines "We know we have some bad apples of our own, but thank god we're not extreme like them. We should maintain NPOV more strictly so that we don't get crushed like that.". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So, your answer is, no? You've got a thing for Croatian language wiki.--Rovoobo (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So true. Anyone can use Google translate, by the way. Mir Harven (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your personal experience is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the amount of flagrant lies on Serbian Wikipedia- something that cannot be remedied just like that, since number of pages immersed in Serbian nationalist mythology by far exceeds thousands of entries. Also, you're not present on Croatian Wikipedia since your Yugoslav nationalist position is completely at odds not only with Cro-wiki admins, but with Croatian academic community and public intellectual consensus at large. In sum: your opinion is your personal experience & nothing more. Mir Harven (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Serbian wiki sysops are not wignuts, homophobes, xenophobes. They don't write crap articles. If Serbian Wikipedia is same as yours, You Mir Harven, would be among banned. But You are not and you weren't banned in past. -- Bojan  Talk  11:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Prove. Mir Harven (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that many dislike You, but they never forbade You to edit. And You have history of being blocked... -- Bojan  Talk  12:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven, your attitude is not particularly helpful. Calling other editors names as well as making such general accusations against another wiki is neither fruitful nor pertinent. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the one disproving it. I'm sure that Serbian Wikipedia editors would love to get their hands on the list of "thousands of articles" that are allegedly "immersed in nationalist mythology" and contain "flagrant lies". But please take it elsewhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are acting like commissary type, labeling everyone who disagrees with you (fascists, nationalists, whatnot..). Serbian Wikipedia is drenched in nationalist megalomania, and you have seen this in the quoted article- there are numerous explicit examples. As I said: English speaking Wikipedians can use Google translate to see for themselves. As far as you're concerned: you're biased against dominant Croatian historical-cultural discourse; you're trying to deny or refute- because English speakers don't read these books etc.- widely accepted & corroborated positions of Croatian historians, linguists, legal experts etc. Mr. Štambuk-problem is with you & your efforts to sell Yugoslav ideology (not some "objective" history) which-surprise- coincides with Serbian nationalist mythologies in not few points. Your "opponents" are Radoslav Katičić, Ante Nazor, Davor Marijan, Ranko Matasović, Hrvoje Matković- not me. Mir Harven (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that you have no arguments to claim that I'm a "Yugoslav nationalist" - that label is a purely a result of your imagination. (If anything, I'm anti-nationalist) I understand that you're angry with English Wikipedia treating Croatian language as a standard register of Serbo-Croatian - what it really is, and what everyone with two functional brain cells and a background in Slavic languages knows very well, but such issues are tangential to the topic. This is about persistent right-wing bias on hr.wikipedia where nationalists such as yourself are given carte blanche by administrators to spread dangerous historical misconceptions, even downright lies, creating a toxic atmosphere where other-minded editors are discouraged to participate. Do you have anything to comment on the statements of minister Jovanović, and professor Kurelić? And they as well a result of "conspiracy" against Croatdom? How is hr.wikipedia to resolve their bias without external assistance when its userbase is almost entirely comprised of far-right sympathizers? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

1) So, the most prominent Croatian linguists, from Katičić to Matasović, don't have enough "brain cells"- unlike you ? With that sentence, you've completely unmasked yourself. 2) your "position" as "anti-nationalist" is fake. You have never written anything about oppression of Croats in any regime & you used a Comintern-style rhetoric (which was just a smokescreen for national & societal repression). As I've seen- you didn't address the fact that most Croatia-related articles are based or rewritten according to pre-eminent authorities works' in the field: Trpimir Macan, Bilandžić, Neven Budak, Katičić, Nazor, Marijan, Matković, Matasović, Rudolf, Radelić, Lučić, Lovorka Ćoralić, Tomasović, S.P. Novak, Sadkovich, .... So- you don't know serious literature on the controversial issues & rely on second-handed bombastic media stuff. 3) Minister Jovanović's biography on Croatian Wikipedia has stated only corroborated facts about his life and career. These are not opinions, but facts. There is no conspiracy. Nothing secret about it. This is just a policy of current government which is fiercely opposed by ca. 80% of most citizens, as opinion research has shown- from economic policy & language planning to health policy & diplomacy. The problem is with your perception of reality, sir. Mir Harven (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are people with PhDs in geology that still support flat-Earth theory (see: Dawkins). Brainwashing can go a long way. Standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin share 99% of their grammar and basic lexis, the differences are systematic and predictable, and completely transparent to their speakers. Most of the linguists that you've mentioned are employees of the government and are not allowed to deviate too much from the official hardline-nationalist doctrine of the "uniqueness" of Croatian language, or they would loose their jobs! Other Croatian linguists that are not on the Croatian government payroll (e.g. w:Snježana Kordić, or of younger ones - Orsat Ligorio, not to mention almost all of the foreign linguists which don't have emotional or ethnic involvement with the issue) generally dismiss such claims.

I don't write anything on politics in general because I don't care about it. According to your chop-logic non-sequiturs, just because I've written nothing of the prosecution of Croatians during the Yugoslav era I am by definition a "Yugoslav nationalist" ? I've also written nothing on the prosecution of Jews and Serbs - does that make me a Nazi sympathizer as well? Your arguments just don't add up. Please don't insult my intelligence which such fallacious reasoning. Of those that you mention, I did in fact reference Matasović and Katičić in some linguistic stuff I wrote, for the rest I haven't even heard before.

I've looked up Jovanović's biography on Croatian Wikipedia. It seems to be largely expanded in the last few days after the scandal has hit the mainstream media. It's a prime example of editorializing and POV-pushing done on the biographies of individuals that don't openly subscribe to radical nationalist agenda that you guys promote. It's difficult to find a single sentence on that article that doesn't portray him in bad light. But the biography of Ustashi butcher w:Vjekoslav Luburić reads like a hagiography!

The incumbent government is democratically elected, replacing the former right-wing government that has bankrupted the country and whose former Prime Minister of seven years w:Ivo Sanader is convicted of 10 years in prison on account of corruption, with several legal processes against him still ongoing. I'm very sorry that your beloved party HDZ has lost elections, but times are changing. Jovanović's statements have serious implications, as do the testimonies of Wiki-editors, as does the "this is all an UDBA conspiracy" and "there is no problem" reaction of the Croatian wiki-community. The first step of solving this is acknowledging that there is a problem, not attacking your interlocutors and placing counter-accusations against everyone involved. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't bother with your other rhetorical exhibitions, so just a very graphic example of your mind-set. You are suggesting that Croatian linguists, members of numerous European & American academies, who unequivocally dismissed Snježana Kordić's political linguistic fictions- are some kind of puppies, cowards afraid of terrible nationalist Croatian government (or public, or institutions) ? Are you aware of the scope of implausibility of your contentions ? Are you aware that Croatian linguists, residing in Germany (ie., not on Croatia's payroll) like Zvonko Pandžić, have dismantled Kordić's political linguistics even more explicitly: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109055422/Zvonko-Pand%C5%BEi%C4%87-Odgovor-Snje%C5%BEani-Kordi%C4%87-Od-Galileja-do-zlatne-pti%C4%8Dice ? Are you aware that there are no first class Croatian language (or Serbian, for that matter) experts in the US & Britain- just writers of textbooks like Wayne Bowles or Ronelle Alexander ? Are you aware that there are no more "Serbo-Croatists" ? Are you aware that most eminent Croatists are Germans (Leopold Auburger, Elisabeth Erdmann-Pandžić, Reinhard Lauer), Polish (Joanna Rapacka, Barbara Oczkowa,.), Ukrainian (Lyudmila Vasilyeva), Russian (Artur Rafailovich Bagdasarov), Norwegian (Svein Monnesland),..? Are you aware that to accuse professional Croatian linguists with international reputation, authors of whole library of books, articles etc. of some kind of moral cowardice & "selling out" to- I guess- Croatian "nationalists" (who are these guys, by the way ?)- speaks enormously about your mind-set ? Are you aware that Snježana Korić is a second rate linguist, with no serious linguistic work (textbooks on "Serbo-Croatian" for foreigners, plus a pamphlet advocating Serbo-Croatist ideology ? Are you aware that Katičić, Matasović, Babić, Tafra, Malić, Hercigonja, Damjanović, Silić, Žagar,.. ..have written whole library of fundamental works on Croatian syntax, phonology, language history, lexicology, semantics, mathematical linguistics, dictionaries, historical Croatian grammars etc.- here are some works: http://ihjj.hr/izdanja/, http://www.croatica.hr/ And there is no single serious work on "Serbo-Croatian" published in past 20 years anywhere in the world- not only in Croatia, Serbia, ..but absolutely nowhere. I think there is not much to add. Mir Harven (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Na kojem jeziku je napisana ova rečenica? When you figure it out, let me know. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the best you can come up with ? This is truly pathetic. Mir Harven (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What is truly pathetic is Croatian wiki's article on Croatian language, which is 98% politics and history (real and imagined), and 2% linguistics. For other interested parties: Na kojem jeziku je napisana ova rečenica? in Serbo-Croatian means "In what language is this sentence written?". Since modern standard Serbo-Croatian varieties are all based on the same subdialect of the same dialect, they share all of the basic vocabulary, phonology and 99% the grammar (we are literally speaking of thousands of inflectional and derivational morphemes). Sentences such as What is your name?, or How are you feeling today?, or In what language is this sentence written "translate" the same to Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin, and illustrate how meaningless the treatment of four as "different languages" is. Such equivalence is unparalleled in any other language pairs. There are more differences in the speech of two neighboring villages in remote parts of Croatia or Serbia (speaking obscure dialects of Chakavian, Torlakian and Kajkavian), than between standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin. That's harsh truth that you will have to come to terms with. All of your arguments are appealing to authority, none appeals to reality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Really pathetic. 1) Croatian is not "based" on any dialect, but stylized according Neo-Štokavian Ijekavian (not Eastern Herzegovinian, which is mostly Serbian dialect & the very name had been abandoned by the man who invented it, Pavle Ivić, a year or two before his death). Croatian standard language, as Branka Tafra has analyzed in her "Jezikoslovne razdvojbe", has no dialectal basis. Hence, there are forms in Croatian that are not Štokavian (for instance, prefix "protu" is from Kajkavian; suffix -l (stol, vol) is from Čakavian)- something perfectly understandable since Croatian has the roots in the 16th century Dubrovnik vernacular Renaissance literature, which was mostly Western Štokavian- ijekavian, combined with Čakavian ingredients. Serbian language, on the other hand, is truly based on a dialect, Štokavian of Eastern origin, which can be best discerned in accentuation, vocabulary & syntax (Karadžić's reform in the 19th C). 2) One sentence does not mean a lot. The point is: one cannot write a text, consisting of just a few sentences, which could not be readily recognized as either Croatian or Serbian. For instance, a newspaper article is very easily recognized, as is speech of an educated speaker of a language, be it Croatian or Serbian. On the other hand, one can watch half an hour of a movie, and not know whether it is in Hindi or Urdu-something impossible in Croatian and Serbian cases. So- you're just not accepting arguments. OK, anyone can live with that. But, what is unacceptable are your efforts to manipulate data, your ignorance of fundamental linguistic works, your false presentation of supposed sameness of Croatian and Serbian languages, your willful i"ignorance" that Serbo-Croatian is not a standard language anywhere in the world. Serbian and Croatian are two mutually intelligible languages with strong individuality which has broken all efforts (political, cultural, ..) of language unification, from 19th century to the 21st century. And- I've wasted too much time on your manipulative behavior. Mir Harven (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, standard Croatian is pure Neoštokavian Eastern-Hezegovinian, look it up in the books. Differences between B/C/S/M are much less than between Hindustani varieties. B/C/S/M are 100% mutually intelligible, Serbian movies are not subtitled when shown on Croatian TV channels (and vice versa), thousands of Serbian tourists have no need for a translator when coming to Croatia and so on. The substandard dialects of Ča and Kaj are 100x more different then Serbian, and yet they are called "dialects of Croatian". Go figure. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "knowledge" evidently stems from "Serbo-Croatian" for beginners. I don't intend to bother further with your obstinate ignorance (for instance- you don't understand the difference between dialect & standard: native German speakers of Plattdeutsch are closer to speakers of the standard Dutch, than to the speakers of standard German. Yet, no one in their right mind would say that native speakers of northern Germanic dialects "actually" speak Dutch-and not German. Dialects are to be compared with dialects, standard language with standard language. Ignorance is bliss....). You're clueless re normative Croatian linguistic literature, and yet you try to speak authoritatively about these two languages. So- you don't know languages' history, you don't know the norm (grammar, dictionary,..)- in fact, you don't know anything but a core "Serbo-Croatian" grammar & ideology anchored in the 19th century neo-grammarian philology, now hopelessly dated. Well-I've had it enough. Here are two interviews, one from Katičić, another from Matasović, which clearly say that "Serbo-Croatian" had never existed. I'm done with you. http://www.matica.hr/vijenac/427/Srpski%20jezik%20nije%20%C5%A1tokavski/ , http://www.matica.hr/vijenac/383/Srpsko-hrvatski%20nikada%20nije%20ostvaren,%20jer%20nije%20postojao/ Mir Harven (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Matasović says that Proto-Croatian (prahrvatski) never existed in a strictly genetic sense, and that Croatian as a "collection of dialects" is merely an arbitrary grouping. He also says, quoting, hrvatski kao standardni jezik koji je nedvojbeno štokavski i u tom smislu dijeli dijalektalnu osnovicu sa srpskim, bošnjačkim i crnogorskim jezikom, translating "Croatian as a standard language is undoubtedly Štokavian, and in that sense shares dialectal basis with Serbian, Bonsnian and Montenegrin language". The same basis = Neoštokavian Eastern Herzegovinian, aka Serbo-Croatian. You need to read your sources better. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Another fail. 1) you "forgot" the title: "Serbo-Croatian" has never existed". There is no news that genetically, Croatian is Kajakvian + Čakavian + Western Štokavian: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Povijesno_rasprostiranje_narje%C4%8Dja_hrvatskog_jezika_u_HR_i_BIH.svg/798px-Povijesno_rasprostiranje_narje%C4%8Dja_hrvatskog_jezika_u_HR_i_BIH.svg.png Herzegovinian-Krajinian dialect ( former "Eastern Herzegovinian") stems from Eastern, not Western štokavian. Dubrovnik "language" is also Western, and part of neo-Štokavian Ijekavian: but, not of Eastern-Herzegovinian (older notation): This has been proven by Brabec in 1960s and Brozović in 1990s. So- you don't know relevant things again. 2) also, you conveniently forgot Katičić: Tko je „kriv“ što je hrvatski književni jezik izgrađen na dijalektu? Došli smo do jako komplicirane teme koja je preduvjet da se uopće razumije što je hrvatski jezik. Dogma je da je hrvatski književni jezik izgrađen na dijalektu. Hrvatski književni jezik izgrađen je na pisanju knjiga pri čemu se imitira model određenog dijalekta koji pomaže, olakšava, da književni jezik bude blizak onima kojima se obraća, da im bude razumljiv. -To je ono što je Bartol Kašić propisao, a Vuk S. Karadžić pokrao? -Ne bih ja tako rekao jer je Vuk Karadžić doista na dijalektu gradio književni jezik, a Kašić nije. Kašić je imao glagoljašku tradiciju, cijelu tradiciju hrvatskog pisanja, i onda se kada je prevodio Sveto pismo najviše naslonio na štokavski. Cijela naša nevolja je u tome što je Maretić primijenio Karadžićevu koncepciju na hrvatski jezik, a to nam paše kao prasici sedlo, da jednom citiram i Staljina./Q: Who is guilty that Croatian is based on a dialect ? A: ..It's a dogma that Croatian is based on a dialect; Croatian literary language is based on writing of books, whereby it imitates a model of a certain dialect which makes it easier for communication. Q: That is what Bartol Kašić had prescribed, and Vuk Karadžić had stolen ? A: I wouldn't say so, because Karadžić did indeed base his literary language on a dialect, unlike Kašić. Kašić was inheritor of the entire Glagolitic tradition & when he translated the Bible, he stylized his language according Štokavian. Our whole trouble stems from the fact that Maretić (neo-grammarian 19th-20th C philologue) applied Karadžić's concept on Croatian, and we're satisfied with that as a pig with a saddle- to quote even Stalin. So- your Eastern Herzegovinian mythology is a failed enterprise. Good for beginners' textbooks, but not more. Mir Harven (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

By Serbo-Croatian in English both the common core of modern B/C/S/M is understood, as well as the former official language of Yugoslavia (which according to some nationalists "never existed", despite the fact that it had grammars and dictionaries published for 150 years). Eastern/Western divide of Štokavian is ancient pre-Ottoman history, modern Dubrovnikan speech is pure Neoštokavian (see Lisac 2003:98, as cited in the references of w:Eastern Herzegovinian dialect, where it is explicitly mentioned as belonging to the istočnohercegovačko-krajiški dijalekt, and also map on the page 160). Josip Lisac is the most prominent Croatian dialectologist, why would he lie? Oh wait, he's not lying, you are! The claim of Croatian being a mixture of Ča/Kaj/Što is also absurd - you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Čakavisms and Kajkavisms that have entered standard Croatian. Those are sub-standard dialects that are growing extinct, because they are not written and all the kids are schooled in pure Štokavian Serbo-Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven, Ivan Štambuk is user who blocks every contributor who points out that the serbo-croatian artificial language mixture project has failed. He threats users by his sysop tools [11] Denies that Serbo-Croatian never existed despite being enforced by nondemocratic yugoslav regimes for a long period of time. The Serbo-Croatian language project is now dead since the regimes that forced it no longer exist. He can't accept that. The emperor is naked but he sees beautiful dress. So he will try to convince everyone that the emperor realy has nice new clothes. Who doesn't agree, will be blocked. [12]. He will try to harm Wikipedia in Croatian language whenever he can because he think Wikipedia in Croatian should not exist. 89.172.193.88 20:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What has failed? Wiktionary endorsed Serbo-Croatian unification proposal, and has done so while I was on a lengthy wiki-break. I have blocked several nationalists in the past because they were generating more trouble than content. I personally think that Croatian Wikipedia should exist, for now, until a machine translation solution is developed that works perfectly turning different B/C/S varieties into one another. It can be done, but not by a single person over the weekends. Perhaps one day.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Some information about the media in Croatia: As we all know in Croatia was never done a lustration as it was done in other former comunist countries. People who were educated and indoctrinated in comunist countries call many things "fascism" what we in the Western world we are not used to do. We have even this sad situaton with the goverment is playing "lex perkovic" Lex Perkovic, EU Inside. The administrators in Croatian Wikipedia are not doing a better and not a worse job than their collegue admins in other wikipedias. --Croq (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how actions of the incumbent Croatian government are relevant to this discussion?! Regarding fascism - it has a pretty strict definition in all of the European countries, primarily as a result of the WW2 that has engulfed the continent, and particularly in formerly occupied/annexed countries where resistance movements have become one of the pillars of future statehood. The fascism in the title refers to the coverage of the topic on Croatian Wikipedia, which according to the media and some analysts is biased, and an ideology which should be condemned is essentially more or less subtly glorified. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are open and clear requests that Croatian Wikipedia should be Wikipedia for "true Catholic Croatians" ("Wikipedija pravih hrvata katolika")[13]. Further more, all complaints are pronounced to be "special war by secret agencies" ("...jer se radi o specijalnom ratu istih onih koji skrivaju UDBAše tipa Perkovića") [14]. 94.253.241.238 12:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are also lyrics of a war song that mentions taking up knives and defending the homeland against enemies. The atmosphere is charged, and replies make use of words such as Yugo-communist. The Minister in question is being called names (Jovan), and several users explicitly state that they perceive this RfC and comments on Jimbo's talk page as a "war" against Croatian language and culture. Mir Harven is the one claiming that it's a "special kind of war" (radi se o specijalnom ratu), and Vodomar has expressed a concern of godlessness spreading among the general population. They are also apparently planning on contacting some members of the Croatian Parliament in order to "prevent shutting down of Croatian Wikipedia". Unfortunately, none of the comments address actual issues discussed here - admin abuse, biased articles, and the lack of editors that are not HDZ voting block. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wrote in th earticle that fascism should be not condemned. But in ex comunist cuntries "antifascism" has not the same meaning as in western democracies. In Western world we do not fit in the "red star" as here http://www.sabh.hr/ By the way the red star is prohibited in many countries --Croq (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How long will a wooden lawyers talking here demagoguery that the Croatian Wikipedia is working properly? Again I repeat all that is project where the same users make changes. When you need to fix the bias of an article about the Second World War beneficiaries receive continued blockage of an administrator to block them under false descriptions of the vandals. Administrators then protect the articles on their biased version. What are those administrators who do not accept the criticism of his work? --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not truth koelga! If you put in sources nobody blocks you. --Croq (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pleae note that: http://www.sabh.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2 --Croq (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Croq: Serbian Wikipedia does not hide that it is not perfect, but own critics not callen UDBA, CIA, Masons, Illuminati and other. Serbian Wikipedia try to see if the critic is groundless, if it is grounded fix article or place template POV, sources, citation needed. --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be an arbitration case by a third party to determine the bias of Croatian admins, and if they are indeed right-wing extremist in a way that's making the editing of Croatian Wikipedia impossible, they should be stripped of their admin status and blocked for good. Also, Croq, you're not making much sense. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no fascism on Wikipedia in Croatian language. Some journalists who favor old yugoslav communist regime are used to blame every opinion that doesn't favor that regime as fascists opinion and themself as antifascist. Every certain while they proscribe someone who doesn't promote yugoslav Tito's regime as the best place for living on Earth as fascists. This is the old practise of yugoslav media from the dark times of communism. There hasn't been lustracio in Croatia like Poland, Germany, Czech R., Slovakia etc. ex-communist countries. So many old regime journalists and politicians hold they positions. Wikipedia should not back down under their political or yellow journalism pressure. Wikipedia in Croatian language respects plurality of opinions and some can't get over it.

It has many contributors who give their time and effort in order to make it better and better. Admins do their best to solve conflicts and help where they can. That's my expirience. Wikimedia shouldn't been humiliating Croatian Wikipedia contributors and their work by giving attention to these false accusations from the outside of the community of Croatian Wikipedia, whether they come from yellow press or serbian/serbo-croatian wikipedians. Chvrka (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't you see that You've just confirmed our point that hr. wiki is lair of rightwingers? -- Bojan  Talk  14:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been contributing to Wikipedia in Croatian language and I saw that admins respect plurality of opinion. I've seen that when there is some political controversy they insist that plurality should be respected, that every relevant position should be explained in it's best. I think that's good. If both left and right are presented in it's best on some subject then it will be a good NPOV article. If it doesn't, then the articles would look like those on serbo-croatian or serbian Wikipedia where no other than Serbian or Yugoslav nationalist opinion is allowed.

Wikipedia in Croatian language is much much more than a few articles concerning some political questions and debates. It is a colletion of knowledge that's growing constantly. By attacking it's community yellow press and some serbian wikipedians are trying to handicap it. Their biasing of Wikipedia in Croatian language shouldn't be supported by Wikimedia. That's the point. Chvrka (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/komentari/96009-sramotna-srpska-wikipedija-enciklopedijsko-nasilje-radikalnih-srba-truje-ovaj-prostor.html Mir Harven (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the author of that article, Tvrtko Dolić, has been denounced by Croatian Journalists' Association, as well as reported on criminal charges of hate speech by Drago Pilsel [15]. Dnevno.hr is an irrelevant tabloid portal, unworthy of a Wikipedia article, let alone our attention. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This is from Croatia's most visited forum on Croatian Wikipedia controversy: http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=791184&page=2 Vox populi, vox dei. Mir Harven (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia in Croatian language can not be too bad, as you can see how some use it for other copy+paste http://sh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posebno:Doprinosi/OC_Ripper&offset=20130913105856&target=OC+Ripper --Croq (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven, we don't lie ourselves that we are perfect. We are not. But allows me that says something:

Dnevno.hr: Srpska wikipedija i dalje podržava laž da je sarajevski atentat nad Ferdinandom Habsburškim djelo organizacije Mlada Bosna, a ne velikosrpske Crne ruke.

Sr.wiki article Sarajevski atentat (Assassination of Franz Ferdinand): Planovi za njegovo ubistvo počeli su da se kuju tek pošto se tajnim kanalima u Srpskoj obaveštajnoj službi na čelu sa Dragutinom Dimitrijevićem saznalo da austrougarski prestolonaslednik dolazi u Sarajevo da nadgleda vojne manevre.

That part on Lazar Hrebeljanovic is not worth of kilobytes it occupies.

If you have slightest knowledge of history, you will see that Dnevno.hr wrote lies. That' is the difference: we don't call our critics UDBA, CIA, Vatican as you do. And one thing: Dnevno.hr doesn't say anything on sr.wiki sysops, because, I believe, they couldn't wind misuse of sysop powers, nor they could find wignuts in our ranks. And You have sysops that wrote that Apparitions of Virgin Mary are phenomenon...-- Bojan  Talk  15:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You have just confirmed that dnevno.hr was, in this article- right. Thanks. Mir Harven (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

All that you wrote here suggest there is more than media reported...-- Bojan  Talk  16:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why users of Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia have need to attack Wikipedia on Croatian language? Because more people reads and trusts Wikipedia on Croatian language, according to statistics? What is this? Why don't you make your projects be good as Wikipedia on Croatian? Then there wouldn't be such wish to blame admins on Croatian Wikipedia in order to take their functions, I suppose. Chvrka (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it host lies. Hr.wiki sysop misuse given privileges to enforce their point of view. And statistics doesn't show that people trust you - in fact, the harshest critics came from Croatia, not from Serbia. -- Bojan  Talk  15:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Chvrka, why are you trying to transform this into ad hominem attack based on nationality? The issue was raised by Croats who want Croatian Wikipedia to be NPOV, without political, religious or other biases. The problem are not people raising the issue, the problem is content on Croatian Wikipedia which is biased, has many false statements, and as it seems that administrators prevent editors to remove biases and false statements. Marekich (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you just hosted lies on this talk page. Do you hate Wikipedia on Croatian language, Croatia and Croatians in general? I'm asking because many Serbians do, they don't hide that. Would be much better if you would try to make Serbian Wikipedia more reliable than Croatian one. That would be properly invested time. Be constructive, not destructive.

It is obvious that most of the attackers on hr.wiki sysops has destructive goals. Wikimedia shouln't be giving so much attention to it. Chvrka (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a nationalist... -- Bojan  Talk  16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking if you are or not Yugoslav or Serbian nationalist. I'm asking you do you hate Wikipedia on Croatian language, Croatia and Croatians in general? I'm asking because you write defamation on sysops of Wikipedia in Croatian language. I'm asking because many people from Serbia do hate everything related to Croatia and they don't hide that. I hope that will change some day. Till that day comes, every objection to Croatian Wikipedia written by wikipedians from serbian/serbo-c. Wikipedia should be ignored. Like any attack from Palestinians on Israel Wikipedia. Chvrka (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If I comprehended correctly, your bad (sorry!) English essentially boils down to: There are Serbs that "hate" Croats, and until there is no such hate all of the objections by all of the Serbian Wikipedians on Croatian wikiprojects are to be ignored. Do you have any idea how discriminatory that is? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry because of my bad English, you obviously got me wrong. I think accusations of Croatian Wikipedia should be ignored if they are motivated by hate. Serbs who contribute to the Wikipedia in Croatian should be heard, but those who are vandalizing it and editing Serbo-Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia should be ignored. Because their reason for the attacks is often hate against Croatia and Croatians in general. There is a distincion between Serbs who hate Croatian Wikipedia and vandalize it and those who don't have that motiv in their mind. Chvrka (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes- why are you so frustrated with Croatian Wikipedia ? Serbian Wikipedia, on controversial issues, is simply a bunch of lies: Jasenovac CC, Operation Storm, Operation Flash, RSK, NDH, Ante Gotovina,.. ..or ancient history or culture (regional Croatian literature in Dubrovnik not a part of Croatian literature etc.), Ruđer Bošković a "Serb" & other falsities. You have tried, and are trying, to minimize Serbian atrocities in Bosnian War, and are inflating Serbian victims near Srebrenica by a factor of 10. Simply, it's not some imaginary "righteousness" you're propelled by- you're losers. You lost what you had had in Yugoslavias- the dominance re historical, national & cultural discourse. Croatian Wikipedia is read more, quoted more & is more influential on public opinion. And this especially regarding matters that are sensitive & mold public opinion. So you try to shut Croatian Wikipedia up, if you cannot all Croatian institutions (which are more reliable in international community than yours). That's what it all boils down to. Mir Harven (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a nationalist... -- Bojan  Talk  16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Chvrka and Mir Harven - this level of discussion is unacceptable. This is not place for nationalistic ad hominem attacks. Start discussing about the content raised by the issue, and how admins on hr.wiki control for bias and accuracy. Marekich (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop accusing Bojan of being nationalist and focus this discussion on Croatian Wikipedia. I'm an editor from Croatia, and also too displeased with the current state of Croatian Wiki. --GedeonWolf (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You have no edits of Wikipedia in Croatian language. Not with that username.

I did focuse on the topic but some use accusation without relevant prof. Why? I must ask that. Now it is relevant.

Wikipedia in Croatian is not the best in the world and sysops are not superhumans but mentioning fascism and POV in relation with them is obviously defamation. Forgive me but I can see the source of it, I'm not blind. Chvrka (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Enough with double-talk. Go to Serbian Wikipedia & read articles on Jasenovac CC, Ante Gotovina, Franjo Tuđman, Ruđer Bošković, Croatian language, Operation Flash, Operation Storm, Greater Serbia, Republic of Serbian Krajina, Srebrenica massacre, Ivan Gundulić, Marin Držić, Chetniks, ... Why is there a discussion on "Fascism" (silly term, better would be "nationalist intransigence" or something similar)- but no words about Serbian Wikipedia, which is completely drowned in Serbian chauvinist myths which deny Croatdom of numerous events & figures in Croatian history & culture, and distort or suppress unpleasant facts about Serbian history ? And- why are so many Serbs here, at discussion on Croatian Wikipedia- if not for ulterior motives ? Who in his right mind cares about what Serbs are writing in their Wikipedia ? No one in Croatia gives a hoot. So, this entire discussion has started due to ideological aggression as exemplified by Croatian media lynching (and instigated by truly controversial Croatian politicos), to be quickly "assisted" (aided & abetted) by Serbian Wikipedia contributors who- lo & behold- appeared out of nowhere. What a small world ! Pure coincidence, I guess.Mir Harven (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory? Are you for real? Deal with Serbian and other Wikipedias somewhere where it isn't off topic. Deal with content of controversial articles on Croatian Wikipedia here. Marekich (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They've appeared because I've invited them on the local community discussion board to share their experiences. I've also left invitations on bs and sh wikis. Their testimonies matter great deal because there is almost no one left on Croatia Wikipedia that would be critical of the clique running it. All of the dissenters get blocked or driven away. Since Serbs and Bosnians speak the same language as Croats, and the controversial and all too familiar topics on Croatian Wikipedia that were discussed in the media also deal with Serbs and Bosniaks in the 20th century, they can provide some valuable (and hopefully impartial) insight. That you don't care what they think is characteristic of the whole modus operandi of Croatian wiki - a close-knit community, sharing the same political, religious and ethnic identity, unfortunately ignoring the core pillars of Wikipedia such as NPOV and openness, treating every dissenting opinion and outside interference as some kind of "conspiracy" against Croatdom. You simply cannot act like that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah- Ivan Gundulić is not a Croatian poet & Marin Držić is not a Croatian playwright. Operation Storm was an ethnic cleansing and a crime. This is Serbian Wikipedia. Only when you explicitly address these issues, any productive talk is possible. Mir Harven (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not Serbian Wikipedia, that was Serbian historians and we wrote articles based on affordable and reliable literature on serbian language (like it or not, personally I disagree with many issues but who am i to judge ). And that is main difference between wikipedias on Serbian and Croatian language. Of course there is many sensitive issues, especially about wars in 90s, LGBT topics, religion etc but big majority of editors on Serbian wiki tries really hard to solve that problems and make that issues more objective and unbiased. And BTW I really don't care for problems on Croatian wiki --НиколаБ (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course Ivan Gundulic and Mrain Drzic are not Croatian. They never self-identified as Croatian, indeed Drzic writes about an uncouth character in one of his plays as being from "the far away land of Croatia" and he is made a fool of by everybody. Also, of course Operation Storm was war crime (not one but a series thereof), and it remains so according to most world historians and the ICTY, it was only that Gotovina and Markac could not have been sufficiently enough tied to the said series of war crimes which are officially identidfied as such in the reasoning of that instution (ICTY).

Many of the Old Ragusan writers never explicitly identified as Croats, and Croatia didn't even exist until 20-something years ago. However, Dubrovnik is now part of Croatia, and "retroactively" their works are subsumed into Croatian historical literature. The problem is, however, that modern standard Serbian and Croatian are one and the same language, and with the absence of ethnic self-identification of these writers they can be legitimately called Serbian writers as well. NPOV article would not present them as either Serbian or Croatian, but something along the lines According to most Croatian literary historians, Gundulić is classified as a Croatian writer. [many references]. Serbian sources either treat him as a Serbian writer [many references], or do not explicitly assign him a nationality [many references]. Unfortunately, neither Serbian nor Croatian Wikipedia articles describe him like that. BTW, many myths regarding the historical evolution of Croatian identity are dispelled and clarified in this book (try searching for Gundulić) inside!), which is written by an outsider which has no stake in the issue. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Croatian Wikipedia and their administrators are one of worst in whole Wikimedia project. I am Wikipedian user for more than 6 years and I have great ideas which they dropped. Even Serbian, SerboCroatian, wiki have Wikinews, our admins did all which they could to stop my initiative. On our home page under news, only admins can add news and they must be only good and in Croatia. No words about Syria, US... They never translate Fundraising messages to Croatian, for more than 3 years only I translate that banners and messages on meta. As one of them said "Wikimedia doesn't need money from us". Here is not problem only in some articles, it is affected in much bigger view. For example, one year ago I edited Judith A. Reisman article to have more neutral view. In English and other wikipedias there were sentences that she is conservative, and more bad stuff about her. When we tried to add that on Croatian article multiple times, our administrators keep returning article to old version and on the end locking it without a word of controversy, article wasn't been neutral. I have a lot of examples like this and when even Croatian Minister of science and education tells kids not to use Croatian Wikipedia, you can tell that something is wrong in Croatian administrators or maybe in whole project. All medias in Croatia make fun of Croatian Wikipedia, even popular news satire magazine "News bar" (like Onion) make fun of Wikipedia saying that same people are admins on wiki and their site. Something needs to be changed.--Anton 008 19:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  Croatian WikiNews was obstructed because you're not part of the clique. Yo do not blindly follow directives, and trust core admins (SpeedyGonsales, Roberta F.) making important decisions in your name. Like they've collectively signed all of the sysops on Croatian Wikipedia in the "letter of refutation" that is linked via a sitenotice, without actually informing all of the sysops. User:Flopy spilled the beans about it in Kafić (and will no doubt be duly reprimanded in their sysop-only mailing list which they use to orchestrate such actions). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjecina2 statement

It seems to me that we are again having user:WizardOfOz case. There is clear accusation against administrators on croatian wikipedia and there is too much trolling so that it will be very hard for anybody to make decision. Only difference between WizardOfOz case and today is media criticism of fascism on croatian wikipedia. Now I will make my official statement about situation of croatian wikipedia and nobody is invited to start discussion in inside my statement section.

I will not comment facebook which is saying that word criminal is used 2 time in article about Hitler, 5 times in article about Tito and 0 time in article about Ante Pavelić (Croatia WWII fascist leader) [16].

I will not comment that for example en:Mirko Norac war criminal convicted by Croatian courts for killing not armed Serb civilian prisoners is hero on Croatian wikipedia, but on other side en:Arkan never convicted leader of Serbian paramilitary force is war criminal on Croatian wikipedia (this both examples from 1991-95 war). Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian word for "war criminal" is "ratni zločinac".

I am writing my comments hear only because I am en:L'enfant terrible of Croatian wikipedia. After they have shown me that I am not welcome on croatian wikipedia I have gone on sh wikipedia, but they can't leave me alone.

• In 2012. there has been discussion on croatian wikipedia about my administrative action on sh wikipedia (asking user to not write "taken from hr wikipedia" because hr wikipedia has forbidden statements "taken from sh wikipedia". Now sh wikipedia rules about that has changed)
• After start of today facebook discussion they have again called my name
• My name has been called even in 2010 meta discussion about WizardOfOz block.

Because of administrators I have left croatian wikipedia, but even now 3 years after that they looking what I am doing and they are calling my name for nothing ?????

I will speak in this statement only about croatian administrator actions.

My and WizardOfOz case

I have left hr wikipedia in 2009, but still in 2010 I have been writing comment on talk pages when I discover article which is having interesting enough NPOV problem.

• 1) On 15.11.2010. I have writen on talk page of article Obrana zračne luke na Krku (Defense of Krk airport) something like:There is to early for war mythology. There has not been battle or anything similar for Krk.
• After writing that administrator Roberta has warned me that wikipedia is not place for propaganda
• On my question:About what are you talking ? Answer has been propaganda on talk page of Obrana zračne luke na Krku.
• There is not even need to say that when they have addeed that article on english wikipediait has been deleted.
• 2) User Croq has in this discussion told us how sh wikipedia users are taking with copy-paste articles from croatian wikipedia on sh wikipedia, but he has not told us that you will be blocked for propaganda if in articles taken with copy-paste from sh wikipedia on hr wikipedia you write that they have been taken from sh wikipedia. I have been blocked 6 months on croatian wikipedia because of that with comment:
• "You have been warned to stop using wikipedia like forum for your propaganda by administrator Sokac121"
• 3) I want to use again example of WizardOfOz which has been administrator on bosnian wikipedia. On croatian wikipedia he has been blocked for wrong reasons in 2010 by administrator Kubura. Meta decision is that Kubura block is illegal (his sysop rights has been removed for 6 months), but in typical croatian wikipedia administrator decision WizardOfOz account on croatian wikipedia has been unblocked and then 4 minutes latter again blocked (now for 2 years). Message has been very, very clear:
• We are ruling croatian wikipedia and we can do anything what we want

Advice

• My advice is removal of sysop rights of all croatian wikipedia administrators, checkuser check of all administrators and must active users on hr wikipedia (there has been now very old incident on sr wikipedia). Giving sysop rights to for example BokicaK (sysop on sr and sh) and few other administrators from other wikipedia projects with more or less perfect knowledge of croatian (bosnian/croatian/montenegrin/serbian) language.--Rjecina2 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This words of you suprised me Rječina. What do you have against me? We have never been in conflict. You obviously forget how good and open our communication was. I am sorry because of that. Until today I am in very good and friendly contact with Wizzard. --Flopy (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that my participation in United Wikipedias peacekeeping forces is not wise. -- Bojan  Talk  14:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Flopy I do not understand you. I have not spoken against you (I have received wikiemails with question:About what is Flopy talking), but only I have been showing in which way croatian wikipedia administrators are acting ?? I have used my and WizardOfOz case because I know that situation and because we both are administrators on other wiki projects.

Flopy you can only be guilty by association for being "team player". I really do not know why your account has again become active and screaming:"I am good person which is against hr wiki administrators ?" Maybe you want to be again administrator on new croatian wiki (or what will be in the end) ?? --Rjecina2 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjecina2, did You forgot who understood Your position and that You were too cruelly blocked on hr.wiki (by an late admin) [17]?
But, it was me who respected Your previous work, respected best in You and who has not forgotten that. As soon as I got the tools, I unblocked You, despite being criticized by some.
Here You have a bunch of proofs [18]: admins helped You with sources (just search e.g. my or Roberta's name), adviced You how to express (e.g., me, Roberta or some others).
Even when You were in certain violations (in later phases), admins assumed good faith and You passed without the block.
Have You forgotten when I encouraged You when You were under attacks on the en.wiki, when You suffered because of misunderstanding [19]?
Have You forgotten when I adviced You, especially when You were showing severe signs of burnout (on en.wiki, you were often reported !): " [20] don't loose your temper and engage in the edit war. Put your version (you can do that, because you've given an reference), and then use talkpage and tell him that he cannot delete these lines just like that. I repeat, don't engage in the edit war. Explain your opponent there, what he has to do and what he cannot do. Than he'll have to answer. ".
Seeing Your message above, dear friend, this means: You show no "thanks", no AGF, no "kolegijalnost", no understanding, forgetting Your friends in trouble, forgetting Your benefactors when they are wrongly accused.
No good deed goes unpunished. Kubura (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of homophobia

In this brouhaha I am seeing allegations of homophobia and homophobic abuse on hr.wp. I sincerely hope that this isn't the case, but I really want this issue to be gotten to the bottom of. Can anyone show me clear evidence of any type of homophobic abuse against editors on Croatian Wikipedia? If there is such abuse occurring, I am certain that the community will take swift action, although I do hope this is merely a storm in a teacup. And short diffs, instead of big walls of text would be great. Russavia (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why of course! http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_ime_obitelji run this through google translate, it makes for an interesting read... I find this sentence especially interesting: Prema mišljenju LGBT aktivista inicijativa je homofobna, prema uobičajenom korištenju te etikete u Hrvatskoj - za omalovažavanje onih čija mišljenja nisu u skladu s nekim od prohtjeva LGBT aktivista odnosno za stavove koji drže te prohtjeve štetnima za druge sastavnice društva. (According to the opinion of the LGBT activists, the initiative is homophobic, per usual usage of that etiquette in Croatia - for vilification of those whose opinions aren't aligned with some of the demands of LGBT activists, i.e. for mindsets who find these demands harmful to other elements of society.) I believe that this "per usual usage of that etiquette in Croatia" and the rest of the sentence is trying to vilify the opinion among general public of this initiative being homophobic, and in an article so full of anti-gay mongering, a section of criticism should be allowed to stay, without the editors trying to belittle that criticism. I tried to make the article sound more equal, but my edits were reverted several times. The user Chvrka was the one who removed my edits. http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U_ime_obitelji&diff=4116139&oldid=4113140 My edit made the article more objective and non-biased. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean content disputes such as the above, but actual homophobic editorial abuse. Are there any instances of this. Also, I do see that in your additions to the article that they are not referenced; can you source those statements you inserted? If so, there is no reason they can't stay in the article, but being unsourced it is fair that it was removed on that basis alone. Russavia (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the actual homophobic editorial abuse, if it ever happened, but the sentence in the article I changed also didn't have any sources or references whatsoever. I wrote somewhere in the beginning of this page that Croatian editors aren't used to sources or references, due to no NOR policy on Croatian wiki - basically, anyone can write whatever they like. I wrote that the initiative is homophobic, which it is, because they explicitly stated they are against LGBT people, and the last thing I changed was that calling something homophobic doesn't immediately mean it's an insult, it may be just stating simple facts. Finally, this initiative supposedly had enough signatures to hold a referendum about "marriage - a union between man and woman", but in light of the EU's policy towards the LGBT people and since Croatia is now an EU member, I see no way of this referendum question being constitutional/allowed by the constitutional court. Especially since France recently allowed gay marriage. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Even article Potemkin village -- Bojan  Talk  17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, I don't know whether you see this as homophobic, but you have article about Marriage, where admin Zeljko forces his point of view where he sees marriage exclusively as bounding between man and woman, and undid any changes to gender neutral statements. So instead marriage is "is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between" (from English Wikipedia), we have that marriage (brak) is "social union and legal contract between two people, man and woman, for the purpose of living together and raising children". Marekich (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In Croatia, marriage is exactly this. There are legal civil unions between persons of same sex, but they are not recognized as "marriage". Also, same sex couples cannot adopt children. If you want correct information on what "marriage" means in Croatia, you got it. Mir Harven (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The article in question is about marriage in general, and not about Croatian marriage or marriage in Croatia. Croats didn't invent marriage, nor did Christians. Therefor the article should be NPOV, and in the article there should be statement that current Croatian law defines marriage as bounding between man and woman. Marekich (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Marekich, that's exactly what I wanted to write, but for some reason my comment wasn't saved. The article marriage may be on the wikipedia in Croatian language, but it ought to describe every marriage in every culture in the world, not just your default marriage in Croatia. You're not writing about Croatia. You're editing an encyclopedia about a term which is present in every culture in the world. And in some cultures, the term marriage even includes marriages between two guys. Thus, your definiton of "marriage" on Croatian Wikipedia would be faulty. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, this can be rectified: in ca. 200 countries in the world, marriage is union between man and women. In ca. 10+ countries, it's between adults of any sex. Mir Harven (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Can it be rectified? Admin Zeljko undid every attempt to rectify it. Marekich (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

He's not a sky-god. Mir Harven (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he is indeed not sky god. But apparently he does have a picture of the Ustaša Ante Pavelić on his bedroom wall, as can be seen here. Surname has been obscured for privacy reasons. 93.136.55.3 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it so much homophobic, as it is the reality in many parts of the world (let's come back to this). But again, this is a content dispute. What I am wanting to know is if editors have been blocked, abused or otherwise mistreated on an editorial level. Am I correct if I were to say that the "homophobia" is occurring only on a content level, and not on an editorial level? Russavia (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no article on "Marriage" in Croation Wikipedia; there is an article on "Brak". Perhaps a more accurate translation would be "heterosexual marriage". StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're lying. Your translation is the one that's inaccurate. Brak literally just means "marriage". If you think it means "heterosexual marriage", then you'll have to explain to these foreigners why we can use the word "brak" in the same sense the English word "marriage" can be used, that is, for example, in the sense of "marriage between state and the criminal underground" ("brak države i podzemlja"). I'm sure you realize that neither the state (country) nor the criminal underground are heterosexual beings. 93.136.55.3 21:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of administrator Zeljko saying about homosexuality - "To je bolesna sklonost, što to ne navedete. Kakva orijentacija, ...i zamatanje u celofan."

A rough translation would be "It's a sick affinity, why don't you mention that. Please, orientation... bending the truth."

diff Fejstkajkafski (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So what, it's written on a Talk page. His opinions. Mir Harven (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're telling me he hasn't had even a slight a bit of bias in any regard due to his opinion when editing LGBT articles? Come on... --Tvrtko26 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would this be called "bias" ? It's opinion. I think, for instance, that English poetry is richer than French. Am I biased against French poetry ? Mir Harven (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"French poetry... it's a sick doggerel, why don't you mention that. Please, Baudelaire... Yeah, right!" If you wrote something like that, then I'd say you were. --94.253.151.225 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No one ever was blocked or offended because of it's sexsual orientation. There has never been homofobia on Wikipedia in Croatian language. It is strictly prohibited to offend someone because he is gay, lesbian, transsexual etc. Never happened. False acusation. When talking about content, there are some articles that explain some topics exclusivelly from the LGBT view. There is a article hr:U ime obitelji which explains the inicitative that collected signatures for the referendum on the topic of marriage. This iniciative is not homofobic because it does not offend LGBT person. It just wants marriage to be defined as man + woman. It is wrong when Wikipedia attitude would be that more than 700 000 people who signed that petition are homofobes. Then these are also homofobes. Chvrka (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This user [21] who is queer as his page says wrote many articles. He was never disrupted. Never ofended. Other users who are LGBT also were never mistreated. You can see on theirs discussion pages that sysops that are attacked here are very polite and helpful when dealing with contribotors to the LGBT Portal on Croatian Wikipedia. Chvrka (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You should check what the word en:homophobia means (It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.) The movement U ime obitelji say their activities "promote general human values" thus showing antipathy, aversion, and even contempt towards homosexuality, they are explicitly against homosexual couples adopting children thus showing irrational fear for the adopted children, they called sex education school curiculum "ideologically colored" because it presented homosexuality as a normal human sexual behavior and not disease, they want to prevent equating civil union of two homosexual persons with marriage between man and woman. This is all there on their booklet! This is clearly homophobic. And yet, in the article on Croatian Wikipedia editors are not allowed not even to make that remark, they are not allowed write criticism which won't be "corrected" using right-wing bias. The article currently says in the Criticism section "...prema uobičajenom korištenju te etikete u Hrvatskoj - za omalovažavanje onih čija mišljenja nisu u skladu s nekim od prohtjeva LGBT aktivista odnosno za stavove koji drže te prohtjeve štetnima za druge sastavnice društva." (...according to the usual usage of that label [homophobic] in Croatia - for belittling thouse whose opinions are not in accordance with some of LGBT activist, or stances that hold those requests bad for other parts of socity). So, even the plain criticism (read: "the other side") on Croatian Wikipedia cannot be written without inserting admin's bias. This is disturbing, this is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. NPOV - where is it? Marekich (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Marekich, I also quoted this line all the way above. On the article about homophobia http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homofobija on Croatian Wikipedia, there is a "wonderful" line which states, and I quote: "Homofobija, (...), u suštini je stav cjelokupne ljudske kulture" (homophobia is essentialy the stance entire human culture takes). OBVIOUSLY the person who wrote that doesn't know about http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaoi Chvrka, read this, will ya: http://www.teskalingvistika.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Sanja_Miklin_U_ime_obitelji.jpg --94.253.151.225 21:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The extent of Homophobia by one Ivica Vlahović [[22]] and especially one MaGa [[23]] and one Zeljko [[24]], who appear to be admins, is outrageous.

They would not let the well referenced (with links to Croatian press) info about call for murder of LGBT protesters at the Split Pride by high ranking priests of the Roman-Catholic Church in Croatia stand for longer than 5 minutes before they deleted them.

See: https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_Pride&action=history

One Jure_Grm [[25]], and of course, the ill-famed Kubura [[26]] and Roberta F. [[27]] have shown extreme level of homophobia and Serbophobia that have resulted in many people leaving the paltry so-called Wikipedia in Croatian for Wikipedias in normal (non-Croatian) languages.

I'm sorry if you dont understand croatian language. Source (Slodobna Dalmacija) was misinterpreted. Statement of one man can't be interpreted as attitide of church in Croatia (as IP was writing in the article). That is only reason of reverting: misinterpreted source. Read carefully before.--MaGa (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, you are a homophobe, MaGa, just as you are an extreme Serbophobe and a moderate anti-Semite (not outspoken as you are against LGBTs and the Serbs, but always condescending in that slimy way which Krleza calls "hrvatski jal". That you are indeed. It is sad that your Serbian counterparts, while much more objective in terms of discussing others' ethnicity and never anti-Semitic are equally homophobic as you are, q.v. here: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80:%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%98%D0%B4#.D0.A5.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BE.D1.84.D0.BE.D0.B1.D0.B8.D1.98.D0.B0_.D0.B8_.D0.BD.D0.B0_.D1.81.D1.80.D0.BF.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D1.98_.D0.92.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B8.D0.BF.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.B8.D1.98.D0.B8.3F_.D0.92.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BC.D0.B5_.D0.B4.D0.B0_.D1.81.D0.B5_.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.BA.D1.82.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.B0_.D0.8F.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B1.D0.BE.3F_.D0.9F.D0.B0_.D0.B4.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.BE.2C_.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.B6.D0.B5_.D0.B8_.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.BA.D0.BE... regarding the same wretched pride event in Splilt where 2 Ustashi -- nominally Doctors of Theology -- called for a murder of LGBT individuals in Split. Mind you, these are doctors of theology in the same church where the Pope, its ruler, said that he in no way condemns LGBT people. So when you remove the link to what those two Ustashi priests said, that's what makes you too an Ustashi.

Unlike you, I do not hide behind a proxy, and I don't write lies about other people without any argument (that does not really exist). All about Serbian (and any other) Wikipedias tell them, not me. That is not my problem. Goodbye...--MaGa (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Wikipedia at least has the dignity to allow DISCUSSION on why they are homophobic, whereas you, your pall Roberta F., Kubura, Jure Grm etc. completely remove even comments pointing out your homophobia, as well as anti-Semitism and virulent Serbophobia, in the Talk Pages.

I can draw your attention to one example: the main administrator at Croatian Wikipedia, SpeedyGonsales.

1. Same-sex marriage - he changed the title of the article into "Marriage and homosexuality",[28] as in that gay marriage only has an appearance of marriage, which made Croatian Wikipedia the only Wikipedia out of some 40 different languages with that aritifical title that disputes its existence.
2. Gender studies - "translated" into "Gender ideology" on Croatian Wikipedia. He locked and refused that the article can be renamed in accordance with its official name. His comment: "That's an ideology, how good or bad, that's still not known today, but that it is aggressive, i.e. destructive towards the social categories of today - that is a fact." [29]. This means that out of 20 different language Wikipedias, the Croatian one is the only one with that artificial title that disputes its existence.
3. U ime obitelji/In the name of the Family (an anti-LGBT organization that wants to restrict marriage only to a man and a woman) - he changed a sentence that says "Croatia would join numerous other countries..." into "Croatia would join countries of the Western civilization (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia...) ...that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman by constitution":[30]

I'm sorry, but this is not someone with a neutral stance towards LGBT themes when it comes to his powers as an administrator of an encyclopedia that wants to gain authority and respect.--Seiya (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the allegations about homophobia on the Croatian Wikipedia to be founded on the logically incorrect presumption: the critics hold their political views (about same-sex marriage e.g.) to be only one allowed. It is not so: Wikipedia should present both (or all) sides of an argument. And Croatian Wikipedia does it, in all articles mentioned here.

We should be troubled if we read the articles that do not show both sides of an on-going political debate, the articles in case do not fall in that category.

And yes, the left-leaning people in Croatia DOES tend to call people with non-left political stances as "fascists". The "leftist" in Croatia used to rule Croatia very rigidly for decades: we had a totalitarian communist regime, where leftist represented a ruling elite with power to interfere-and-decide with everything (there could not be Wikipedia in such a regime); it is not in dispute. Those times are not so far away; in Croatia (as in other Eastern Europe countries) left wing thinkers and "thinkers" often have a nostalgic view on that time when their ideology decided about life "and everything was so nice".--RadioElectrico (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Split Pride

The Split Pride nucleus of an article has been repeatedly vandalised by the cabal of the so-called administrators terrorising users who posted links to Croatia's own media pointing out to the fact that Roman Catholic Church of Croatia, in violation of the pope's teachings to be loving towards gay people, has called for murder of LGBT individuals.

The so-called admistrators (actually worst scum) of Wikipedia iN Croatian would not let that piece of info stand for longer than 20 minutes:

https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_Pride&diff=4142251&oldid=4142250

https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_Pride&diff=4144538&oldid=4144531

https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_Pride&diff=4144551&oldid=4144549

https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_Pride&action=history

Abusing user rights on Croatian Wikipedia

For many years to abuse the rights Sysop, Bureaucrat and CheckUser of the Croatian Wikipedia. Administrators do it deliberately to the detriment of the project and no one talks about it. --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Provide examples and also a comparison of abuse of rights at other Wikipedia's to give us a perspective. The frequency and number of alleged abuses and if there was any recourse that was sought through Meta, etc. If you are making claims you need to substantiate them in full, otherwise this is a general statement which should be disregarded. Vodomar (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyway this is not about user rights on other projects besides the Croatian Wikipedia so do not mix other projects here. What kind of administrator who can not face the truth? --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia: Serbs and Croats shouldn't have separate Wikipedias

http://www.jutarnji.hr/jimmy-wales--srbi-i-hrvati-ne-smiju-imati-odvojene-wikipedije/1126205/ so, what do you think?--Tvrtko26 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

After reading all that "discussion" above, and some articles on hr i sr wikipedia, I can understand Wales thinking. --89.164.190.103 21:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the NPOV consensus could be reached more easily on common Wikipedia. As it is mostly reached on Balkans topics on English wiki. --GedeonWolf (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No way. This is from sensationalist "Jutarnji list" & they will retract their "interviews" (Sanader affair etc.). But in case Mr.Wales tries to "fuse" Wikipedias- former Croatian Wikipedia would soon transform into another online Croatian encyclopedia, completely independent of Wikipedia. For Croats, it's a win-win situation. We're fed up with tutors, whoever they might be. Mir Harven (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we'll get a Croatian Conservapedia? How lovely! You will be sorely missed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you'll get nothing. We'll get printed (and Internet-ready, like Britannica) multivolumninous Croatian enclyclopedia, with good traits of Wikipedia (free edit of "lighter" articles) plus gain re "heavier" scientific & political topics. And we'll be free from tutorship & weird rules. Mir Harven (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Those "weird" rules such as NPOV, NOR and VERIFY? I'm sure your "purified" Croatian encyclopedia will be a beacon of light for the unwashed masses. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again the article from Jutarnji list by the same author (Goran Penić) does not meet minimum journalist criteria. The "interview" is in fact just copy of couple sentences on Jimbo Wales's talk page on meta. (how that could be an "interview"). Jimbo said that Croats and Serbs should have one single wikipedia . However , "jounalist" put the screamy page title "Serbs and Croats may not have separate wikipedias". Again, same spin by Jutarnji list. --Anto (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with unified Wikipedia is the language, which is different enough to cause linguistic and stylistic problems (and sometomes even understanding), because we have a bit different grammar and spelling, and also many different words. That would be avoided by having separate Wikipedias with the same content, but in different language. --Marekich (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems you can't grasp central truths: issues like homosexuality can be resolved (it's not a big deal); issues like WW2, Croatian War on Independence, Operation Storm, Dubrovnik heritage.... cannot be resolved. Not even in eternity. Mir Harven (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Issues like homosexuality actually cannot be resolved unless admins stop forcing their bias. The same might be the case for history - if NPOV and referencing would be fully enforced, there would be much less issues with history. Bias/NPOV is the root of all this issues. --Marekich (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. Until you own your discourse on everything- you're not free. Wikipedia has shown that it is just a tool for disciplining those who think otherwise. For truly Croatian encyclopedia, we got 5 huge general encyclopedias, plus some other stuff. The rest is, as Napoleon had said: money, money, money. From Wiki, we should retain freedom of editing lighter topics like popular culture. I am not talking about cartoons like derivatives of Wikipedia, but about free serious Croatian encyclopedia. No one shall be our "tutor". No one. Mir Harven (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"For truly Croatian encyclopedia"

You're completely insane. What you're promoting is not "truly Croatian", it's serving your own interests. You're not promoting any kind of freedom but the freedom to censor anything you don't like and spread your homophobic, xenophobic, racist and nationalist views. Your latest comment on the hr.wiki Community portal show that you don't care for the quality standards of information, you clearly stated "If I'm being attacked by LBGTQWZFRP, Istrians, "Serbo-Croats", "yugophiles" then I must be correct". You literally don't care about anything except for standing up against your imaginative enemies and reinforcing your self-serving interests. You're sad, hateful and spiteful. Fejstkajkafski (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No Mir Harven, you're the one who doesn't get it. Croatian Wikipedia is not a Croatian national encyclopedia. It's a Wikipedia in Croatian language. All of the Wikipedias in all languages are supposed to follow the same core principles, and have essentially the same kind of content (with different presentation tailored to local needs and norms). The project's aim is the spreading knowledge and information in a neutral fashion, not particular kind of "truths". The only ones who try to discipline those who think otherwise are you guys, blocking every contributor that is tagged as persona non grata for their non-far-right political positions. Why there are no leftist and left-leaning editors at Croatian Wikipedia anymore? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Leftists work on Wikipedia in "Serbo Croatian" Language. --Croq (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia? We already have Metapedia! --GedeonWolf (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Croatian and Serbian language are similar but not the same. They never were. You can't just talk about language. You must know basics of croatian and serbian history, as well as literature. This is not the place to prove this. But it is sad that people who don't understand this (like Jimmy or like many commentators here) force their opinion as only one that is true and valid. Serbo-croatian language existed only in yugoslav's minds. They made pretty much damage to croatian language. And when I said that you should know some history as well... If you do, than you know that Croats speak croatian, not serbo-croatian. Croatian language doesn't have anything to do with serbian language. They have copied (plagiarized) our ortography... So, serbian language has a lot to do with croatian. Don't forget, it is very often that they say that some of our cities, famous and important writers etc., are Serbs, and they belong to Serbia. This originates from their extreme nationalism throughout 18.-20.century. Some of their historians and polititians have said that there are no Croats in Dalmatia, or in B&H, because those people don't talk much different than Serbs. Many misinformations from serbian scholars, polititians, academics, writers etc. are taken for granted. And you can tell that just by looking on english wikipedia. They referr to some foreign scientists and scholars when quoting serbian or communist propaganda against Croatia or Croats. Croatia was very isolated, and gained independence in 90's. But before that, informations for western universities came from Belgrade. No wonder there are so much lies when it comes to history or politics. To conclude: Croats speak croatian. Serbs speak serbo-croatian. Of course, you will never hear them saying that. But Croatian is the basic language of entire region. Not Serbo-croatian. Just croatian.
Another proof would be - dialects. Other dialects that belong to croatian, but not to serbian. And cyrilic scripture was as well croatian, abandoned long time ago. But this is not the topic to prove this. --Zekoslavac (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that is such a bunch of crap that a person who has a reasoning ability would never write it -- unless with an intent to troll and provoke.

All Stokavian is Serbian, and all kajkavian is Slovene. Croatian is ONLY Chakavian dialect.

So stop that nonsense.

Although serbo-crotism is annoying, you're wrong. Serbs speak Serbian. Mir Harven (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(Ignoring the "Communist propaganda" conspiracy). Linguistically, modern standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are indeed one language. Almost perfect machine translation among them could be done simply by substituting words that are different (including Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs); In perhaps 5% of the cases syntactic and semantic context resolution will have to be used to disambiguate polysemous homographs (e.g. sto "hundred" in BCS and "table" only in BS, with only Croatian preserving the word-final -l in the nominative singular, that makes appearance in oblique cases). At any case, any kind of "collaborate" Wikipedia shouldn't be pushing for some kind of a merged standard (like we have English Wikipedia combining American and Commonwealth spellings and meanings in a single article), but all of the standards simultaneously - e.g. three different tabs for viewing/editing, with synching done through machine translation with or without human oversight. However, that would require both modifications to the MediaWiki and a development of the MT engine, none of which exist.

Also - having, or better said - forcing, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian editors to cooperate on a single wiki would probably increase the quality of all history and culture-related articles with respect to policies such as NPOV. It would also eliminate an enormous amount of duplication that exists among B/C/S/SC wikipedias which have tens of thousands of articles copy/pasted from one another (with minor "corrections" of course, with original editors often vociferously "protesting" at the talk pages of the author which shamelessly "stole" the result of their hard work). If the WMF's goal is simply to maximize the spread of knowledge and information in Serbo-Croatian varieties, this is probably the way how it should be done. Synergistic approach would be beneficial with respect to both the number and quality of articles. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

1) the best linguists think otherwise: http://ihjj.hr/ , http://www.isj-sanu.rs/ But- no need to talk to you about it, you're mentally-emotionally blocked re this question. 2) but, for the sake of argument, if this is indeed so: how come that nowhere in the world this imaginary "language" is spoken ? Pluricentric languages have the same name, never mind the differences: Spanish, English, German, French,.. There is not a single country in the world which has this imaginary "BCS", "Serbo-Croatian" as the official language. And- there had never been such a country. Neither in both Yugoslavias, nor- back in time- in Croatia within Austro-Hungarian Empire, where language was officially named simply- Croatian. So again, your serbo-croatist delusions are not supported by reality. Hmmm.... where are published grammars, dictionaries, orthographies of this "Serbo-Croatian" quasi-language ? In Croatia ? Serbia ? Bosnia ? Montenegro ? Mars ? Andromeda ? ...Mir Harven (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you know what bosanski lonac means in croatian slang? I hope that you also know what vodu vari, vodu ladi, ali kiseline nikako means...--MaGa (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Bad idea. As bas as merging Urdu and Hindu wikipedia. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As we can see, there is an "Serbo-Croatian" wikipedia even now: sh.wikipedia.org/. Kolega2357, author of 16 edits on this page (in this moment) is very active there. They have 89.234 articles, today.

The articles on sh.wikipedia are either in Croatian, or in Serbian language, seldomly in both languages (a speaker of any of these languages who claims he/she cannot see the difference, is bluntly lying). I am not aware of any public attack on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia: in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina everyone is too aware of the emotional hardships of the people that identified themselves as "Yugoslavians" (6% of the total population of that communist federation). But now they come with the demand to dismantle Croatian Wikipedia. Why Croatian? Because the Croats were the ones to invent the Yugoslavian idea, back in the XIX. century (no one else took the idea for serious, then); and the "true believers" of "Yugoslavism" are to be found primarily among Croats and Serbs living in Croatia (not in great numbers, though). It is so even now: their number is small, their political inclinations tend to be far - left ("Yugoslavism" is an outcome of a communist totalitarian state, after all), but they bitterly resent bare existence of Croatia (or Serbia, or Bosnia, or Slovenia ...) as an independent state. I believe the idea of fighting against Serbian Wikipedia will be seen as a joke in Serbia: no one has ever taken Yugoslavian idea for serious there.

The relations between Serbian, Croat and Bosnian language are pretty much the same as in the case of Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. I will borrow from the article "Danish language" on en.wikipedia:

Danish is largely mutually intelligible with Norwegian and Swedish. Proficient speakers of any of the three languages can understand the others, though studies have shown that speakers of Norwegian generally understand both Danish and Swedish far better than Swedes or Danes understand each other. Both Swedes and Danes also understand Norwegian better than they understand each other's languages.

You can replace "Norwegian" with "Bosnian", and remaining two languages with "Croatian" and "Serbian".

And, is there anyone claiming existence of a "Danish - Swedish language"? Is there anyone trying to merge Wikipedias in respective languages? No. Mybe "Serbo - Croatians" should teach "Dano - Swedish" speakers ...--RadioElectrico (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Danish and Swedish are vastly more different than Serbo-Croatian varieties. On English Wiktionary, even two versions of Norwegian are kept separated because their differences couldn't be reconciled within a single dictionary entry. For Serbo-Croatian varieties this is not the case. The grammar (i.e. the core of the language) is the same - nouns, adjectives and verbs infect the same. Paradigms of the verb "to be", "to have", "to go", "to eat" are the same. Nouns inflect in seven cases and two numbers, adjectives in seven cases, two numbers and three genders, verbs in two numbers three persons and several tenses (depending on how you define tense) - with exactly the same set of inflectional endings, in many different patterns. Phonemic inventory is the same. Accentual system is the same. "Translation" among them can for the most part be done by simple search/replace of strings representing differences in vocabulary. This is a linguistic fact and not the result of "Yugoslav ideology".

Merging, if necessary, has to be done by simultaneously having all three (or four, with nascent "Montengrin language") standard languages on the same article being edited/presented separately in three (or four) tabs, with changes to one being machine-translated into others. Whether the readers imagine their standardized idiom to be a separate language or not, doesn't really matter. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Danish and Swedish are less different than Serbian and Croatian, but you push your sysop POV on English Wiktionary and put it as some "evidence" here. You put label "Serbo-Croatian" on all Croatian words there, and on all Serbian words, whether or not they are used in both languages. You hardly push your POV, ignoring all users who tell you that you sholdn't be doing that. And, in most cases blocking them. Previously you try to humiliate them on personal level. So, en Wiktionary is the only modern dictionary that says there are no Croatian or Serbian but only Serbo-Croatian. The only modern dictionary that says there is "serbo-croatian" is only en.wiktionary, because of your POV. Linguists accept that it is a faild project of Yugoslav regimes.

The fact is, Serbo-Croatian never existed. Yugoslavs never managed to make it, to deny existance of Croatian language, despite having strong regimes with secret police for the interior "enemies" and diplomacy for the international serbo-croatian agenda. Despite burning books about Croatian language.

You may try to make some new-old artificial "Serbo-Croatian" standard. That's ok for me if you don't try to make that new language mixture by denying the existance of Croatian language. That's the difference between esperanto for example and serbo-croatian. Esperanto doesn't try to deny some language so it could exist. That's why that project is noble. But Serbo-Croatians try to virtualy delete Croatian so their artificial "serbo-croatian" could exist. That's what is wrong with it. That's after all why this witch-hunt against Croatian Wikipedia is runed by users from "serbo-croatian" wikipedia. Chvrka (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Croatian Wikipedia"

Wikipedia is a non-commercial project of Wikimedia Fondation. It is a language based project, and there are more than 700 projects made by volunteers, which spend their unpaid time to write and to make the whole "knowledge of the human race available for everyone, all over the world". The central part is maded by few projects like en.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, meta.wikimedia.org, commons.wikimedia.org...

For usual, the Wikimedia Fondation is owner of all projects and domains, no matter in which language they are written.

False! There is a project above those rules, so called "Croatian Wikipedia", for real Wikipedia on Croatian language. If we forget the five pillars of wikipedia, this is the only project with "own" rules. The first step into the "country-owned" Wikipedia are national insignia on the main page. There is no other project (between more than 700!) having national insignia on the main page, but "Croatian Wikipedia" is not made for everyone who would like to contribute in that language as others, but for all Croats no matter if they can speak or write this language.

The specifications of this project are: 1. Use Croatian sources, even if they are wrong or political (pages without impressum or possibillity to contact owner, broken rule: neutral point of view) 2. If you want to contribute, don´t even try to use some words of familiar languages like Serbian or Bosnian, otherwise you will be blocked from editing for infinite (broken rule: assume good faith) 3. Dont even think about posting crtical view on a "Croatian" article or you will be called such names as proserbian, probosnian, nationalistic... (broken rule: assume good faith, no personal attack) 4. To get a sysop flag on "Croatian" Wikipedia, you need to join a group of "real leaders". This is just possible if you write hard core nationalistic articles. The second step is a invitation on the privat channel on IRC freenode server called #PGC. Once there, you will get all informations about "persons non grata" and will be informed about steps you should made to support the view of PGC community.

Source: http://wizardofoz-wikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/05/about-wikipedia-part-one.html

A disturbing chart

Croatian Wikipedians with more than 100 edits a month.

As we can see, the number of active editors peaked in the mid-2009, and after that everything went downhill, to 10-15 active editors that we have today. If we extrapolated the growth trend up to the mid-2009, Croatian Wikipedia should now be having 60-70 active editors.

This evident drop of active editors is a direct result of inaction/inability by the Foundation and stewards to interefere with unsolvable issues at local wikipedias. Problems with the editorial policy and the abuse of sysop privileges at Croatian Wikipedia were known since mid-late 2008. Only in 2009 after the local ArbCom was dissolved (or better said, dismantled), has the ingroup of nationalist editors tightened its ranks, and become even more abusive and POV-pushing. Liberal-minded editors were driven out one by one, and with no one left to balance out the articles dealing with controversial topics, we end up with media scandals such as this one.

In my opinion, by far the greatest loss for Croatian Wikipedia is the figure of ~50 active editors that are not editing there today, and which should be. Many of them are blocked and should have their blocks lifted (if unexpired), and many of them left after encountering the toxic editing atmosphere, where every single one of their edits is closely monitored for trivial "mistakes", after which they are handed so-called "yellow cards" and "red cards" and eventually blocked. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is quite "disturbing"! Compared to the en.wikipedia.org project which had peaked in 2007 and is in steady decline ever since see: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm#2 . Also have a look at Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia's growth. Aslo have a look across the different languages, there has been a steady decline in the number of active editors across the board: see http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm . If we look across the board there is a crisis in the Wikipedia project: For instance in the English language wikipedia, there were 44045 editors in June 2007 and by June 2013 there are only 30978 active editors. Many other project face similar issue, it is a typical producer consumer problem, but it also indicates that the Wikipedia project has reached a maturity level meaning that most articles have been written and there is not much to be added. Vodomar (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's number of active editors has a very gentle drop 2007-2013, to 2006 number of editors. Croatian Wikipedia's drop post-2009 is sharp to the 2005 number of editors, indicating that we're dealing with a disturbance rather than a typical stabilization trend.

Additional clues can be gather by comparing side by side the detailed chart of Very active Wikipedians from your link of Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias - wheras Serbian Wikipedia has a steady growth until 2013, Croatian Wikipedia hits rock bottom in 2011 (11 active editors), with currently that number oscillating in the range 15-20. Serbian Wikipedia has a mildly larger population base (about 30%) - but that hardly accounts for more than double the number of active editors. We're dealing with something else here - abysmal editorial policy that drives away content creators. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the sharp drop was the cause of editors splintering from the hr.wikipedia.org project and moving over to the sh.wikipedia.org project, that is why it had a large sharp drop. This was due to ideological views held by the splinter group mostly in terms or language like yourself Ivan Štambuk, a shameless and tireless promoter of an amalgam language. 163.8.84.68 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding, those editors that ended up on sh.wiki (on which I do not edit at all), ended up there independently. There was no "splintering" - each and every one of them was individually driven off through blocks and intimidation. Furthermore, none of them actually expressed ideological support for Serbo-Croatian "ideology", as you write it. They all simply wanted a place to channel their creative efforts in writing articles, without toxic atmosphere where they are perpetually scrutinized for small "mistakes" which accrue as yellow and red cards, and eventually blocks. If you inspect their sh.wiki contributions, you will find out that they have not changed their written register, and are in fact writing in perfectly normal modern standard Croatian.

Regarding Serbo-Croatian as an "amalgam" language - never did I promote it. I am simply reminding all of the brainwashed nationalists who apparently cannot come to terms with the fact that modern standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are all based on the same subdialect of the same dialect, and have 99% identical grammar, which makes them essentially one and the same languages, vocabulary differences aside. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you do promote the amalgam language look at your user page on wikipedia, you contributions your rhetoric of Serbo-Croatian language your evangelic zeal that you use in your discussion. Your finger pointing now at a nationalistic problem is nothing but a disguise and veneer that you use to. Look at your own statement that you never promote the Serbo-Croatian language, but you then claim that the languages Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are all based on the same dialect that millions of people have just been brainwashed and conditioned to believe that they speak a different language. In the case of splintering, yes there were a number of users who were contributing to the Croatian wikipedia who ended up on the sh wikipedia to promote their POV of the world, and if they are happy over there I wish them all the best. Vodomar (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to comprehend what the word amalgam mean - I suggest you look it up in the dictionary. Indeed, millions of people are brainwashed into thinking that trivial differences among Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian standard idioms legitimize the notion of a "separate language", while at the same time the unintelligible dialects of Čakavian and and Kajkavian are all "Croatian language". You might wanna check out my user page here on Meta BTW - it contains a quote more than a century old, long before Yugoslavia and Communism took hold. The opinion of the masses, colored by nationalist and separatist zeal, is irrelevant - scientific method has its own set of rules and procedures.

The excuses you offer to the editors you and your clique drove off ("I wish them all the best") are pathetic. You are the reason this scandal broke, and why the chart above has such shape. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia in media

More and more medias keep talking how bad our wiki is... here is newest article published by Novi list which is not yellow stamp. Author is HINA, (Croatian News Agencyis) the national government-owned news agency of Croatia. --Anton 008 09:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

From that article, historian Snježana Koren of the University of Zagreb

"To su tipovi tekstova koje se mogu naći na strancima marginalnih udruga i pokreta, ali za njih ne bi smjelo biti mjesta na wikipediji, kazala je, dodavši da autori ponegdje nisu u stanju razlučiti dobro od zla.:

"Those are the types of texts you can find on the pages of fringe communities and movements, but there shold be no place for that on Wikipedia, says the historian, adding that in some instances the line between good and evil is blurred [on the Croatian Wikipedia]".

"To se ne može drugačije okarakterizirati nego kao ustaštvo"

"It cannot be characterized as anything but Ustašism" Fejstkajkafski (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Novi list ist extreme left paper. Where are difflinks? I woul like to se a proof that the attacked admins did something wrong.--Croq (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"I would like to see a proof that the attacked admins did something wrong". You haven't read any example from the above text, haven't you?--Seiya (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Examples have already been shown of administrators being homophobic, administrators stifling NPOV editing by pushing the revisions they like, showing diametrical opposition with scientific views of the international community as well as examples of their lack of good will (discussions in their Community portal that regards this as a "fight for the country" mentioning war songs, etc.). Fejstkajkafski (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Also from the article: Historian Josip Jurcevic did not comment to Hina on the specific allegations in the Croatian Wikipedia, which he considers "an area of freedom of research and thought," but stated that "the main motive of violent attacks is not intended to Repair any inaccuracies in these articles, but it is a destructive attack from radical unanimity positions which does not allow legitimate pluralist debate on any subject."

"In democratic Croatia moved the complete scientific structure of the totalitarian communist period, and brought with it and its historical apologetic quasi-truth's. No secret that all the social sciences, art production and media in communist Yugoslavia had socialist realist conception, which meant that their main task was of extolling the Yugoslav communist regime, and severe accrue with each diversity" said Jurcevic.

He holds that the worst affected by the fundamental research and creative freedom, and people who have tried to work, explore and create in accordance with basic human rights and objective criteria.

"Unfortunately, the situation in the formal plural democratic Croatia has not significantly changed over the past quarter century. Unanimity structure in the social sciences and the general public speech preserved most of its institutional power," said Jurcevic.

He believes that due to information technology and global circumstances created Croatian version of Wikipedia as an area of freedom of research and the opinions of younger educated generation.

"Because they are out of control of the unanimity system and begin to seriously erode the single-mindedness to them according to the old totalitarian methods of attack its destructive power to enforce them in outdated neo-Communist Yugoslav tor or destroyed. This is the essence of the attack on Wikipedia, and everything else is almost irrelevant details", concluded the scientist.--Rovoobo (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be parroting the same line as Croatian Wikipedians "This is all a Communist conspiracy against Croatdom, yada yada". Considering that he is a far-right sympathizer (w:Josip Jurčević claims that he has been chosen in 2006 as "the new voice of the Croatian right"), of course he will be sympathetic to your cause. Which doesn't invalidate any of the serious accusations of bias and abuse permeating Croatian wiki. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just check the facebook page of those crusaders against croatian wikipedia, and their comments, just to see how much communism there really is. They sound just like the youth of socialdemocrat party (ex communist party). And why is to some of you everything you disagree with - far right? Jurčević far right? No, that is not true. I know his work, his claims... he was called for one of experts in Hague, his works are rarely disputed... If someone just wants to point out the truth and what is logical, that doesn't make him far right. --Zekoslavac (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My cause? Where he "claims that he has been chosen in 2006 as "the new voice of the Croatian right"? On his wiki page its written: "The Nacional newspaper described him in 2006 as the new voice of the Croatian right." And Snježana Koren seems to be parroting the same line as the Facebook guy.--Rovoobo Talk 11:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that Snježana Koren is a respected scientist, and Jurčević's interview doesn't even parse as semantically valid Serbo-Croatian. He doesn't comment any of the actual content that is under the dispute, but is simply parroting the conspiracy line of arguments. I had to re-read it to make sure that the part where he denounces attacks on "free-thinking" Croatian Wikipedia - it sounded like an example of Poe's law. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We already have 3 tactics constantly used here to whitewash the problems of administrators on Croatian Wikipedia: 1) it is a Yugoslav/Communist/Mason etc. conspiracy 2) People are jealous of Croatian Wikipedia 3) Diversion tactics. Rovoobo's last post was a 3) Diversion tactic - flood the text as much as you like, quote controversial historians that say otherwise, but specific examples have already been shown of administrators being homophobic, administrators stifling NPOV editing by pushing the revisions they like, showing diametrical opposition with scientific views of the international community as well as examples of their lack of good will. Try addressing that issue.--Seiya (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee. I have posted views of a historian from that article just as user Fejstkajkafski posted another one before too. I don't see you or Stambuk commenting his post.--Rovoobo Talk 11:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On Jimbo's talkpage User:Vodomar has explained to me how the only reason why Jutarnji list is "attacking" Croatian Wikipedia, is due to a collusion between the Croatian government and the media magnate Ninoslav Pavić, to serve as a diversion for some tax cuts [31]. And this guy is a sysop and a CU there. What a joke. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy and Roberta supported with Kubura, Zeljko, Vodomar, Braco and others turned Wikipedia in Croatian language into their private project (above mentioned PGC group), and they decide about everything on Hr.Wiki. I see here some comments posted by Croq, an interesting case from Croatian Wiki. His case can show you standard there. His Croatian is bad, his grammar is bad, and he needs constant corrections about language. But, at the same time, he is extreme nationalist and he will easily delete well referenced parts of an article and insert his nationalist propaganda referenced with link to extreme right wing portal. Therefore, he was promoted to autopatrol, and his contributions nobody check there any more. This example is only one, but maybe most extreme one.

Any difflinks for (what you say my "extreme nationalism") ASAP please! --Croq (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to comment on to this:To get a sysop flag on "Croatian" Wikipedia, you need to join a group of "real leaders". This is just possible if you write hard core nationalistic articles. The second step is a invitation on the privat channel on IRC freenode server called #PGC. Once there, you will get all informations about "persons non grata" and will be informed about steps you should made to support the view of PGC community.

Although this is truth, it is not whole thruth. There is a certain number of sysops still there who opppose PGC group, and those sysops have their own set of mind. Only problem is that they do not want to quarrel with PGC group and their supporters (like Mir Harven who surfaces every time when Roberta needs him). They are in reality only hope for any action to succed. Any arbitration or any action taken to fix the problems on Hr.Wiki must have local support or it will certanly fail.

Štambuk, if you need me and my experience of an ex sysop you can contact me by sending me mail (btw, we contacted before). --B. Ivsi (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't they voice their opinions here? Why don't they ask for flag removal on Meta if they don't want to be associated with the PGC ingroup during this scandal? They are all guilty if they stay silent. <redacted> and his friend signed the "letter of refutation" in the name of all administrators of Croatian Wikipedia. If I were a sysop at hr.wiki at this moment, I'd expressly ask to be removed from that position. At least until tomorrow when the legal department of EPH will find out that their flagship newspaper has been called novinarsko žutilo that spreads degutantne besmislice on every single page of a website that has 28k hits per hour, and someone called administratori hrvatske wikipedije is signed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Most Croatian college students use English Wikipedia because most of us see Croatian Wikipedia as a poor source of (suspicious) information. And most of students know enough English to at least understand most of texts. Also, most Croatians, even students, are not familiar with rules of academic writing, listing sources, copyright, so our Wikipedia is a mess in that part. I think that no Croatian student will miss Croatian wikipedia if it will be shut down. Just please, don't merge it with Serbian because it doesn't make sense. Most of my generation are only able to understand general everyday Serbian language, we can watch movies and read newspaper, but when it comes to anything more specialized - texts about physics, chemistry, or even just recipes for food we stumble upon unknown and strange words. So, either do something about our Wikipedia to ban all extreme nationalists forever or just shut it down. After all, the only people who care about Croatian Wikipedia are extreme nationalists and political content is the most edited one. As example, just look at the length of articles about some controversial political topics and compare it to articles about physics, computer science, chemistry, or anything else that is actually useful to people. Look at article about atom (I think one of the most fundamental and needed articles) on English wikipedia, look at its length and the number of references and then compare it to poor article on Croatian wikipedia. Also, a lot of articles are not written in appropriate style, instead they are written in newspaper style, or personal blog style full of provocative titles and personal opinions. The only way the Croatian wikipedia makes sense is if it attracts authors who will write good quality articles equally about every field of science and culture, in academic style, neutral and full of references, or if it a direct translation of English wikipedia - Student, 15.09.2013

The whole idea of reading an encyclopedia is, among other things, to learn "unknown and strange words". That's what reading and learning is all about! You cannot use it as an argument for having several encyclopedias for the same language. Someone who is not a nuclear physicist and reads about the subject for the first time will encounter a lot of "unknown and strange words" even if he is a Croat reading an article about nuclear physics on Wikipedia in Croatian. If it ever comes to joining the all four Wikipedias (yes, there are FOUR Wikipedias for the same Serbo-Croatian language!), users will end up with a more objective (different points of view are good for objectivity) source of knowledge. Perhaps many people won't like it - mainly because they have been breastfed by nationalistic ideologies during the past two decades - but it will be a good way to slowly start normalizing the whole "four languages vs. one language" issue. I suggest that a committee should be formed to address the issue. Perhaps some of the leading world linguists will be willing to assist the Wikimedia Foundation in resolving this matter? Perhaps this is a new, revolutionary, way to tackle nationalism at its roots (one nation, one language, one territory, one culture, one religion etc.). ---- Francis Christian (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What on earth do you know about Croatian language ? Evidently- not much. To quote another source: http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/croatian_language.html After the collapse of Communism and the birth of Croatian independence (1991), situation with regard to the Croatian language has become stabilized. Finally freed from political pressures and de-Croatization impositions, Croatian linguists expanded the work on various ambitious programs and intensified their studies on current dominant areas of linguistics: mathematical and corpus linguistics, textology, psycholinguistics, language acquisition and historical lexicography. From 1991 numerous representative Croatian linguistic works were published, among them four voluminous monolingual dictionaries of contemporary Croatian, various specialized dictionaries and normative manuals (the most representative being the issue of Institute for Croatian Language and Linguistics). For a curious bystander, probably the most noticeable language feature in Croatian society was re-Croatization of Croatian language in all areas, from phonetics to semantics- and most evidently in everyday vocabulary. Some observers with Yugoslav affinities deplored such a course of events. But, having in mind the vocal silence of such “multiculturalist” proponents of Serbo-Croatian when Croatian orthographies were literally burnt in auto-da-fes (1971), one can only conclude with regard to the death of this “language”: qualis vita, et mors ita ! Mir Harven (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven mentions an interesting phrase: re-Croatization of Croatian language. In practice, this means "let's invent as much word as possible, to make Croatian distinct from Serbian". During the 1990s when Croatia was still under international sanctions due to the politics of isolationism pursued by Franjo Tuđamn, many Croatian linguists actively promoted such policy. Of course, the common people not only ignored it, but ridiculed it. You can't change basic vocabulary of a language by Diktat.

However, the clique running Croatian Wikipedia still somehow believes that we're at war with Serbia, and that they have a "sacred duty" to promote such words, even if they aren't used by anyone. The most bizarre example is the word for sports, which is on Croatian Wikipedia translated as šport, instead of the usual sport. I have never heard anyone actually using the word šport in my life. However, since Serbs only use sport and not šport (which is a borrowing from German, the former one is from English), they systematically promote the word šport (and its derivations such as športaš, športski..) in every single sports-related article.

It's not my text (although I agree with most of it) . What's controversial ? Language policy in both Yugoslavias has been geared towards suppression of Croatian (for instance, incarceration & later murder of dr. Ivan Šreter is one drastic example: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatski_jezi%C4%8Dni_unitarizam , https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_%C5%A0reter). Any language which has passed through a period of suppression simply purifies itself of idioms that are forced upon it during periods of repression. It frequently does even when no repression was present: for instance, dismissal of Persian & Arabic words from Hindi or lanugage purification of Turkish language from Arabic loan-words after Kemal-pasha reforms. I'm writing this just as a ref for clueless people, not to argue with you about anything. Mir Harven (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The disturbing part is that editors that use common words as opposed to those "pure Croatian" get stalked by User:Kubura or User:Bugoslav who tell them that they should be using this word, and not that word. Suffice is to say that this kind of language purism (and separatism!) is exclusively connected with the far-right, and that no one in their right might would go around telling others how to write their mother tongue. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with nationalism as you can probably see in my comment (hope my English was good enough to understand it, if it's hard to understand, sorry). I in fact, as a Croatian, don't have a problem with discontinuing Croatian Wikipedia at all, because again, to repeat, I think it is mostly an unorganized mess lacking real encyclopedic referenced content written in academic style. I don't have a problem with shutting down Croatian wikipedia and only Serbian wikipedia existing. I also wouldn't read it as I am used to English wikipedia. But it would be wrong to shut down both Wikipedias and merge them into one because there are many little differences in our languages that simply sound wrong to the other side. In differenth stail Vikipidia vould yu able to rid be? An automated tool could probably be built which would do near perfect machine translations between Croatian and Serbian. There's more to it than just converting cyrilic to latin, there are some sentence structures, different ways of transliteration, different academic words that need to be translated in seven different grammatical cases, and so on... But a group of great programmers combined with linguists from both sides would be able to identify all differences and build such a tool. As for lot of "unknown and strange words" - it's not problem that they are "unknown and strange", the problem is that an article about physics/chemistry in Croatian and in Serbian have two different sets of unknown and strange words and there is no point in Croatian student to use them in his Croatian academic environment because no classmates would understand him. If I need to learn new unknown words, I rather choose to learn new unknown English words. Croatian court translators cannot translate English legal documents to Serbian. They can try, but every Serbian would notice a ton of errors and only-Croatian vocabulary and would know that it was just a Croatian trying to guess Serbian. Same goes with Serbians. They can understand and they can talk (about everyday things) and we can understand each other (I talk in Croatian, he/she talks in Serbian), but if I try to fake my Croatian into Serbian, all Serbs will notice. Merging both Wikipedias to one in "Serbocroatian" would probably mean death to both of them.

Too much hate against Croatian Wikipedia

I read the whole discussion. I haven't seen any sustainable argument against sysops of Wikipedia in Croatian. But I see much of hate against it. I understand that Croatians and Serbians had war, the real one in recent history but still, I can't figure out why those from Serbia who don't contribute to Croatian Wikipedia have desire to harm it by spreading false accusations. Croatians won their independance from Yugoslavia where Serbians were noumerous, so what? You can't change that by harming Wikipedia in Croatian where it writes that attack from Serbia was aggression. The users from Serbian Wikipedia seem to be the loudest in all this attacks on Wikipedia in Croatian. Isn't that weird? Sensational yellow press Jutarnji list and their former employee minister Jovanovic can not be an adequate reason to put some sanctions against Croatian Wikipedia sysops. There must be arguments. And there is no real one. Much of lies obviously being lies. They write there is homofobia but if you look closer you see great collaboration of sysops in CW with LGBT activists. Looks like someone who wants Wikipedia in Croatian dead trying to destabilise the project by removing it's sysops. It's a small project. Be aware of that. Community gave sysop tools to those who show that they deserve it based on their hard work. Community gave them that tools to defend them from disturbing (that often comes from Serbia in form of vandalization). They are doing a good job. It's not the best project in Wikimedia world, but it's good, very good. 83.131.229.54 00:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

3) Diversion tactics again. You too haven't read a single example above, haven't you? An administrator (!) has a photo of an Axis collaborator on his wall, and you think that's normal? An administrator (!) refuses to accept the existence of gender studies (so he invents the title "gender ideology") and you think that's normal? Well, in that case, I think you shouldn't have anything against an Arbitration. In fact, you should condone it, because it will review the administrators on Croatian Wikipedia, find nothing and honorably acquit them. So, let's start with it if you are so sure of their innocence.--Seiya (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm Croatian, not a Serb. The same applies to users Rjecina2, Tvrtko26, Seiya, Marekich, Fejstkajkafski, Timbouctou, GregorB, GedeonWolf, Ante Perkovic and Pavlemocilac that have commented the issues in a negative light. So your whole theory on the Serbian-organized "conspiracy" falls to pieces.

This is not about sysops in person, but about their tactics to scare off non-nationalist editors and subtly promote Ustashi ideology. As a result the whole project is suffering from a systematic bias in countless historical articles, and the lack of editors contributing in the scientific disciplines and humanities. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what nationaly you are, no one cares about that. The question is: What wikipedia editions do users who attack Croatian Wikipedia sysops contribute to? The loudest of those contribute to Wikipedia in Serbian or Serbo-Croatian. For where their treasure is, there their heart is also. We all know there is a competition beetween Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia. Which will be better, with more articles. Serbian has more articles, but people relie Croatian Wikipedia more, read it more that Serbian one.

Yes, this is personal attack on sysops of Croatian Wikipedia. Those are the ones that put the most effort in the project and removing then would harm the project terribly. I think you know that. 83.131.229.54 13:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you say it's not personal attack when you (exactly you) publish their personal names here in the discussion. When in the same time their personal names are being published by the yellow press and people are threating them, publishing theirs home adresses on facebook and writing messages that "Croatian Wikipedia will be another Serbian Wikipedia soon". You know all that and you still are saying that there is no personal attack?

I doesn't matter what project we come from. The point was that we are not Serbs, nor do we contribute to Serbian Wikipedia, which makes your little "it's all a Serbian conspiracy" theory lunatic blather. The reason why we don't contribute to Croatian Wikipedia anymore is because many of us have been blocked under absurd excuses, and the project has toxic editing atmosphere were a coterie of far-right extremists sets the tone for discussions and resolves any dispute using the method "shut up or you'll be blocked". BTW, I have probably added more quality (referenced, science-related) content to Croatian Wikipedia then any of you.

Their names were published in the media, they decided to disclose their identities by themselves years ago.

The argument that they are "irreplaceable" is laughable. Do you know who is irreplaceable? Dozens of content creators that you have driven away over the years. People like hr:Suradnik:Orijentolog that have written hundreds of high-quality (B-class and above) articles over the years, and who do not edit there anymore because they fell out of favor with <redacted>'s ingroup. (Orijentolog is now at the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia). Nobody is going to miss a dozen Ustashi sympathizers who imagine themselves to be the protectors of hrvatstvo. In fact, the damage that you've caused by will take years to salvage. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan, I will be very short: don't talk nonsense. Orijentolog is blocked for one reason: attack on me and my family. Clear enough? End of story.--MaGa (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What attack? Your block summary says something vague about "ignoring instructions", and the the preceding discussion on his talk page is filled with your arrogant threats ("I have plenty of cards") of yellow and red card about some issues regarding categorization of articles. Is this how you treat a user who has for four years made 20k edits, and wrote hundreds of high-quality articles on Ancient Near East and Middle East? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Read carefully block summary (do not read what suits you): osobni napadi (ili napadačko ponašanje): ignoriranje uputa. I will not explain any details to you. Ask him if you want to know what he has wrote to me.--MaGa (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On the Croatian Wikipedia all normal users always assume bad intentions of the administrator lie to vandals. Do not exceed more and more users in Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia without having to suffer the administrators who abuse them. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the first part (before the colon) was chosen from the drop-down list of block summaries, isn't it? You specifically typed "ignoring instructions" as the blocking reason, and given that his talk page offers no offending diffs or policies allegedly violated, and the preceding discussion refers to a dispute involving categories, the only thing that one can assume is that the block was related to that. Furthermore, if we're indeed dealing with personal threats as you claim (and which I can't see where), you'd be emotionally compromised to impose such severe punishment (infinite block). It should've been handled by an uninvolved administrator.

At any case, the exact details of his case are not important. I was merely making a point, how valuable editors get driven away for no clear reasons. Issues that should be solved through discussion are solved by blocks and by not assuming good faith. Such irresponsible behavior by admins is the reason of such a striking drop of active editors sine 2009. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What would explain the fall in the number of editors in other wikipedia's. For instance the number of editors on en.wikipedia.org peaked in June 2007 and has been in fall ever since, now there are close to 10,000 less editors then before. German wiki peaked in 2007 and in fall after that, Japanese wiki in 2008 and in fall after that, Russian peaked in 2010 and in fall after that, list goes on. Probably it has to do more with project maturity. Vodomar (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wiki does not mature any longer, it is ripe.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

In revenge, editor on Croatian Wikipedia takes over on Serbian Wiki and promotes homophobia

In revenge, editor on Croatian Wikipedia, one Zeljko, takes over on Serbian Wiki as Жељко Тодоровић and promotes homophobia.

For reference see: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80:%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%98%D0%B4#.D0.9A.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.80

The User:Zeljko/Жељко Тодоровић persistently removes reference to the Pope speaking in favour of gay rights on an LGBT article on Serbian Wiki. He allies with a small circle of allies and vandalises the page repatedly.

And why exactly is he doing that? Perhaps in order to make Serbian Wiki appear as hideously inadequate as Croatian Wiki? Just guessing...

They are not same person. They just have same name. And views, partially. -- Bojan  Talk  11:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Bojan. That is one and the same person. Therefore the purported Serbian Жељко Тодоровић uses clearly Croatian forms like "требаш поштовати", "требаш се фокусирати" и "То шта су рекли", only written in Cyrillic.

A native speaker of the Serbian version of Serbo-Croat will never say something like this, as it is distinctly Croatian in "требаш" and distinctly a speaker of the Croatian version of Serbo-Croat impersonating a speaker of the Serbian version in "[т]о шта су рекли", i.e. hyper-replacement of Croatian sole form "што/što" with the usual but not exclusive Serbian "шта/šta".

It would be great if User:Zeljko had come as a friend to the Serbian Wiki, but he is coming as a wolf in sheep's clothing to besmirch Serbain Wiki too, now that the Croatian one has been seriously compromised even with a threat of discontinuation.

Paranoia? Just guessing...--Rovoobo Talk 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that what it says in your medical report, poor ole Rovoobo? Sorry for ya.

On a second thought, nah -- I ain't sorry for jerks undeserving of pity...

Please do not fall for this "Information". It was planted using Chinese proxy with clear intention to undermine effort to clear situation on Hr.Wiki. Truth could easily be verified using Checkuser. FYI I am 100% certaiin that User:Zeljko is not Жељко Тодоровић. This chapter should be deleted but I do not want to delete it. --B. Ivsi (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese proxy or not, the purported Serbian Жељко Тодоровић uses clearly Croatian forms like "требаш поштовати", "требаш се фокусирати" и "То шта су рекли", only written in Cyrillic.

A native speaker of the Serbian version of Serbo-Croat will never say something like this, as it is distinctly Croatian in "требаш" and distinctly a speaker of the Croatian version of Serbo-Croat impersonating a speaker of the Serbian version in "[т]о шта су рекли", i.e. hyper-replacement of Croatian sole form "што/što" with the usual but not exclusive Serbian "шта/šta" (here it should remain "што/što" in Serbian too!).

Then such a clearly non-Serbian editor of Serbian Wiki, one User:Zeljko/Жељко Тодоровић persistently removes reference to the Pope speaking in favour of gay rights on an LGBT article on Serbian Wiki, where some Croatian jerks who are professors at a theological college in Croatia called for murder of LGBT people in blatant disregard of the Pope's opinion and he keeps saying it is unrelated to the article of a homophobic attack on LGBT parade in Split by followers of those Croatian Ustashe priests. He also allies with a small cabal of cronies and vandalises the page repatedly.

It would be great if User:Zeljko had come as a friend to the Serbian Wiki, but he is coming as a wolf in sheep's clothing to besmirch Serbain Wiki too, now that the Croatian one has been seriously compromised even with a threat of discontinuation.

It isn't unheard of that a Serb who lives in Croatia speaks like that. Nikola (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of possible remedies

• Translate articles in exact form from Wikipedia in English where appropriate (unfortunately that would solve only a very small amount of issues, but still it would prevent admins to force their own personal POV in those articles). Marekich (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Choosing new administrators who can proove they aren't biased in a political regard, even though that seems nearly impossible.--Tvrtko26 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And who will "rectify" them ? With what intentions & knowledge ? Why not put any other Wikipedia under "supervision", including English language Wiki-which contains horrible nonsense, especially re controversial issues. Sorry-we're not adolescents to be disciplined. Mir Harven (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Some current admins with clear political bias just have to go, and admins that would replace them have to be carefully selected. And if they are later shown to have bias, then they can be dealt with also. The current admin politics is unacceptable. Marekich (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say you & and your sympathizers have clear political bias. The best way is to let Croatian Wikipedians, all registered contributors, to vote on the admin questions. Mir Harven (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to prove your accusation, or to retract it. Marekich (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Which accusation ? You try, very vigorously, to eliminate people who have succeeded in making Croatian Wikipedia the' most successful Wikipedia in ex-Yugoslavia. And you're accusing them of political bias. Why not accuse all those Croatian Wikipedia readers of being biased ? Mir Harven (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

People who force their own personal POV, people who use article editing as a political mean should go, don't you agree? I don't care if someone is left or right-winger, religious or antireligious - if they don't follow Wikipedia rules, if they insert personal bias into articles, they should go. Whoever they are. Marekich (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What you're talking about ? Any "controversial" text is bound to have some "POV" in it. I wrote the entire article on "Korijenski pravopis" at Croatian Wikipedia, and there was no way to retain its integrity until a contributor who was- IMO- unjustifiably objecting to it, has been "pushed" or forbidden to meddle with it. There was no possibility of consensus, and there was no knowledge among other contributors. So, there are numerous cases where "personal POV" is necessary- because not few people are aggressive in promoting their personal agenda (without much knowledge) & the only way to retain a readable article is, after discussion & negotiations, to ban them or to threaten them with temporary ban. Mir Harven (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't you remember what's written on Wikipedia? Ako ne želite da se vaše pisanje nemilosrdno uređuje i slobodno raspačava, nemojte ga ovamo slati. Therefore, if the text is POV, anyone ought to have the right to edit it.--94.253.151.225 20:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur, but I'm still pro-arbitration so that they can't be masked as martyrs.--Tvrtko26 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Arbitration, then. Unlike mediation, in which the third party only helps the disputing users reach an agreement, an arbitration committee will impose a binding solution that all users must obey. Solutions may involve removal of access, blocking users, or forcing users to avoid editing the area of dispute. Such a decision will be enforced as necessary. --Tvrtko26 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  There was already an ArbCom on Croatian Wikipedia which blocked three prominent sysops (two of which were bureaucrats), after which it was dissolved and those blocked were reinstated to their former positions after few months. That approach didn't work due to abundant abuse by off-wiki means, which is expected in such small projects where pretty much everyone knows each other. Also, there is noticeable shortage of editors that would be impartial in handling political hot potatoes that interfere with "essential national truths". They have all been driven away over the years. Locally chosen ArbCom wouldn't solve anything - it would simply cement their current policies, and they would have an extra argument "see, this was sanctioned by ArbCom". Perhaps if some ArbCom members were chosen from bs and sr projects (and vice versa)? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! Arabs should be deciding about sysops on Israel Wikipedia and Afgan users should be dealing with the matter of sysops on English Wikipedia. Stop attacking Wikipedia in Croatian. The Croatian language won't disappear if you manage to install people that share your POV as the sysops on Croatian Wikipedia. Be constructive, make Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia become more reliable than Croatian one. 89.172.193.88 20:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is "attacking" Croatian Wikipedia - we are working to make it a better place for editors in the aftermath of the scandalous statement made by the Croatian Minister of Education. This should've been done years ago, but better late then never. Regarding my proposal above: no, I was not suggesting that sr and bs Wikipedians get to choose hr.wiki sysops, but only some fixed spots in the ArbCom that would specifically deal with issues such as languages, WW2 and similar. But I don't see how that would scale to thousands of articles... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sysops, admins, editors - they are not Wikipedia. They give their time and effort to Wikipedia and Wikipedia users. Nobody is attacking Wikipedia, people just request for better, truthful, non-biased content, and administration that will enable, and not suppress that. By removing admins that do not follow Wikipedia rules, Croatian Wikipedia won't stop existing. Quite the opposite - it will become better, more neutral, more factual. --Marekich (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ignore the attemps of disrupting the Wikipedia in Croatian language. Motives for the disruptions are wrong and there are no strong arguments for some actions against CW sysops. Would removing sysops help or harm to the Croatian Wikipedia community? It would harm. Some outside Wikipedia in Croatian language know that, community of Wikipedia in Croatian language also knows that. When yellow press or politicians attack Wikipedia, the Wikipedia should stay independant. Chvrka (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you obviously failed to understand what this is about. This is not some witch-hunt. This is a reaction to extreme bias the articles on our Wikipedia have and words you type on your keyboard here can't change that. It's your mindset that needs changing from the extreme right-wing one to a more accepting and liberal one. If that were to happen, maybe our Wikipedia would stop being a joke and a laughing-stock of the nation and gain some credibility. This way, you not having moved on past WWII and Yugoslavia, I fear for the younger generations and I pray they find the accurate version of history on English Wikipedia. And if you truly believe what's written on Croatian Wikipedia about recent history, you're gravely mistaken.--94.253.151.225 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Check all the edits of the administrators. If it is found that they edited or did something to glorify WWII crimes, or further discrimination against a minority, in a way that includes, but is not limited to, editing, reverting edits, fearmongering, blocking users for no reason whatsoever or for wrong reasons, such as false allegations, they are to be stripped of their admin privileges.--94.253.151.225 20:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the whole thing needs a restart button. I am not familiar with all the Wiki bureaucracy and lingo, but these are the things that should be done IMO, to restore the public's trust and to get rid of the far-right bias:

• Wikimedia should issue an official statement distancing itself from controversial articles on Croatian Wikipedia, assuring the public that issues would be resolved
• Stripping of ALL admins on CW of sysop privileges, effective immediately. I hold them all responsible for the scandal this has become, either through inaction or through direct abuse of power. There are no innocent admins on CW.
• Setting up some kind of a complaint desk on en.wiki where editors (and possibly readers) from other language Wikipedias can report problems with admin abuse. (There are good editors over there who were afraid to speak up until recently, we must offer an alternative venue for such people to go to.)
• Translation of ALL the policies en.wiki has into Croatian (from what I've seen most of them simply don't exist over there, it seems nobody ever heard of WP:SYNTH for example). Also, I don't think they have a place for discussing reliable sources at all, so pretty much anything can be passed for a "source" over there.
• Election of new admins, barring old ones to be nominated for that position ever again. These should be elected to temporary but renewable terms, lasting lets say six months, until we can see that the number of productive contributors has started to rise again, after which normal elections could be held.
• Forming official partnerships with clubs of history students at Croatian Universities to give it some credibility and quality assurance. I think students of art history at Zagreb Uni are doing something like that already. This would not, of course, automatically solve the problem of bias in articles which talk about topics which are controversial in their own right, but it would help CW regain some credibility in the eyes of the public, and it may prevent it from having total train wrecks like it has today. Timbouctou (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Timbouctu you wrote:There are no innocent admins on CW. I find this abusing and generalizing. What is my guilty? Have you read what I wrote in the village pump at hr.wiki about whole this case? For your information I was the member of the Croatian ArbCom and its last coordinator. My English is unfortunately not good enough to translate it here. --Flopy (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I can vouch for Flopy: of all of the sysops of Croatian Wikipedia, he is in my experience by far the most courteous one. He is a history teacher and has on several occasions advocated the usage of only printed sources as references for controversial articles, and not some random web pages which push a particular point of view, such as that of Hrvatsko Kulturno Vijeće - a far-right think tank abundantly referenced in countless Croatian Wikipedia articles. He is a "good guy". Unfortunately, he doesn't edit 20th-century topics, and is not that active anymore. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I can also say only good words for Flopy. There are at least 4 admins who should definitively be banned forever, like user:SpeedyGonsales, user:Roberta F., user:Kubura and user:Zeljko. These are hopeless cases. There are some, like user:Vodomar and user:Braco whom I never saw molesting a user (although I left wikipedia 4 years ago and I might be missing something), but who, for some reason, keep pretending not to understand the accusations and keep repeating "well, why don't you fix the articles yourself", ignoring the fact that the problem is in the hundreds of people who tried it and were stopped. There are a lot of inactive admins. And there are a few admins who mind their own business, probably because they don't have the bolls to stand up. And, there is user:Flopy who occasionally do stand up. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this words. I don't support any kind of fascism. There are some unacceptable things in articles about Croatian history of 20th century. This is not the history that I have learned and studied. But unfortunately I have never edited this thematical area. Now I see this was officialy wrong. After disaster of ArbCom (I was one of members) my activity went down because I was dissapointed with Wikipedia. The opposition on Croatian Wikipedia against Speedy and Roberta nominated me for sysop (Ante Perković came first on this idea. Lasta formally nominated me and also Dalibor Bosits supported me) and I accepted. Allmost all the sysops were against me but I passed [32] (just read the accusations against me during this voting). I realized very soon that I am practically allone (Ante left hr.wiki. Dalibor also and many other), so I was active only occasionaly until today. I am the only user until today who became sysop against the will of other active sysops. The general situation on hr.wiki since 2009 is cemented and that ruineted it. A month ago I wrote this "Ovakvi nažalost daju za pravo onima koji hrvatsku wikipediju smatraju leglom ultradesnice i onog negativnog nacionalizma. (sombody translate please). My only guilty could be "the command responsability" although I never edited this articles. If sombody is this oppinion (I see Timbuctou and Rječina are) I accept this. But once again I am active occasionaly. If there is no other way I think restarting is not bad idea. Sorry for my bad English :) --Flopy (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The vote on your adminiship is quite shocking. Pretty much all of the normal users support you, and the only ones against your adminiship are the admin cabal. User:Kubura has even accused you for daring to think on your own in discussions, and for not supporting him during the WizardOfOz case, for which he was desysoped. If this is not a crown evidence of them [admins] being completely detached from the community, I don't know what is. It's also interesting to note that most of the users that supported you not so long ago (in 2010), no longer regularly edit. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia needs to be restarted. This can be done as following:

• Running checkuser an all existing administrators. Administrators having sockpuppets are all permanently blocked.
• Removal of sysop, bureaucrat and checkuser flags for everyone that has them. Embargo for election of new sysops, bureaucrats and checkusers for at least 3 months. Provisional administrators that would do the patrolling and the deletion of vandalism are assigned.
• Unblocking of all users that have > 500 edits that have unexpired blocks pending (including those permanently blocked). Among these are many content creators that no longer edit. They could be sent an invitation to "rebuild" Croatian Wikipedia.
• A list of all articles with disputed and controversial content should be made. Content taken from or referencing obscure far-right sources (usually websites) should be deleted. All articles lacking references and suffering from POV must be tagged as such.
• Missing policy pages should be translated from English Wikipedia. It should be explained in simple terms what do these policies actually mean. Many of the existing issues stem from misunderstanding of what NPOV refers to, as we've seen in discussions.
• User blocking policy should be revised. Nobody should be permanently blocked without an have an offending diff shown, a chance to discuss the block on their talk page, and having other admins reviewing the block. Currently administrators can raise blocks without any accountability or due process. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I was admin on Croatian wikipedia from 2005 to 2009. I personally blocked Ivan Štambuk on Croatian wikipedia, and I still believe that was a good move ;), but I like the above proposal very much.

Here is what I had in mind:

• Open a pages for complaints, a page for each admin. Let the people, logged in or not, post concrete links to proofs of wrongdoings.
• Make Arbcom out of 3 or 5 prominent Croatian contributors on English wikipedia (admin or experienced non-conflicting users, doesn't matter that much), preferably those who don't visit Croatian wikipedia at all. Let them examine the accusations and decide who is guilty and who is not.
• De-sysop all sysops found guilty of misusing their sysop rights. Block them and ban forever.
• Block forever all users found guilty off heavy molesting other users, especially if they were protected by admins.
• Leave other admins do their job.
• Change rules for promoting new admins, so current admins don't have veto on choosing new admins (they have veto for new patrollers, which is condition for admin candidacy!).
• Let the Arbcom continue to work after cleanup, solving more complicated conflicts.
• Block (on Meta!) every freaking retard who ever dare to mention ex-Yugoslav secret service, or communists, being involved in this or any other retarded conspiracy theory!!!

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom, I think that it is enough of empty talk, let us discuss on remedies.--B. Ivsi (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion combination of Ivan's and Ante's. I will give you only part with my oppinion how to have easiest transition to normal wiki.

• Hr.wiki is full of sockpupets and we must devise system to make them useless.
• First thing is to stop all voting on hr.wiki, bar voting for best article.
• Removal of all sysop, bureaucrat and checkuser flags on hr.wiki.
• For transition period sysops to be temporary arranged, we can use croatian sysops from en.wiki and hr.wiki sysops that clearly are not guilty for these offences (like Flopy). In case of need we can try to reactivate some old sysops and last option is usage of sysops from sh.wiki, I am not sure if that will be smart move.
• Election of new sysops, bureaucrats and checkusers to be permanently arranged that all candidates and voters must identify themselves (simmilar process as checkusers have to be applied to all voters).
• Unblocking of all users, without difference.
• All sysops found guilty of misusing their sysop rights to be blocked forever (There is whole group of them, not only 3 or 4, they have few more allies).
• Block forever all users found guilty off heavy molesting other users, especially if they were protected by admins.

Regards

--B. Ivsi (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Simple idea from an outsider: remove all administrator statuses, and all blocks, send a notification email that "hrwiki is restarting" to all users with confirmed email addresses (for global accounts, only to those who have made at least one edit to hrwiki). Then treat hrwiki like a new wiki with no admins, i.e. all necessary admin and bureaucrat action is temporarily done by stewards. Let the hrwiki community form again from scratch; it should then choose new admins, new policies, clean up existing articles, etc. darkweasel94 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think a Lex wikipediae croatae should be installed, as I perceive the whole thing as a problem that can generally occur in any smaller project. On the one hand we have to mind that a local community will usually not be happy if a committee (or whatever) they do not know implements a resolution they do not support. On the other hand, yes, a local community can't just act as they feel like. However, if we discuss this topic once a huge problem is discovered, it's already a little late. I would suggest that the small wiki monitoring team (or a similar group of volunteers) gets a higher value (and for that another structure). → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 09:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that this should first be written into an actual policy that allows clearly dysfunctional projects (e.g. when the admins totally ignore the community and play dictators, which according to some of what I'm reading here appears to be the case here; I don't understand a word of Croatian though) to be "restarted" the way I suggested. Such a policy should be based only on user conduct, not on content issues - i.e. some kind of Wikimedia-wide Arbitration Committee that can however only decide if the project should be "restarted" the way I suggested, or not; it shouldn't be allowed to selectively ban or de-sysop people. darkweasel94 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is ordinary witch-hunt, with a clique of disgruntled ex-Wikipedians, stirred up by contemporary government (which is in deep crisis & faces economic sanctions, and, therefore, tries with red herrings like this one to avert public eye from true problems). Anyway- the entire discourse is absolutely unacceptable. Hysteria about so called "fascism" is nothing more than communist & Yugoslav attempt of historical revisionism, because they have lost most of their ideological positions in top echelons in Croatian academic community and, more important, in Croatian general public. Plus- they face lustration & final defeat both in political arena & public discourse. So, with all this hullabaloo, they try to keep their monolithic vision of past 100 years of history which still exists in some pockets. In helping them- Wikipedia foundation is fighting a lost cause, and a dishonorable one (which has done before, re languages question, something which is definitely settled, both linguistically & legally). What is the only realist option is to organize public vote among active Croatian Wikipedians for them to decide what they really want re their administration. Anything that would smack of imposition- and the likes of Ante Perković, Timbuctou & Štambuk are the worst offenders (I'll refrain from characterization of their mental and moral personalities) are perceived only as snitches and quislings. That's the way people automatically react in similar situations. Last but not least- how come that Croatian Wikipedia far exceeds, especially re numbers of visits per hour & per capita, both Serbian & "Serbo-Croatian" Wikipedias ? Are visitors also "fascists" ? Is Croatian Wikipedia- as it is- in these matters a success story, something better than her neighbors ? Don't forget- all impositions fail, sooner or later. And cliques of disgruntled losers end up forgotten-or remembered with contempt. Mir Harven (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More conspiracy theories, that simply confirm everything that has already been stated. It should be noted that this guy Mir Harven authored a number of historical articles on Croatian WP where he is a senior editor with almost a decade of experience (though not very active anymore, surfacing only when he is invited), using the same conspiratorial undercurrent. Just yesterday he posted in the Croatian Wikipedia's Village pump an analysis of the Croatian WP's article on homosexuality (which was mentioned as impartial in the discussions) ^[33], where he claims that "homosexuality is not without a reason called an English Disease (ne zovu ljudi bez veze homoseksualnost “engleska bolest”), that English WP's article on homosexuality "promotes liberal views of American elites" which makes it "by definition tendentious", while simultaneously "skillfully avoids the connection between radical militarism and homosexuality" (listing examples of Cecil Rhodes, Hitlerjugend and SS of all being "prominent homosexuals") and concludes that "homosexualism is less of an instinct and behavior, an more of an ideology" with Gay Prides being "provincial mock of American globalism and its subculture", and that translating the English WP's article on homosexuality will simply lead to "uninformedness and selling of their ideology". Now imagine the same kind of conspiratorial paranoia permeating thousands of articles dealing with history and culture. Yes this is what we're dealing with. Another example: The CW's article on Ustashi, a Croatian Nazi puppet-regime idolized by the far-right to this day, had had for almost 10 years a conclusion (in a section called Zaključak in Serbo-Croatian) that was written in 2004 by Mir Harven^[34] and removed only yesterday by Timbouctou, that stated that Ustashi movement "was not willfully radical and right-wing, racist, perhaps even totalitarian", and that the display of Ustashi iconography in Croatian society is merely "an action of defiance against the anti-Croatian machinations of foreign countries embodying the ruling quasi-liberal, manipulative and Masonic globalist countries". Once again, this was the conclusion of the article on the most controversial part of Croatian history for almost ten years.

Simply restarting the project, as some suggest, without making proactive measures by blocking responsible parties and running a CU will not help - they will simply regroup and manipulate votes, driving away undesirable editors and slowly but steadily introducing their POV. The difference between agenda-pushers and "normal" editors is that the former usually cooperate in their goals using covert channels (invite-only IRC channels, mailing lists), while the latter are usually lone cowboys which makes them vulnerable over the long term. Some kind of oversight is needed by an uninvolved party that could monitor how things are progressing, and have the power to veto or override suspicious actions. Similar to what was done with Dayton Agreement which ended Yugoslav wars and instituted High Representative that could veto and override local nationalist politician's decisions should they be judged dubious and instigating disorder. This is how a "dysfunctional country" of Bosnia was successfully handled for a decade. This oversight could be editors from Bosnian, Serbian or Serbo-Croatian WP, or Croatian editors from English wikiprojects. At any case, letting the thing run on its own will simply recreate the same mess in the future. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Good you have mentioned it. Of course, I wrote it & it's completely in agreement with current scholarship (and not only current). Ustaša movement was not a fascist one, neither was it totalitarian. They were radical nationalists of the 19th century type & did not possess truly fascist ideology which is a combination of social Darwinianism and some other ideologies (one can consult any relevant literature on fascist ideology). Also- it was not totalitarian -as were Stalin's & Hitler's regimes- because they were both technically & ideologically inferior and had not developed any mature nationalist ideology along racial or modern totalitarian ideological lines. Essentially- they were dated & reactive, not pro-active. You can find this in all relevant books on them- say, Hrvoje Matković, Dušan Bilandžić, Aleksa Đilas, Bogdan Krizman, Fikreta Jelić-Butić, Nada Kisić-Kolanović, Stjepan Antoljak, .. As far as Ustashe iconography goes- most people are, and will continue to use it as a sign of frustration with remnants of Yugo regime in contemporary Croatia (similar to Četniks- who are almost rehabilitated in Serbia & who use their iconography without compunction). Now, it's not about who was on whose side in WW2. It's about that these two movements were clearly genocidal (see Greater Serbia article for that, especially Četnik crimes & Moljević's plan from their "Congress" in the Ba village. Just, only Ustaše have historical stigma - which leads to the global fact that Axis murderers got punished, but Communists, who killed ca. 7-12 times more people- just walked away scot-free, unpunished (if they're still alive). All genocidal regimes should be condemned equally- or neither one. A far as Bosnia & Herzegovina is concerned: Republic of Srpska is successful NDH. It killed- both in pits & concentration camps, and expelled all non-Serb inhabitants. Now, it's an ethnically "clean" state, at least 95% Serbian and still within loose Bosnian & Herzegovina framework. US and the rest have rewarded killing & genocide, and Dayton has sealed the deal. This travesty of not only justice, but common sense shows where Western civilization now stands. High commissary in B & H is just a bureaucrat implanting US-UK-... decisions about Bosnia & Herzegovina and is a guardian of survival a new NDH- Republic of Srpska Before ca. 70 years, they-US, UK, Russia,..- could have rewarded NDH, secured its boundaries & punish its leaders in some trials just to secure the continuation of this state. Well, that's here we are now. 1) you are clueless about the nature of Ustaša regime- ordinary quislings with genocidal plan against Serbs, but neither fascist nor totalitarian.2) you're willfully blind about Serbian extremist nationalism, promulgated at Serbian Wikipedia pages and in the entire Serbian political discourse, where the president is ideological descendant of Četniks, who will never acknowledge genocidal nature of that movement. At the end- Ustaša soldiers numbered ca. 60,000 in 1944. You consider, I suppose, that all of them- these 60,000 men- were murderers & war criminals. Sorry- this way of thinking is insane. This whole campaign against Croatian Wikipedia is just a confluence of various strains which have one thing in common: to denigrate Croatian nationhood & integrity as much as you can. Well- you lost, historically. You may achieve smaller victories now & then, but are history's losers. As are Ustaše & Communists. And-there is no "Serbo-Croatian": http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/tel4/discover/languages You lost & English Wikipedia has made a fool of herself.Mir Harven (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ustashi movement is a fascist movement. Perhaps not according to the Croatian far-right ideologues and their faithful minions, but the rest of the world pretty much describes it so. Croatian WP's article on Ustashi interestingly claimed that it was a "Croatian nationalist organization" before the September 12th^[35], but now it also says fascist. And you might wanna look up the word fascism in the dictionary - it is a form of totalitarianism. At any case, I don't want to discuss anything with a person who things that the regime that made death camps and enacted racist laws was not fascist. You're nuts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pooh ! You just can't argue, because Ustaše movement was not a fascist one ( I don't give a hoot what some editor has written). Historians have written numerous works about the phenomenon of fascism (Nolte, Broszat,..) and they are in agreement that Ustaša regime was not a fascist one, but a quisling state which very quickly slipped into unsuccessful genocide project against Serbs- unlike Republic of Srpska, which was a successful genocide project-and rewarded by the US, Germany, Russia and, especially, Britain. So much for your knowledge of history & "objectivity". Let's see some other things in your little diatribes. Lies, damn lies & Mr. Štambuk. Selective quotations is, as expected, his favorite tool. So, let's see what I wrote on homosexuality (Village Pump page): that there is a dark side to this phenomenon where male homosexuality is probably linked to extreme physical aggression & militarism (from Ancient Greece to Ernst Roehm's brown-shirts & not a few SS members-and I could add the elite Ottoman Janissary corps, which consisted mostly of homosexuals- these guys killed hundreds of thousands). English Wikipedia tries to portray homosexuals as eternal victims & pansies- in reality, homosexuals have been, historically, frequently associated with murderous military rampage; that there are numerous homosexual rapes in the US- mostly, but not exclusively in prisons, so that not few researches of the rape point that, in the US, there are more raped men than women- interesting, eh ?; that homosexuality is mostly genetic, as far as we can conclude; that homosexual propensity is abnormal, but not degenerate, since many greatest minds had been homo- and bisexuals (Plato, Michelangelo, Turing, Proust, perhaps Erasmus, Tchaikovsky, …); that we, in continental Europe, frequently call homosexuality “English disease” (as we call syphilis “French disease” & heterosexual anal sex “Italian invention”)- it's all about English Victorian education system; that English language Wikipedia is not a “neutral”, “global” discussion village, but a projection of the dominant discourse in American society; that homosexualism-not homosexuality- is a part of American globalist ideology: hence, various “pride marches” & the fact that entire global homosexual movement is drenched in English language phraseology (similar to Russian language dominated communism during 1930s & later)- and that English language article on homosexuality is, in many respects, a projection of internal US ideological squabbles & has grave omissions and distortions galore. Mr.Štambuk- distortions & manipulations are easy to detect. You are an example of this trivial observation. Mir Harven (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

homosexuals have been, historically, frequently associated with murderous military rampage - please report to the nearest mental institution Nazi nut job. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Štambuk- you are dealing insults here. Is this a way of a civilized discussion you pretend to favor here ? Are you qualified: a) to engage in a civil discussion ?, b) do you possess knowledge of historical aspects of homosexuality ? http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/turkey,2.html http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=20158.1075;wap2 , http://cmes.hmdc.harvard.edu/files/Slaves_of_the_Sultan.pdf , I guess, not. Mir Harven (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So, some articles on Ottoman Turkish jannisaries have lead you to the conclusion that there is a positive correlation between homosexuality and "murderous military rampage" ? Interesting hypothesis; I suggest you write a paper on it and submit it to Nature. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

All these wikipedia you are mentioning are far far more problematic than Croatian. Serbian and Serbo-Croatian especially. People don't read them because they are unobjective. Don't read them, don't complain about anything. As statistic says. Serbian Wikipedia is full of nacionalistic bias, and Serbo-Croatian full of Yugoslav communist bias and Serbian nationalistic bias also. So your suggestion is to harm Wikipedia in Croatian by setting those that made "their own" projects be unreliable and a mess. Those that are not capable of solving their own huge problems should make similar problems on Wikipedia in Croatian, to harm the project. Where their problems are there they should be solving them, on their home projects. You can't make Serbo-Croatian or Serbian Wikipedia better by harming Wikipedia in Croatian. Chvrka (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of articles on bs and sr wikis which is, once again, immaterial to this discussion. The idea is to introduce a system of checks and balances by involving editors from those projects, to make sure that systematic bias is no longer subtly pushed across many articles by a well-organized cabal. Since almost all of the controversial history and culture-related articles on Croatian Wikipedia in way or the other involve Bosnia and Serbia, having their perspective could serve as a counterbalance to the "traditional" Croatian POV. Yes, the project would be "harmed" in its current form, which is perfectly fine by you but unfortunately unacceptable to the civilized world. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Foreigners don't need to imagine, they can simply read what Zekoslav wrote. -- Bojan  Talk  12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that users of Croatian wikipedia should try to solve this alone, at least at first. Please all stop with all this animosity. We are all humans and deserve peace and understanding. This is volonteer work. Try to look on things rationally. Our goal is to improve situation and to find good solutions. Focus on that. If any article is bad written, it's possible to change that.--Fraxinus (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You had your chance. Three times. -- Bojan  Talk  12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Our goal is to improve situation and to find good solutions."

This is an outright lie. The administrators of hr.wiki, at least the ones that have been mentioned on this page, have shown quite clearly that they don't want any compromise. Željko worships the Ustaša Ante Pavelić, Mir Harven calls homosexuality a disease, the current article for Homophobia says that "homophobia is actually the natural and default state of human beings", administrators are actively stifling any editing that's trying to make the articles more objective. Internationally accepted and peer-reviewed science is disregarded. Essays are written without any source and with clear nationalist, homophobic and even racist slants. Nationalist and fascist war slogans are shouted on the village pump. Any opposition to these views is regarded as negative and frowned upon.

This is NOT normal. Please have the basic human decency and accept that. Croatian Wikipedia is as of right now clearly in opposition to what Wikipedia as a project stands for. The fact that many of the administrators involved in this refuse to comment on the issue here is very unsettling. Fejstkajkafski (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Fraxinus are you seriously saying that after WizardOfOz case where meta has made decision that his block is illegal after which croatian administrators acting together has again without reason blocked WizardOfOz because meta is not having right to order anything on croatian wiki you are saying:

"I think that users of Croatian wikipedia should try to solve this alone"

Are you really, really serious or you are joking ??--Rjecina2 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously ashamed. It seems as if everyone on Croatian Wiki is completely insane. The entries from Mir Harven are the perfect illustration of the level of discussion prevalent on the Croatian Wikipedia - everyone believes that the "attacks" on "their" wikipedia somehow prove that they are actually correct, whilst everyone else is a part of some kind of a secret masonic/serbian/yugoslav/communist/atheist conspiracy. No one actually paused for a single second to think whether the critics might have a valid point or not before dismissing them as the enemies of the state. The discourse on the Croatian Wiki:Kafić is completely unacceptable. "You are communist censors." "You are snitches on English Wikipedia." "You ache for your wasted youth and the former state, which will never come back again." "You would like to wake up in Yugoslavia". I guess I will also be labeled an enemy of the state now. If admins actually took a look at some of the moot articles instad of uncovering communist conspiracies, they could've seen that the criticism was justified. For instance, the article Antifašizam was 90% false, extremely biased and the sources had been rants by a completely unknown author published on a far-right webpage. The article was rewritten a few days ago, but if you look at the article history you can see that some people had tried to improve the article, only to have their changes reverted by an administrator because the former article "was well sourced". Now, does someone who believes that rants from extreme right webpages are good sources and who sees no problems with essay-style biased articles deserve to be an administrator?

---

1) Why don't you sign yourself ? 2) Why don't you try to translate whole discussion & thus give a realistic view on what all sides are saying. All means 2-3 disgruntled individuals (Timbuctou, Frau whatever & perhaps one person more). Mir Harven (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am user from Croatian Wikipedia and I think that is our thing. We do not want any foreign intervention. --Mostarac (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

By "We do not want any foreign intervention", you propably mean users will be asked to vote on some poll, written by You, Speedy or Vodomar, while knowing that, in case they vote for wrong side, they will be given long-term block by hr:user:SpeedyGonsales or hr:user:Zeljko as soon as they invent some reason for block? It happens all the time. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents then. Some excellent ideas here, let me just stress what I feel is important:

• Provisional external ArbCom that will decide on possible actions and oversee the situation for a while (I suppose 6-12 months minimum).
• The work of all active admins should be reviewed. That doesn't mean just addressing the complaints, but actively investigating their editing history for transgressions. It is important to have in mind that in many cases the victims were either blocked or left CW, or were IP editors, so they are not going to be around and lodge a complaint.
• In particular, administrative actions (bans, page protections) and warnings ("yellow cards") should be reviewed.
• The same applies to the history of highly problematic articles. (I suspect many irregularities will be found here.)
• Review and significant expansion of current policies.
• Sanctions as necessary. This will most probably result in quite a few indef bans. Sockpuppets will need to be watched for very closely.
• When applying sanctions to admins, differentiate between substandard admin work (desysopping) and systematic, wanton violations (indef ban).
• And, what is perhaps the most important thing: for the community in general, with respect to the above remedies, absolutely no moratoriums, probation or second chances of any kind, for any reason.

Regards, GregorB (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That´s just a politically motivated attack on this wikipedia. Obviously Neocommunists. Jealousy? Just let take a small view how "serbocroatian" wiki works: 80 % copy+paste from Croatian Wikipedia. http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posebno:Doprinosi/Seiya ("preuzeto s hr wiki" means copy+past efrom Croatian Wikipedia!!!!), And nobody care about this. Ignore Stambuk and the oder "Serbocroatian" activists. Let them do their job themself. And foget the poor left wing media in Croatia. They are just pissed because of articles about their biography etc. There is no fascism in this wikipedia. That´s a Big big lie. They want cite history from the time before 1991? Would anybody cite historicans about the Nazi period from Germany 1933-1945??? --Modzzak (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Modzzak, Croatian Wikipedia is copy-pasting as much from Serbo-Croatian (without apostrophes) Wikipedia as vice-versa:Kosmetic, Sayya and other users who smell of suckpuppets constantly copy my new articles that I write on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to fill in the "hole" left on Croatian Wikipedia. Observe how many new articles on Croatian Wikipedia thus require translation from the Serbian language: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorija:Potreban_prijevod. When I copy from the Croatian Wikipedia, I mostly copy the articles I wrote myself back then when I was active there. You cannot expand Croatian Wikipedia on the expense of Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.--Seiya (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove that Croatian Wikipedia is c/p-ing articles from "S-C" Wikipedia ? I think it's the other way around, and number of visits per hour indirectly confirms this. You seem to be some kind of Croatian Wikipedia's (not only Croatian) "parasites"- otherwise, I guess you'd be getting way more attention. But- I may be wrong. Figures & stats, please ! Mir Harven (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the easiest thing to do, I'm surprised I have to do it for you, Mir Harven: when I, for example, write the article Safety Last! on 4 May on SC Wikipedia, and on 2 September "user:Sayya" writes the exact same Safety Last! article on CR Wikipedia, with the exact same words (including Serbian words), exact same references, then that is copy-paste. For those who are not lazy, they will simply check the history of an article on CR Wikipedia and see that it existed in identical form on SC Wikipedia at least a week earlier (Zovu me trinity, Perm-Trijas izumiranje, Testiranje nuklearnog oružja...). In fact, Kosmetic and Sayya haven't wrote a single article on CR Wikipedia themselves, all of their contributions are copied from SC Wikipedia. It is off-topic, but it shows that CR Wikipedia copies as much from SC Wikipedia as vice-versa. The difference is that SC Wikipedia has the culture enough to display such a copying in the summary, while CR Wikipedia administrators try to hide the obvious, even though everyone sees the copying. By the way, say hello to Speedy, and feel free to invite him to say at least one reply here.--Seiya (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Many wikipedias contain biases of some kind, be there left or right, or a particular slant in especially in areas such as: history, social issues, gender politics, religion, philosophy, psychology, arts any sciences or events that are soft or human in nature because of the interpretation but also due to the inherit human nature of bias based on own belief systems, upbringing, experience biases or just plain not knowing and going on gut feel. The Croatian wikipedia as such is not immune of problems that plague other wikipedia's as well. Merging the Croatian Wikipedia into other wikipedias which have a closeness in language would not be fair, as the hr.wikipedia.org project was formed as a separate project and it should be allowed like other minority projects continue on. Abolishing or merging the Croatian language Wikipedia as a punitive measure would set a dangerous precedent and it would be picked up by the World media as a social engineering and language engineering exercise of creating a virtual Yugoslavia, where one in the real world does not exist, but also it sends a message to many other minority languages and other families of languages that if you are mutually understandable or quite close, you do not deserve space on Wikipedia. With this Wikipedia instead of promoting diversity is really promoting a single view of the world dictated by the powers at Wikimedia. Croatian is a language, and that is a fact. In terms of what needs to happen on the hr.wikipedia.org project to reduce the "right wing bias", there is one thing that needs to be done first is to place a label on all of the articles that have an issue out of the 140k articles on the hr.wikipedia.org, and after this a list needs to be complied and a report produced. After this is done, the community will be asked to contribute in editing or re-writing the articles that have been identified as a problem. Everyone is invited to contribute. As for the destruction of the whole hr.wikipedia.org administration structure which some are calling for and calling in outside administrators from other project, this is unjust and unfair. What needs to happen is that 3 more administrators are to be added to the hr.wikipedia.org community with fresh elections, with a decision made by the community in 6 months time. Vodomar (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Vodomar, while I'm against merges too, this can't be solved by simply fixing the content. The content is merely a symptom of the problem. Ask yourself these questions: are there admins that are abrasive, vengeful and unpleasant in personal contact on a regular basis? Do some admins bend the rules as they see fit? Do they use excessive administrative measures? And finally, do they use them liberally against those who they disagree with, rather than treating everyone equally? Would you vouch that the answer to all these questions is "no"? Because if it is "yes" - and I contend that it is, to all of them, which wouldn't be difficult to investigate and prove - then fixing content will prove to be impossible, and benefits - if any - will only be temporary. Moreover, all this content stuff isn't new, it's been going on for years - why do you believe the things are going to change right now, and how do you see it happening? GregorB (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Vodomar, I really don't understand why You keep insisting, here and on Croatian wikipedia, that "anybody can just start fixing the articles". Well, people tried that like a few hundred times before and they were stopped, insulted and blocked. This is what the RFC is all about! user:SpeedyGonsales just blocked some poor guy for 3 months just because he was asking questions Speedy doesn't want to answer. That only is enough for de-sysoping!

Do You really really think that Croatian wikipedia can prosper under such an aggressive self-centered admins like user:SpeedyGonsales?

Do You really really think that Croatian wikipedians can solve the problem themselves while rampant admins blocks anyone who dare to criticize them, even politely?

Do you really think you can have free and open voting when every user known he/she can be blocked for even a minor criticism? Don't you think this terror of user:SpeedyGonsales will influence every possible voting you have?

Do you really care more about your admin friends then about 40-50% of users that left wikipedia since 2010?

Do You? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was the "poor guy" referenced by Ante Perkovic above. Let me just quickly translate you the discussion here:

Speedy: "I do not have the intent to answer the accusations from Facebook here. I tried twice on Facebook, but to them the problem is a ":-)" on the end of the sentence, and ad hominem attacks are not the problem. Who has questions, can pose them here. This is a functioning project, which is evident, because it did not slowed down or died out in spite of all the attacks, but on the contrary it is getting better every day. SpeedyGonsales 01:01, 18. rujna 2013. (CEST)"

ME: "SpeedyGonsales, you say "Who has questions, can pose them here"? With all due respect, having in mind your contribution to wikipedia so far, can you please, if it's not a problem, without further evasion and if possible in unequivocal fashion answer the questions I have posed in the section "Asking the admins for the explanation". Or, may we interpret this joining of yours to the initiative coming from the Vodomar as your defacto admission that the accusations are at least partially right and that this is the way you plan to deal with the problems?"

The reaction from the SpeedyGonsales shocked me! I WAS BLOCKED FOR 3 MONTHS with the following explanation from the SpeedyGonsales hr:Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:Koryaksky:

Speedy: ""without further evasion" - we shall not discuss in this manner. Administrators are volonteurs, last week they have been slundered in the newspapers, and now someone wants to demand answers from us within 24 or 48 hours? It is not wikispirit, it is aggressive personal attack which haven't been tolerated until now, and also we shell not tolerate today! SpeedyGonsales 01:30, 18. rujna 2013. (CEST)"

How about that? --Koryaksky (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that since SpeedyGonsales blocked everything, including my email capability within the hr.wikipedia, this meta was the only way to object to the admins actions. I would like to ask Vodomar, also an admin on hr.wiki who contributed to this meta, to unblock me, if he thinks SpeedyGonsales overreacted and overstepped his authority. If someone invokes elections, and eliminates all opposition, if that's not fascism, I do not know what is. --Koryaksky (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Few apolitical questions for Vodomar and Fraxinus

Vodomar and Fraxinus are trying to convince us that they learnt lesson. Having in mind that they learnt nothing from three previous Rfcs (i'll explain bellow), what gives them right to assure us they will improve?

1. Darko Maksimovic case - wise would be realize: a) they should have retalizet they need Articles for deletion page so unsatisfied side can not accuse a sysop for violation of guidelines and policiyes - as of september 2013 there is no AFd on CWl sysops has right to delete (or not) without : b) they can not give indefinite or longtime block under unconvincing arguments to users who hand blocked before.
2. Dalibor Bosic case - I couldn't find policy for granting adminship ans desysop proces (i see only requirements for candidates and voters)
3. Wizard of Oz case - uh... -they should lernt that it would be another rfc

Aside from that, awareness on copyright are low. I mentioned already that Speedy violated on of fundamental policies - no non-free image in non-article namespace. And some time ago, adminsat Commons begun deleting images made in Bosnia cause there is no freedom of panorama? Answer: it is conspiracy!

So, what, Fraxinus and Vodomar, I think it little too late now. You and your colleagues made much damage to hr.wiki. It would take years for CW to wash itself. -- Bojan  Talk  05:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You are judge, jury and prosecution here you have a title of a few apolitical questions, then you elaborate your cases and make a conclusion in the end, stating that it is too late now the horse has bolted. You have made up your mind of what you want to do. Vodomar (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No Thanks to those pro-Ustashi Scum

The sitting administrators have raised the Croatian Wikipedia from its inception and infancy into the project it has become. They have kept vigil over its blossoming and sacrificed time and sweat to its upkeep: and blood also, often enough, while confronting the nonsense that always appears in public books and the misfits by whose hand it appears.

Shall we thank them now by gaily taking part in a lynch upon them?

We are not machines. We are human beings. Our bias comes of our empathy: our love for our brothers, sisters, fathers, neighbors. An administrator, being first of all a human being, also has biases, unless he is frigid and cold-hearted. Is it natural to expect objectivity from a nation with open wounds? Hardly. Anyone who pretends to proffer it, does not understand how deeply war divides those it involves: how deeply it must divide them, since houses are burned down, relatives killed, swaths of land held hostage.

No one who hasn't seen the war in Yugoslavia can know just how attrocious a war it was. The Serbian army with its tanks and airplanes gave logistical backing to the Serbian paramilitary squads of Bosnia and Croatia. Not because Serbs were evil -- in all my years of knowing the present HR administration I have never heard that insinuated -- but because Milosevic, Karadzic, Babic were. They got the due reward for their evil. Twenty years on, Croats and Bosnians still suffer the wounds Karadzic-Milosevic-Babiv tore open and salted.

As the Croatian admins' friend and admirer, I implore you not to rashly repay the diligence and effort of many years with a momentary, impulsive decision compelled by a hostle and underhanded attack. You will be repaying evil for good. --VKokielov (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this is not a lynch against any of the editors in person. The problems that Croatian Wikipedia faces go far beyond any individual administrator. Simply ignoring the issues whose severity has reached the highest echelons of government will not solve anything. That administrators have done a good job is a subjective value judgment: If you take a look at the statistics in the chart above, it could be easily argued that CW could be having twice as many very active editors, and twice as many articles by now, were a different "leadership" in place. I also suggest that we keep politics out. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not only a lynch against some editors in person. It is the attack on whole community of Croatian Wikipedia mainly from those who contribute to Yugoslav nationalist Wikipedia in Serbo-Croatian and Serbian nationalist Wikipedia in Serbian. Both of them are inferior to Wikipedia in Croatian because their own sysops are pushing hard nationalistic Serbian/Yugoslav bias on that projects. So people trust Wikipedia in Croatian more, readers from Serbia also, as statistic says. On the other hand, people from Croatia don't read Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia at all.

This attack on the community of Croatian Wikipedia is made by a lynch against some editors in person. Those editor who put the most effort in CW project. If they are removed or handicaped then the whole community will suffer. Because it's a small edition of Wikipedia, small community. That's the point.

You say it's not a lynch of editors in person while in the same time you publish their personal names here in the discussion. While in the same time their personal names are being published by the yellow press and people are threating them, publishing theirs home adresses on facebook and writing messages that "Croatian Wikipedia will be defeated soon" etc. You know all that and you still are saying that there is no lynch, nor attack on the whole project? There is. And the motives for the attack are pathetic. Make projects you contribute to be better and you won't have such a desire to harm Wikipedia in Croatian. Chvrka (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Their names were already published in the press even before this scandal. They disclosed their identities by themselves. Personally, I don't care about them in person, and I'm pretty sure none of the other "attackers" does. It is, however, interesting that absolutely none of these Ustashi-sympathizers is editing by their real name. They must have been ashamed or something.

Motives of the "attack" are not pathetic. What is pathetic is telling kids that Ustashi movement was not fascist but "patriotic", and that wearing Nazi insignia is defying globalist Masonic quasi-liberals, which is what the article was displaying for almost a decade. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding the trust of readers - you are obviously uninformed that the most read Wikipedia by Croatians is not Croatian, but English. Your own countrymen don't trust you. And I've already told you - if you have issues with Serbian and Serbo-Croatian wikis having a systematic bias - feel free to reflect on that on their article talk pages. Some of the sysops there have already invited you to do so. None of these communities would wants to be humiliated like this, and I'm pretty sure that in the light of this discussion they will do anything possible to address any issues you might raise. But please no more blanket accusations against sr and sh wikis - they are immaterial to this discussion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A fail again. Many Wikipedias have more visitors , more than 50%, to the English Wikipedia than th their own national language Wikis. It's easy to check this, we all know that. Simply- English language Wikipedia has more, much more articles on almost everything. It's not a matter of "trust", but of scarcity. You "conveniently" forgot that Croatian Wikipedia has- for the umpteenth time- more visitors than all other ex-Yugoslav Wikipedias (with possible exception of Slovenian Wikipedia, I'm not sure). So- Bosnian, Serbian, Macedonian, "Serbo-Croatian" Wikipedias are dwarfed by Croatian Wikipedia re number of visits. How so- if Croatian Wikipedia is so "fascist" & one-sided ? Or, as is more likely- you & a few other contributors have a big chip on a shoulder. Mir Harven (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how visited CW is, it is apparently not that much trusted. The geographical distribution of countries that English is not natively spoken, and yet English Wikipedia is the most visited of all wikipedias, is particularly striking in the region of Balkans. Which is telling, and shows that that we're rather dealing with a general mistrust of "national" Wikipedias, than a general trend where English Wikipedia is the most visited one due to the large number of articles. Users may land on CW article pages through search engines, but they more often than not click the "English" interwiki link. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia is still small, many topics are still better covered on en.wiki. Most of the population of Croatia understands English. Wikipedia in Croatian would certainly have faster growth of articles when you and your SH:WP Yugoslav activist buddies wouldn't be harassing HR:WP every certain while. Please, User:Ivan Štambuk, read Incivility and try to act according to what it states. Your hate against Croatian language and editors of Wikipedia in Croatian language is leading you nowhere. Chvrka (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

___________

Ah, so the gay people have attacked you in some war? your silly argument about what someone or something called "Babiv" did or did not do is irrelevant in terms of extreme pro-Roman-Catholic-Church-in-Croatia bias (even when in fact the activity of that Ustashi-supporting para-ecclesiastical organisation is in direct opposition to the tennets of the global Roman Catholic Church -- e.g. Pope Francis supporting gay rights openly, which has been deleted from Croatian Wikipedia about 8 times).

Besides, we do not really care who has caused some individual persons unworthy of Wikipedia mention their individual traumas. We can address this only in general.

The War for Ex-YU Succession (for some bizarre reason called "croatian war of independence") was messy and brutal. As its results, 250,000 Serbs no longer live in Croatia, because they have been expelled with military might (and those that would not leave were massacred, at least two thousand of them). How clear is it to the Croiatian Wikipedia amdin that this is a genocide according to all definitions of that term? Not at all. Have they put that in Croatian Wikipedia? No. Are they objective or are they neo-Nazi? I think the latter.

There are doctors for post-traumatic disorders. Wikipedia admins MUST NOT exhibit bias WHATEVER mental problem that they have. If they are biased, they should be banned from the admin status for life.

The War for Ex-YU Succession (for some bizarre reason called "croatian war of independence") Yawn. You've shown visually what Greater Serbian agenda are.Let's get some facts straight. Year 1991: Serbs are 11% of Croatia's population. They support Slobodan Milosevic's pan-Serbian movement which took JNA/Yugoslav Army under Serbian control. This Army has been financed by all Yugoslav republics (Serbia plus Montenegro 36%, Croatia 28%, Slovenia 19%,..). So, Serbs literally “stole” all these planes, tanks, ships, rockets, guns, howitzers, … and, via their fifth column, Croatian Serbs, embarked upon their provincial imperial expansion: they wanted to occupy the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina & ca. 70% of Croatia. This was a combined aggression: Serbia proper + Montenegro +JNA + Croatian Serbs.

During expansionist aggression against Croatia, JNA deployed 4 out her 6 armored brigades, and 11 out 12 mechanized ones Thanks to president Tudjman's wise maneuvres, Croatia has, by the end of 1991., partially armed herself, so after the truce, Serbs began their butchering in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Year 1995: Srebrenica massacre had happened & the world was tired of Serbian savagery. Croatia, now armed & ready, launched a two-pronged assault (160.000 against Serbian para-state “Krajina”, 55.000 dug in Eastern Slavonia as the deterrent against Milosevic). The rag-tag Army of Croatian Serbs (40.000 of them) virtually collapsed in two days & fled, along with them their families- perhaps 120-150.000 people. In the meantime: from 1991-1995 Serbs in the UN protected zones in Croatia (the so called UNPA zones of Krajina) murdered more than 600 elderly and incapacitated Croats, mostly peasant women- while Danish, Dutch, Kenyan and Jordanian troops just looked by; during Operation Storm, in the sector where general Gotovina was in charge- they just fled, even before Croatian troops arrived. Mir Harven (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do understand that you may have problems communicating in English, so let's clarify. That comment was not about the War for Ex-YU Succession.

It was about: Ah, so the gay people have attacked you in some war? [...] silly argument about what someone or something called "Babiv" did or did not do is irrelevant in terms of extreme pro-Roman-Catholic-Church-in-Croatia bias (even when in fact the activity of that Ustashi-supporting para-ecclesiastical organisation is in direct opposition to the tennets of the global Roman Catholic Church -- e.g. Pope Francis supporting gay rights openly, which has been deleted from Croatian Wikipedia about 8 times).

Besides, we do not really care who has caused some individual persons unworthy of Wikipedia mention their individual traumas.

Cool off, you'll get a heart attack. Hm- how come you anti-Catholic bigots simultaneously deride RCC as something inherently homosexual (and pedophile) & at the same time are foaming with faux-righteous wrath against RCC "anti-homosexual bias" ? You guys are just anti-Catholic hypocrites. The position of RCC on homosexuality is known (I've read what they think about it). They're against homosexual marriage & adoption right, and that's all- as is most of the world, and some countries which are frequently anti-Catholic in their stance, like Russia, are truly not just "biased", but are suppressing homosexual propaganda as an ideology very radically. Why don't you go preach in Holy Mother Russia in favor of gay "marriage", instead of red-heringing here ? Hmmm...Mir Harven (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don'cha pretend to worry about me, hypocrite. My health is certainly much better than yours. Both physical and mental.

Come to think of it, one should not ever deign to compare one's own mental health to the state of derangedness in the head of a neo-Nazi homophobe, anti-Semite and Serbophobe, like you and your ilk.

Your bias is just indicative that whatever is said about the hr.wikipedia.org project, no matter how many lines are typed you just won't listen or try to have a sensible conversation. This kind of bigotry and name calling is just indicative of the bile that is spewed out there. Tone down your language, otherwise there is no point is talking to a person who is coming from this kind of standpoint. Vodomar (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A formal process to handle such situations

I've drafted a project restarting process, to deal with abusive "admin cabals" on Wikimedia projects in a systematic way, and want to invite everybody to give comments on its talk page - it seems like a better idea to first make a process, then apply it to this particular case, than the other way round. It's pretty much what I've already proposed above, and explicitly not exclusive to hrwiki. darkweasel94 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:A good idea. Does anyone know: is there at least partial precedent for this?

Also, note that this is something one could use Global ArbCom for, but currently there isn't any. GregorB (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Either a Global Arbitration committee or a Global requests committee could do this. Both of those proposals stalled because there weren't any recent examples of issues that required such a committee. Now we have recent issues on both Croatian and Chechen Wikipedias, so it might be time to pass one of those proposals. I agree with Vodomar below that one should always be careful to avoid letting external groups inject their POV into a project by manipulating mass media; but I think a dedicated group, independent of the wiki having problems, is needed to decide if that is what is happening. –SJ talk  07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no admin cabal on hr.wikipedia.org, what we have is a external pressure group, together with part of the Croatian government, and left leaning newspaper trying to destabilise a project to install their POV. If this project is restarted this will give some organisations and some countries a precedent in mounting a campaign to pull apart wikipedia projects because for some reason they do not agree with their agenda. The shutdown/restart of the hrwiki is just an exercise in social engineering. I understand that you need to have formal processes for a wiki restart, however carefully consider what precedences you are now creating. Vodomar (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia: Refusal to allow reference to Ustashi Roman-Catholic Theologists Calling for Murder of LGBTs

Example of extremely virulent homophobia by purportedly "Croatian Wikipedia" (instead, as it should be, Wikipedia in Croat language"): Refusal to allow reference to Ustashi Roman-Catholic Theologists Calling for Murder of LGBTs, linked to Croatian newspapers, with the usage of Croatian variant of Serbo-Croatian language (so not even their ludicrous and silly claim about "non-Croatian language" would apply, yet the links were deleted a dozen times!!):

http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_Pride&action=history

1) there is no-nor ever has been- a "Serbo-Croatian language". I suppose you can read Croatian & The Declaration of Croatian Academy on the Croatian language: http://www.matica.hr/kolo/374/Dokument%20HAZU%20o%20povijesti%20i%20ustroju%20hrvatskoga%20jezika%20%282007.%29/ , or a review by eminent Croatian linguist & Indologist Mislav Ježić (http://bib.irb.hr/lista-radova?autor=083131 ):http://www.matica.hr/kolo/374/Hrvatski%20jezik%20na%20pragu%20Europske%20unije/ 2) you are, my friend, a typical example of anti-Croatian paranoia, where images & ideas: Croats- Ustashe- Catholic Church fuse into a mythological demonology for obsessed Yugo-nationalists or deranged forms of extreme Serbdom. My advice- get a shrink. Mir Harven (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue, poor delusional boy, is not about the Croatian version of Serbo-Croatian, which 95% of serious linguists worldwide acknowledge as a fact, despite your own parochial views which are not held even by all linguists in Croatia (cf. Snjezana Kordic -- besmirched brutally on Croat Wiki).

The issue, poor delusional boy, is about HOMOPHOBIA because of the refusal to link HOMOPHOBIC ATTACKS on the Pride in Split with the HOMOPHOBIC calls by THEOLOGY PROFESSORS of the Roman Catholic Church IN CROATIA, which are IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to the tennets of the GLOBAL Roman-Catholic Church, as EXPLICITLY defined by POPE FRANCIS speaking AGAINST CONDEMNING GAYS.

In case that you forget: find answer here. I have answered you here. Of course, you can call us various names just like you did there, and like you did in edit summary. Interesting, Chinese proxy again.--MaGa (talk)

In case you do not understand:

1. There was homophobic violence durting the Pride in Split event.

2. Prior to that, a professor at the Roman Catholic seminary in Split, a certain doctor of theology, and his complotist, another doctor of theology in Croatia, have SUPPORTED VIOLENCE AGAINST LGBT INDIVIDUALS.

you and your disgusting friends have deleted a link to this repeatedly.

3. What these representative of the church in croatia did is in DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE STANCE OF THE GLOBAL ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AS EXPESSED BY POPE FRANCIS.

Clearer now, simpleton?

I have answered already to you that question. You are talking nonsence.--MaGa (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not answered anything. you have just deleted the info which is necessary as integral part of the text and thus abused the fact that the pro-Ustashi clique of Wiki in croat language admins -- that has caused outrage the world over -- has granted you for beinh one of their cronies.

Then one of your fellow-croat wiki admins came to Serbian wiki to vandlaise that same info in the like manner, writing in Cyrillic to impersonate a Serb but using the Croat and not Serbian varian of Serbo-Croat, so he was unmasked.

Comment WizardOfOz

It´s a long time since I was here, but as it looks, there is no way to come out whan you are once involved. I have no idea what is going on on hr.wiki and I don´t care, but as it seems, nothing have change. My case was "solved", rules of projects ignored at that time and i´ve lost my trust in the whole wiki community. I´m not talking about hr.wiki but about whole wikimedia. I still can´t understand whatfore there are rules, if they are not followed. It seems to me that there are still projects misused by local admins, owned by foundation, and foundation don´t even care. Why should they? Who cares about projects with 100k on articles, maked for educational purposes in a language that is not en, de, fr or one of other "world languages". It was my illusion that wiki is a non-comercial project to bring the whole knowlage to everyone in his own language. Yes, it was also a illusion of Jimbo. I would appreciate if there is possibility to keep my Nick out of this discussion. I´ve tryed, i´ve lost with love from stewards, so use your own evidences and leave me alone. I´m sick of this, have lost a lot of my time and health for this shit, so please make it on your own. Thanks! --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Issues on German Wikipedia

• http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M5c48b620cd7.0.html (left wing admins on German wiki)
• http://www.wikipedia-warnung.de/ (Wiki warning)
• http://maninthmiddle.blogspot.de/p/warnung-vor-der-deutschen-wikipedia.html (wiki warning)
• http://www.verivox.de/nachrichten/wikipedia-in-der-kritik-falsche-texte-kratzen-am-image-des-lexikons-11932.aspx
• http://politik-digital.de/kronzeuge-wikipedia-unglaubwuerdig/ (wiki not thrustworth)

Lots of warnings from German wikipedia. Abolish German, replace with Luxembourgian??? --109.84.3.109 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please open a new RfC if you want to discuss that, it has nothing to do with hrwiki. darkweasel94 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Some let wing journalists and activists want to kill Croatian wiki. I justn want to let you konow that we habe a global problem. ASbolish all wikis except engl wiki???--109.84.3.109 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there is only one Wiki in question. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@IP: We're discussing a process and/or rules here that apply to all wikipedias that for some reason are perceived not to be line with the (universal) core policies and goals. Once we have a reasonable process in place you are free to request them to look at the German Wikipedia if you feel those "sources" show a violation of core policies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Global Wiki Issue

I suggest su close German, Russian, Italian, and other non english Wikis as they all have very bad reputation in the media. Globally teachers say that they are not trustworth.--109.84.3.109 22:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. They're "fascists", anyway. Mir Harven (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For the German Wikipedia there is a global warning in schools: Don´t take every information for granted, there might be mistakes. And so we need readers to use their brain and we encourage them to read also other sources to make up their opinion. This is part of school education in Germany: not to trust like a blind in any authorities. On the other hand we encourage readers who find errors to make improvements and discuss issues freely on the discussion pages. Errors or incomplete information is a neccesary part in a developing Wikipedia and unavoidable. Articles are usualy not perfect in the beginning. In fact in several anonymous tests the articles of the german Wikipedia very often have proven, that they contain less errors and better information than articles in trustworthy printed enzyclopedias. German Wikipedia has a very good reputation in general. Whenever I tell friends that I´m an Editor of the German Wikipedia I get absolutely positve feedback. "This is great, I like Wikipedia, I use it so often and I find it very helpfull", thats what I hear. They never say: so you are one of this idiots that are telling stupid nonsens and write their political POV instead of proven information. I never heard such a ngeative statement of a German official or politician that is similar to the statement given by the Croatian gouvernment. Shame on infamous Croatian Wikipedia. If all you can do is pointing finger on others you have very poor arguments, especialy when you are not able to read the German Wikipedia. I don´t speak any slawic languagages, but the kind of arguments, personal attacs and so on used in the discussion above tells me very clearly who is right and who is wrong. For now it does not matter if a person is Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, nationalist, fascist, communist or gay or whatever, this makes an argument not false or right. It just does not matter. What matters is arguments and you don´t have it.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that once a precedent is created, then that will be used to rule other wikipedia. Yes the calling to close other wikipedia's is probably not fair, but I will ask you a question: Is the shutdown of a wikipedia in a language that you do not understand worth anything to you ? If your answer is no, or I don't care, then why should someone else care about a wikipedia that they do not understand like the one in German worth to them if theirs' is not worth to you. Let thing's just happen. It is the same as buying a T-Shirt for a few coins which is made in some 3rd World sweatshop in terrible conditions, where women are forced to sleep on the factory floor, who work like slaves. But, hey I got the T-Shirt cheap, they have a job their problem. By turning your head you are just adding to the problems. If the hrwiki is made an example of, who knows which other language wiki is next. Have some sympathy for minority languages. Vodomar (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So lets create a precedent. It´s time. If something is too bad to be improved, it is better to delete it.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

+1. I don’t see any other viable solution, having read some of the "comments" by hr sysops on this site. _{• • hugarheimur} 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarity between Jovanovic attack on hr.wiki and Katina Schubert attack on de.wiki

The attack from Katina Schubert, member of German ex-communist party Die Linke is similar to this attack of Zeljko Jovanovic from Yugoslav ex-communist party SDP. USSR had KGB, Eastern Germany had STASI, while Yugoslavia (and Croatia) had UDBA. Many Jutarnji list journalists are related to UDBA and many members of the SDP party whose member is Jovanovic. Jovanovic is the former member of communist union of Yugoslavia.

The pattern of the attack is almost the same in both cases. But the reaction of Wikimedia is as we can all see very different. In the first case, Wikimedia gave support to the local community, while in the case when Croatian Wikipedia is being attacked by (ex)communists Wikimedia is opening discussion with suggestions to harm the project by removing the sysops.

There was also the case of Lutz Heilmann (Wikipedia.de shutdown, Wikimedia Deutschland case). In all the cases when someone outside of some local Wikipedia community tried to make pressure on it, Wikimedia supports local Wiki community. en:Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia...

It is proven that objections passed against hr.wiki are false. The only arguments are the writing of UDBA related Jutarnji yellow press and Jovanovic (the member of SDP - UDBA related party). The same party in involved in the huge international scandal these days because of protecting former UDBA agent who ordered murders of Croatian activists in Western Europe countries during Yugoslavia regime in Croatia. The result are EU sanctions at this point. Hit "Lex Perković".

The Lex Perković is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is being attacked. Some editors were writing about the case. The son of that man who is the subject of international scandal (Josip Perković) is Saša Perković, the Head of the Office of secret services and national security in the Office of the president of Croatia, Ivo Josipović (also member of SDP - ex-communists party related to UDBA). All the accusations are made to defame Wikipedia in Croatian. The goal is to put some tutors from Serbo-Croatian (which is Wikipedia with strong pro-communist and pro-former yugoslav regime bias) to blank all the data about communist crimes in Croatia. No one promotes fascism in Wikipedia in Croatian but there are persons with communist background who consider that if you are not in favor of communists, you are fascist by automatism. Check those german cases of attacks on Wikipedia community. The pattern is the same.

Please, do not write between lines of my post. If you wish to comment, write below. Thank you. Chvrka (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC) The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart".

According to this loon this has nothing to do with actual content on CW, or administrators pushing extreme-right POV. It's all Communist and UDBA conspiracy. --31.147.181.20 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you say about German Wikipedia does not improve the poor reputation of Croatian Wikipedia. I´ts not the others fault. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Željko Jovanović is just one politician with big mouth and incapable to solve any problem in his domain. But, he's "capable" to see all 140k articles on hr.wiki in a day and say it is wrong. LOL . Aside from medical articles (he is a physician) his opinion is no more relevant that some bar drunkard.--Anto (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Not that he differes much from the current government. I.E. Zoran Milanović and his famous hit I have no idea--Anto (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So you won´t accept different points of views. Maybe he differs much from the gouvernment, which many people do, does it make them not trustworthy? So whenever somebody has a different opinion he is either a fascist, a communist, a drunkard. A very easy way to get out of discussion. It is this "ad hominem" argumentation that proves you don´t want to solve the problem.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He does not differ at all. He behaves like a typical incapable politician distracting attention into the others' yard. --Anto (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg:Do you speak Croatian language? Can you read anything "rechtsextremes". I guess no. You trust citations of the left wing media and the player from "Serbocroatian" wiki here in this discussion! That's all a politically game. Boring.--Croq (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC) That is the way that antifascist see themselves http://www.sabh.hr/ --Croq (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

An illustrative example of admin abuse and mindset

On Croatian Wikipedia, w:hr:User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf has copied this userbox from English Wikipedia that says "This user supports exposing pro-fascist bias on hr.wikipedia", and put it on her user page. Afterwerds she invited in the local Village pump for everyone else to do the same, to explicitly "distance themselves from the fascist bias". This userbox was very soon deleted by the admin-in-charge User:SpeedGonsales (the one that was called out in the media by name as supporting fascism and Ustashi ideology)^[36] with "vandalism" as deletion summary, and immediately after User:Zeljko (the one that has a picture of the leader of the Nazi puppet-state NDH on his bedroom wall) has issued a three-month block^[37] with "attack on the project" as an explanation. Apparently when fascism becomes patriotism and nationalism (Mir Harven's definition thereof), exposing fascist bias get misconstrued as an "attack". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven must define very quickly if fascism is to be blocked or fight against fascism is to be blocked. Above he tells German Wikipedia should be blocked because it is fascist. Had tooo much wodka?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

? Too much Schnaps ? Btw, I don't drink alcoholic beverages. If you're German- well, your brain is so admirably washed it can be considered sterile. You don't even know what fascism & Nazism have been all about. Try read Ernst Nolte's books on fascism, Mazower's "Dark Continent", Ian Kershaw's bio of Hitler, Paul Johnson's "Modern Times", Raymond Aron's "Peace and War", ....Wikipedia is not the last word on anything. Mir Harven (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with the fact that the users should be blocked. --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree also. Im making the point: The user contradicts himself. Not trustworthy at all.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: After the Croatian version of the w:User:Miranche/NoFascistHrWikipedia userbox has been deleted as vandalism I decided to include the graphic instead on my user page. The change was reverted in 12 minutes, my user page blocked from editing by anyone but administrators, and I've been blocked for 3 months (log). For posting a graphic the admins didn't like. Miranche (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Updated links. Miranche (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

w:hr:User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf has left hr.wiki years ago.

Not true, Troll:78.3.6.149. She's had dozens of edits in 2012 on medical related articles, and five edits in 2013 not including her recent activity on this issue. She's been orders of magnitude more active than myself. And her or anyone else's level of activity is irrelevant to the substance of the current charges. Miranche (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So the problem is proven to last for years. Can you blame a blocked user for not contributing? Strange argumentation! I think it is a very honourable thing to fight fascism. Only fascists must feel threatened by such an user. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Until you show that you're willing to fight communism with the same energy (although I doubt you're capable of fighting anything)- you're not convincing. If you're against Mussolini & Hitler (and that small fry, Pavelić), but not against Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Tito, Pol Pot, Castro, Che Guevera...- you are faker & an accomplice of a mass murder:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm Mir Harven (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Tahnks for calling me a "faker and an accomplice of a mass murder". By the way, there are no known mass murders among my friends and may be you can leave it to my choice who I´m against.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The claims of fascism present on the hr.wiki pages are excessive. What is happening is that an external group is trying to destabilise the project and take over so they can rule the roost. With Internet being now the dominant force in communciations, information gathering and knowledge management, it is come to the realisation to some circles that the hr.wikipedia.org project is not in their control and that they need this project to fill in part of their communications puzzle. The user's have been repeatedly asked to list the articles that in their mind have problems for the community to reflect and to make necessary changes as soon as possible. But there has been very little input from objectors. Now the whole campaign by the objector is to do a project restart. Vodomar (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And what group is that? I have started this RfC and have absolutely nothing to do with the FaceBook initiative. It seems to me you are a bit too accustomed to behaving as a part of the herd - secret admin-only mailing lists, invite-only IRC channels and so on, so you see "conspiracies" everywhere. Ante Perkovic's way of "handling" the opposition in 2008/9 via the ArbCom was IMHO equally deplorable - wiki should be based on transparency and cooperation of individuals, not secret proceedings and manipulation by the selected few. Everything should be spontaneously self-managed and not driven by some "enlightened leadership". Funny how you ask now for users to list problematic articles - after five days of burying your hand in the sand and dismissing any accusations as a "conspiracy". The vote for running a checkuser on all of the CW admins has currently 16 (let me spell that: sixteen) Croatian editors, each with thousands of edits on CW and elsewhere (they've all gone elsewhere!), voting yes. Yes the project restart is needed because users no longer trust you, the public no longer trusts you, and you little clique has managed to cut the number of active editors in half in little more than a year. You don't care about the project at all - only in pushing your extreme nationalist POV, and the addiction to the "block" button. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: start a systematic list of possible abuses

The evidence pages are now closed.

Miranche (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial discussion, archived below, has completed with agreement to create a repository of evidence of alleged abuses on Croatian Wikipedia. The page is currently under construction; see note above. Miranche (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: the page is now up and running. Miranche (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: the pages have now closed for submissions. They are still open for comments. Miranche (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: the pages are closed for submissions and comments, and their talk pages close at UTC end of day today. Miranche (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to Talk:Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia/Evidence/Archive 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the last few days I've seen a lot of scattered evidence of questionable decisions and content on hr.wikipedia, but no effort has yet been made to compile them systematically in one place. Once this is done it will be easier assess the merits of the criticism & suggest possible courses of action. Question: what is the appropriate venue for this? Although this is an exercise for native speakers, from what happened to w:hr:User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf and others, I do not think Croatian Wikipedia is a safe space for this exercise. I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of the MediaWiki world, but it should probably be a page or a section of its own. Perhaps here, at Requests for comment/Investigation of abuses on Croatian Wikipedia. Here's a possible way it could be structured. Apologies for the section links cluttering the TOC of this page. The examples are actual. Miranche (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) <moved here> This is the way to go. It may become a huge list, so a dedicated subpage is warranted. I'd add separate section for: 1) behavioral abuses, and 2) administrator omissions and differential treatment. Both might heavily feature Mir Harven, as his abuses are as rampant as omissions in sanctioning them. Also, rather than "List of abuses..." I'd suggest the page be named "Investigation of abuses...". GregorB (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Also, a couple of ground rule suggestions: Diff or it didn't happen. Everyone is free to submit, including IPs. A brief description of events is welcome. Those not fluent in English are free to submit and comment in Croatian. Once the page is ready, an invitation should be posted in Kafić GregorB (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the support, Gregor. I've changed the outline per your suggestions, adding another section ("Allegations to investigate") which lists descriptions of possible abuses that are detailed enough so that the diffs might be found, but that do not itself provide the diffs. Miranche (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC) That's a good idea. OK, my thinking is currently like this: I'm having second thoughts about the word "investigation". Is there a less antagonizing alternative? Also, do we make a separate RfC, or just create a subpage of this RfC? Don't know how things work on Meta. Timeframe to create it is Sunday (I'll be a bit busy these days, but of course you're free do it sooner), immediately after that I'll notify the four Wikipedias (chances are bs, sh and sr have at least some former or current hr editors - it seems to be particularly true for sh), and that's it. I've been browsing the hr wiki lately and I'm eager by now to document here everything I observed. GregorB (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Shifted the categories as per your suggestion. I think a new page under RfC would be justified, if for no other reason than to keep the link short. I'll read up on policy before Sunday. As for "investigation" -- possible less aggressive-sounding alternatives are: examination, analysis, evaluation, scrutiny, assessment, evidence, estimation. Miranche (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Perhaps just a subpage of this page named just /Evidence? Reasonably long in total, clear, neutral, grouped with the main discussion. My latest worry* are Support/Oppose votes. Once the news spread, this may turn into a shouting match and vote stuffing. Is the final vote count meant to decide the discussion? (* I worry about all this a lot. This discussion is very important, and the evidence page is crucial - the future of Croatian Wikipedia quite literally depends on it. We know it, and the folks over there know it.) GregorB (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I don't think that voting should be decisive, but consultative, to get a poll of people's opinions. Similar votes of course go on all the time on Wikipedia, I'll post an example when I find one. (I may be naive, but) I think it should be easy to see if & when vote-stuffing is taking place. Miranche (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Here is an example of a consultative survey. Its purpose is for everyone to voice their opinion, and discuss it in detail if needed. I also agree on the page location. As soon as I find the time, I'll move the template there (of course you can do it too), so we can discuss ground rules, categories, etc. I'm uncertain of how legitimate these are with only the two of us talking -- I mean, this conversation is here for everyone to see, I'm linking to it in all of my relevant responses, and I got a thumbs up for the idea from User:Vodomar on hr.wikipedia, but noone else has joined this conversation yet. We should probably first announce the existence of the page and ask for comments on how it should be structured & run. Specifically, I think the aims of the page should be explicitly limited to providing & discussing specific examples of content & behavior on Croatian Wikipedia, within a certain time period. IMO we need to make sure that the existence & structure of the page are to be completely independent of any considerations on how the information will be used. There are other practical questions I have, more later. Miranche (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I'd say this step is legitimate for two reasons. First, as you correctly noted, this is a survey, it's not really a vote, because we want hard evidence (which cannot be made up), and because there is only one side to the issue (i.e. the evidence of abuse can't be trumped with some "counter-evidence"; you can't be acquitted of murder because you've helped an old lady across the street). So, unlike a vote, this would be very hard to frame in a biased way. It is what it is, and it is non-binding. Second, evidence gathering is virtually the only thing that makes sense now - pretty much everything else would be empty talk. Fully agree with you on the aims of the page. Would adding a separate section for editor statements, ArbCom-style, make sense? There indeed are practical questions left. I'll be back online probably by Sunday at the earliest, though. If you do create a page by then, I'd suggest tagging it with "under construction" template until it's ready. While, as I said, time is not immaterial here, I dread rushing this for reasons I've explained, and would also like to get wider feedback beforehand. GregorB (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Well, I'm pretty sure that all evidence will be disputed. Whether page content is appropriate or not can be subjective. Also, while you cannot necessarily dispute a block took place, people will of course disagree on whether it constituted abuse. Take a look at the discussion between Speedy & Koryaksky -- S. will maintain that blocking K. for 3 months just for asking for an answer "without further evasion" was justified. But I agree the evidence will be there for everyone to see & pass their own judgements. "... separate section for editor statements, ArbCom-style" ... could you please point me to an example? Never seen an ArbCom in action. "Under construction" -- my plan exactly. I'm creating the page now and moving the above examples on to it. Do you agree I should copy this discussion onto its talk page and tag this section of RfC/2013 issues... as archived, with a note to continue any discussion of the page format/structure/function there? Miranche (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Should be somewhere else rather than in front of the keyboard, but here I am anyway... Talk related to the setup (i.e. this discussion) should go there too and continue, with a note left here as you suggest. For an ArbCom case, see e.g. this. The "Statement by..." sections are relevant. Of course, these are for stating personal opinions, while the core of the Evidence page are still individual cases with diffs, as already agreed. Note also this: individual invitations to editors who are known to have had an issue with Croatian Wikipedia are not canvassing. The reason is the fact that, in this case, it is not possible to unduly influence the process by doing so, as long as invitations are neutrally worded. I may be wrong or overlooking something here. I'd like to hear feedback on this. GregorB (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I still do not see who had a right to conclude that "discussion is completed", since the attacked and rudely denigrated users have not answered. I just see a flood of incivil DDoS attacks on a group of users, made in order to win a debate and impose a PPOV in a content dispute. Kubura (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Kubura, I just now see this comment, sorry for the delay in responding. The discussion in this section (I'm not talking about the entire RfC) took place for 2 days, after which everyone who participated in it reached consensus that a fact gathering page should be started. Everyone was free to join the discussion during this time and participate, agree or object. After that, the discussion continued on the talk page of the evidence page for another 10 days before the page was open for submissions, during which time there was a prominent link here to that same page. Likewise everyone was free to participate in that discussion.

Most importantly, the same talk page is still open for participation, so if you have any concerns about how the evidence is being gathered, suggestions on how it should be organized, or reasons why it should not proceed, please feel free to join the discussion. Miranche (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree on CheckUser investigation?

Several users in this discussion expressed their belief that administrators on Croatian Wikipedia have sockpuppets. On the other side, administrators on Croatian Wikipedia should welcome CheckUser investigation. If they have nothing to hide, then checkuser will only prove their innocence. So I suggest the following:

1. Uninvolved steward from Meta will conduct checkuser investigation on all sysop accounts on hr wiki;
2. Administrators having sockpuppets who have abused multiple accounts will be desysopped and sanctioned;
3. If no administrator having sockpuppets is found, then all users who accused hr wiki administrators for sockpuppeting on this page will be warned. If they continue with accusations in the future, they will be blocked.

--Wikit 06:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support--Wikit 07:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
2.  Support to the extent permitted by existing privacy policies Miranche (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

   EDIT: I qualified my vote after reading Rschen7754 comment below. WikiMedia ≠ FISA Miranche (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

3.  Support sounds sensible --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
4.  Support--Seiya (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
5.  Support--Kolega2357 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
6.  Support--Rjecina2 (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

    Support--Agree on all points. GregorB (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

7.  Support I agree. CU check is the first thing to be done to restore trust to normal accounts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
8.  Support--Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
9.  Support --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
10.  Support --Duma (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
11.  Support--Anton 008 15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
12.  Support --Vitek (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
13.  Support --Fejstkajkafski (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
14.  Support Sure, why not. Timbouctou (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
15.  Support It seems necessary. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
16.  Support--DobarSkroz (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
17.  Support--Dean72 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
18.  Support--Koryaksky (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
19.  Support--Pavlemocilac (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
20.  Support--Those who voted against convinced me that might me something odd here. -- Bojan  Talk  19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
21.  Support -- Suggestion that appears quite reasonable in these circumstances. --OC Ripper (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
22.  Support --Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
23.  Support -- I have nothing to hide. Check me first. Flopy (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
24.  Support --Asmanistra (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
25.  Support -- had a series of awful experiences with administrators, i think they need to be checked Megnut (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
26.  Support As an administrator, I would put myself for this, as I have nothing to hide. They should do the same. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
27.  Support per BokicaK. --Павлица talk 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
28.  Support -- Francis Christian (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
29.  Support --Martin1978 (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC) definitely
30.  Support --AnToni_(Talk) 09:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
31.  Support It must be checked. --Mladifilozof (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
32.  Support Lotje (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
33.  Support--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
34.  Support per BokiaK _{• • hugarheimur} 20:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
35.  Support --Deansfa (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
36.  Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

#  Oppose--B. Ivsi (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) if you can not identify myself, than it is useless to use checkuser

I suggest that the above vote be struck, because we're dealing with a single-purpose account with no edits anywhere else but this Meta discusson. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

- Agree with you, regards--B. Ivsi (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1.  Oppose--Mir Harven (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC) I'll be back, don't worry ...
2.  Oppose----Zeljko (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
3.  Oppose, not necessary. --Croq (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
4.  Oppose --Fraxinus (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
5.  Oppose --Ivica Vlahović (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Vodomar (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC) What next??
7.  Oppose, not necessary.--Anto (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
8.  Oppose --Mostarac (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
9.  Oppose Explained below--MaGa (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
10.  Oppose as a matter of principle. The wmf:Privacy policy cannot be overriden by a vote on Meta, and the CheckUser policy cannot be overridden for just this one case. If certain users are suspected of using sockpuppets, and evidence is presented, then the CU tool can be used, but we cannot just vote to violate someone's privacy. --Rschen7754 09:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

    If "the privacy policy cannot be overridden by a vote on Meta", then why did you vote?--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

    To make a statement. --Rschen7754 04:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

11.  Oppose "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user." --Roberta F. (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
12.  Oppose because the wmf:Privacy policy would be overriden. CheckUser should not be used to apply pressure. Proposed usage would violate the CheckUser policy. CheckUser policy may not be overriden on a basis of some voting, without valid reason. Chvrka (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
13.  Oppose--Rovoobo Talk 02:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
14.  Oppose--"The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user." The CU tool is not for curious users who want to find out the identity of a particular user. Remember Privacy policy of Wikimedia. Kubura (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
15.  Oppose Shouldn't be used against a group of editors, unless there is reasonable evidence of sockpuppetry for every individual editor in this group. Unfortunately, I was not fully aware of the policy when I initially gave support. GregorB (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Simply having sockpuppets, that's problematic I think because there are legitimate uses for them, such as a clean start or an account to use through insecure connections. I'd say only those who abused them in some way should be blocked if at all. darkweasel94 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fullack → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 10:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording to address your concerns.--Wikit 10:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

All administrators who have the sockpuppet accounts block them permanently. --Kolega2357 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Wikiwind: Any administrator who is abusing multiple accounts should be permanently blocked and that his all rights remove. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I proposed to ban all voting from hr.wiki, and to remove it to Meta. All wiki users who want to vote must clearly identify themselves, like CU procedure. Please note that my nick is also cloak, and I would like CU to try to connect me to my real name (and send me e-mail, please). FYI, I even did not want to hide my data or use proxi or something else. --B. Ivsi (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators have an aversion to this because they are afraid of their guilt and responsibility for the damage the project. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Zahtjev_za_provjeru_suradnika#Kubura_i_Kamarad_Walter

Kamarad Walter=Kubura So...

It very suspicious that sysop Kubura (who is one of accused here) has gap in contributions starting on 13. rujna (September 13), and Chvrka resurfaced next day - 14. rujna (September 14) -- Bojan  Talk  07:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We have our check-users, are they less intelligent than other check-users?--MaGa (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia is accused of bias, not lack of intelligence. GregorB (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "Croatian Wikipedia"? All users, from first to last? All ckeck-users from first to last? I say again: we have our check-users, and they are capable to do it. There is no need to do this someone outside from hr.wiki.--MaGa (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the harm? GregorB (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this "whats's the harm".--MaGa (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, Maga, I accused one sysop that he has one or more accounts. If this is true, he might uses them to avoid 3RR or to provoke opponents only to get them blocked or just to sabotage reforms (case Kamarad Walter & Kubura) -- Bojan  Talk  05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside: as far as I know, there is no 3-revert rule on hr.wiki. –SJ talk  07:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There are 5 checkusers on hr; only 2 of them have been actively involved in the recent debates. If this is a major part of the concern, I think it would be fine to ask the other 3 local CUs to compile a brief report. I suppose a steward could participate or confirm the report, but I would trust the uninvolved local CUs to do their job. And evaluating the results of CU checks requires local policy knowledge. As others have mentioned above, unless there is a special policy on hr:wp that disallows multiple accounts, having more than one account may be acceptable. –SJ talk  08:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no violations of CheckUser user rights and CheckUser policy. Nobody write public details of the CheckUser investigation. Enough dirty game and conspiracy theories to protect all those who abuse administrator rights. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether CheckUser checkin users without the knowledge of communities? SpeedyGonsales is the only active contributor (CheckUser). It interests me-Sokac121 (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who can read my discussion page on HR:WP can see that idea of me being sockpuppet of Kubura is nonsense. I would have nothing against CU of me when SH:WP users connected with yellow press Jutarnji list that is publishing personal names of editors wouldn't have access to my personal data. If they would, well, that is problem. Some of them obsessed with gaining others personal data. For example Kolega2357 who tries to get CU tool on every wiki, including even macedonian. What's the connection between SH:WP Yugoslav warriors against Wikipedia in Croatian language and former en:UDBA agents I don't know and don't want to put some theories about that. But would concerne me if some of SH:WP users would have my personal information. Thank you. Chvrka (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Network of mistrust

As we have heard above, there are four wikis with very similar language. For this purpose it is not necessary that the languages are the same, it is just necessary to understand the other languages. I think the main problem is a lack of checks and balances. In order to protect users to be blocked by administrators just by their opinion, I propose a different way of handling the questions.

• A set of rules is needed, that is identical on all four wikis
• Whenever an adminstrator feels there is necessity to block an user for more than one day this must be documented properly. There must also be proven which rules are broken, and there must be difflinks to prove the facts.
• If a user breaks rules that are threatened with a longer or indefinite block, it must be discussed on an administrator board of discussion outside the home wiki.
• Users that have contributed over a longer time can not be blocked by the administrators of the home wiki, instead the case must be disputed on an adminstrators board outside the homewiki. The user can only be blocked if there are at least three votes by three administrators of three different wikis.
• Users that feel threatened or ill treated by administrators can ask for a review. The case can be decided only by admins that are not involved in the case. A decission can be overruled, if there are three administrators from three wikipedias or four administrators from two wikipedias who disagree with the block.
• Administrators who are found to abuse their rights can have their flag removed if there are at least three administrators from three wikis, totaling up to nine votes against this Administrator.
• This rules don´t apply on obvious vandalism. Vandalism can be blocked without discussion.
• For the election of admins it may be a good idea to demand a certain amount of votes from users of the other three wikipedias.

This system is more complicated but it makes sure that blocks are only possible in cases where the user has clearly acted against the rules and the problem can not be solved other than an block. It prevents users beeing blocked only because of their opinion. It also includes a review process and it includes ways to remove admin flag of admins that abuse their rights. The amount of votes needed can be adjusted if there is need to. One problem of my suggestion is there is still too little influence on admins by simple users.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As an observer in this entire debate who has taken a very keen interest as to the outcome of this discussion (I am not from any part of the former Yugoslavia; I am from the Philippines), I think the proposal above makes sense, but I wonder if it's possible to simply things further through maintaining four separate Wikipedias, but merging certain community functions across all four Wikipedias. I suggest the following:

• A single Arbitration Committee for the Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias will be created, with membership being proportional to the size of the Wikipedia in question (both in terms of article size and community size). ArbCom positions shall be elected through lists, where each Wikipedia shall submit a list of administrators who have been nominated by their respective communities to serve in the Committee. Lists have to be vetted by the other three Wikipedias and arbitrators must be vetted by a global checkuser before they can assume their positions in the Committee.
• Certain mediation remedies shall likewise be centralized across all four Wikipedias, depending on the severity of the case involved. "Minor" cases (cases that can reasonably be resolved by individual Wikipedia communities) shall be left to the jurisdiction of individual Wikipedias: in this case, each Wikipedia shall have a mediation committee composed equally of administrators and non-administrators, in order to balance things out. "Major" cases (cases that cannot be resolved by individual Wikipedia communities alone, and require the intervention of other communities) shall be decided by a central mediation committee that shall be part of and composed of four members of the central ArbCom, representing each Wikipedia community.
• Rules (and their interpretation) shall be harmonized across all four projects. Aside from the five pillars of Wikipedia, all four Wikipedias shall operate under a single set of rules and regulations. That way, not only will the barriers to participation be lowered for participants of all four projects, it will also make it easier for users to have access to policy-based remedies for violations of the rules should such be required.
• Administrators shall still be selected on a project-wide basis. However, administrator elections shall be monitored by observers from the other three projects, whose job is merely to observe the election and take note of any irregularities. Administrator nominations have to be reviewed by these observers before voting can proceed, and this will only cover a very short checklist (compliance with the rules of the project, edit count, etc.). Similarly, administrator review shall be monitored by observers coming from the other three projects.

While not perfect, I think that these guidelines will allow for some form of centralization to take place among all four Wikipedias, without erasing the Wikipedias nor "infringing" on the right of their communities to exist as they please. However, these guidelines also allow for abuses to be canceled out by other Wikipedians from the other three projects, who are subject to the same rules as everybody else, thus mitigating abuse of the system. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support the creation of such ArbCom, but strictly as a "court of last resort" that steps in only after the process in the individual Wikipedia has been exhausted. While it would be highly desirable that policies, guidelines and good practices "circulate" among Wikipedias, uniforming them and imposing them from above is not going to be effective (i.e. is not going to be welcomed, to put it mildly). There are ideas about a "cross-wiki mediation/advisory board", strictly in a coordination/cooperation/advisory role, without executive powers. GregorB (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom is designed so that it is a last resort, only to be used when all other methods of mediation (including project-level mediation committees, as I suggested earlier) are exhausted. In addition, the plan I suggested is not supposed to work in a vacuum: of course, when harmonizing policies across these four Wikipedias, it will entail either getting best practices from the four, or coming up with completely new policies. Such is possible only in an environment that fosters open dialogue between all four communities, which is essential to this plan's success. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since none of the Wikipedias in question currently has an ArbCom, my point is actually moot. Still, hypothetically: e.g. Croatian Wikipedia is free to (re)form its ArbCom (they had it until 2010 IIRC), but this would only mean two things: 1) cases must be decided by the local ArbCom before they appear in the regional ArbCom, 2) regional ArbCom may override the local ArbCom decisions.

On the issue of policies and community standards: you are absolutely right, deficiencies and neglect in this department are among the crucial contributing factors in the situation we have with the CW. I'm certain that many small wikis suffer the same issue. This an area that requires special consideration. GregorB (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I support the creation of such ArbCom, because these issues won't be solved without proactive measures being adopted and institutionalized. The "network of mistrust" would eventually evolve to the "network of no BS". All of four wikipedias already have long lists of articles which, in their opinion, "the other side" is using to promote Croatian/Serbian/Yugoslav etc. POV. Contrary to what some have claimed, editors are very much interested in how some controversial topic of national history is presented and perceived by others. It won't be particularly welcomed that's for sure, and some will interpret it as an encroachment on "sovereignty" of local Wikipedias - but if applied uniformly to all projects, and with the same set of rules everywhere, it will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the quality of articles over the long term. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Four different articles and four points of view may bring more light to the subject than editwaring about one neutral article. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Article on the same topic on all Wikipedias should abide by the same core NPOV policy, with competing points of views being balanced out. A reader shouldn't be reading four articles on four different Wikipedias, and making up their own conclusion of what is the truth, half-truth, and what is nothing but senseless propaganda. It is the obligation of editors to present the topic in a neutral fashion. Serbian Wikipedians would balance the Croatian POV on Croatian Wikipedia, Croatian Wikipedians would balance the Serbian POV on Serbian Wikipedia and so on. Anyone resorting to editwarring instead of the talk page discussion to resolve potential POV issues was not a constructive editor to begin with - such problems are resolved by different policies (3RR and similar). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not easy for opponents that used to talk with weapons just a few years ago. There is treachery and treason and lots of bloodshed that won´t be washed away with a litlle bit of water. And as marked before, these Versions have similar languages but they are not identical, not even the alphabet is the same in all versions. An ArbCom working on the same rules for different versions is not easy to establish, there will be opposition, but it might be a step into the right direction towards more NPOV articles. We also may need time for a process to develop. We can´t force it.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Uniformity is not really natural. Even when comparing articles where there's zero content dispute (animals, plants, what have you), they tend to differ vastly. So, even in situations where recent history and POV concerns are not an obstacle at all, this kind of "synchronization" or "osmosis" is virtually absent. (Sh Wikipedia is a possible exception, at least as a target.) I wouldn't expect much in this department, but I agree editors should be encouraged to "trade content", taking advantage of the fact that the language barrier is so small.

The greatest obstacle when adopting content say from hr to en wiki? Encyclopedic quality. In most cases it's simply not worth the bother. It is therefore important to improve the article quality as a necessary prerequisite for reuse; simply copying crap around is not going to cut it. GregorB (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think all of this (unified rules, regional ArbCom, etc.) should only be done with really broad consensus on every single wiki that would be affected. Anything else seems like an imposition and may lead to a bad precedent so that this will also be done between other wikis, ending with some kind of global NPOV, global dispute resolution, etc. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow installing global protectorates for minority languages and smaller project is now the goal. Talk about imperialism and colonialism. Teaching the savages how to behave ? Get a few mirrors, buttons and beads whist you at it. Each project, culture, society needs to go through it's growing pains and it's conflicts to get to a better standing point. Intervention and interference from outside "more noble" projects and sysops, does not resolve much in the end. It does not resolve any problems long term. Vodomar (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. While yes, individual Wikipedia communities should have their growing pains and should be allowed to decide things on their own, there will be times wherein intervention from other communities, particularly when it has been demonstrated that the system of social relations on a project has broken down to a point wherein there is no possible recourse left for the community to patch things forward (as we're starting to see here), is actually quite productive. On the contrary, I think a program of limited outside intervention does allow for a possible course of reconciliation between the two warring parties here, and any solution that will come from this will require outside intervention as that will be seen as less partial to the way things are currently being done on the Croatian Wikipedia. The "colonialism" metaphor here is way off-base: just because we want to help doesn't mean we think we're "superior". (Take note, I'm from a colonized country, so I carry whatever vestiges of colonialism the Spaniards and Americans left us. Last time I remember, the Croatians were never formally colonized the way we were.)

I agree however that my proposal requires a broad consensus from all four projects. This process is something that cannot just arise from this RfC; rather, it needs to be seriously discussed across all four Wikipedia communities, and needs to be decided upon by them in an individual capacity. However, I stress here that this proposal allows for the maintenance of four separate Wikipedias, while canceling out any nationalist tendencies or other POVs by lowering standards of participation: as Ivan Štambuk said earlier, the barriers to participation (through policy harmonization across all four projects) should be low enough that Croatians should be able to correct articles on the Serbian Wikipedia which may have a strong pro-Serbia bias and vice-versa, without any prejudice whatsoever towards the editors. This solution is still better than Jimbo's idea of merging the BCS Wikipedias into a single Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think there are steps before a top-down protectorate is imposed over Wikipedias in mutually intelligible languages, and I'm pretty sure such integration would be fiercely resisted. Since the core of Wikipedia is communication, however, one possible way to curb the tendencies toward political extremism on bs-hr-sh-sr Wikipedias could be to institute ways of communicating among them about any serious inconsistencies, which would encourage or even require resolving them. Here are two practical ways this might happen. (I left the same suggestion on Jimbo's talk page).

• A less formal way would be to institute templates akin to en:Template:Contradict-other, except referring across Wikipedias. For example, these templates could say "This article and the same article in Bosnian/k Wikipedia seem to contain contradictory information. Please reconcile them by discussing and editing the changes."
• A more formal, and a more cumbersome way, that would also involve new software development and certainly engender resistance, would be to have some sort of a central clearinghouse acting as a version control system for all of the similar language Wikipedias. The language projects would be kept separate, but one could access them through an interface that partially unified search and editing. In article lookup, a user could set preferences which language versions they prefer in order. When editing, one could request to freeze the versions of an article across all languages, and then edit them in parallel until differences are reconciled.

Any such system, however, would bring up the question of why it isn't in place for other pluricentric languages / language continua that are mutually intelligible. In fact, a software-based solution would probably work better if first tested on less politically charged mutually intelligible tongues such as Bokmål/Nynorsk/Danish/Swedish, before poking, say, into the Hindi/Urdu divide or the Balkans. Miranche (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as finding a way to prevent admin abuses goes (who watches the watchers?) I actually agree with Vodomar & darkweasel94 that using this scandal as an opportunity/pretext to impose a large set of unprecedented administrative institutions on four Wikipedias is not a good idea. If done, any of this IMO needs to proceed extremely deliberately. I don't have much experience in Wikipedia administration but my suggestion is: come up with several suggestions of simple sets of checks & balances across the four Wikipedias that are likely to have crossover editors -- single rules, or sets of two or three mutually interacting rules, not more. Then discuss them thoroughly with the communities, ask them for their preferences, adopt one set of checks and balances, and see how it works. You can again see if the Scandinavians want to try it in parallel, so as to not appear like colonial rulers over bickering Balkanites. Miranche (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly how policy harmonization is supposed to go. I'm not advocating for the imposition of policies (aside from the basic ones that all Wikipedias are supposed to follow), and I believe that policy harmonization can only occur if there are avenues for the four projects in question to actually discuss them. While the process should be open for everyone to observe, actual participation in the discussion should be limited to those who know the projects best, and those are actual editors.

Similarly, administrator abuse is checked through harmonization on all four projects. Admins are ultimately responsible to their project communities (the ones who elected them into such a position in the first place), and they are checked at both the project level (project-level mediation committees, which as I proposed earlier are composed equally of admins and non-admins), plus the "regional" ArbCom which is composed of trusted users/admins from all four communities as to allow balancing each other out. This proposal presumes that the communities in question are mature enough (both as editors and as people/civilized human beings) to actually make this work and are capable of policing themselves, as I believe everyone here knows that outside intervention is undesirable at best and disastrous at worst.

(Just to note, coordination across Wikipedias is nothing new. You raised the Scandinavian Wikipedias, but you haven't heard of Skanwiki, their (inactive) regional coordination project. At least their Wikimedia chapters are talking to one another.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Miranche (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Btw Sky Harbor -- I'm no expert in colonialism but I don't think it'd be hard to demonstrate that Austro-Hungarian, Venetian, and Turkish rule over parts of Croatia all exhibited aspects of it. Claiming that Croatia could be seen as a Serbian colony during its time in Yugoslavia is more of a stretch. Certainly the en:Croatian War of Independence was traumatic; most people from Croatia who are commenting on this page would have lived through it and I suspect some also fought in it. However, to my knowledge there hasn't been any non-ideologically motivated research that tried to asses how exploited Croatia really was as a part of Yugoslavia. People base their opinions on their personal and family histories, the lessons from which can be diametrically opposite. Miranche (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What is behind this

"unified rules, regional ArbCom, etc. ", "single Arbitration Committee for the Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias, with membership being proportional to the size of the Wikipedia in question ".
It seems that this is behind this attack on Croatian Wikipedia.
Rude attack on sovereignty of the particular Wikipedias. By a group that wants to takeover the Wikipedias, evading the local Wikipedias, procedures, neglecting the opinions of the editors original Wikipedias. With a help of the media lynch, OUTING, etc.
Miranche, please, respect the scientific literature that proved that Croatia was economically exploitated in Yugoslavia (e.g., works of Rudolf Bićanić, Jakov Sirotković etc. [38]). That topic was discussed already in 1920's. Kubura (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? I made a proposal to try and rectify the issue. I've made it very clear that I am not from the former Yugoslavia (my ties to the Slavosphere are with Poland, actually, even though I am 100% Filipino), and I am approaching the issue as neutrally as possible. The fact that I don't know anybody from the Croatian Wikipedia should bolster my credentials as to trying to approach the issue neutrally as a keen observer of the entire thing. Now again, as I have made clear earlier on, this proposal is subject to the approval of all four communities, and is not designed to subdue the "sovereignty" of any one Wikimedia project, so please don't presume that such is the case here, because clearly that is not (and will not be) the case.

Now, Croatia being economically exploited in Yugoslavia is not relevant to the issue here, but I certainly don't see that as "colonialism", as some people here have implied. I am not aware of any instance where Croatians were encouraged to be like the Turks or the Venetians or the Serbs the way Filipinos were "taught" to be like Spaniards and Americans. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no "sovereignty" on any Wikipedia projects. Wikipedia projects are not countries, they are private websites on servers owned and controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. While in practice projects are granted autonomy in their own affairs in most situations, this practice can be terminated at any time, with or without a reason, if the community or Foundation sees fit. If some in the hr.Wikipedia community want to fork the project onto their own server, then they are free to do so, but as long as the Foundation and their donors are paying the bills to keep hr.Wikipedia website up and running, it is the Foundation, and the wider Wikimedia community it represents, which have ultimate control here. CT Cooper · talk 15:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia is not more than just a couple of files on a server of Wikimedia and totally bound to us-american laws. Wikimedia pays the bill for internet connection and electrical power. It does not need any hostile act to take over control over this project, Wikimedia has control allready and can write-protect, merge, move or delete it any time. The Foundation can pull the plug on it´s own decision and needs no allowance or consent of any user, admin, buerocrat, or gouvernment. Some people think they are responsible for Croatian Wikipedia and think they might control it´s content, but they just think they are. The content is free, it can´t be protected against changes. It is published by CC 3.0, so everybody can make a copy and set up his own wiki if he likes and change it in every way you can imagine, to the good or bad, as long as the authors are mentioned.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can fork (copy onto another website) the content of hr.wikipedia as long as they observe the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. This has been done before for other projects for various reasons. I think you might have misunderstood me since I didn't say anything which contradicts your above points. I can't speak for the Foundation or the Wikimedia community, but I think its fair to say that if things don't improve rapidly on hr.Wikipedia, with the project demonstrating it can govern itself according to the aims of the movement, then calls for direct intervention are only going to increase - with direct intervention probably meaning some level of arbitration, as Sky Harbor suggests. CT Cooper · talk 19:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I´m quite sure things get solved this time. Either with the help of the editors and admins of hr:wikipedia (or other versions of wikipedia) or without. There are several options, including some very radical solutions.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Groundless cancel voting on Croatian Wikipedia

Administrator SpeedyGonsales groundless cancel voting on Croatian Wikipedia. To cancel the vote on the community portal asked user Nesmir Kudilovic. Only to be voted Possible Solutions 2 this second vote to avoid the following things: all the fault of the administrator responsible for the project, solving a consequence and not the cause of non-neutrality of articles that do not solve the problem of the articles. The main reason why the Croatian Wikipedia went to public because of its non-neutrality. --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I fully understand the above, but let me comment on what went on. The first vote was cancelled for "not following the procedure". In particular, its initiator was admonished for starting the vote in Kafić ("village pump") rather than in the central "new suggestions" page or in some other designated subpage. Yet, right after that, a competing vote more to the group's liking was started in Kafić, in seemingly the same way as the cancelled one, and continued unchallenged. GregorB (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Developements on hr.wiki on 17/18 September

Several symptomatic things happened on hr.wiki yesterday and today. I feel that this RfC should be aware of those.

Removal of a userbox

User hr:Suradnik:Maria_Sieglinda_von_Nudeldorf created a userbox Suradnik:SO/NoFascistHrWiki. Such userbox exists on en.wiki (User:Miranche/NoFascistHrWikipedia) for a few days now, without any controversy. On hr.wiki it was deleted as soon as it was created, under pretence of "vandalism".

Two users (Maria_Sieglinda_von_Nudeldorf and Miranche) that trancluded the template were promptly blocked for 3 months. Let me repeat that: THREE MONTHS just for trancluding a template which exists on en.wiki.

This unprecedented move, and the fact that not a single administrator raised his voice against this move shows how deeply problematic hr.wiki is. Basic human right of freedom of opinion is nonexistent on hr.wiki. Any opinion which is not in line with official position of administrators is ruthlessly uprooted. Please compare how something that is totaly uncontroversial template on en.wiki is promptly deleted as vandalism on hr.wiki, and users of it blocked for 3 months

Blocking of users for discussing administrator behaviour

Community on hr.wiki has finally started to discuss its issues on hr.wiki village pump. There been some voices repeating arguments of dissent which have been raised in the past on hr.wiki (this is not a new issue, all of these arguments have been already mentioned in previous years). This is very sensitive moment for the project, but nonetheless SpeedyGonsales blocked Koryaksky for THREE MONTHS for simply asking a question which Speedy interpreted as being "agressive": [39]

(I ask english-speaking readers to take time and read translation of Koryaksky's comment here: [40] Now, that deserves a 3 month block in a time of very important discussions about the future of the project?)

Again, freedom of thought is simply nonexistent on hr.wiki. There is no way a community can heal itself if basic discussion is not permitted by the same people whose behaviour is being discussed.

Halting of proposed vote

User:Dean72 has summarised proposed remedies mentioned on this RfC and posted them on hr.wiki village pump with a call on the community to vote on them[41]. It is important to note that this was not an official vote, just a consultative one, to help with discussion and to give members of the community a chance to show what they think. Proposed vote was promptly attacked by users, administrators and bureaucrats of hr.wiki, and vote was halted. As previously stated, freedom of thought and freedom of speach are nonexistent of hr.wiki at this point (and have been for quite some time).

Rubberstamp voting

In answer to User:Dean72's proposed and then halted vote, administrators of hr.wiki have set up their own "vote"[42]. The vote is titled "Proposed solutions 2" (as opposed to Dean72's "Proposed solutions" vote), although the vote proposes only a single solution (note the plural in the title). Again, this is highly symptomatic for Croatian Wikipedia: dystopian doublespeak is the norm. In this proposed vote there are no "solutions" proposed, only a single "solution": nothing changes, bussines as usual. The "solution" proposes that a list of problematic articles be compiled. And that's all. All administrators retain their priviledges, no blocks are lifted, no administration practices are changed, no policies fighting systematic bias are introduced (no systematic bias is acknowledged!), no reconciliation proces is started. And, of course, no other options are presented before the community, just the "status quo" option.

This rubberstamp "vote" was, needless to say, promptly supported by several administrators, including bureaucrats.

Conclusion

Yesterday was a good example of what's wrong with hr.wikipedia:

• removal of free speech (userboxes)
• banning od users for stating their opinion
• halting any attempt at free discussion, including consultative vote
• administrator support of rubberstamp voting
• absolutely no awareness of existing problems

Therefore, it is quite obvious that no reform of hr.wikipedia will be possible until current administrators retain their positions.

I apologize for being anonymous, but I have previous expirience with being harrassed IRL by bureaucrats of hr.wiki, and I would not like that to happen again.

--188.129.121.161 14:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is disturbing. I can't imagine anyone being banned for 3 months on en wiki simply for stating that e.g. "English Wikipedia is garbage". By standards of hr wiki, this is treated as mega-insult, i.e. as if you personally attacked everyone who has ever contributed. That's ludicrous. GregorB (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen arguments such as "attack on the project" (napad na projekt) and "attack on the community" (napad na zajednicu) or "disturbing the work of community" (ometanje rada zajednice) liberally thrown around and used as excuses for blocks. Essentially any kind of criticism will get you blocked. Interesting that they still keep feigning to fight a totalitarian (Communist) mindset, and championing discussion free of party's Diktat, while simultaneously stifling voices of dissent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, hr:User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf and I were blocked for 3 months without any warning and without any chance to comment, just for transcluding the template and/or using graphics associated with it. Miranche (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Template which user Nudeldorf created and you edited, and both of you transcluded on your user pages was slanderous & libelous attack on hr wikipedia without any proof. That is covered/prohibited by rule: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As in media is still present and ongoing media lynch of users and hr wikipedia project without any real proof, I do not think such slanderous & libelous attack deserves warning, as that was a deliberate action, and treated as such. I hope you (and user Nudeldorf) will provide proof for your accusations next time before you commit similar vicious attack on project. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please SpeedyGonsales, anyone has to be allowed to publicly express his/hers disagreement on this matter. You are accused to be biased and to prove everybody wrong you decided to abuse your admin status to act like the accuser, the judge and the executioner. How lame is that? Please, excuse me if calling you lame is too much for you! Get real, you've been acting paranoid from the start blocking everybody who ever disagreed with your cabal of right wing admins constantly bullying people into submission. If you are offended by my words, well, GROW UP! --Koryaksky (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was blocked for 3 months for saying that the admins are avoiding straight talk and asking SpeedyGonsales to answer "without further evasion" to my very simple question. "without further evasion" was the ground for blocking. --Koryaksky (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Just to illustrate the athmosphere a little further: At first, before my complaints in the Cafe, I was trying to correct some articles, but for instance I was even not able to add a label "war criminal" on the page for croatian general Mirko Norac who was sentenced for war crimes by croatian courts. [[43]] It's a disgrace! The original article only mentioned that he was sentenced for some criminal activities during the war, but there were no details. Adding the "war criminal" to his resume was corrected promptly by other editor because "it was a question of style". In the end, I was allow to write "sentenced for war crimes", but not to write that he was a "war criminal". He is portrayed as a hero and a knight in his short intro resume --Koryaksky (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of your sentence "without further evasion" is abusive. You judge other user that he is evading your question. That is abusive language, and having in mind nature and language of your question, your are blocked with a good reason. Further, your question is now answered. Hopefully you will show a more patience next time. Users of Wikimedia projects should be kind and warm to other users, not abusive and harsh. Please have that in mind in future. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

SpeedyGonsales, every second that passes with you being an admin on hr.wikipedia is abusive towards every one that you and your clique blocked in the past few days and years. Also, it is personal insult to me that you are still in that chair. And to be as blunt as possible, because you do not deserve any better after all you have done the last few days, I DO NOT LIKE YOU and I will do everything I can to bring you down. Is this sounds offensive to you? Please do tell, cause you see, and in contrast to your mindset, WE ARE GROWNUPS here. We do not molest people if they do not like us like bullies in kindergarten, we can tolerate someone who criticize us, unlike you! Can you please contact me after you read this, just to confirm you did not had a heart attack from the shock I just caused to your delicate being. --Koryaksky (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy, there are exactly two things that interest me here.

1. Start a systematic list of possible abuses. There are dozens I've run into, but they're scattered, and they should be in one place. The list will show if the attacks are "slanderous & libelous" or if they have basis in fact. My examples should update you on a few decisions / pieces of content I personally hold questionable. I have run across probably a hundred cases mentioned by different users since this mess started. I believe that you have, too, despite your choice to insist that there are none.
2. Have a simple, clear way for users on hr.wikipedia to express their will to get the bottom of this particular issue; namely, to expose, identify, & correct any pro-fascist bias both in content & in policy of Croatian Wikipedia. In the situation where you are slamming blocks left & right, and many people report fearing to speak up (for evidence, again, please read this & Jimbo's talk page filled with such reports), I believe there needs to be a clear, visible, discrete way to express this intention, such as a userbox. I explain this and more in excruciating detail on my talk page, posted there by an anon. If you had bothered to ask before blocking & erasing, this is what you would have heard. It is you who failed to assume good faith.

Full disclosure and update: after the userbox got deleted, I decided to just use the logo in a not very discrete manner, but only on my user page, and got blocked. In the meantime, an anon has posted my reply on my talk page, & Zeljko has unblocked me. Maria Sieglinda and Koryaksky remain blocked. Miranche (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued. First, Speedy, if you or another admin block a user without warning, you are manufacturing the situation in which you can claim s/he is attacking Croatian Wikipedia "without any proof." By blocking someone, you are precisely withholding from her/him the opportunity to provide such proof. Thus when you claim that anyone whom you blocked without warning has attacked hr.wikipedia "without any proof," you're bluffing.

Second, the userbox you've erased provided a link to the Facebook group discussing this issue. I'm pretty sure you have access to Facebook yourself or you know someone who does. Whether you "Like" the group or not, all the evidence of fascist bias of Croatian Wikipedia that they provide is available for you to inspect & respond to. You are of course free to agree or disagree with any of these claims, and I do apologize if I've missed anything, but I have not so far seen a single statement from you in this regard. But then, if you claim with authority that there is an "ongoing media lynch of users and hr wikipedia project without any real proof," I assume this means you or someone else has addressed, somewhere, (a) all the substance (not the tone, which I agree is egregious) of media reports of bias on hr.wikipedia, and (b) all particular cases explained, in detail, on the Facebook page. To the extent you have not done so, your pronouncements of "lynch" with "no real proof" are, again, bluffing. Miranche (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, playing devil's advocate here, I can completely understand why an admin might delete a userbox that says "I oppose the fascism on this Wikipedia". If I saw such a userbox on another wiki, I would also consider it trolling and disruption. darkweasel94 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, as I'm one of the blocked users and I want to be fair toward those who did it, I'm interested in how you're thinking.

1. Would you do this if there was an ongoing public debate in the media about the site, showing (debatable, but substantive) evidence of fascist bias, with several users expressing a degree of support for the point of view of the critics?
2. Would you do it without any warning, for a user without prior violations, who is an (occasional, but constructive) contributor on your & other WikiMedia projects?
3. Would you set the expiry time for the block at 3 months while giving the user absolutely no opportunity to discuss it?

Thank you. Miranche (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To the first question - that would make no real difference, it is inflammatory no matter if it is right. To the second two questions, no I wouldn't. I might delete it speedily as an attack page, but I would definitely not block speedily (unless that's one of the person's first edits), but raise it at the appropriate noticeboard. darkweasel94 (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually I agree that the message "I oppose the fascism on this Wikipedia" can be considered trolling, as it really lacks content -- it doesn't say what fascism, doesn't say what to do with it, and everyone normal opposes fascism. But that's not what the userbox said, so it's a bit of a straw man example. Here are two possible alternative examples of the text:

• "This user supports exposing pro-fascist bias on hr.wikipedia" -- actual text of the userbox on English Wikipedia, and roughly the text of the erased userbox on hr Wikipedia.
• "This user supports investigating and correcting instances and causes of pro-fascist bias on hr.wikipedia" -- the text that still says, basically, "I think there's a bias," and points to current discussions on en & meta regarding it.

I'd be interested in your comments on these. Thank you. Miranche (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's true that I hadn't actually checked what the userbox said, sorry for that. While you do have a point that this is considerably less inflammatory than my straw man wording, "fascism" is still a very loaded word, and I think that especially in a heated atmosphere this wording is still inflammatory enough to make admin action at least arguably right on the project that's being accused of "pro-fascist bias". I'm not defending the removal of talk page access or the 3 month block duration though. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm aware that calling someone or something "fascist" is inflammatory :D. My rationale is (and was, in my reply to being blocked) that since a significant number of instances of bias in Croatian Wikipedia favor a specific right-wing movement (en:Ustaše) whose encyclopedic entries use the term "fascist" in a descriptive manner, so the term "fascist" is an accurate description of the bias as well. But I agree that, in the context of a userbox, the inflammatory connotations of the term in everyday speech can be seen to outweigh the case for its use as a descriptive, however accurate. Miranche (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems we're ready ...

To end this farce: http://hebeta.lzmk.hr/Default.aspx Of course, I'll be now & then, just like Socrates, to act as a gadfly (Apologia). Mir Harven (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What does that link have to do with anything? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the end of this "qui s'excuse s'accuse" game. Hastalavista, baby ...Mir Harven (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, Ivan :D Miranche (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

xcelent! That´s it --Croq (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. wait until it's full-fledged & enriched by encyclopedic dictionary- not this one, which is rather limited: http://hjp.novi-liber.hr/ , combined with biographical dictionary & other encyclopedias. Then, it will have virtually all needed stuff- except Lady Gaga & similar stuff. Mir Harven (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lock HR:WP now, desysop all local sysops immidiately

IMO should all local sysops be desysopped immidiately and HR:WP locked now so the international community can sort this out as it seems the local community isn't able, partly because of they're part of the problem and does not seem willing to resolve the problem, partly because of the part which isn't willing is hindering the part who is willing by blocking them.

However, the damage already happened. It is not only the Croatian WP whose reputation is at risk but it is Wikipedia as a whole. Don't keep fascism in Wikipedia a chance. Act now. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should all admins desysop immidiately. Must first prove abusing multiple accounts. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Very stupid idea. Blamage of the left wing activists. Don´t give a chance to wiki an left wing extremism. Better keep off idiotism from D-A-CH Wikipedia. --Croq (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a stupid idea this is something that will come after the current administrator. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are in a hurry and have to do anything "immediately". There is no deadline. If the problems have persisted for several years, as it seems, it does not really make a difference if they persist for some more weeks. I would suggest that people calm down and try to work on producing a fair policy that we could apply to this case. Until now it has far less input than the drama on this page. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that nothing can be done immediately. Of course, I need to restart the project and start from the beginning. After restarting the project every administrator that it violated administrative rights should be blocked mininum of 6 months or 1 year. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly dissent. The reputation of WP is under attack and every day, maybe every hour, we wait the damage for the reputation of the movement but also within the croatian community gets worse, i.e. people willing to contribute constructively are annoyed and possibly will be lost. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthiasb , if you please calm down. You do not understand Croatian , so your capabilities to detect possible problem are zero.--Anto (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You can assume I understand Croatian, at least when it is written. That's really not so difficult if one is fluently in Czech and Slovak. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, you "understand" Croatian when you are fluntent (CS-2 is fluency??? LOL ) Czech speaker. I am "sure" that "you can" understand old Norse as well. Why don't you go and demand abolishing de.wiki ??

If you dare.... Anto (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Je lepší podcenovat své znalosti. Žiji a pracuji v Česko od 1991. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And that makes you an "expert" for Croatian language and judging entire hr.wiki ??? Let alone your "huge" contributions [44] Obvious example of hardcore ignorant.--Anto (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd definitely advise against haste, but the situation is serious and may have severe global and local consequences (reputation of Wikipedia as a global project, and both reputation and viability of its Croatian edition), so time is not immaterial. I trust Jimbo understands this aspect and will get personally involved (already has, sort of). In the meantime, let's: 1) collect hard evidence of wrongdoing, and 2) think about what should be done if they add up. Let's face it, neither is going to be quick. GregorB (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The rock is rolling and you can´t roll it back. Listening to the Wind of ChangeLyrics. Sometimes the wall falls over night.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"The rock is rolling and you can´t roll it back" - yeah, that's how I see it. And someone is going to get trampled... GregorB (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Future Wikipedia: built on servitude and external influences of media, pressure groups, and government interests

1. There is a concerted campaign to takeover the whole hr.wikipedia.org project, and if that is not possible to shut it down 2. The campaign as one of it's aims is to remove all existing administrators from their posts. For this purpose new user accounts are created for the sole purpose to bicker and attack editors and administrators, in wilful premeditated manner to break all rules of good behaviour and cooperative work. These editors are moles who are there only to cause destruction. When their account is blocked, they cry wolf, pointing their finger at the unreasonable and unjust administrators on the hr.wikipedia.org project. --Zeljko (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dont worry the project will not be taken down by the gouvernment. It will be shut down only by decission of Wikimedia. Whoever edits on this wiki, Wikiemdia is an will be in control of the Croatian Wiki. They can open new Wikis and close it again. Wikimedia is not dependent on any gouvernment interests. Whatever the admins think about their wiki, it´s not their Wiki, it´s Wikimedias Wiki and they can take every action necessary to prevent abuse. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"built on servitude and external influences of media, pressure groups, and government interests"

No, built on acceptance of criticism by third parties who are tired of administrators pushing their PoV. When you say "external influence", you do realize that you yourself are an external influence? That you aren't Wikipedia? You're just an admin who is frustrated and tries to cure his frustrations by pushing fascists and homophobic content on Wikipedia so as to "correct" mainstream scientific views that you don't like. CW admins need to realize that they don't own Wikipedia. No part of Wikipedia is in their ownership, zero, zilch, nada. There are rules that you have to obey, and you are ignoring and/or outright violating many of those rules. 193.198.212.70 10:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a real danger with small wikipedia projects: here is a simple scenario. We have a few disgruntled users on a Wiki who form a Facebook hate group. They then combine with a lobby group or some activist group, who then engage in a social and media warfare. They then get support from a politician or political party as being part of a credibility drive. The minister and the divers behind this coup then contact Jimbo Wales on his page and plaster that over the social and other media as adding credibility to their cause. The minister then jumps advising people who use the target language not to use the wikipedia because it is fraudulent and not fit for academic work (hey there is a disclaimer on Wikipedia not to use for academic purposes). To drum up as much popular support claim that the wikipedia is run by: right wing loonies who promote fascism, homophobia, and a holocaust deniers. A few articles are found that can support such a claim, sentences are taken out of a whole article and underlined to "point at the bias". The rules of Wikipedia are then twisted by the claimants stating that the administrators are now editors-in-chief, they then also single out particular contributers or they attribute a whole article to a particular editor as if they were the sole author in an effort to name and shame and to single out their targets. In a consorted effort new users are continuously streaming into the target wikipedia for the sole purpose of commenting and not contributing , jamming the admins and the community with their POV. Any wikipedia with a small number of admins and a small number of active editors is now in real danger of being taken over or being shut down by such attacks. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.8.180.68 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Zeljko, please note following (Željko, molim te primi na znanje):

1) Either you learned english in couple of days, or somebody (read: couple of admins working on same ip) gave you this propaganda material to post it here.

2) This is not attack on hr.Wiki, nobody normal wants to destroy his work. This is just attempt to get rid of extremist propaganda there (Lots of us are ashamed because of it), and get rid of few rotten apples who are spreading it. I am sorry that you are one of them, but Speedy and Roberta control you, and they did not controlled you before.

Regards --B. Ivsi (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

repeating the same trick with projection accusations. Saidly. Anto (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Quarrel

No evidence, no sustainable argument for the attack on sysops and community of Croatian Wikipedia hasn't been presented here. Only witch-hunt talking about some imaginary fascism. This page looks like transcript of some Meta-Wiki Kafka's Trial. No evidence of any crimen, but still there's no appology to the community and sysops of Croatian Wikipedia. Instead of appology and cessation of this foolish Trial, there is some voting. You can't wash despicable witch-hunt by any kind of voting, especially not by voting where haters are involved and noumerous (who don't contribute to CW). You should be ashamed. Chvrka (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Ashamed should be an admin who, without any further notification or whatsoever, nor with any plausible justification blocks any user for using a babel in which some users are expressing the move to oust fascist from Wikipedia, is blocking those users. (Perhaps you are not aware of, User:Chvrka, a neutral point of view is one pillar of Wikipedia – there is no but none room for discuss about this. Fascism does not have a place in WP, nor have sysops using their functions to block users only for criticising the situation as it is. Ashamed should every user in HR:WP accepting that. That sysop should not have a place in WP anymore. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ashamed should be an user who, without any proof at all insist that some Wikimedia project is fascistic in nature and that template against such unproven nature is in place.

One thing is to be aware of dark history and to disallow any distortion of historic facts, other is to be vicious against users without any proof. Here you wrote your opinion that sysop should not have a place in WP anymore, based on virtually nothing. I am not ashamed as there is none mine edit on Croatian wikipedia I can be ashamed of, will you be ashamed, that is up to you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Off course I am ashamed as well. Actually the term is vicarious embarrassment. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The userbox didn't say that the project is fascist. It said that the user carrying it supports exposing fascist bias on Croatian Wikipedia. There is a rather big semantic difference. No one was attacked in person, and in the light of recent media exposure of CW that kind of initiative can only be applauded. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are responsible for everything that happens on the project. Each administrator is responsible for their actions and for whatever work on Wikipedia. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a really dangerous path to take. Every individual is responsible only for their own actions. darkweasel94 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can't see any evidence (there is plenty on this page alone) only demonstrates how deep does the problem go. It's like crazy person saying "I am not crazy". People who voted in support no longer contribute to CW because they are mostly blocked there. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about administrators who are most led to this situation self-destruction in the project. Kolega2357 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that in this case is leftist media hype+facebook hate group+support from a leftist government resulting in time and effort wasted on discussions that just promote the destruction of a wiki project for personal satisfaction. This quarreling is just stupid and wasteful, typical post colonial, post communist society attitude where everyone is stuck in the past and with no vision for a decent future.Vodomar (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's all media-leftist-government conspiracy. I bet Ninoslav Pavić personally called the Prime Minister to arrange the details. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I see here only discussing "serbocroatian" Wikipedia (=copy+paste-üedia) activists. So boring. We are feeding trolls --Croq (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a serbocration activist. And I am not a troll. Refrain your tongue, Croq. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthiasb, please do not enter the argument with him, you will loose for sure, cause he is the admin... no wait, we are not on hr.wikipedia, sorry I was confused for a moment. Just continue... See what we are fighting against? --Koryaksky (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mathiasb is one of our most active editors with 130.000 Edits in de:wiki and many thousand edits in other Wikis and no, he does not use bots. So who is Croq? Never heard of, can´t be of much importance.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me add: I think he is the same croq as this one on de.wiki [[45]] --Koryaksky (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Still nobody. I fortell a bright future for this account on de:wiki. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is better than the Croatian Wikipedia. Users processed biased articles from Croatian Wikipedia. Attempts to defend the Croatian Wikipedia without success. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect you point of view, but beg to differ. Vodomar (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki is free knowledge for everyone. You can copy and paste all articles and improve it. You can take the crap and grow flowers on it. Thats wikipedia.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why bother to engage in rational discussion with brainwashed zombies & lefty-liberal Talibans ? They did not try to discuss (or debate with) anything serious through presentation of arguments & relevant literature or links- just parroting PC extreme leftist party line and hysterically frothing tedious blabber about fascism, anti-fascism, revisionism, homophobia & the rest. They sound like a broken record from Moscow show trials in 1938. The only reason to visit this page is to practice duck-shooting of zombified apparatchiks & power hungry impotent petty bureaucrats. Pooh Mir Harven (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And you sound somehow paranoid. Ever seen on this earth a lefty-liberal Taliban? It just makes no sense, seems like pack of empty phrases.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've met them in person. The problem is- you don't understand something as trivial as oxymoron. It isn't for nothing that they say liberalism is not a world view, but a mental disorder. Mir Harven (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand very well. Your argument is insulting and trying to intimidate. In your eyes liberalism is not a world view but a mental disorder. But I think Croatian Wiki is in serious disorder because of your contributions and you are just blaming everybody else. Toc toc toc... somebody at home?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Like you said Giftzwerg 88 "You can take the crap and grow flowers on it", that is the same position with the Croatian Wiki, yes there is crap in it but flower will grow out of it! How many articles out of of the 140k in the Croatian Wiki are problematic or crap? No one has still given na answer yet. Thank you for providing your 5 cents worth in discussion. Question, do you read/write Croatian, have you edited or worked on the hr.wiki projet. Do you understand the background to the issues on the Croatian wikipedia - have you read it in source? If not how can you make an informed decision? Is your decision making all based on hype, emotion and clap trap. If so then your decision making and resoning will be flawed. By the sounds of how this debate is heading, it looks more like a left wing witch hunt then anyting else 163.8.84.68 05:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The contributions of the authors on this page tell a story too. I don´t make a decision by the way. So if there are issues, please explain why you can´t solve it. Here is the place to diskuss solutions. Maybe in the end Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia will solve the problem just because it has everything the Croatian Wikipedia hasn´t, just because it is the better Wiki. I have no problem with that. The readers will choose and make the decision.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a process of "Geichschaltung" in the Croatian media with the current government. Television Is controlled by far left wing people, written media mostly, too. Now they want to take over control on wikipeda. That´s it. Forget this campaign. And, Giftzwerg if you check the readers have already chosen which one is the best, more people reads and trusts Wikipedia on Croatian language than all the other together. So boring. --Croq (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So you say that the media in Croatia is left winged? It may be so, will not discuss it here, but your main problem is that you treat wikipedia as just another mass media. Do you even know what encyclopedia means? It is NOT the platform to spread you right wing propaganda to balance "left wing controlled" media. Your effort and effort of the current set of admins comes down to just that - trying to balance the left winged mainstream media, as you see them, by creating the virtual history on an encyclopedia. It is very dishonest endeavour, and I'm giving you credits for, at least, admitting your twisted agenda publically. --94.253.132.148 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC) --Koryaksky (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatians more visit en.wiki than hr.wiki. They don't trust Croatian Wikipedia at all. They have decided to vote for the Left government, and what they are presented at CW is some rubbish compiled from far-right websites such as Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće, or Catholic Church outlets such as Glas koncila. These are biased and unreliable sources and everything cited from them must be removed. ---Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah right, what social engineering rubbish Giftzwerg 88. The best solution would be, have only the English language wiki and use Google translate to translate in your target language. That way all articles would be harmonised and peace on Earth will be installed. Vodomar (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all I am not against peace on earth as you seem to do. I think peace is something we should take efforts for. But if you prefer war, you allways can get it easily by offending others. I never proposed translating the english wiki instead of local language, that is your proposal, congrats, an over all easy solution. As you can read above I am in favour of different Wikipedias. So you just claim the opposite to my statements. It is very dificult to discuss with people who turn around things just as they like and exaggerate everything beyond limits. Its Croatian Wikipedia who has brougt its problems to a national and now international scale just by ignoring basic rules of communication and because of its network of incompetent admins in combination with ignorance.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well you were making the statement that it would be best to merge the Croatian wiki into a Serbo-Croatian goulash. Here is a simple scenario for you: you get a bunch of people who are like minded who create a facebook hate group against a wikipedia, they go on a campaign to destabilise a particular project which has a small number of admins and writers, they engage a sympathetic newpaper and they find a sponsor in a government minister. They create an uproar, they create new users for the simple fact just to cause grief for all on the project, and those new users do not contribute any articles and their sole purpose is to create conflict and the disrupt the wiki project. They cause provocations as there sole purpose is just to get blocked and to use this as evidence of harsh treatment by the administrators. Your claims are nothing but your display of your bias and prejudice. No you are in favour of those wikipedias that suit your view of the world. 163.8.180.68 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I´ts allways the others. If there is a facebook hate group, there is a reason for this. You can´t offend people permanently without creating an opposition. All of the defenders of the "croatian way" are full of prejudices against everybody, offensive in speak and very quick in insulting. Yet on the other hand you expect people to love and respect you. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Who want's to be loved ? Who cares if we or I am are loved or not. Oh come on your condescending tone just reeks of your superiority complex that you display right now on these pages. You are the one who is full of prejudice and who insults people with your know-it-all, give everyone a lesson, show those savages how they should behave and conduct yourself. Why don't you just leave a wiki community to sort our their own issues on their own terms, or is this too much for such a meddeling stuck up arse like you. 163.8.84.68 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It tells more about you than about me.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite get the witch hunt or left or rightwing arguments above, they are leading astray to a degree. The issue is here how users interact with each other and that admins have a special responsibility in this context. In particular they cannot ban users for simply stating personal opinions (in particular if it is on their own user page). Users are not required to like Wikipedia (in general or a local version) or to agree with every aspect of the project. They are allowed to state negative opinions about the project and such opinion are not a bannable attack on the project. Wikipedia needs open and frank discussion, that is one of the cornerstones to improve quality and keep projecting functional actually. If hr.wikipedia or and other wikipedia has admins that cannot agree to that or at least live with it, they ultimately need to have their adminship revoked. --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

too many checkusers, too many bureaucrats?

In de:wiki we have about 245 aktive admins, three checkusers and five bureaucrats. The Croatian Wikipedia needs 19 active admins, five checkusers and six bureaucrats. There are about 20 accounts contributing more than 100 edits a month. So this is a wiki with comparatively low trafic. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. My home Wikipedia is eowiki. The Wikimedia Stats suggest that eowiki gets more edits, but is in a comparable league to hrwiki. On eowiki we also have 19 admins (of which some can rarely be seen), not a single checkuser, and three bureaucrats. darkweasel94 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more evidence of the "cabal" behavior. You elevate the status of your friends so that any important dispute involving admins appears to have been unanimously endorsed by the "leadership" of the wiki. Yes it's a low-traffic wiki, five casually active admins at most should do the job. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My impression on the Croatian Wikipedia is that it is - compared to en wiki (not because it should be compared to en wiki, but because I'm familiar with it) - light on written rules and policies, yet heavy on policing. If one takes a look at a representative sample of user talk pages, the number of explicit warnings, blocks and various reprimands is unusually high. Hr wiki admins will probably say that they are just doing their job, but why so many warnings compared to the en wiki? Is en wiki inhabited by nice and constructive editors, while hr wiki has to deal only with miscreants? I don't believe that for a second. GregorB (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the above is my subjective impression - but why not test it in a objective way? I'm sure it would be possible to produce some stats like number and average duration of blocks of editors who had e.g. 100+ edits at the time of blocking. This could be compared with other wiki editions. GregorB (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk provide the evidence of your alleged "cabal" behavior! Don't make unsubstantiated claims.

Possible blockade

I've received an e-mail (due to impossibility of some Cro Wiki admins to use their e-mails or something like that ? never mind....) to write here that:

• Facebook anti-Cro Wiki campaigners & similar provocators will be blocked if they come to Cro Wiki just to obstruct ordinary editing of articles & wage a propaganda warfare at Village Pump. Of course, they're free to edit & work as any other user.

• this is the explanation (in Croatian): https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NIJE#Wikipedija_nije_boji.C5.A1te

which is a translation- sort of- from English Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Mir Harven (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven, This can be used as a testament to your paranoid world view. If someone attacks you, the "Anti-Croatian" label is automatically applied. I'm croatian, and I'm ANTI-YOU, nothing else. I suggest that you remove the anti-Cro and apply anti-fascist label, before I even try to read any further. --Koryaksky (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. I have nothing to do with it. Don't shoot the messenger. Mir Harven (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry, but can you maybe explain the above post a little? I'm not sure I follow what your post means. --Koryaksky (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I guess its intention is to stop constant bickering at Cro Village pump. Post a question there. Mir Harven (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mir Harven, as you are probably aware, I am blocked for 3 months for voicing my opinion on hr.wikipedia so I can't "post there". Things that happened you call "bickering", I call "free speech". Where on hr.wikipedia should I be allowed to express my discontent with the current situation? I've tried to edit the articles, I've tried to write to Cafe, I've tried to write on my own page and all I get from admins is that I'm destructive. Moreover SpeedyGonsales blocked me for mentioning to him that he evades to answer the questions I posed on Cafe, which, actually, he never did answer. If that is not evasive, I don't know what is. Do you agree with him? I do not have anything against you. You are not an admin with the power to block people so you are entitled to your opinion. For admin, the problem of being on the political left or right is not an issue. The issue is when admin abuses his powers and disallows any criticism. I would react in the same way if the admin was left extremist. For that reason, you should not support him. --Koryaksky (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to add this: SpeedyGonsales identified himself with hr.wikipedia. He thinks that the attack on him is an attack on hr.wikipedia. I strongly disagree with that position because wikipedia belongs to me as well, as much as to him, to you and anyone else. For this reason alone, he will bear consequences, I'm sure of it. --Koryaksky (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware you're blocked (I see your name at Village Pump).If so, you can be unblocked -I guess, I don't know all these rules. But, what's the point of your participation at hr wiki, if you write only at Village Pump, quarreling & constantly preaching on "fascism" etc. ? You're clearly ignoring the rules I've given links to in Croatian & English. If you want to squabble- VP is not the place. Mir Harven (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, there's no point in participating at hr.wiki until the current situation is not resolved. I don't have problem with you being a right wing. But, I have a problem with admins, being right winged, blocking users for disagreeing with them. Can you understand that? --Koryaksky (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am an Ustasha!

If to be a patriot and a diligent benefactor to the Croats or any other nation is to be a murderous fascist, then I proudly pronounce myself the first ardentt Jewish Ustasha!

It is known that the Ustasha were collaborators with the Nazis, it is known how many Jews they slew. Still, if the Croat admins are Ustasha, count me with them all the way.

How can a place like Wikipedia, the one corner of the Internet free from idle haranguing and ill-conceived and frigid derision, allow a public lynch?

Alas, we do not guide the ship of Fortune. The most I can do is declare, again and again, that I am with the Croatian admins all the way. And if the price of gratitude is to dress myself up as a fascist -- or a jihadist -- I will gladly do it. They deserve as much from me for their friendship, and from the Board of Wikimedia for the precious time and effort thwy've invested into all of this.

P.s. when will old Balkan values again rise in importance? Loyalty, good faith, sympathy. You can't spend your lives labelling people. It is unspeakably and treacherously superficial. And thoughtless. --VKokielov (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Pull some Mossad strings, what friends are for...Mir Harven (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are not the first "Jewish Ustasha", you can find the original one here [46] --Koryaksky (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that surprises me. Balkan has invented loyalty, good faith and sympathy. Any reliable sources for that claim?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"If to be a patriot"

In your attempt to describe the rampant fascism, homophobia and anti-science as "patriotism" you've forgotten the fact that an encyclopedia isn't even meant to be "patriotic", it's meant to be neutral. Even if one were to play down the fascists, homophobic and anti-scientific views of the admins as mere "patriotism", it would still not be in accordance with Wikipedia. Fejstkajkafski (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of the admins of Croatian Wikipedia. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

VKokielov, it's not about labeling people but content. That some people (some admins) imagine themselves to be the project, and that any attack on them is an attack on project, is another problem. If a page has an impartial far-right slant, administrator should be the first one to tag it, and not participate in content dispute, locking articles and blocking dissenting interlocutors. Of course, CW has as many active editors as admins, so it's kind of hard not to bump into them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan, I'm acquainted with the actors of only one side of this argument. That's not enough to judge impartially, but it's enough to know that the charges brought here against them are slander, exacerbated to serve the virulent hatred their enemies entertain for them. No one who hates can judge impartially. Not even Jovanovic. -- VKokielov 216.213.98.70 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hate blinds the mind, and sends people, communities, and nations down the path of calamity. World history is littered with examples were hate has caused destruction, suffering and death because of blind hate. Wikipedia should not be the sounding board for such expression. Vodomar (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why CW urgently needs a pure restart, not some internal voting?

• From the very beginning the administrators were ideologically very biased.

• Until the year 2009 there was some loose balance, but it became completely lost after Zeljko and Kubura got elected to be administrators. After that a “runaway effect” took part, a feedback mechanism, pushing the whole project more and more into pro-fascist right and leading into this shameful, tragicomic situation.

If a secret ballot was organised in 2009 we would still be able to come with some kind of community stance and make a sober decision after that.

However, big purges were raging on the project after 2009 (see statistics), not only against the old users but against some new users that didn’t like fierce nationalistic rhetoric.

Bullying of users by extreme right-wing administrators drove off ideologically neutral users and all those that didn’t like promotion of fascism there. On the other hand, every ultra right-winger who came to hr.wiki felt as being in his own home, happy to finally have a place were he will spread his ideas uninterrupted.

Number of extreme right-wing administrators was growing, articles went more and more biased promoting extreme right-wing ideas and stances, non-right-wing users were unwilling to stay at such project, articles even more right, and that attracted even more right-wing users, pressing the others…. Therefore, this was a positive feedback mechanism that turned hr.wiki into what it is now.

If you now ask the current hr.wiki community if they are supporting the administrators – you might see a huge support from the current community, but one thing has to be stressed – that “community “ is not community of all wikipedians that were building hr.wiki but only those who are still not fugitives, those who didn’t escaped yet.

Current situation is that on the local village pump you can see some false voting, where, except some users understanding the problem, you have 6 users (mostly administrators) asking for administrating failures to be forgotten, asking for articles to be changes, while 4 of them is angry because changing of articles actually means - to admit that the problem actually exist!!! In fact, there you have a clash of ultra-right-wingers and extreme ultra-right-wingers!!! If this toxic spiral of pro-fascist tendencies continues and if the Meta decides to take measures in 2015 you will have a crippled Wikipedia with no more than 5-10 active users (others will leave of be blocked), much, much more fascism and a small deluded and deranged group of extreme ultra-hyper right-wing psychos claiming that a serbo-communist-masonic-jewish-antichrist-mumbo-jumbo conspiracy is raging against them, and that they have to fight fiercely in order to “save” that “beautiful” corner of internet from some evil powers.

Therefore, all asking from administrators to solve the current scandal “internally” should be decisively rejected, and several Croatian language speaking users should be sent, as members of an arbitrary council, to investigate how bad the situation is, who deserves only lifting of admin powers and who should be banned indefinitely. --Pavlemocilac (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Pavle Močilac knows that here on meta-wiki people are not aware of the fact that he hates literally everything related to Croatia. That can be seen in his writings in Jutarnji list tabloid, and especially if you look his facebook posts. For example, he gets frustrated because of success of croatian sportists. What level of hate is that? You can see here [47] that he comments the article about Blanka Vlasic after operation ankle recovery and succes on a miting with the words: "gaby, I wish she gets hurt". Probably croatian sportsmen are fascist so he has every moral right to hate them.

Congradulation Meta-Wiki, you managed to gather all hard-core haters of hr.wiki in one place by giving them space to troll. 83.131.255.6 18:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering that B.V. signed and openly endorsed the homophobic petition organized by the Croatian Catholic Church to prohibit gay marriages in Croatia by putting in the constitution a clause that marriage is only allowed among heterosexual pairs, I see such ill wishes as a general expression of contempt towards her person. I personally know many people that have similarly changed their minds on Vlašić after that. I don't think that Pavlemocilac "hates" anyone; if anything, he hates the way hrwiki is (mis)managed by a bunch of hard-core nationalists who imagine themselves to be "defending" Croatia against Serbs, Communists, Freemasons etc. Just because someone is born in a country and underwent a brainwashing called "state education", doesn't mean they have to develop a form of Stockholm syndrome called nationalism. There is nothing wrong in being critical, or in fact hating one's country (or its athletes). What is important is that other people's opinion are respected, and their freedoms not infringed upon. The critical litmus test for bs/hr/sr wikis would be having editors from other two wikis freely and without fear editing in their articles of interest; and furthermore, having what you perceive as "domestic traitors" (i.e. everyone not kissing flags) treated the same as any other editor. But unfortunately we won't see that anytime soon. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So he hates more than 700,000 people (Croatia has around 4,000,000 inhabitants) who signed that petition that's asking marriage to be defined by the constitution. He hates them with moral right to wish them hurt physically? Seriously? That's the profile of people you would like to install to be tutors on hr.wiki? By the way, these people are not homofobes. If they are homofobes, than [48] are also homofobes.

We all, who can read his posts, can see that he doesn't hate only those who signed that petition. It seams there are many valid reasons to hate someone, major reason being relation to Croatia. I suggest you to read Pavle Močilac posts. You'll find plenty of good and inovative reason to hate Croatia, some of which you maybe haven't seen before. Enjoy, I know you will :).

I don't see a bunch of hard-core nationalists who imagine themselves to be "defending" Croatia against Serbs, Communists, Freemasons etc.. Here I see a bunch of hard-core Yugoslav nationalists who imagine themselves to be "defending" the World from evil community and sysops of hr.wiki. I see them writing how Yugoslav nationalists from sh.wiki should be engaged to "purify" hr.wiki. I see them trolling about some imaginary fascism. I have never seen any kind of fascism on hr.wiki. Because I don't consider a fascist everyone who doesn't admire the Yugoslav Communist Tito's regime. People are opposed to both, fascism and communism on hr.wiki. Except that. People are opposed to every totalitarism, both Ustashe regime and Yugoslav regime. Except that. You can't change that by harming hr.wiki. Chvrka (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

He didn't say he "hated" anybody, you're putting words in my mouth. Everyone who signed that petition is a brainwashed homophobic moron. They want some rights for themselves (marriage as a legal institution), and no rights for others (today it's gays, tomorrow - atheists, "Communists", "enemies of the state" etc.). It's a slippery road towards fascism.

Nobody here is a "Yugoslav nationalist". You're just making up labels (in fact - projecting fears and prejudices). If you can't see a bias in the mentioned articles then you are part of the problem. Thinly-veiled sockpuppet of Kubura. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan, more than 700,000 people signed that petition in only two weeks. Croatia has only about 4 mil. people, meaning about one quater of the whole electorate of Croatia signed it in only two weeks. You explicitly say here that they are all brainwashed homophobic morons. Just because they consider marriage is the union on man and woman? So, that attitude should be presented on hr.wiki, that all those who disagree with you are brainwashed homophobic morons, sick Croatian nationalists and so? You aim to be the person who should pick sysops for the hr.wiki?

Ivan, people who consider marriage is union of man and woman are not homophobes by automatism. Many gay people also consider marriage is a union of man and woman solely. Some of them say that in public. Hit the link homovox.com.

Ivan, homophobe is the person who doesn't like gays just because of their sexual orientation. On hr.wiki, there were gays that edited many LGBT related articles. No one ever offended them. Sysops never made any difference in the approach to the gay users and strait users on hr.wiki. If they did, that could be homophobia. But they didn't. Because every person is treated in the same way on hr.wiki. If you contribute you will get help if you need it, you will be encouraged to further contributions. Anyone can visit articles about LGBT topics on hr.wiki and check how good is the relation between gay users and sysops. That's what's important.

And at the end, I'm not sockpuppet of anyone. You shouldn't be offending be that way. Chvrka (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of those signutares were mass-collected, one person signing for an entire extended family, within companies (under the threat of being fired) and similar. Yes that attitude should be presented on hrwiki, not because it's my opinion, but because others said so. In fact, it is represented, see w:hr:U_ime_obitelji#Kritike. I didn't claim that I should "pick sysops", you're again putting words in my mouth for no reason.

Homophobia is not necessarily not liking gays. Read the article on Homophobia - it also encompasses prejudices and attitudes. If forbidding same-sex marriages in constitution is not outright discrimination, I don't know what is. Croatian Catholic church did endorse the referendum and advised its followers to sign it, which means that we are dealing with religous brainwashing. Connect the two and see what you get. Every tolerant and freedom-loving person has a right to feel disgusted, particularly when a high-profile athlete like B. Vlašić in a commercial invites other people to sign such petition, to "protect the natural family". I can understand where that FB comment by Pavlemocilac is coming from. IP quoted it completely out of the context in an attempt to portray him in a bad light, I simply provided the context. So don't attack me. I don't really follow the "gay scene" on hrwiki as you appear to do, so I can't comment on that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Claptrap. Marriages between close cousins are also forbidden, as are between minors and adults. This is just a POV of a few countries that are morally bankrupt, not much more. Anyway, what's the big deal about homosexuals: they're shooting blanks & don't reproduce. Loony media promote homosex agenda that most of the population in virtually all countries in the world are against. Just try to blabber abut "fascism" & "homophobia" to Russians. US media and their lapdogs tried to intimidate Russia- and end up disgraced. Now, a few crackpots use homosex agenda-which is not a big deal here, because homosexuals are perhaps less than 0.5% in Croatia- as a weapon against Croatia's individuality & identity. It's about Yugo-nationalism, not about "anal" issues. Mir Harven (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the same category as incest and pedophilia? Morally bankrupt countries? Loony media promoting homosex agenda? Homosexuals as a weapon of Yugo-nationalism? I'm speechless. No wonder why you are so worshiped on hrwiki. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Less than 0.5% and thats for sure? So why a referendum? Do the 99,5% feel threatened? In catholic church there are a lot of people respected that are shooting blanks and don´t reproduce, priests, bishops, nuns, popes ... Homosexuality is Yugo-nationalism, never heard about that, opens up entire new perspective, especialy elsewhere in the world. This comes close the flat earth theory. Poor readers of Croatian Wikipedia. Stupidokracy I´d call this kind of rule. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because political elites try to impose their "view" (better, what they've been told to do) on vast majority of population. You're evidently incapable of rational discourse:homosexual ideology is a weapon of globalist "enterprise", and Yugoslav nationalists have successfully blended in & offered their services to the globalist project as well-payed lapdogs. Too complicated ? Sorry, not my guilt: idiocracy is, unlike most for Yugos' here, not my idol. Unlike Germany, UK, USA,..we got 1-2 pedophile abuse scandals in RCC. I'm not sure you can understand anything, but here are a few margaritas ante porcos:http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/download-eng/Tudjman_globalization.pdf , http://thaumazeinlibera.canalblog.com/ , http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/publications.html ...Mir Harven (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense is this? I read the whole http://thaumazeinlibera.canalblog.com/ blog and there is not one mention of homosexual ideology, nor Yugo-nationalism. I don't even think about reading other two "publications". This is as if someone said that Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian-Montenegrin language split is sponsored by masonry/Vatican/North Korea/"insert arbitrary bua-ha-ha archenemy here" through liberal ways of defining what language some people speak so as to keep the Balkan peoples in constant squabble and free-wheeling on it, and then offered some obscure evidence in the form of texts on world globalist leaders selling liberalistic ideas and free market as a cure for everything while in the meantime intentionally disregarding the growing social inequalities in the world and actually free-wheeling on it. Wait, this reminds me of something: change "Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian-Montenegrin language split" for "sexual freedoms"/"homosexual ideology" in the above post and there you have it. --79.175.74.67 01:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you don´t know what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is not a means to fight any ideologies or nationalities and we are not allowed to fight it, it is a means to show and explain any kind of ideologies and points of views. What my personal opinion about liberalsim is, does not matter is should be by all means kept out. On the other hand ist is important what scientists say about liberalism. Blogs and statements of politicians need to be kept out, this is just another opinion and you can have millions of opinions that don´t count. Wikipedia is not to be abused as a political battlefield. Wiki has to be neutral and must not force the reader or editors to accept certain ideologies. It also is not to "convert" the others to my own ideology or religion. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WTF???!!! Is this what this whole RFC is all about? Is this guy actually doing it??? Spreading mass histerya in our noble project by making eloquent tirades on some global conspiracy supported only by his en:FRINGE quasi-arguments disguised in hardcore facts? I mean who is this user:Mir Harven? If he has any influence on any Wikimedia project whatsoever not just extreme right shifting hr.wikipedia, this project's content should be carefully scrutinized. Come to think of it, considering the extent of work this would entail it would be much better of if any such project would be completely abolished and the question of its future put to public trial. In the meantime decisively ridiculed so as to receive as much public attention. I mean, are we supposed to tolerate such radical ideologies have any contact with us? Worldwide globalists' plans to infiltrate homosexual agenda as a mean to distract the humanity from factual problems? With recreation of Yugoslavistic dark age? Where: in Croatia, the whole Balkans or in the all known and unknown universe? And all this through such a liberal minded project as Wikipedia is? I mean I've heard some darn mind-boggling fringe theories in my 34 years of life, but this is fracking unbelievable. Paranoia at its best. Come to think of it, again, it seems like it is the total opposite: worldwide globalists' plans to infiltrate Yugoslavistic agenda with some obscure mention of homosexual ideology as a mean to distract the Wikipedia community from factual problems of humanity. Actually, if Mir Harven is a woman, my apologies to all the men of all the known and unknown universe, but usually this kind of homophobic demagogy comes from the male portion of population. --178.221.87.88 10:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and my sincere apologies for posting anonymously, but I've been told that some from hr.wikipedia have a tendency to chase the ones that aren't popular for them: "Pre nego što pređem na stvar, ako ti je ovo pravo ime moj savet je da ga promeniš u emailu. Ne znam kakva je situacija na drugim wiki projektima, ali ovi s hr wiki imaju običaj ganjat one koji im nisu popularni,pa za svaki slučaj.....". Will post under my user name when I find the atmosphere here less polarized. --178.221.87.88 11:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And what's up with this constant reiteration of some Croatian language specificity? Croatian historians say this, Croatian linguists say that, Croatian legal experts say who knows what about Croatian language - what does this have to do with allegations of extreme right-wing bias and historical revisionism in the articles on hr.wikipedia? I mean the allegations came from the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of Croatia for heavens's sake. Not from the Serbian side. Nor Slovenian, Montenegrin or Bosniak side for that matter. And the author of the article [49] mentioned in en:Croatian_Wikipedia#Controversies is en:HINA itself, "the national government-owned news agency of Croatia" not some individual journalist in some left-wing, right-wing, centre-wing, who-kno-what-wing journal. What's going on here? Croatian government and Croatian national news agency is on the ride to besmirch Croatian history, language, culture? What the fracking F**K? --79.175.74.67 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Left wing Government, left wing paper, left wing supporters. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!As if a Minister's word carries such universe shifting gravitas and authority. WTF!!!!!!! 163.8.84.68

Is this you, Mir? Came back to talk to me, huh? Finally got up the nerve? But heya, you need your anonymous cloak just to be sure noone accuses you of anything. Nothing unexpected of you. Now that you lost all your pathetic arguments let's see what new you have to offer. Usage of acronyms: WTF. Actually, this is mine, you are just copying me. This, I admit, is unexpected of you. It is because I expected more of you. Next: excessive and expletive use of exclamation marks. That carry no meaning. Except conveying the message that you are on the edge. This is also new and unexpected - it is because I thought this discussion would last longer. That is, you disappoint me yet again. "Relativiziraš" the word of a Minister of your own homeland. Ok, granted. And again, this is nothing unexpected of you. But hey, OTOH you fail to address the concern on how come Croatian national news agency is smearing your little hr.wikipedia kingdom. Hm, sorry, princedom. Are they on to get you? Or is this again some grand master-plan for obliterating the unique Croatian culture and beautiful heritage in order to reinstate the Yugoslavistic totalitarian civilizatiocidic - what? Empire? en:Shahanshahdom? What? You tell me! And while you're at it, please inform me who will be the Shahanshah in this Shahanshahdom? Just for me to know in advance and not be surprised. Please, will you, please? Anyway, have some primordial enemies from your traumatic childhood to choose from for this excruciating position of Shahanshah? Some allmighty omnipotent omniscient omnipresent super-villain that haunts you at nights? Or is this just plain old paranoid schizomegalomanic homosapiens-o-phobic no-one-loves-me disorder? And hey, what will be the territorial extent of this Shahanshahdom? The whole wide cosmos, just our galaxy, the Earth, Europe, or just your beloved Croatia? No, wait, it will be the precious little walled garden of obscurantist mind of yours. Right? You tell me. Just talk to me. I'm here to listen to you. Lay on the couch and tell me everything that bothers you. I'll be the voice that soothes you. I'll tell you all is well, and that you can relax... at laaaaast.

What say you? We have a deal? Huh? "Ovaj", "onaj", "kakogod", I have to go. This was just too much of my precious time to be spent on your little "malenkost". As your countrymen would say: bok! :-) --79.175.74.67 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

Pavlemocilac, it would be better to ban such idea like yours now. It´s the year 2013 (no more before 1991) and we are not in North Corea. Here you can see how many people read Croatian wiki per day http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm Not too bad, the Croatian wiki. It seems that this is the main issue for the neo-communist anti Croatian Wiki activists. I am working since several years in Croatian wiki, and was blocked several times, too. But that would never be a reason for me to go to "SH" wiki and to kill the project. We are all here wasting time, stupid discussion. That whole campaign is a big big vandalism! --Croq (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Croq dont spread your propaganda about anti-croatian movement in Wikipedia here. You are one of the well known croatian POV-Warriors in the german Wikipedia. regards Seader (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Croq first of all, Korea is not spelt with C but with K . Secondly, you accuse me that I am a neo-communist. Fine. Where are your proofs? No proofs? That explains a lot. Third, daily visits depend on the number of articles, not on the rate how fast are they appearing. Theoretically, if there is only one editor, if tomorrow SpeedyGonsales blocks everyone except himself and if that situation stays, the number of visits would stagnate, not fall. The number of active editors is the relevant in this issue, since the Speedy's right-wing clan is driving the editors away, not articles, not visitors. In fact, I bet that these days Croatian Wikipedia visits are skyrocketing since all this media noise caused huge negative publicity - negative, but still publicity. --Pavlemocilac (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Pavle, I expected much more visitors an trolls motivated by the left wing media attack. But it didn´t happen that much. Obviously nobody except you, Serbian, SH-Wikipedia activists (where everybody who wants become an admin) and left wing Yugoslavs take care about this Vandalism campaign. Boring. --Croq (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This ist no left wing campaing. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Giftzwerg, Du hast weder einen der Zeitungsartikel lesen können, noch kannst Du die Inhalte in den Artikeln lessen. Oder? Worauf basieren Deine Annahmen??? --Croq (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So, the admins on Croatian Wikipedia are fighting against one-sided 'North Korean' thought by blocking anyone who does not agree with their side of the story and locking the Croatian village pump from public debate? If Croq is bored, he is free to go. But a dialogue involving all sides, not just those who decide about who is blocked (and thus silenced on CW) or not, is good. I think a well documented list of admin abuse here is a great way to go a step further.--Seiya (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Village pump is not locked. Registered users may comment, but unregistered not at the time because there was too much trolling from people from facebook hate-group.

Admins on Croatian Wikipedia are not fighting against anyone. People from one facebook hate-group are fighting against them in person and Croatian Wikipedia as a project. Most of them admires Tito and his Communist Yugoslavia and want to see odes to the Tito and Communism in hr.wiki as there it is on sh.wiki. They think that they should teach everyone how Tito was great and how Yugoslavia and Communism was great by using hr.wiki. In order to achive that silly idea, they want to remove hr.wiki sysops so they could present the one and only truth about dear leader Tito and magnificant Communism. If they would manage to troll the hr.wiki with odes to Tito and Communism bullshits then they would say that hr.wiki is finally antifascistic, finally without fascism. Every oposition to communism and Tito's Yugoslavia regime is fascism to them. Chvrka (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seiya, you were free to go so the "SH" wiki, just do what you think is necessary to be done. You´re admin now?! So why do you care about Croatian Wikipedia? Why did you not change things in Croatian Wikipedia (an the other here , too) that you think have to be changed? What have you been waiting for? I never saw you discussing about such themes. No difflinks. Sorry, so I think better stay home. --Croq (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And I did go to SH Wiki, and thank God that such a tolerant alternative exists. But, no, I am not admin there, Croq. Why do I care? I care about garbage being written on CR Wiki because I live in Croatia and do not want the world looks at all those controversial articles ("empirical evidence of only 481 victims in Jasenovac camp"; "Antifascism is a mental, spiritual disorder"; "Were the ustashe a Totalitarian project? The anwser is no") and think that all of us are like that. People will start thinking that Croats are semi-fascists if they believe in such a "knowledge". Can you fathom what kind of an embarassement this is for our country when it hit the news? And wrong, I did try to change things when I was on CR Wiki: for instance, right after the first wave of newspaper criticism (2012) that something is wrong [50], I went on to correct some rubbish, like deleting that Pavelic's novel is on the same level as works of Ivo Andric. By doing that, I at least saved you from some embarassement for this current wave, but since I've been blocked, I could not continue to correct further or to save you more.--Seiya (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course there are not many conflicts on sh.wiki when only possible problems that could arise are: "Which communist leader was the greatest of all?", "What communist country was the best, although they all were ideal without any doubt?" I wonder, if sh.wiki is such a good project, why nobody read that "dear great leader Tito" articles? Chvrka (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

{{:en:source?}} When you find an article on SH Wikipedia in the vein of "anti-Stalinism is a mental, spiritual and genetical disorder" or "only 481 people died in the gulags", feel free to contact me. Or the press. We would be thankful.--Seiya (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on?

(If you wish to discusse, please do it below my comment, not between lines. Thank you.) At first, there is a small hate-group on facebook. They consider hr.wiki to be fascistic. Why? - mainly because they consider a fascist everyone who doesn't admire Tito and his Yugoslav communist regime. So they decide to contact the Jutarnji list (far left tabloid newspapers) to give them publicity. One journalist of Jutarnji list, Goran Penic (who already lost some court cases because of slanders in his articles) decides to do what they ask for, to give them publicity. He adversitise (by link) mentioned hate-group in his article so they gather more members, mainly those who don't like (euphemism) Croatia. They publish personal names of sysops in hr.wiki and home adresses of some of them in their facebook hate-group. Lots of hate speech.

After that, they come to Meta-Wiki that hosted space for them to troll. They ask for removal of sysops from hr.wiki, replacement with the sysops of sh.wiki. Why? - mainly because they consider a fascist everyone who doesn't admire Tito and his Yugoslav communist regime. Sysops of sh.wiki admire Tito and his regime a lot. That wikipedia has several times bigger targeted audience but no one reads it. Bunch of How dear leader Tito and his Yugoslavia and Communism were great articles. The rest copy/pasted from Croatian and Serbian wiki.

Every normal person would be upset by the thought that some fascists are using wikipedia to promote fascism. So I may understand the reason why Meta-Wiki allowed the request for comment about the subject. But I can't understand why does it allowe trolling without evidence. Fascism and homofobia obviously only imagined. There's no more talk about them when difflinks should be posted to prove hard allegations. Only repeating fascism, fascism, homofobia, nationalism.... ??? I think some should deal with the imagened apparitions of fascists there where they meet them - in their heads. And if they have such a desire to write about that imagened apparitions then the above mentioned facebook hate-group could be a good space, or some blog, or diary. Not Meta-Wiki. Because allegations about imaginery fascism in hr.wiki project are a serious offence to the community of hr.wiki, to those that put their time and effort in it.

If there really were some fascists on hr.wiki, don't you think they wouldn't be talking against fascism here? I haven't seen anyone talking in favor of fascism here. If there were some fascists, they would certanly show that they favor fascism here in the discussion. Chvrka (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Bravo Chvrka! Chapeau!--Croq (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No one asked to hrwiki sysops be replaced by shwiki sysops. Sysops on shwiki do not "admire Tito" (not that there's anything wrong with admiring him). Perhaps you should check that FB "hategroup" as you call it - it has plenty of evidence. Just today they posted another very homo-tolerant comment by User:SpeedyGonsales, on how Gender studies ought to be called Gender ideology "because social movement that destroys existing identities and introduces multiple identical identities is not possible to call studies, which amounts to calling Communism Communist studies and Utopian studies". And once again, this is not about individual editors being fascist, but about pro-fascist attitudes being subtly pushed in articles and fascist regimes such as Ustashe being whitewashed. Personally I'd be happy if nothing changed with the leadership of hrwiki (can you believe that? Don't worry, soon shwiki will engulf you all.), but the feedback loop of being ridiculed here, on FB or in the papers achieved its goals and those ridiculous articles get rectified. Something like a "shaming board". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right an I expect that your Copy+Paste "Serbocroatian" Wikipedia will continue growth by copying "Preuzeto sa hr wikipedije". Shame on you. --Croq (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Since when is translating articles a shameful practice? And since when are the different language wikis competitive? You should really check what the Wikipedia idea is all about, maybe then you'll also understand why NPOV is so crucial. 23PowerZ (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender studies issue sounds like something that could be handled by WP:OR, which Hr.wikipedia doesn't have. Then, maybe the case is too hopeless. But it wouldn't hurt. Miranche (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: upload screenshots from the Facebook group to Commons

There are a lot of screenshots posted on the Facebook group with specific examples of bias, and it would be good to copy them somewhere to Wikimedia servers. This would help in any kind of a systematic documentation of bias, and would make it easy to provide direct replies to claims of unfounded slander.

I assume, though I'm not sure, that the copyright for the screens is either CC-BY-SA or GFDL, as they are all derived from content so licensed. If this is so, explicit permission of whoever posted / edited the screenshot probably isn't needed, although it'd be good to have it.

There are ~40 of these screenshots as of right now, and they're accessible to anyone signed into Facebook whether they "Like" the group or not. It'd be great if several people went ahead and uploaded a few each, we could have them all there pretty quickly. I started the category on commons Category:2013 Croatian Wikipedia controversy for this purpose, so whoever wants to contribute, go for it. Miranche (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're aware that this Facebook page is screened as a proof for "other" side in the legal steps that are about to follow. I don't know about the details, but I guess it will be interesting. Especially after the collapse of the contemporary ruling elite & exposure of their "founding fathers" as chief architects of extra-judicial killings during Yugoslav regime, as well as the current politicos' role in cover-up of these crimes. Mir Harven (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, MH. Miranche (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a high point of a propaganda by the Facebook hate group. Like any Wikipedia it changes with time. The article antifašizam is now totally different to what the claims are on the Facebook page, the same goes for a number of other articles. 163.8.84.68 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

163.8.84.68, I'm happy to hear that people are working on hr:Antifašizam. When the media circus started, the article was locked because of a "counterproductive edit war," and any attempts to change its blatant bias were being prevented. There have been 20 edits in the last week, which means that media attention has improved the Croatian Wikipedia. Which, then, means the public circus has certainly been beneficial, and possibly necessary.

If the screenshots are ever uploaded, this of course needs to be done in conjunction with documenting as closely as possible when they were taken. Providing this info along with the screenshot is the responsibility of whoever uses them. If the date of the capture is withheld, I agree the use could be seen as "propaganda." It is not automatically so if the date is provided. Miranche (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The hr:Antifašizam article is "totally different" now only because the old content was thrown away completely and replaced with the text lifted from LZMK (see "Izvori" section). This is highly dubious, regardless of the fact LZMK allows quoting the article in its entirety, because there is no permission to freely change the content while still attributing it to LZMK.

Back to the topic at hand - there is no need to upload the screenshots, they are not directly useful to us. We're interested in editor actions and resulting content, all of which is already there, in the article histories. The evidence page submissions should point to article revisions and/or diffs. Screenshots are helpful inasmuch as they provide pointers telling us where to look. GregorB (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the LZMK copy-paste. At the very least the page should have a tag similar to the "1911 Britannica" tags in English WP.

Agreed that the screens are not of direct relevance. My suggestion was meant as an intermediate step, to have them available publicly rather than on Facebook for anyone who wants to do the footwork of linking them up to article histories. Miranche (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The vile Jure Grm deletes the reference that a US terrorist married to Croat caused death of US cop

I noticed very little is said about the Ustashi bias of User:Jure_Grm, who is likely a SOCKPUPPET of the Wikipeda in Croatian Mordok, one Speedy_gonsales or whatever its name is. We called him on his pro-Ustashi bias: http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:Jure_Grm&action=history

The vile creature deleted the reference in the Croat version of Wiki that Julienne Bušić is a terrorist and pushes for info on her as just an "author" (she scribbled a schmaltzy story of her love for an Ustashi, her husband, that made her move to Croatia, even though she is US-born).

Wiki in English clearly staes that Julienne stayed in jail for 13 years but Jure Grm will not have you know that fact in Croatian. http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julienne_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87&action=history

Jure Grm is one of the most virulent Ustashis on Ustashi (eeeerrr: "Croatian") Wikipedia, i.e. not Wikipedia in Croatian as it should be but Wikipedia menat for promulgating Ustashi ideas masquerading them as pan-"Croatian".

So, facebook hate-group should be more relevant to Wikipedia than the american judge from the en:Julienne Bušić case, who repedeately said that neither she or her husband were terrorists? Bravo. That's what we are looking for, that kind of objectivity should be tutor on hr.wiki that it could finally be anti-fascistic. Please admit it, there are not many Croats who are not fascists, terrorists, mentaly disordered nationalists and so on? Right? Chvrka (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Offtopic: Why Juliane was imprisoned then ? -- Bojan  Talk  13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave you the link above where you can start if you are interested about that topic. She has published two books, “Lovers and Madmen”, which won the Croatian Writer’s Society award in 1997 and is now in its seventh Croatian and second English printing. There's much more here. The point is these facebook hate-group members would like their POV to be like some "God's voice on Wikipedia". Anyone who disagrees with them should be blocked or so. Pathetic. Chvrka (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Yoy saying she didn't hijack plane and didn't plant explosive device? -- Bojan  Talk  14:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying she didn't help in plain hijack. That's well known fact she didn't and doesn't deny. Don't know where did you get that idea that I would be denying it or why are you going further offtopic. Explosive device was planted by Zvonko, not her. There are sources for the story, you can investigate all day. This is not place for it. All I was saying is that facebook hate group POV isn't reliable source for wiki, while opinion of the judge from the case is. Chvrka (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Here, you apply the same logic as in the example of war criminal Mirko Norac. The man was convicted for war crimes by croatian courts, and yet, when I added "war criminal" to his long list of achievements, you reverted my change. So Mirko Norac is not a war criminal in your opinion? Like Jullienne is not a terrorist? --Koryaksky (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Mirko Norac was found guilty for the crime during the war, as Croatian court said. I didn't remove it from the article, never. It was a style of writing question. You put it all in one sentence, I made two sentences instead, but the fact remain the same. So I don't see your point. You think that only you are allowed to edit some hr.wiki articles and who ever makes change should ask you if you agree? Finally, your version is the last one in that article. So only one who could be accused of some bias is you, not me.

This quasi-arguments you post are nothing more than a proof that all accuasations about some fascism etc. on hr.wiki are nothing more than defamations, slanders. Chvrka (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone can see what you did in article history [51]. The fact that I did not want to confront you at the time is inconsequential. However it may be, the article now reads that Mirko Norac is convicted for war crimes, which is important. When my block is lifted, I will edit the article once more and give him the title he deserves. --Koryaksky (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I did nothing wrong. The fact is you pushed your bias making "50 words long sentence" although I pointed that it is only a matter of style, not content difference. Readers could see he is convicted for the crime committed in the war before you came to make your edits. What do you mean by saying I will edit the article once more and give him the title he deserves? You will put criminal in the title of the article? Mirko Norac The Criminal? Chvrka (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Chvrka, the fascism is not the problem, historical revisionism is. If someone goes through the trouble to mention a person for her/his literary contributions and fails to mention that he/she was convicted for terrorism is just a dishonest attempt to skew the facts and falsify biographies. Just like you with Mirko Norac - It's ok to write that he is "volonteur in the war for independance, several times wounded, retired as a general and a knight of Alka", but not a war criminal? Or, it can be a part of the article, just not in the same sentence which gives his primary characterization? Your attempts to play down some facts and emphasize others, to fit your world view, are called propaganda, not encyclopedia style editing. However, I agree that maybe "war criminal" is to harsh and not fitting the encyclopedia format. But can you please explain, how come that in a version of the article, prior to my changes, the words "crime","war crime" and "war criminal" were never even mentioned, and when I added them, you "corrected" my changes within 15 minutes? Why can't you do it yourself, without my intervention, what was stopping you? btw, in the first sentence (in the part taht I wrote), something's wrong with declinations so please correct that, since I'm blocked... :) --Koryaksky (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should not label people "terrorist" or "criminal", but why article about Julienne Bušić doesn't mention that she was in jail for 13 years??--Wikit 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wrote about 13 years in prison. If someone did write in, it certainly wouldn't be removed. It's the fact. All users are welcome to fulfil articles with referenced data. Always were, always will be. Chvrka (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong.--Wikit 18:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, really looks like vandalism (zračna teroristkinja???). I assume it wasn't removed because of the fact that she was in jail. I mean label "zračna teroristkinja" is funny, non wikipedian. :) You can find better examples. No admin involved in this one. Come on, show us some fascism. Chvrka (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let us see if the "zračna teroristkinja" was the problem. Now this time in the new edit -- on Wikipedia IN CROATIAN AND NOT *croatian Wikipedia -- we have NO mention of terrorism, just the fact that she was a part of the group that carried out a plane hijacking and that she was in gaol for 13 years. Let us see how long it will take between some Ustashi usurper of admin prerogatives deletes it: http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julienne_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87&action=history

As of 00:20, 21. rujna (September) 2013 the article is locked by hr:user:Jure Grm (diff) and on 08:06, 21. rujna 2013 the question "Zašto brišeš činjenice, kao što je ona da je Julienne Bušić TERORISTKINJA koja je prouzročila SMRT POLICAJCA i otimala zrakoplov zarad čega je bila u zatvoru 13 GODINA, ti ustaški apologetu i fašistički mračnjaku?" on the locking admin's talk page deleted (diff) The IP posting the comment was blocked. The other IP who was involved in the back and forth reversion after which the article was locked was notified with, I suppose, standard message about removal of the test edits "Dobrodošli na Wikipediju, zahvaljujemo na vašem testiranju. Vaš je test uspio i upravo je uklonjen. Ako želite i dalje testirati, činite to na stranici za vježbanje, a možete i pogledati kratki uvodni tečaj za više informacija o uređivanju na Wikipediji. Ako se niste do sada prijavili možete to učiniti ovdje. Hvala na razumijevanju. BlackArrow (razgovor) 00:19, 21. rujna 2013." (CEST) (diff) The IP was on two occasions inserting the text "... , ali ipak u javnosti najpoznatija kao supruga poznatog hrvatskog emigrantskog teroriste Zvonka Bušića..." with a wikilink to hr:Zvonko Bušić after the lede sentence of "Julienne Bušić (Eugene, Oregon, 20. rujna 1948.), američko-hrvatska je prozna spisateljica, esejistica i prevoditeljica..." in the article. (diff 1, diff 2) --Biblbroks (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't think the deletion of the comment from the admin page and blocking the IP is unjustified, I was just stating facts for others to judge. As of now the article being locked has expired. --Biblbroks (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You should have translate this ..."ti ustaški apologetu i fašistički mračnjaku" in edit summary. This is classical attack on admin, but no one talks here about it. Of course, this is so irrelevant. What would you (or anybody) do if someone calls you ustaša and fascist without any reason, on hr.wiki and here (first post in this topic)? Interesting, Chinese proxy again.--MaGa (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Interesting, Chinese proxy again."--MaGa => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ZX73ZUl-0

This is a typical example of baiting users and admins. Currently there are a lot of new user accounts being created for the reason of quarreling and for testing the resolve of the community gathered around the hr.wikipedia.org project. This is done simply for the purposes to create evidence and to report back to meta and to post on the hr.wikipedia.org hate page being the Facebook ndh.wikipedia. What is happening that conversations on these pages and conversations, history of articles and diff-logs are being presented on the Facebook hate pages. Then again contents from the mentioned Facebook pages are also placed here on Meta as well. There are individuals who are actively working on the Facebook and at the same time they are conducting a similar campaign her, on en.wikipedia.org, and on hr.wikipedia.org. Then the same persons are then talking with the Croatian media and turning on the extra pressure on the Wikipedia community. 163.8.84.68 21:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if it isn't evidence you have nothing to worry about, right? But you called it yourself: evidence. Of what? And you mention something about the resolve: on what? Also, you speak of some pressure on the community: pressure to do what? Paranoia, huh? BTW, what language is the youtube clip of the song Paranoja i.e. Paranoia mentioned in this diff? I'm sure you don't understand it since it is in Serbian right? No, wait, Bosnian? Sorry, Bosniak? Uff, Montenegrin? --79.175.74.67 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, come on produce evidence that admin Jure Grm is a ustaša. Substantiate your claim ! If you are calling some one something you need to substantiate your claim with evidence. Or this is just name calling in the typical manner of some participants of this debate. When someone is making a claim, it needs to be backed up. If you don't have this evidence where you can prove that the person is what you call they are, then you can say whatever you want but it won't be taken into consideration. You can trumpet about paranoia or what ever you like in your response, but this does not strengthen your argument but only weakens - it is just propaganda. 163.8.84.68 22:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Takes ALL of 11 minutes for the Ustashi usurper of admin prerogatives User:Jure_Grm to delete the reference

As we can see here: http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julienne_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87&action=history , it takes ALL of 11 minutes for the Ustashi usurper of admin prerogatives User:Jure_Grm to delete the reference to the fact that Julienne Busic was a part of the group that set a bomb which killed a US cop.

That is Croatian literature? -- Not at all.

That is not Ustashi administrators? -- Quite obviously, it is. A sockpuppet, but genuinely Ustashi.

User:Jure_Grm, the shame of Croatia.

______________________________________________

This is what the text looked like before the Ustashi usurper of admin prerogatives User:Jure_Grm deleted it:

Julienne Bušić (Template:SAD grad, 20. rujna 1948.), američko-hrvatska je prozna spisateljica, esejistica i prevoditeljica koja je 13 godina provela u zatvoru u SAD zbog sudjelovanja u otmici zrakoplova i podmetanju bombe u New Yorku, koja je prouzročila smrt jednog američkog policajca.

-= Životopis =-

Rodila se je kao Američanka Julienne Eden Schultz, 1948. godine. Studirala je u SAD-u te u Europi, magistrirajući na području njemačkog jezika i jezikoslovlja.

1969. godine u Beču je upoznala Zvonka Bušića a vjenčali su se 1972. godine u Frankfurtu.

Pisati zaozbiljno je otpočela po izlasku iz zatvora u Pleasantonu u Californiji, gdje je služila kaznu tijekom 13 godina, na osnovi osude za otmicu zrakoplova i podmetanje bombe na kolodvoru Grand Central u New Yorku prilikom deaktiviranja koje je jedan policajac poginuo.

Ovo se dogodilo 10. rujna 1976. i Bušić je u otmici zrakoplova i podmetanju bombe sudjelovala skupa sa suprugom i još dvoje terorista. vidjeti također i ovdje

_________________________

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE THERE, JUST FACTS, but Ustashi usurper of admin prerogatives User:Jure_Grm is paranoid that Croat youth might turn against him and his clique of five with 35 sockpuppet IDs if they learn the truth.

Ustaša here, ustaša there, ustaša's everywhere. Stop living in the past! Ustašas are long gone with the end of WWII. That goes the same with Nazis. So If I come across someone on some other Wikipedia who prevents me adding a reference or some other text, then I should find what nationality of ethnic background they are and then call them by that derogatory name. My question to you it to provide proof that user Jure Grm is a neo-ustaša, by sourcing all of his comments that he has made to support your claim. For this you will need to show on this forum that user and admin Jure Grm glorifies the Ustaša movement in the past and that he promotes these ideas of the Ustaša movement in the present. If you can not substantiate your claims, all what you have said is nothing but slander. If someone is denying some fact, then address that appropriately. 163.8.84.68 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So you can´t read? I mean there is a section on this page "I am an Ustasha!" And no, the nazis are not gone, they still live all around the globe, just the names differ but still it is hate that drives them and thy say it´s love for their nation. There is nothing more desatrous to a nation than nationalism because it isolates a people. The secret of prospering nations is to get connected to others, to learn from others and to be friend with others, to help others and to accept help from others.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Cut the crap Giftzwerg!

Who runs witch-hunt of HR:WP sysops and why?

Probably all neutral viewers of this conversation already noticed that lynch against HR:WP sysops is moderated mainly by contributors from one specific project - SH:WP. Why are they doing it? Why are they attacking one small WP community with slanders? There are several reasons, all of them are political.

1) SH:WP as a project has no sense. It's unnecessary project because so called "Serbo-Croatian" no longer exists. That was a failed language project that aimed to create mixture from Serbian and Croatian. The project had huge political support from both Yugoslav regimes, especially the communist one. But it failed. The iron curtain fell in Europe and Serbo-Croatian language mixture project fell along with it. Today, for example The European Library has no "serbo-croatian" in it's languages index. Check the index. But, there are few users who think they can impose something that strong and organized Yugoslav regimes couldn't. So they push their bias in articles about "SC" on en.wiki and elsewhere. Croatians and Serbians don't see that as some problem. Nobody wishes to fight with their dreams. Everyone who reads their wishfull thinking about SC existance laughs and says: Some yugo-activist took effort to promote his POV, but will be corrected some day when they realise that somebody made fool of them. So, there's no problem, yet.

2) They all have the same opinion about the topics they consider "the most important ones" - Tito, Communism, Yugoslavia - who doesn't admire them, he is fascist.

Real problem starts when SH:WP sysops realize that nobody reads their articles. They have several times bigger targeted audience but both, HR:WP and SR:WP have more visitors. Why is that? Because:

• only topics they put effort in are political topics (Communism, Tito, Yugoslavia etc.), the rest they copy/paste from SR:WP, HR:WP and BS:WP
• the project is in mess because some articles are, because of copy/paste, written in standard serbian language while others in standard croatian, also, some are written in cyrillic, some are written in latin script.

Neither Croatians, neither Serbians have desire to correct their our magnificant communism, our dear great leader Tito political and history articles. Nobody reads it as mentioned before. So, the group has a plan. :D It's silly but it now causes problems to HR:WP project as we see. They want HR:WP and SR:WP to be closed or their public image hardly roughed, so their's project could become "dominant". Some interesting actions are done that way, beside this witch-hunt.

The HR:WP is the main "enemy". People read it the most of all others "enemy" projects. So, they start removing cyrillic script on SH:WP, replacing cyrillic with latin. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] etc. etc. Some articles are copy-pasted from SR:WP and HR:WP by bots as agreed. [57] The idea is to have as much as possible identical articles as HR:WP in order to achive "unification", "merging". [58]

They put effort only in political (yugoslav communist) manifests and pamphlets, while the rest c/p from other projects and now they would like to close other projects where politics is not so important so they could have their political view presented together with quality non-political work from other projects. HR:WP is much more than history and politics. It has 141,000 articles and growing. Nice catch - to take that work and put yugoslav communist political agenda with it. A great succes for the agenda.

The idea is sick.

If you really like your SH:WP than make it better, readable, clean your mess. No one will ask SH:WP to be shut down because it has no linguistic sense. But don't slander other project to achive something, that's immoral. Chvrka (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This statement is off-topic. Assumed it is true, it does not improve anything on other wikis including hr:wiki.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer

Answering querstion with question, Hypothetical, or maybe not, myabe just cynical. How do you call person who is clearly opposed to antifascism? How do you call person who is deletiing section on wiki, writen from Croatian Constitution saying that Antifascism is foundation of our country? How do you call a person who is inserting into page with Antifascism a link towards Left Wing Fsscism, with intention to put equal mark in between? I do not know how you call that person(s), but I will call him Croq [59]. And how do you call admin who lock the page after those edits. You can call him as you wish, I will call him Zeljko. And last question. And how many persons were against promotion person like that to autopatrol? Guess: [60].

I did not work on serbian wiki, nor on sh.wiki. I worked only on hr.wiki, and I do not like to see it pulled through the mud. But, due to editors like Croq and simmilar, and due to admins who protect him whole project is going down the drain. And I am ashamed that I was and am still part of it. --B. Ivsi (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

D, Staljin, Tito and other communists were antifascists. Churchill and Roosevelt were not. They were all strongly oposed to fascism, but only communists called themself antifascists. Antifascism is a communist term. If we are talking about antifascism during the WWII, than person oposed to it would probably be fascist. But, if we are talking about post-WWII antifascism, then we are talking about left-wing-fascism, we are talking about communism. So, answer to your hypothetical question is that person oposed to antifascism could be liberal, demokrat - oposed to both fascism and communism.

D, Croatian Constitution doesn't say "antifascism" is the foundation of our country. It says that ZAVNOH (The State Anti-fascist Council of the National Liberation of Croatia) is important for the preservation of Croatia statehood during the WWII. Meaning antifascism of Croatians during the WWII is very important, cause it is very very important. But the post-war "antifascism" = communist fascism is not the foundation of our country. Croatia is not communist country (anymore), it is country with liberal democracy. The post-war "antifascism" and liberal democracy are very different, mutually opposed terms.

Western nations never mention "antifascism" when talking about their oposition to fascism. Because they were and are opposed to both - fascism and antifascism (communism). If someone is opposed to communism (left-wing fascism, antifascism) it doesn't mean he or she is fascist. I think this article Antifascism with a human face describes better what I wanted to clear.

When talking about hr.wikipedia project, it is much more than a few history and politics articles. It's small community including sysops are doing a great job. This disruption of their work is not good. Regards, Chvrka (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"antifascism of Croatians during the WWII is very important, cause it is very very important" is the best thing I have read the whole day. I applaud you.

Few facts which nobody will question

• 1) CheckUser investigation is asked now 32 users (until now). Of that number 8 votes is from users with home on sh.wikipedia (6 of that number are asked in 2010/11/12 to leave hr wikipedia) and minimal 3 votes are from hr.wikipedia. I do not know home wikipedia of other users so attacking sh.wikipedia is weird thing to do. On other side of 13 users which oppose CheckUser investigation 12 is from hr.wikipedia. If we delete this votes then we are having 24 votes for checkuser investigation and only 1 vote against !!!!
• 2) Real question is:It is true that group of users using meatpuppetry and pushing and has taken control of wikipedia with aim to promote fringe theory (fascism is cool) ?. If answer is yes then action must be taken. If answer is No then.....

Today I have been informed that 2 hr.wikipedia administrator accounts are having 1 IP address, but this can be disputed and it is not important. Only important question is point 2.--Rjecina2 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

They don't perceive it as a fringe theory. They believe that they are on a mission to defend Croatian Wikipedia against the occupation by Serbs, Yugoslavs and Masonic globalist homosexual quasi-liberals. The biggest problem is not accepting that 1) alternative interpretations of historical events exist, and are not any less "false", only from a different perspective 2) the opinion of historians, linguists and scientists of their liking is not necessarily opinion of the rest of the world 3) NPOV is a nonnegotiable policy, and giving undue weight to some obscure kooks self-publishing articles on far-right web sites is forbidden.

Of course most of the admins do not do so directly (though occasionally they blurt something out where it becomes evident which position they're siding with), the "useful idiots" (Mir Harven, Croq), IPs or sockpuppets do - they lock the article in content disputes to a preferred version, and drive away any editors promoting an alternative POV. So it's a much more subtle matter than an overt support of fascist ideology. When such actions accumulate, you get the hrwiki of today - biased, losing editors, promoting obscure words that no Croatians use such as šport or potisućak only to pretend to be different than Bosnian and Serbian wikis, historical revisionism is running rampant etc. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jure_Grm and User:Zeljko -- which in fact are two sockpuppets of either User: SpeedyGonsales = other ID User:MaGa = third ID User:Kubura, or User:Roberta_F. -- are absolutely the worst incarnation of that multiheaded, multisockpuppeted monster carried out, as the same evil in a purportedly less dangerous guise as User:Chvrka does admit, by a mere handful of abusers of Wikipedia rules with multiple IDs against any non-Ustashi-equals-Nazi POV.

Anyway... the fascist "Croatian Wikipedia" should be deleted, probably even from the archives, and a genuine Wikipedia in Croatian started without any administrators, let alone any higher degree of manipulation for at the very least 18 months, until we see a more balanced Wiki in Croatian language emerge.

Why all principles of good behavior are being ignored in this immoral conversation full of slanders and personal attacks?

Etiquette, Incivility. Chvrka (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are other facts that no one will question:

1. The constant attacks on the Croatian Wikipedia by Ivan Štambuk and his followers, meat puppets, sock puppets, stooges from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia who continually pound their point of view of the world here and on other forums.
2. Ivan Štambuk is one of the most prolific contributors on the subjects that touches Croatia, the Croatian language, Croatian History and whatever he can to push is point of view. Look at his history of edits on the English, Croatian, Serbian Wikipedia project - but also look at the commentary and conversations that he has had in the past with other users. It shows no room for compromise, it is his POV or nothing at all
3. Now using words such as fascist, homophobic to describe the Croatian wikipedia as a way of amplifying his argument that this wikipedia is to be disbanded, this shows that Ivan Štambuk has a personal vendetta against the Croatian Wikipedia an almost anyone who has been connected to the project and that he has a personal disagreement with
4. The argumentative style of Ivan Štambuk is that he persnoally atacks always personally attacking other users and admins because of his personal quarrel and disagreement with the individuals on all the projects that he has been involved with and it was not uncommon that he has been warned, blocked for a short term and long term because of his conduct and breaching of principles of decent engagement.
5. Ivan Štambuk has so much hate towards the Croatian Wikipedia that his commentary should not be taken seriously, as his whole aim is to destroy this project not matter what that cost him in personal terms.

   (This obnoxious personal attack was reverted by User:Aradic-es so I assume that he authored it.) Uhm, no Anto, I don't have any sockpuppets, followers (lol!) or stooges. I don't edit Croatian history articles at all - mostly linguistics-related to balance out the oft-repeated lies by some Croatian editors, like "Croatian language having absolutely nothing to do with Serbian, and anyone claiming otherwise is obviously Serbian himself" and similar. I don't have edits at all at Serbian Wikipedia, on Croatian Wikipedia I've been blocked for years as a revenge for proposing the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian entries on Wiktionary be merged, and on English Wikipedia I've only become active in the last few months after a long break. You're giving to much credit to yourselves - I don't really give a damn about hrwiki or its sysops at all. For all I care, it could close tomorrow, or be run by Mladen Schwartz himself - what I think is worth fighting for is seeing its human potential wasted in terms of editors being driven out (many not relocating to shwiki, but simply giving up and abandoning the project). Regarding my argumentative style - well I happen to be right most of the time, that's how things are. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Improper wording

[61] Using etiquetting and denigration methods to "win" in a debate is below any civility.
The words like "fascism" or "extreme right" [62] do not belong here.
I disagree with this naming of templates like this [63].
Fighting against fascism ("no fascism") is OK, but adding a name of the particular Wikipedia to the title of the template denigrates that project, since it suggests that project is "fascist". This is not innocent accusation, that is very serious calumny.
I disagree with method " You're guilty until You prove that You're innocent ".
I see a pattern like "tie a stone around her neck, if she drounds, she's not a witch, if she doesn't dround, she's a witch, than burn her on a bonfire".
Denigration -> dehumanization -> mass psychology -> loss of personality -> distribution of responsibility -> crime.
When Milošević's greaterserbianist regime was preparing the attack (and during that same attack) on Croatia (and later Bosnia and Herzegovina), they tagged new Croatian democracy and leading party (HDZ) as "fascists", Croatian army as "fascists", whole Croatia as such was tagged as fascist.
They did that by all means: through Serbian and influental foreign media, ex-Yugoslav diplomacy (that mostly engaged in greterserbianism) and other political connections.
Meta must stop this denigration. This lie appears too much. If the lie is repeated enough times, than someone will believe in it. And these heavy accusations are not innocent and harmless.
Private identities are outed. Addresses. Do You know what OUTING means? What HARASS means?
We, accused users, we are humans, not some virtual characters from the Doom whome You can kill whenever You want.
We are true, living people, with friends, families. Kubura (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What lie? Minister of eduction, reputable journalists and historians have called CW a right-wing propaganda machinery. See w:Croatian Wikipedia. Nobody is calling the project itself or its editors fascists, but you cannot die a subtle or (in places) blatantly evident pro-fascist undercurrent in some articles. The only relevant question remaining is whether the bias that has accrued over the years has been systematically sanctioned by hrwiki sysops or not - i.e. whether they have been pushing their own political and religious agenda on a project-wide scale. Judging from their comments on talk pages, that appears to be the case. And judging from your comment above (you just couldn't help mentioning "Greater Serbianists", could you?) you are a part of the problem. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again with the distraction tactics. I actually think this media affair actually helped improve Croatian Wikipedia, since a lot of controversial articles mentioned by Jutarnji List were corrected in the meantime - which means that they themselves admitted the problem. If you still claim that Croatian Wikipedia was critized without any reason, then Kubura, please, revert this edit about Antifascism being "mental, spiritual and genetical disorder" or that the ustashe movement "was not Totalitarian or radical". Please do, be consistent. I dare you.--Seiya (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Dear gents, just FYI: Croatian language is one of the official languages of the European Union. According to the census in 2011 in Croatia we have the following results: http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/censuses/census2011/results/htm/H01_01_08/h01_01_08_RH.html

So called Serbocroatian speakers in Croatia are 0,08 %!!! Somebody wants to change something? Make edits, get voted for admin. That´s. Discussion closed as it makes no sense?? --78.23.154.210 Best woul be to ban "Serbocroatian" POV warriors Ivan Štambuk and close the "Serbocroatial" politican project !!!!. --78.23.154.210 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems you have a problem understanding English in the discussiuon above. No one has a problem with the language on that charade of a portal (hr.wikipedia) -- that is why it was founded in the first place, to be in that languange -- but with its pro-Ustashi, heterosexist, homophobic, Serbophobic, anti-Semitic, and for the most part sexist content and its horrible pro-Nazi editors User:Jure_Grm, User:Zeljko, User:Chvrka, User:Kubura, User:MaGa, User:Roberta_F. and their disgusting Nazi ilk.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.41.252.227 (talk) 21:38, 23. rujna 2013. (UTC)

Lots of offensive allegations already seen, but no evidence. That's called slanders. Chvrka (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Kubura, i.e. User:Chvrka, please stop trolling and opening irrelevant and useless topics. If you have an issue with Croatian = Serbo-Croatian (which is accepted by pretty much most of the world), come to English Wikipedia and Wiktionary so that we can have a little discussion. Ooops, no you want, because there with real experts you'd get torn a new one. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr Ivan Štambuk, you are misusing wikipedia for POV pushing --78.23.154.210 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, anyone can see how you treat users on Wiktionary (and en.wiki on SC subject). Threatening with your sysop tools and blocking anyone who oposes your POV. Who knows how many linguist experts have you scared away with your behavior. If that makes you happy, go ahead. But you and your SH:WP buddies should stop your every certain while harassment of HR:WP. It won't give results you wish but is taking contributors time, and yours as well. Chvrka (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Kubura, all people that were blocked (on enwiki and enwikt) were blocked because they were pushing their nationalist POV as a universal one, ignoring community guidelines, dismissing arguments of interlocutors as being "Serbian propaganda" and so on. Just like you are doing in pretty much all of your posts. You're brainwashed beyond help and don't have the capacity to change your opinions because you perceive them as a part of your identity. Most of the blocks were issued not by me but others. Most recent (on enwikt) being User:Zabadz (very offensive and vulgar Serbian nationalist) and User:Slavić (also very offensive and vulgar Croatian nationalist), which were given multiple chances to be a productive editors, but to no avail. I don't have any "buddies" - as opposed to the clique running the hrwiki which acts like a hive mind, we're all independent editors that happen to think the same. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm kindly asking you again, User:Ivan Štambuk, to stop harassing me and sysops of HR:WP, including Kubura who is not present in this conversation but you and your SH:WP Yugoslav activists see him everywhere. Chvrka (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pure projection. You nationalists are coordinating everything on IRC, and are afraid to act on your own due to the fear of doing something stupid (which doesn't help BTW). There are no "WP:SH Yugoslav activists". Those are more or less all former Croatian Wikiedians. Why have they left hrwiki and joined shwiki? It's not at all unrelated to the reason why we are here. hrwiki sysops should be here discussing but they are not. Instead there are obvious sockpuppets such as yourself. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk is obviously person who's going proudly to say that is "not nationalist" like that is the greatest virtue. In this (his ) case it probably is as it is mos probaly the only one.--Anto (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Root of the things

First, Wikipedia is NOT the court-room, not the police hearing, not a Stanford prison experiment.
Wikipedia is not the ANARCHY.
If this is a content dispute, than problem can be easily solved.
Being civil in discussion, giving sources, attempts for finding the CONSENSUS on the talkpage can easily solve all problems.
Be CIVIL.
Seek mediation. We have not seen that.
Are those people that use the words like "fascism", "nazism", "right extremists", "antisemitism", "homophobia", "heterosexist" ... aware of the meanings ot these words?
It seems the attackers are throwing every possible calumny around, like a shrapnel, hoping that someone will believe in those lies.
The attackers write everything, just to impose their will in the content, no matter what local communities think, neglecting the local wikipolicies.
Since the attackers have no arguments, they turned to ad hominem ATTACKS.
That's not how Wikipedia should work.
If you disagree with the content, say it nicely. Civility opens all doors. Not the messages (nor summaries) like "you f**en morons, nazis, fascists, chauvinists, idiots, bigots".
Give Your opponent time to accept Your ideas. He/she may even accept Your idea.
Maybe You will in the meantime accept the idea of your opponent.
Don't insult. Sorry does not wipe the wounds: you can pull out the nail from the plank, but the hole remains.
Respect PRIVACY. This is serious issue.
Remember 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Did You forgot that?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, not an experiment in anarchy or democracy, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not a court-room, not a FPS, not a spitting ground, not a bonfire, not a gallows.
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Assume good faith. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution. Incivility is not a way to communicate.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute: Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. (no "this is too right", "this is too left") All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources.
Seek consensus. Editors build consensus through polite discussion and negotiation. Not through threats, insults, OUTING, personal ATTACKS, HARASSing, media lynch. Kubura (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Would You show us how You are obeying five pillars. That would be very interesting. -- Bojan  Talk  10:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pavle Močilac hate speech

Considering the fact that this whole this crap was started by user:Pavle Močilac, who found himself "endangered, harrased and discriminated" by bunch of "intolerant Pro-ustaše scum" there is one thing to see what kind of person we deal with. Pavle Močilac facebook status regarding HDZ convention:[64]

trebalo je na tu konvenciju doći sa šmajserom , bojnim otrovom , bombom , ekplozivom... pobit govna i gotova stvar“

which means

had to come to this convention with Schmeisser, poison gas, bomb, explosives ... kill the shit and deal is done "

Sapient sati!--Anto (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not written via Wikipedia. This problem solve on Facebook. --Kolega2357 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

When Pavle Močilac (or anyone else, for that matter) criticizes Wikipedia, he is either right or wrong. If he is right, then his Facebooks posts are irrelevant. If he isn't - ditto. GregorB (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is off-topic. We are not here to discuss Pavle Močilac´s attitudes.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is really off topic. Immediately stop with this nonsense of hate speech. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tell him ,then! I do not write such nonsense. Such statuses are proofs of open bias of wannabe impartial person--Anto (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• An brief explanation for foreigners: HDZ is the name of the right-wing Croatian political party that has (among other things) bankrupted the country, and whose prime minister of seven years Ivo Sanader is serving a long prison sentence for corruption (with additional criminal charges against him still ongoing). Expressing contempt for HDZ politicians and their supporters is, let's say, not that uncommon among left-leaning folk. What User:Aradic-s is doing here is launching a completely irrelevant personal attacks against a particular critic, diluting and diverting the discussion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• An brief explanation for foreigners: HDZ is the country that lead Croatia outside the authoritarian country with lack of some basic democratic standards where bunch of people were imprisone/killed for triffles like saying a joke about the "beloved leader" , (oops wrong link [65]) which , however happens to be still very popular among "left-leaning folk" which still worships some beauties of that regime that could not surive without outside loans (and more money was invested in Yugoslavia than in West Germany!!! ). I.e. in despite the effort that only cabs from NYC consume more money than entire Yugoslavia there were lack of gasoline Evene during Yugoslavia it was the target of mockery mockery[66] Although HDZ is not popular among "left-leaning folk" this is the first time however to read something like this.--Anto (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A brief explanation for readers of this page: This is a request for comments about isssues on Croatian Wikipedia. We are not asking for comments about Pavle Močilac, the DHZ, Ivo Sanader, Tito or lack of gasoline in NYC. I don´t give a dam who is popular among left leaning folk either and here is not the place to discuss it. You can not blame somebody outside the cummunity of Wikipedia for things that happen inside the Wikipedia. Wikipedia and its authors are responsible for what is going on here and nobody else.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Normally , that would be reasonable opinion. But here is different situation. This haranga was started by some ex-hr wikipedians (probably supported by current regime) in pro-regime press (Jutarnji list). Pavle Močilac is one of them. Then Jutarnji list recycles its own article few days ago where Pavle Močilac was interviewed, and day after Pavle Močilac writes a column ( !!! ) in Jutarnji list where he explains the !"situation" as "neutral expert" . Hello!! there are certain rules here:Self-published_sources Conflict of interest and othere "triffles"--Anto (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• You write conspiracy theories based on the article in the tabloid. You dont know who started fb Page you are guessing. We dont have "regime" in Croatia?! Pavle is only supporter of Page, you can see that he left hr.wiki after he saw Page. [67] Jutarnji list is only one of papers whitc wrote article about terrible state od hr.wiki. Is HINA also tablpid for you? http://www.hnd.hr/hr/novine/show/67039/ --DobarSkroz (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• " based on the article in the tabloid". What is tabloid at all?? A media that judges 140 thousands articles without checking them at all??? Because, according to that criteria Jutarnji list is tabloid!!--Anto (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • • Speaking of "tabloids" ... [jutarnji list in this article is mentioning "british wikipedia" ??? Hello!!??!! Obviuosly terribly missinformed author who has no idea how wikipedia works. and we based all this harranga on that crap article???--Anto (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Announcement: Gathering explicit information --- Najava: Skupljanje konkretnih podataka

Gathering data about alleged irregularities has started

Hello all,

A few contributors to this page & I have started these pages (per this discussion, continued here) where everyone can provide, read, and comment on information about alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia. Everyone is invited to contribute in English, Croatian, or any Wikipedia languages closely related to Croatian. Detailed instructions are provided on the pages.

Information gathering will last till the end of October. This talk page is open to all comments, suggestions, and critiques of the process. Miranche (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Skupljanje podataka o navodnim nepravilnostima je započelo

Pozdrav svima,

Nekoliko suradnika ove stranice i ja pokrenuli smo ove stranice (prema ovoj raspravi, nastavljenoj ovdje) gdje bilo tko može podnijeti, čitati i komentirati podatke o navodnim nepravilnostima na hrvatskoj Wikipediji. Pozivamo sve da doprinesu na engleskom, hrvatskom, ili bilo kojem Wikipedijinom jeziku blisko srodnom hrvatskom. Detaljne upute nalaze se na tim stranicama.

Skupljanje podataka traje do kraja listopada. Ova stranica za razgovor otvorena je za sve komentare, prijedloge, i kritike glede ovoga postupka. Miranche (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Violating rules on calling a vote

On the Croatian Wikipedia user Ljubuski78 violating rules on calling a vote:

Croatian:

Idemo glasovati protiv, jer tim dajemo podršku hrvatskoj wikipediji. Bolje je pokazati što suradnici na hr wikipediji misle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

English:

We are going to vote oppose it, because we support the Croatian Wikipedia. It is better to show what users hr wikipedia think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The user does not know that when someone calls a vote that it should not favor any option. --Kolega2357 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia: Cabal of admins obstructing de-sysop voting

In the last few months, Croatian Wikipedia was the stage of controversies, which resulted with a Request for Comment on Metapedia: Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia. After that RFC became suffocated with discussion pages without concrete evidence, the next step took place, the process of collecting evidence of irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia: Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence.

The administrators mentioned in the evidence section refused to even take part of discussion on Meta, until admin Kubura transferred the page on the 19 October on Cro Wiki and made comments on the alleged evidence. Other users took this as a call to discuss and comment the page, but when admin SpeedyGonsales gave his response, he referred to only one single incident out of many incidents in which he was identified and accused of irregularities and he used such a tone (calling two users "highly biased", that their "writing is null and should be removed" and they "do not respect other users") that it is hard to interpreted in a way other than as a threat to anyone who thinks different. After that, the discussion succumbed after only three days.

On the 26 October, 7 days after Kubura transferred the page with evidence, user Frano Milić, arguing that a consensus is impossible and that further free discussion is impossible due to atmosphere of intimidation by SpeedyGonsales, thinking all other options were exhausted, starts a vote to desysop the powers of three admins who collected the most complains of irregularities on meta (SpeedyGonsales, Kubura, Zeljko).

During the course of the next few days, the admins SpeedyGonsales, Jure Grm and Bracodbk (and some other admins in smaller extent) actively worked on disrupting the voting, and Roberta F. called the vote "against guidelines and rules of Wikipedia", with some intimidating comments about Frano Milić.

Course of events after voting started

1. admins SpeedyGonsales, Jure Grm and Bracodbk actively disrupt the voting. SpeedyGonsales locks the voting page several times [68], [69], [70] under the pretext that the vote is illegal and Frano Milić did "not give any reason" and that the "media were creating an atmosphere of lynch" [71]. Other editors had to step in and unlock the page and allow the Cro Wiki community to have free acess to the vote like admin Dalibor Bosits and admin Sokac121. Dalibor Bosits reopens the vote on grounds of its perfect legality. Later on the Village Pump he points out that in fact it is SpeedyGonsales who is in a serious conflict of interest, since he is himself accused. SpeedyGonsales responds by accusing Dalibor Bosits of "avoiding the Wiki procedure". SpeedyGonsales also says that he "superficially looked at the complains" about himself and concluded that they are "more or less unfounded". SpeedyGonsales admits that a vote can be started if an admin did something wrong, but says "As far as I can see, it was not established that any admin did anything wrong". He denies the vote because "many users were blocked and now seek revenge".[72]
2. after other admins unlock the voting page, SpeedyGonsales goes from admin to admin and complains about them: he says to Sokac121 "Why do you allow the breach of procedure?"; he says to Flopy "I do not see any evidence or arguments to start the vote" and "I see only (unfounded) complains on Meta".
3. in the same day, SpeedyGonsales removes the site notice that the vote is under way[73]
4. that evening, SpeedyGonsales goes to the Village pump and publicly lists all six users who voted against him, Kubura and Zeljko. He disputes all those six votes by calling all the users inactive or lacking arguments, warning "If we allow an illegal vote against admins this time, we will also allow them in the future".[74]
5. User DTom calls the vote "laughable", admin Roberta calls the vote "against guidelines and rules of Wikipedia", Croq says "It is simply pointless to start any vote without prior discussion" and admin MaGa writes that the move of Frano Milić "...does not have anything logical". SpeedyGonsales collects all those quotes on the Village pump and uses them to again try to cancel the vote.[75]
6. after admin Saxum reverts the edit and allow for the vote to continue, SpeedyGonsales contacts him and asks "What kind of an excess is this?"
7. en:User:GregorB (unlogged) asks "If the current vote is illegal, what conditions have to be met to make a future vote legal?" No anwser is given.
8. the next day, on the 27 October, SpeedyGonsales creates the page Request for admin opinion where he lists admins Flopy, Dalibor and Saxum and accuses them of "not respecting the majority opinion of admins who say that the vote is illegal". Flopy points out how there is no majority because -- if SpeedyGonsales, Kubura and Zeljko are excluded on the grounds them being subject to vote -- "there are 7:8 admins in favor of commencing the vote".
9. after the vote is unlocked again, SpeedyGonsales again goes from admin to admin and advises them to stop interfering.[76][77] He says to Flopy I reverted your move because I was defending Kubura and Zeljko from unfounded attacks"
10. On the 28 October, admin Vodomar started messing up the votes, even removing de-sysop vote of Marko Jurčić under the pretext that he has less then 100 edits, while he realy has 974 edits in main namespace. A little bit later, he even returns the "keep adminship" vote of hr:user:Ljubuski78 who doesn't satisfy voting conditions
11. Admin Ex13 also tries to remove sitenotice on October 28th.
12. after the vote is continued, on the 29 October user Croq starts a second desysop vote, which includes five admins who opposed SpeedyGonsales and wanted for the vote to commence. The five admins are Lasta, Dalibor Bosits, Mario Žamić, Saxum and MayaSimFan. No reason is given, except that they are "inactive", ignoring the fact that some of them have been active even in recent weeks before the scandal, and ignoring all admins who are truly inactive. Even though he called the first vote illegal, SpeedyGonsales votes here among the first for removing their admin status[78][79][80] Kubura and Zeljko also vote exactly like SpeedyGonsales[81][82]
13. the first vote continues in spite of the obstructions. On the 31 October user/admin Bracodbk starts a third desysop vote, now aimed against Flopy and Sokac121 who unlocked the voting page [83]. Even though he calls his own de-sysop voting illegal, SpeedyGonsales is among the first to vote to remove the admin status of Flopy and Sokac121 [84]. Kubura and Zeljko follow suit.[85][86]
14. On November 2nd, Frano Milić votes to de-sysop SpeedyGonsales, Kubura and Zeljko and gets permanently blocked by Zeljko only 20 minutes later, without any explanation.

This is just a short summary of events, many of these admins made a lot of inappropriate comments in village pump. This information might be added later.

The obstructions of Cro Wiki community to have a free vote, counter-attack votes initiated without a reason (the seven admins have not been mentioned even a single time on Meta evidence page) in the atmosphere of aggression, intimidation, conflict of interest, ignoring the evidence on Meta, cherry-picking Wiki guidelines and attempts of manipulations of opinion. A judgement from a third party is very much needed.

We urge Stewards to review the conduct of admins:

• hr:Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales
• hr:Suradnik:Kubura
• hr:Suradnik:Zeljko
• hr:Suradnik:Jure Grm
• hr:Suradnik:Roberta F.
• hr:Suradnik:Ex13
• hr:Suradnik:Vodomar
• hr:Suradnik:MaGa and
• hr:Suradnik:Bracodbk.

Since, out of 5 checkusers on hr wiki, 3 are mentioned here, Dtom also took side in this conflict, and E.coli is inactive, we can safely conclude that these checkusers do not have consensual support of the community. So, I ask You to consider revoking their checkuser privileges, at least temporarely. Stewarts should take over checkuser tasks and check for possible usage of sockpuppets in recent votings. I, and possibly some other users, will provide you a list of possible sockpuppets that I believe should be checked.

Sincerely, Argo Navis (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, Argo Navis, let the local community settle its own problems. People are argumentating, discussion is going on, let the locals settle the problems by themselves.
Please, stop evading the local community. Kubura (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Kubura, local community is obviously gridlocked and unable to reach a consensus. Furthermore, there is an extraordinary amount of pressure and abuse going on against any kind of change in the ongoing votes, exerted by you and other abovementioned admins. I just today saw a facebook post from the Razotkrivanje sramotne hr.wikipedije group with a screenshot of the comment you made to your fellow-admin User:Saxum^[87] telling him, quoting, "I hope you are not being blackmailed in real life", "who incited you", "by helping them you're destabilizing the project", "we are being sabotaged" etc. You keep believing in some nutty conspiracy theories, don't respect other people's opinion (unless they agree with you, that is) and are unable to endure any kind of criticism. That kind of non-cooperative behavior is not conducive to reaching a consensus in trivial content disputes, let alone project-wide policies on adminship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Komentar

Ovaj pamflet nije ništa drugo nego, kao što je i glasovanje o kojem suradnik govori u naslovu, upravo spomenuto OPSTRUIRANJE svih procedura na wikipediji na hrvatskom jeziku. Popis administratora naveden u ovoj "optužnici" (iako tu nedostaje još nekoliko) je upravo popis onih koji pokušavaju ZAŠTITI PROCEDURU, a ne admine protiv kojih se glasuje. Suradnik Argo Navis je ovdje zapravo naveo različite načine kojima su navedeni admini pokušali zaštiti proceduru i navesti suradnike koji su uglavnom, kako je i on to dobro primjetio, zadnji put bili na Wikipediji poprilično davno, pa su možda zaboravili sve korake koje bi trebalo napraviti prije nago što se dođe do glasovanja o ukidanju statusa, a posebno prije nego što bi se trebalo ići na ovakve i slične Stazburške nad-sudove! A suradnike i admine koji se često vole pozivati upravo na pravila i procedure, a glume neupućenost u ista ta pravila i procedure kad im to ne odgovara, pozivam da prouče one upravo one osnove koje se lijepe novopridošlim suradnicima.

Zato molim uvažene stjarde da, ako ne mogu jednostavno kliknuti "delete page" iznad ovog RFC, da onda jednostavno ignoriraju ovu stranicu i velecijenjenog suradnika s kopleksom manjka administratorskih alata pošalju doma da tamo rješava ovakve stvari i da se tamo igra advokata! (kako baš i nemam potrebu prečesto izlaziti izvan hr.wiki, vidim da se ovdje svi uglavnom niježno i kićeno obraćaju stjuardima, vjerojatno zato što je njihovi kartoni malo teži od onih naših doma, pa se i ja u tom duhu klanjam dragim stjuardima).

Bilježim se sa štovanjem,
Jure Grm, 2. day of November in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandthirteen, at 08:42 o'clock.

The gist of the comment by the hrwiki User:Jure Grm, a prominent member of the right-wing cabal, "Stewards please delete this page and ignore it, because it's created by a user who is jealous of not having the admin buttons [anymore, as a former sysop]. The accused admins were trying to 'protect the project', and not their own asses, against procedural abuse, as well as veteran editors on a prolonged break who surfaced to vote, but who might have forgotten possible steps that could have been taken prior to the desysop vote." His sentences are deliberately written in a convoluted syntax reminiscent of the pre-20th century authors, so they're kind of hard to properly translate and interpret. (Some parts don't even appear to make logical sense IMHO). As a conclusion, he suggests that any issues be solved "at home" (doma), which would presumably be the local community, and not on Meta. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nisam siguran da sam ti dozvolio proizvoljno tumačiti moje riječi ... ako ti smeta hrvatski, a ti slobodno prevedi - ali prevedi, a prepričavati možeš poslije toga! --Jure Grm, 2. day of November in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandthirteen, at 10:52 o'clock.

Nikom ovde ne smeta hrvatski tuđe komentare nemaš pravo precrtavati. --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Pročitaj malo bolje pa mi reci gdje vidiš precrtani komentar?! Ne precrtavam komentare, nego netočne prijevode! Komentirati može do mile volje, ali moje riječi nema pravo izvrtati netočnim prevođenjem. Ili možda smije? --Jure Grm, 2. day of November in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandthirteen, at 11:11 o'clock.

Što ti imaš koga cenzurirati? Citirao te i komentirao na odjeljku za komentare. Misliš da je ovo hr.wiki pa da možeš nastaviti sa svojom samovoljom?

Why do you think you can censor anyone? Ivan quoted and commented on the section for comments. You think this is hr.wiki so that you can continue to act like there?--DobarSkroz (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jure Grm, as an atheist I find your signature mentioning "Lord" lame religious propaganda, yet I haven't said anything, nor dared commenting it out. It's called tolerance and respecting other people's opinions. As far as I can tell my translation is accurate. I you can comprehend it, you can write in basic English as well, so please do. I'm guessing that this new "let's write everything in Serbo-Croatian" trend is the new strategy of the cabal for invalidating Meta discussions, started by User:Kubura a week ago? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, ajmo ponovo! Ne lupajte gluposti, čitajte prije komentiranja!

1. Ja sam vlasnik svojih riječi, ja mogu dopustiti ili nedopustiti proizvoljno i djelomično prevesti ih onima koji ih možda ne razumiju. Kako je dotični to napravio vrlo djelomično (bez obzira što je naveo da prevodi samo djelomično) te na taj način u potpunosti iskrivo značenje mojih riječi, ja takvo prevođenje ne dopuštam. Slobodan je prevesti doslovno kako je napisano iznad ovoga precrtanog, pa onda može slobodno maknuti crtu ili se uopće ne dirati u prevođenje ako ne zna, a komentirati može koliko hoće!.
2. Nije točno da se radi o cenzuriranju - cenzrira se uklanjanjem, a ne precrtavanjem.
3. Nije točno da se radi o komentaru, jer nema niti jednog komentara, osim ako tendenciozno prevođenje ne smatraš komentarom.
4. Nažalost ja imam malo veće znanje engleskog, pa neznam prevesti na "basic english".
5. Ako tebe kao ateista vrijeđa korištenje riječi "Bog", to, vidiš, nije moj problem.
6. Eto mene kao Hrvata vrijeđa što moje pisanje trpaš u "Srpsko-hrvatski", jer to nije, ma kako ti to pokušavao dokazati svijetu i okolici.
7. A na kraju mi uopće nije jasno zašto se ti opterećuješ svime ovim kad ćeš uskoro dokinuti hr., sr. i bs.wiki, kako bi mogao nastaviti uređivati na svojoj sh. zajedno s ostalima, koji stoje iza svega ovoga, a kojima je u stvari osnovni problem - vrlo, vrlo osoban. I da, to nema ama baš nikakve veze s lingvističkim akrobacijama iza kojih se krijete. Žao mi je što ste raspadom tvorevine koja je izmislila i jedina koristila naziv "sh" ostala bez svog jedinog identiteta i što vam je nažalost svaki spomen Hrvatske ili Srbije fašizam, ustašizam, četnicizam i slično. Ne moraš mi vjerovati, ali iskreno mi je žao što se bojite pogledati u ogledalo.

Btw. ja se vraćam doma, a vi nastavite ovdje po starom! Cpećno ca sh.wiki! --Jure Grm, 2. day of November in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandthirteen, at 12:34 o'clock.

Look, it's not up to you to decide whether somebody else can translate your comments or not. You claim that you (quoting) "own your own words and no one can translate them without your permission". I suggest however that you read the message above the Save page button while editing - it has something to do with irrevocable agreement of releasing contributions under some licenses... If you're not fine with other people translating your comments, maybe you should consider writing in English instead?

I'm not "insulted" with the word Lord; it just that seeing it used in such a conspicuous manner (i.e. in a signature) is very annoying. You're using it in such manner on hrwiki as well. You'd probably be equally annoyed if someone registered on hrwiki and had the signature changed to "In the name of Allah" and using Islamic calendar instead. It's just that the systemic (pro-right wing, and pro-Catholic) bias that exists on hrwiki and has been promoted over the years through Stalinist purges of "undesirable" editors has rendered you insensitive to other perspectives. Furthermore, the very phrase year of our Lord implies human beings not being conscious, independent agents in the universe, but mindless sheeple subject to the whims of some deity. As if we exist because "Lord" granted us time to do so. I find that wording a subtle religious propaganda.

I'm sorry that you're "offended" by labeling your speech Serbo-Croatian, but that felling of offense is artificial. You were taught to be offended, and you're really not. That remarkable tendency of some Croatians has been observed by linguists for more than a century now - look at my user page on Meta, it's what Mr. Forbes describes as psychologically characteristic. In the end, it doesn't really matter what you think and whether you're offended - reality is reality.

I don't edit at shwiki (though I'm developing some tools for it) so I don't understand why you mention it at all. Their community is not "behind this", though some of them are former CW editors that were wronged (some permanently blocked) and it's reasonable that they present their case here. You're again advocating some pointless conspiracies.

Your last comment deserves a translation: I'm sorry that the disintegration of the construct that made up and was the only one to use the title Serbo-Croatian has left you without your only identity, and that every mention of Croatia or Serbia is fascism, Ustahsim, Chetnicism or something similar. Beside being completely ignorant of history (the name Serbo-Croatian preceded Communist Yugoslavia by a century, and was embraced by dozens of prominent Croatian linguists at the period), you also demonstrate a clear political bias. It's not up to you to judge others for their political opinions, nor use their opinion as an argument. It doesn't matter at all whether I or other editors commenting on this are Yugo-nostalgic, Croatian, Serbian or whatever (actually I'm pro-world-government if anything ;). There is no reason to harass or block editors of any ideological bias - as long as they are cooperative, and don't blindly push their POV. But you and your clique are not, and you only see your own POV (right-wing, nationalist, "Christian") as the only one that is "proper", and which needs to be defended against Neo-Communists, Serbs etc. That's were the problem lies. The attempts to obstruct the desysop votes are just your last breath to clutch the strings of powers, which is how you perceive sysop buttons. You [the cabal] seem to think that the procedural, editorial and content abuse and POV-pushing is perfectly justified, as long as it supports your cause. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jure_Grm is a sockpuppet of User:Kubura.

Third RfC

Introduction

After elections in 1990 Croatia became democratic state. Remains of old system, of old way of thinking are still present. In communism state always needed an enemy, if there was none, some was made up. So anybody who seemed to be dangerous to party and state leaders was usually been caled names, fascist, technocrats, inner enemy or something else. Defamation was tactic of choice, after you blame somebody for something he/she cannot defend himself, afterwards is not important what becomes of that person, imprisonment or communist "freedom", as that person afterwards could never again be obstacle.

Professor emeritus Ivo Banac wrote about organized attemps of destroying archives by army forces with aim which is obvious: "A lost collection deprives the 'enemy' nation of arguments in favor of its territorial and historical claims."

Recently Croatia almost got temporary monetary holdup (in our newspapers this was called sanctions) because curreent Croatian goverment was not willing to enforce European Arrest Warrant for Josip Perković, whom Germany wanted to prosecute for murder commited in 1970's by UDBa (secret service of former Yugoslavia).

In such environment, prone to some extent to hide history by destruction of archives (Banac) or to some extent provide sanctuary for people charged for crimes ordered by communist leaders/secret service and likewise prone to defamation, part of Croatian media transferred writings from Facebook hate group that claimed that articles on Croatian wikipedia are of pro fascistic orientation and furthermore that many administrators of Croatian wikipedia are perpetuating fascistic agenda. Both administrators and community of Croatian wikipedia reacted in our village pump, in both directions:

• checking is there any truth in accusations and immediately correctiong formulation of one or two articles, but most attacked articles are having more or less the same content as Croatian Encyclopedia made by LZMK in last 20 years
• explaining that every user is responsible for his/hers edits, and that administrators or any other wikipedia user group cannot take responsibility for someone others edits, as we are all volonteers and do not have work hours, as Wikipedia does not function in that way

As one newspaper (Jutarnji list) and one Internet portal (Tportal) were particularly persistent covering that story, I contacted law firm and got information that recent writing of Jutarnji list and Tportal about Croatian Wikipedia contains defamation and slander, and as such that it could be prosecuted, and as my real name was printed in newspapers (which I did not release to them), I decided to take legal actions against parties which my law firm see fit to sue for slander/defamation. Reactions of admins on this slanderous writings were till now published in Jutarnji list printed edition (not internet one, which will be prosecuted next week), and in Tportal:

• http://www.tportal.hr/scitech/znanost/292523/Nisam-ni-pisao-ni-uredio-sporne-tekstove-o-ustasama.html
• http://www.tportal.hr/scitech/znanost/292736/Nismo-skinheadi-niti-neonacisti.html

What is interesting in this story is that reporter of Jutarnji list contacted Jimmy Wales, who reportedly wrote in answer that Croats and Serbs should not have each own wikipedia projects. Two days later in same Jutarnji list reporter Inoslav Bešker (also contributor of Croatian wikipedia, with Ph.D. in Comparative Slavistics) harshly criticised Jimbo's words, telling that "Founder of Wikipedia wants to uniform Wikipedia. That is attempt of assasination of own idea." That article is not available online, but it is printed on September 16th, 2013 on pages 14 and 15 of Jutarnji list. Same reporter Bešker defended us from part of attacks in newspapers which pay him.

Attacks on meta

• Only 3 days later user Ivan Štambuk (permanently blocked on hr wikipedia for both harrasing the community which resulted in vote 14:0 to banish him, and for violating wikipedia rule hr:Wikipedija:Bez pravnih prijetnji (en equivalent is Wikipedia:No_legal_threats) started here on meta attack page in form of RfC. As this page in time turned to pile of hatespeech where some users tried to write arguments pro & contra, side who think that there is something wrong on hr wikipedia made new page, as subpage of first one, this time in more civil form:

• Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia/Evidence/Conduct - here opponents wrote detailed alleged wrongdoing of few admins of hr wikipedia. Their reports got answered both on meta and hr wiki.

• While discussion is still ongoing, user not having formal right to start voting for desysoping admin started vote for desysoping 3 administartors (me included). Majority of admins opposed voting, stating that for voting discussion first have to end, so we could vote on some real misdoing of admins. Two admins tried to pause the voting till discussion ends, but minority of admins forced continuation of voting. Majority did not react, one user stated "you behave like children" (with which I fully agree).

• In the mean time two additional voting started for desysoping admins forcing will of minority of admins.

• As first voting is near conclusion, and it is obvious that there is no consenzus (current state is 36:35 or similar for all three admins), user Argo Navis, former CU and administrator which have some personal beef with me ranging from 2009., started new attack page on meta in form of RfC.

Is this conflict of interest that I am starting RfC in my own defense? Yes and no. Simply yes, because I am one of attacked. And no, as both Argo Navis and Ivan Štambuk have fat reasons to seek revenge, first for his permanent block, second for losing status of CU & administrator in 2009. It is true that Argo himself asked steward to relese him of statuses, but if not, he would loose them because of malpractice of CU rights. So here we (you) have conflict of interest on both sides. And therefore I assume I have right to describe my stance. Users of hr wikipedia already harshly criticized Argo's last move in our Village pump:

• first comment: Vanjska kampanja rušenja nije uspjela, i kao mala djeca koja ne mogu prihvatiti ishod i sada hajmo na Metu, EU, UN, Jimbu i drugima pregovarati pa opet u isti krug. Glasovanje i udar nije nije uspio je nema većine. A nema većine da se i drugi admini na drugoj strani izbace. Pomiri se kao mnogi i radi ako želiš raditi na ovom projektu i budi strpljiv s ljudima.
• second comment: Argo Navise, molim te, ostavi ovu zajednicu na miru neka razgovara i nađe rješenje. Molim te, prestani zaobilaziti našu zajednicu. (opet sve na stranom jeziku, daleko od zajednice, da se ne zna šta je tko napisao; čemu to skrivanje od zajednice, opet zajednici iza leđa). Zajednica se izjašnjava, argumentira na postavljena pitanja, a ti pokrećeš nove stvari, dok su se stare baš imale rasplesti.
• third comment: Kako prozirno Argo. I ni malo ti nije neugodno. Ponovo uplićeš sve one koji su protiv tebe. I sad kada po drugi puta vidiš da si potpuno razdijelio hrwiki, da ti ne ide po planiranom, tražiš pomoć sa strane. Naravno, tamo ćeš imati dodatno uporište. U jednoj stvari ti se potpuno divim, možda sam jedini koji to vidi, možda krivo vidim, ali toliko vješto čuvaš Dalibora iza svojih leđa i ne dopuštaš mu nikakvo uplitanje, jer u protivnom i njega bi morao tamo spomenuti. Oprosti Dalibore što te spominjem, tebi stvarno nakon svega što smo zajedno radili ne zamjeram ništa, al daj se čovječe odmakni od tog huškača na vrijeme, jer kad mu više nećeš trebati pomesti će te, biti ćeš i ti na drugoj strani. Nadam se Agro da sam ti sada olakšao posao u obračunu na Meti i sa mnom.

Proposal

My proposal is simple. As there is in voting over 35 people on both sides, that makes over 70 users in total, that should be enough so every and any position in discussion can be heard. We (community of Croatian Wikipedia) should be left alone to discuss this out, as facts will prevail in the end. Or not, but whatever happens it will be decision of Croatian community which obviously have enough strength to discuss its problems, although some users are looking for quick solutions and are trying to circumvent process of discussion and reaching consensus. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, I was blocked because the little fascist community voted so in the Village pump after you were unable to prevent the Serbo-Croatian merger at Wiktionary (despite the trollish assistance by the now-deceased User:Robert Ullmann), and after you were unable to have a civilized discussion in Kafić where I abundantly explained the case for doing so. This "no legal threats" is just a petty excuse, like the zillion of others you use to banish "ideologically incompatible" editors. Why don't you ask Bešker if standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian are linguistically one language, and if Serbo-Croatian is taught as one or three different languages in Italy? -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You was blocked for two reasons, please remember that. You can ask Bešker whatever you please, I'll not do your bidding. And please do not talk about good deceased wikimedians with such utter disrespect, just beacause he opposed your views. That is insulting, to me, to his family, to whole Wikimedia project. Phrases like "little fascist community" are hatespeech, would you be so kind and stop with insults? SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not just Stambuk. A government minister in your own little country called you a fascist and so did five media published in that same country (which probably constitute about a half of all printed media there) identifying you by your real name with a mug shot to alert people of you the way dangerous criminals are identified in the press. Or are you going to deny that?

Uhm nope, first was the ad-hoc vote in the Village pump set up by User:Zeljko, and afterwards came the block. RU acted like a jerk on many other occasions, and the only reason why he associated with you guys at all is because he had invested too much of his authority into the anti-SC agenda, so he needed outside assistance to push his point. (Or possibly because he was terminally ill and not at 100% mental health, IDK really). Of those who voted for there is only one vote I see that is not part of your cabal (User:Flopy), so I think it's pretty much evident that it was witch-hunting vote to cement the hardline rhetoric. At that time I didn't contribute for hrwiki for ages, and the only reason why I got involved in that discussion was because I was named. The reason why I was blocked was because of my personal POV on issue that represents one of the core tenets of Croatian nationalism. Period. BTW, isn't it ironic how then you pulled strings to have your friend publish a short comment how "Ivan Štambuk denies Croatian language" in some conservative newspapers, and five years later karma retorts with you on the front page of Jutarnji list ? What goes around comes around.. Bešker of course thinks that B=C=S=SC, he studied Slavic Studies at the period when there was no such thing as Croatian language. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it's obvious that the Croatian Wikipedia community has insufficient strength to behave like a community with a proper encyclopedia in mind, as opposed to arbitrary ideological disputes. Your own introduction above demonstrates that - so much tendentious writing, so few references. In the case of all of those controversial articles that triggered this embarrassing media episode, the Croatian Wikipedia community needed its admins to enforce hr:Wikipedija:Nepristrano gledište and hr:Wikipedija:Provjerljivost. The failure to do so is what has ultimately caused the whole problem. The failure to recognize that this is so - is what perpetuates this embarrassment. --Joy (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Joy, your remarks are invalid:

You wrote: Your own introduction above demonstrates that - so much tendentious writing

• What is actually tendentious? Your statement corroborated with nothing? Indeed, your statement is tendentious.

You wrote: so few references

• This is not wikipedia article, this is RfC, I gave one source, few interwikis to en & hr wikipedia and few URLs to other sites corroborating my introduction. I saw no reason to loose my time writing full wikipedia article, when essentially it is common knowledge in whole Eastern Bloc what was common tactic of intimidation of totalitarian communist governments. If your criticism targeted something else, please be more specific.

You wrote: In the case of all of those controversial articles that triggered this embarrassing media episode...

• You totally missed what I wrote above: most attacked articles are having more or less the same content as Croatian Encyclopedia made by LZMK in last 20 years. In essence, media somewhere attacked old, vandalized versions of some articles, and somewhere leftist media is simply not recognizing historic facts, as they are written both in Croatian Encyclopedia by LZMK and alike on Croatian Wikiedia.

All in all, you remarks are fully and totally off. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you realize how unhelpful it is for you to engage in more wikilawyering. The evidence section doesn't just magically disappear just because you wish it so. --Joy (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see wikilawyering to accuse me of it? SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy, please read e.g. hr:Detuđmanizacija and tell us if this is your vision of what encyclopedic content should look like. Kubura says yes, apparently, he patrolled and accepted it. Also, can something even remotely like this be found in a LZMK publication? GregorB (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions by Rschen7754

I have not looked into the matter that much, but I probably know a bit more than the average Meta-Wiki editor. I have two questions for SpeedyGonsales, and really for anyone interested:

1. If you think that the Croatian Wikipedia can handle matters internally, why was there a wheel war at hr:MediaWiki:Sitenotice, which on several occasions came dangerously close to having hr.wiki sysops removed on an emergency basis [88]? Also, why did you try to get involved in the management of the recall process, thus casting a cloud over the results?
2. To SpeedyGonsales and all the other admins up for recall: On Wikimedia Commons, the standard for a desysop is a 50% support:oppose ratio. The bureaucrat and CU bits are even more sensitive - especially CU, as the community must trust the CUs a lot because CU actions cannot be reviewed by the community or by stewards, and because misuse of CU leads to violations of privacy. In fact, Wikidata's standard for removal of CU or OS is a 33% support:oppose ratio, because if even a significant minority no longer trusts the CU, then they should not remain a CU. See also the m:CheckUser policy - a minimum of 70% is needed to grant the rights; it is understood that the standards are lower for retaining the rights, but when 50% or more of people do not support a CU, that is a serious issue. The global sysop and steward bits work the same way.
   
   All this to say: do you believe that you retain the trust of your local community to hold admin/bureaucrat/CU? If just over 50% of the local community does not trust you to hold these bits (especially crat/CU) wouldn't it be better for the community if you resigned, rather than holding onto these bits and continuing to divide the community? --Rschen7754 09:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If there would be just over 50% of the local community which does not trust me to hold these bits, I would resign this second. But people which are not voting are telling me following:

• "If I vote, I admit that vote is legit, and then I do not have right to ask for resposibility of admins who are forcing the vote, ignoring majority of admins".

So some users are not voting because they think if they vote they will accept vote as legitimate.

Real question here is why few administrators do not want to talk, to discuss issues, but are forcing voting? And second, even with lot of abstained votes not voiced, there is no clear or even by 1 majority against me or my colleagues. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy, please, we already established that you are innocent of charges of "fascism", not a single evidence on meta was aimed at you due to "fascism". I do not know why you even brought this up here? But you are guilty of slightly abusing admin rights, conflict of interest and blocking users for petty reasons. The biggest problem is your association with Kubura and your defense of every possible error Kubura makes, no matter how ridiculous.

I have not defended myself here on any charges, I only wrote my take on situation. I suppose I have right to do so. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Great question, Rschen7754. The community is indeed split and highly polarized. Compare that to other admins [89] like Lasta who has 70% of support, Dalibor who has 72% of support or Saxum who has 77% of support. If the community is this split, maybe some admins should really think of a time out to start out from a-new. It's not the end of the world, they would still be on Wikipedia and could apply for admin status again. I was never an admin and never had any issues because of that, because it simply does not interest me.--Seiya (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Community is indeed split, but not as you write here. Most of users and admins which support Kubura, Zeljko and me did not ask/vote for removal of rights of admins who voted against Kubura, Zeljko and me. JureGrm wrote, that he'll not vote against even Flopy. That means something. And only sane way out of this situation is to talk it out. Any break most probably means losing of 10, 20 or more users. So I wrote above: We (community of Croatian Wikipedia) should be left alone to discuss this out, as facts will prevail in the end. Or not, but whatever happens it will be decision of Croatian community which obviously have enough strength to discuss its problems, although some users are looking for quick solutions and are trying to circumvent process of discussion and reaching consensus. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You still have not answered question number 1. --Rschen7754 20:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wheel war was result of minority of administrators overriding by action clearly expressed opinion of majority of administrators, after which majority leaved minority to force what they will. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the perspective brought by User:SpeedyGonsales is valid. However, if there is no policy specifically regulating or prohibiting desysop votes, which seems to be the case, I think that creating such votes ad-hoc, particularly in the light of recent evidence of abuse of the admins in question, is perfectly legitimate. 80 people casting a vote is all the legitimation you need. Anyone caring about the future of hrwiki seems to have voted, and I doubt that even in the case of procedurally sanctioned vote you could muster more participation. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That is correct, stewards will in general recognize such votes if there is no other method to remove sysops. --Rschen7754 20:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I care about the future of hr wiki, but I did not vote because a) I don't really support the concept of actual votes on Wikipedia - arguments are supposed to trump headcount b) I don't contribute there often, and I didn't want my name to be dragged through the mud (any more than it has been already) by being part of the canvassed and the sockpuppets and whatever. --Joy (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And, while I'm at it, the headcount failed to make any changes in the meantime. Fun fact: the same admin attempted to prevent the desysop vote[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] and then later proceeded to close it once the timer finally expired[99]. The concept of a legitimate procedure appears to be completely lost on all of these people. --Joy (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the concept of a legitimate procedure appears to be completely lost on all of these people, but I here mean minority of administrators who forced an invalid voting before an end of discussion. Small but important difference. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, in hr wiki, there is no legal way to desysop anyone: simply, there is no policy that prescribes the necessary conditions and steps. That in itself is telling. What is even more telling is that even after all this, nobody is saying "Hey, our policies are incomplete, let's go and define them to prevent this mess from ever happening again". The only lesson hr wiki is contemplating right now is "let's make voting eligibility rules even more restrictive, so fewer editors can vote". This is counterproductive, even perverse.

The "expressed opinion of majority of administrators" Speedy is referring to is the hr wiki admin RfC, which is explicitly described as non-binding (as all RfCs by definition are). This is yet another gaping hole in hr wiki policies, as it seems to encourage voluntarism and lack of accountability in general. GregorB (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What was the discussion that needed to end first, this one? --Joy (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The hr wiki branch of the evidence page, I suppose. GregorB (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Indented text

What was your reason to put other Croatian Wikipedia RfC cases as indented text: Croatian Wikipedia: Cabal of admins obstructing de-sysop voting and 2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia?[] --DobarSkroz (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Same project RfC's, covering same ground? SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To me it sure looks like covering... --Imbehind (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

For me it looks like SG thinks that his opinion is more important than others. But thanks to billinghurst now it's all in the same basket--DobarSkroz (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denier

I will give just one example in the case of article about Luburić who established death camps in NDH. [100]

In this extreme POV article you dont see problem with this whitewash of death camps were around 20,000 children died:

Dozens of Serbian Orthodox orphans will be saved and placed into institutions at the expense of "Ustaška obrana" [101]

But for you exaggeration is in this sentence:

"Mass murder, deportation, crimes against humanity that have occurred in these camps makes Luburić major perpetrator of war crimes and genocide in the Ustasha regime." [102]

Is this also made up by communist? Are you responsible for you edits?--DobarSkroz (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I corrected totally unsourced section to be more precise. You would do good if you would cite some sources. Instead, you are writing weak accusations covered by big words like "holocaust denier"? What good did you do? Why you are insulting users on meta and on Croatian Wikipedia? Why are you promoting hatespeech? SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You need source for what? That mass murder happend in death camps? But you dont need source for whitewashing? Nedostaje izvor [103] - No source is not problem for this dilution of crime? You are insulting our sense and victims.--DobarSkroz (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Merged three RfCs

There were three separate RfCs for the same complaints about dysfunction. I have merged them as we simply do not three broad discussions that rehash similar arguments. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to look to have a productive discussion to try to resolve issues. Name calling and other provocative statements need to cease if there is going to be any hope of a resolution, and I hope that you can do your part in keeping the conversation civil. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

billinghurst, the second RFC dealt with admin rights abuse, not POV. I think it is counterproductive to merge all into one RFC and that's why the people who submitted the second RFC did it separately. Otherwise, they would have appended the RFC from the start themselves. Clearly the POV argument is futile, as you can see, because no action was taken based on the first RFC despite evidence given. I would like to be able to discuss the evidence given within the second RFC without obstructions. Can you please revert your change because I do not want to discuss if Željko (one of the admins) is neonazi or not. --Imbehind (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it killed comments on important evidences--DobarSkroz (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I must agree as well. Moving it to a subpage would have been more appropriate. It's also indicative of how Meta folks indiscriminately perceive all this noise coming from smaller wikis. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #2

It seems that significant number of users doesn't have confidence in some of hr wiki administrators. To solve this problem, I suggest the following:

1. All hr wiki administrators will return their mandate to the community, to make sure they still enjoy sufficient community confidence;
2. The vote of confidence will be held on each individual administrator;
3. Only those administrators who obtain a minimum of 67% community support will be reelected, others will lose their rights. Administrators who lose their rights can be nominated again after 3 months under the same conditions (67% support).--Wikit 16:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
4. A third party investigation against users suspect to be sockpuppets

Support

1.  Support--Wikit 16:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
2.  Support--Seiya (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
3.  Support We definitively need checkuser's help. --Argo Navis (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
4.  Support Please, help us, how many evidence do you need?--DobarSkroz (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
5.  Support This is less than perfect solution, but the situation on hr.wiki is so grave that anything goes, as far as I'm concerned. After months of RFC-ing, the wiki community did NOTHING to help hr.wiki so any action is better then no action AFAIK. BTW I'm much more in favor to the proposal Gregor mentioned https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Project_restarting_process, but do something, anything already! --Imbehind (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
6.  Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
7.  Support --Deansfa (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose No problem of hr wiki was ever solved on meta. Invalid voting failed, and discussion what now is in progress in our Village pump. Why users outside our community are trying to solve someone elses problem? You are welcome to help in discussion in our Village pump if you want. And you are most welcome to write articles on Croatian Wikipedia, as our growth a bit diminished in last 60 days due to this uncivil quarrelling. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Like you (or some other admin from your group) solved me (by blocking) when I wrote in the village pump that you are the leader of right winged Cabal? If you care so much for hr.wiki, you should resign, but you do not! You barely managed 50% of the vote while (1) Intimidating and obstructing the vote, (2) using sockpuppets, (3) blocking users who would vote against you. Even if the vote count was genuine, which it's not, 50% of the vote is not enough in this polarised situation for you to remain in your admin seat. --Imbehind (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Imbehind, it is your word that you are blocked because you wrote in the village pump whatever you wrote. In your block log I see that you were blocked 2 times in last 60 days. First time for 6 months (evidently it was such violation of rules that it warranted such sanction), and after 2 weeks you were unblocked because you yourself admitted that your edits were rude/you overreacted. Five days ago another admin blocked you for 7 days days because of personal attacks. If you want, you can question validity of your block on hr wiki, or you can wait for 3 more days and you will be automatically unblocked. But when you are here attacking me or my opinion because you are blocked on hr wikipedia, I can only say - any blocked user can attack me/my opinion if he/she is blocked right now. But for your accusations to have merit, you need to prove that your block have any relation with your position, and that your edits on hr wikipedia does not violate Wikipedia rules of conduct. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear SpeedyGonsales, maybe my wording is not perfect, but can you please give me some advice of how could anyone accuse you of being the leader of Cabal on hr.wiki without "attacking you personally"? If there is a nicer way to say it, I'm not aware of it. The Village Pump should be open to opinions, and since I cannot write this nowhere on hr.wiki (I've been blocked for this), I'll write it here in English: You are the leader of a Cabal which turned hr.wiki to the shamefully biased excuse of an encyclopedia! Now, can you please explain to everybody here your interpretation of "Wiki is not a forum" rule? I was warned by you and other members of your Cabal of the existence of this rule interpreted as "there is no discussion" on Wikipedia. Maybe then you can also explain why there is a tab on each page called "Discussion"? You use that "rule" to enforce that the opinions of the opposition to your Cabal are sanctioned by blocking the users who voice them, just like in my case. Can you please give your explanation of that practice? I would really like the users from other Wikis to describe their practices regarding "Wiki is not a forum" rule. In my opinion, the articles are not forum like, of course, however the rule cannot be applied to the whole entirety of the content found under the wikipedia.org domain. --Imbehind (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The desysop vote was already heavily manipulated, half of those oppose votes are sockpuppets/dormant accounts, and a third of them have been cast within the last two days. Some even minutes before the expiry^[104][105] so that User:BracoDbk(also a right-wing extremist) who closed the vote^[106] could say "most of the community voted against it, so all buttons are kept". As I said before 1) a CU investigation by a third party on all admins is a prerequisite before anything due to the heavy sockpuppeting and a bias of current checkusers who obviously took positions by voting/commenting 2) Everyone should be desysoped, all pending blocks lifted, and rule of reelection of all existing sysops as well as new ones once a year should be instituted by a "higher authority". 3) after a few months when the community develops itself naturally, new (carefully monitored) elections are made. Everything else is a waste of time and will only deepen existing conflicts, and lead to more manipulation and backstabbing. I dislike the whole "change of leadership" notion - local communities should be self-organizing, without some gray eminence pulling the strings, be it User:Speedy Gonsales, User:Argo Navis or somebody else. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I saw what you said here and I want to comment your statement. Although I do not have the same oppinion in this matter as BracoDbk and I opposed his actions, I will never accuse him of anything simmilar to your qualification. I am not defending him, he does not need defence, I am simply stating. --Lasta (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

He tried to remove SiteNotice on the ongoing desysop vote for four times, and prematurely close the vote as "illegal". After his edits were reverted, he started a revenge desysop vote against two admins who reverted him (User:Flopy, User:Sokac 121) under the absurd excuse that the two were involved in an edit war and thus ignored project rules (perhaps he should've also listed himself in that vote, duh?!). So, he is obviously a part of the cabal, who are all far-right sympathizers, some more and some less openly. You can feign innocence all you like - but in the end if you support Kubura, Zeljko, and SG it becomes crystally clear what your ideological preferences are. [Of course I'm not talking about you in particular, but in general]. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Added in the suggestion.--Seiya (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• For almost the entire week the difference between the support and oppose votes in the desysop vote was +10 in favor of the former, until they activated sockpuppets/sleeper accounts, while at the same time many of the blocked users with thousands of edits, who are now active elsewhere, cannot vote. Votes are being manipulated in a calculated manner misrepresenting the position of the general community. There are no guarantees that it won't happen again in the proposed confirmation votes which will - if anything, only confirm the status quo. hrwiki electorate has been damaged by abusive admins and needs time to regrow itself naturally. But this time with checks and balances in place that will prevent this kind of embarrassments in the future. This cannot happen with checkusers who believe in conspiracy theories (see comments by User:Vodomar above), or block-happy admins who admonish users for making good-faith edits, e.g. because they've put too much wiki links in an article, used a dot instead of the comma, and other trivial mistakes, and finally receiving a block usually summed up as "ignoring instructions", which is one of the favorite block reasons there. Now the atmosphere is even more toxic than it was a month ago, and only a hard reset will restore the balance, and enable users to productively discuss politically charged articles without fear of being stalked, yellow-carded and similar. Once a collaborative atmosphere is instituted it's is easy to perpetuate it later, when new admins take their positions, but it's very hard to do so now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• This is effectively a project restart - see e.g. a recent Project restarting process proposal, which I think is rather well thought out, and is in some aspects even more radical than the proposal above, with several very important differences. GregorB (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm very disappointed with the way the things are dealt with on meta. After months of complaints NOTHING HAPPENED. Even after majority of users agreed to initiate checkuser https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia#Can_we_agree_on_CheckUser_investigation.3F nothing happened. Not even after the systematic list of abuses was compiled here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia/Evidence nothing changed. Did you gave up on hr.wikipedia? Do you care? Do something! --Imbehind (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• I second the idea that the proposal is a good place to start, but I think it needs to be fleshed out with more detail, perhaps along the lines of the Project restarting process. Also, per Rschen's comment on the previous vote, IMO any CU investigation should follow accepted privacy policy.

That said, I do share some of Imbehind's frustration. It would be ideal if the Croatian Wikipedia community could work this out, but this is impossible until there's a level playing field between those who uphold & those who challenge the status quo. At this moment, any substantive criticism of systematic far-right tendencies in the content, and a call for inquiry into its causes that goes past the content of individual articles into the methods of how they were produced and allowed to stay online for so long -- a call with which one can agree or disagree, but one which has been, I hope, demonstrated as eminently reasonable in light of the information gathered in the Evidence pages -- gets absolutely nowhere. It is met, at best, by a bureaucratic reply, claiming to uphold encyclopedic guidelines, while allowing only minimal interventions in the content, and failing to assume good faith on the most basic level by even admitting a reasonable person could perceive and object to the sweeping bias; or, at worst but all too often, by abuse, frequently followed by a ban, because someone wielding the block button finds oneself offended by the tone or wording of the critique. For any kind of a productive conversation to happen on Croatian Wikipedia, at the very least there needs to be a transparent ban policy & a lifting of bans on people currently blocked for criticism. Miranche (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the banned users, I was thinking about a hr wiki proposal to reevaluate certain contentious bans. Given the course of recent events, though, this doesn't seem like a good idea, as it will be perceived as inflammatory. (On the other hand, one might conclude that one such list is already in the making: hr:Wikipedija:Blokirani suradnici hrvatske wikipedije.) There is a procedural problem too: AFAIK, the last instance for bans is WP:ZM, so the community can't reverse bans, only administrators can. GregorB (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Go for it. Many reasonable things are perceived as inflammatory on hr.wiki. I like Vodomar's initiative, I think it should also include shorter bans (say, >= 3 months rather than > 3 months). Miranche (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• The most issues to solve are 1) Were some of the extremely biased articles brought to light at the evidence page (Detuđmanizacija etc.) that were written by new but obviously experienced users and immediately patrolled by User:Kubura, User:Roberta F. and others created by their own sockpuppets. If so, it represents inexcusable abuse of power and the involved should be promptly banned. 2) Was there any abuse of CU powers. There are five checkusers on hrwiki, one is inactive account and the four of the rest are part of the "cabal", that voted/acted against desysop of their friends. Privacy concerns of the many outweigh privacy concerns of the few. It needs to be investigated whether a) there were checked and proven sockpuppets that voted multiple times and otherwise violated rules, but were not blocked, because there are some indications that that seems to be the case^[107] and b) were there insufficiently justifiable CU checks on ordinary users that infringed on their privacy. If either a) or b) is true - immediate ban. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • My point with bringing up the privacy policy was that noone will examine private information on a large group of users just because other users say so, however adamantly. If I thought it necessary to do so -- I'm not familiar with the technical details of the process so I really can't tell -- my own favored approach would be to study the privacy policies & ask people knowledgeable about them for what kind of indications need to be provided in order to run the check on someone. Argo claims that Croq = Kosmetic, but what's his proof? An e-mail he's not showing in public. You claim there's any number of sockpuppets, but what's your evidence for it?

  Here's one way I can think of to do this with publicly available information, although it requires some databases & statistics expertise, and, say, up to 40 or so hours of setup & programming time, plus an unspecified amount (guess: between 1 hour and 1 day) of computing time. Download one of the hrwiki data dumps [108] and analyze patterns of editing by different users. Look for pairs of active users who match certain criteria, e.g., those who reliably edit at different times, then check directly if they participate in related disputes and hold similar views. This would require work, certainly, but it'd carry much more weight than just repeating the untested claim that admins have sockpuppets. Miranche (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is a real problem here. Denny and Flopy have both expressed their concern, and they are two thoughtful and highly respected members of the community, with no axes to grind. I don't know if this is the right solution, but steward attention and intervention is needed. –SJ talk  06:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Željko je Ustaša, dokazi su ovdje

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suradnik:Dasmar

Korisnik je dobio ban kada je ga Zeljko tražio da dokaže tvrdnje koje je dotični iznio na njegovoj stranici za razgovor koje je Dasmar dokazao.

A sad brzo pronađi poglavnikovu sliku na mojoj stranici, inače... ako je ne nađeš dobivaš blok zbog uznemiravanja drugog suradnika i napada na mene --Zeljko (razgovor) 00:33, 29. listopada 2013. (CET)

Čekam do ujutro --Zeljko (razgovor) 00:38, 29. listopada 2013. (CET) Predložak:Karton

wikipedija nije fejsbuk. Idite se tamo igrat. --Zeljko (razgovor) 01:05, 29. listopada 2013. (CET)

Kada si dokazi dati na njegovoj stranici za razgovor.

Brani ga Speedy da bi dotičnoga pobio sam Željko, da je slika njegova, privatna i osobna. Znači na hr.wiki imamo administratora koji je otvoreni Ustaša.

Nadalje, Facebook je imao poprilično problema sa sigurnošću svojih stranica, pa sam čuo da je moguće označiti (mislim da se rabi engleska riječ tagirati) nekoga na slici koja uopće nije vezana uz neku osobu. Koliko je to točno ne znam, niti znam jel ovdje bio takav slučaj, niti je to povezano s Wikipedijom. Pročitajte WP:NIJE, Wikipedija nema veze s drugim stranicama, vi možete biti svetac ili opetovano kažnjeni kriminalac, ali na stranicama wikipedije vas se gleda samo po vašim doprinosima. Vaši doprinosi na ovome projektu su napadački čime kršite pravila ovoga projekta, dok su doprinosi administratora Zeljka i više nego korektni. Ako imate pritužbe na Zeljka na Facebooku, onda se žalite Facebooku. SpeedyGonsales 18:40, 29. listopada 2013. (CET)

Obrisao prrivatnu sliku sa fejsbuka. Ne dozvoljavam da se itko njima koristi. --Zeljko (razgovor) 01:35, 29. listopada 2013. (CET)

A slika je iduća: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/533768_1381707645394907_1272139975_n.jpg

Slika na koji je Ustaški vođa Ante Pavelić. Sam priznaje da je njegova. Zatim suradnik Dasmar traži zahtjev za mišljenjem administratora kojega još nije dobio. Pa kako onda nema fašizma na hr. wiki?Iilija64 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

While I don't think the issue of Pavelić's photo on the wall is too important by itself (I can elaborate on that if necessary), just recently Željko has argued in the hr:Ante Pavelić talk that Pavelić was "not a fascist",[109] and also made the following comment:

I can't understand why you're so stuck on Pavelić. I'm not interested at all in this topic. Not in this article nor in any other there is anything to opine about. Both my opinions and yours are irrelevant.[110]

Nothing to fault Željko about this quote, except being - to put it mildly - rather disingenuous, and this is a much bigger problem. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do Kubura saying that evil enter in people who voted against him?

http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedija:Kafi%C4%87&diff=4197069&oldid=4197045

Molimo za naše neprijatelje. Molimo za njihove duše. Molimo za sve one čije je duše opsjelo Zlo. Kubura (razgovor) 07:41, 4. studenog 2013. (CET)

Pray for our enemies. Pray for they souls. Pray for all those souls possessed by Evil.

Evil with E. How can admin say things like this?

Pathetic and useless

I am reading this and I can not beleive what is written here. There is so much rubbish that it is impossible to find one normal line in between. There is so much hate and poison here that everything should be scrapped and thrown away as soon as possible. Thruth is that Wikipedia in Croatian is deeply divided, there are two groups, one oposed to the other. Thruth is that those two groups can not find solution, and that those groups do not even try to find it. All they do is quarreling, and they will never succede to find solution. And now, quarelling is moved from Wikipedia in Croatian to Meta, but players and tone is simmilar. Still divided in two groups, still same tone and same results. And no solution. And at the end there will be no solution only pages and pages of written garbage and our shame. All I want ia answer to one question; Can you guess why I stopped contributing? --Lasta (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lasta. There is clearly a lot of passion in this discussion, and some people trolling. Yes, there is quarrelling, and we try to see past it, and allow those people here in good faith to have and express an opinion. We may not agree with it, nor do we have to, though as long as the disagreement can be civil, and we all try to be focused on a solution rather than fixated on the problem, things hopefully will edge their way forward. So your heading is not helpful, and has no real value to a solution, so it may be that while you hold that belief it may have been better to have held it to yourself. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Croq has been banned

hr:Suradnik:Croq has been banned for two years for using sockpuppets.[111] According to CU investigation, he had been using as many as ten sockpuppet accounts.[112] Some of his sockpuppets took part in the recent admin recall where they voted against the recall. While this apparently did not affect the outcome (some of these votes were struck for lack of eligibility), even more serious doubts are raised now about the suspected vote stacking. GregorB (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the CU investigation(s) on Croq, please take a look at the submission that just came in. I believe this is very serious and calls for immediate action. GregorB (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that someone's privacy was violated? Or that someone lied about the results of CU? And who ran it this time? --Rschen7754 10:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Some CheckUser checking is a fake. CheckUser be seen IP adress after 7 months of the last login. I am not on Croq side and CheckUser. For this CheckUser check I do not think it is fake. --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SpeedyGonsales is now apparently accused of misrepresenting the results of CU check run by himself as negative, although subsequent CU run by another editor gave a positive result and ended in Croq's banning. As chance would have it, Croq not only recently voted to keep SG and others as admins, but used or tried to use some of his socks to stack the same vote. GregorB (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Seiya has been banned

Ban od 6 mjeseci bez razloga.

Indeed. One more for Roberta F.'s section in the evidence page.[113] Funny how admins feel they get to decide what proper behavior is: you better stick to the article space and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. GregorB (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #3

It seems time to make a proposal that is a compromise.

1.Users listed at the evidence page for conduct are to be dessysoped (and) removed from all other privileges they have on HRWiki.

2.Furthermore, articles listed at the evidence page for Content are to be reduced into a simplified, NPOV "bare bones" version of the article except for Special War against Croatia (1995-2012) and Defense of the Krk Airport, which are to be deleted as hoaxes.

3.For affected pages/sysops, it only applies to those in the sorted submissions sections.

4.Other administrators may stay in their places (if they get 67% support).

5.Removal of rights and deletion of pages are to be carried out by a Steward.

6.Users listed at the section Incidents including multiple admins are to be removed from all rights as well while articles in subcategories of Kategorija:Ratni zločini u Jugoslaviji u Drugom svjetskom ratu, including those in their subcategories and articles in Kategorija:Ratni zločini u Jugoslaviji u Drugom svjetskom ratu are to also be reduced into a simplified, NPOV "bare bones" version of the article. Jugokomunisti and all articles using related terms are also placed under indefinite 1RR.

7.All the pages listed at the evidence page for Content are to be set under indefinite 1RR, including articles in the category Kategorija:Ratni zločini u Jugoslaviji u Drugom svjetskom ratu, and articles and their subcategories and articles in their subcategories as wells as articles listed at the section Jugokomunisti and all articles using related terms.

8.Readding pro-fascist content to those articles is grounds for a block. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Great proposal but who will carry out all this?--DobarSkroz (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
3.  Support. Considering the fact that great number of admins have very tight majority support (if any), and divisions in the community, I believe we should keep only the admins that have strong support of the community. And, of course, those who broke the rules should be de-sysoped regardless of support. --Argo Navis (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
4.  Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

• While I'd definitely be inclined to do something, I have some reservations regarding this proposal as it is laid out:
  1. The conduct section currently lists five admins, and their alleged conduct violations vary widely in number, seriousness and degree of support from the reviewing editors. Does this proposal advocate for removal of all five?
  2. Same for the content sections: quite a few articles, some quite legitimate submissions, some borderline ones. Who is going to do the quarantining? Hr wiki editors have thus far show remarkably little interest in analyzing and addressing (hell, even refuting) the content criticism.
  3. If admins can only stay with 2/3 support, this is essentially the same as removing everyone then holding admin election again. However, since the current state of hr wiki is somewhat problematic, the election is necessarily going to be somewhat tainted.

All in all, I'd still prefer project reset, although - failing that - this proposal is definitely better than nothing. GregorB (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may add, one of the crucial things that should be done is enforcing of basic rules (nor, npov, and so on...) Some of the rules are not even translated in Croatian and you have editors with 1000+ edits that still do crappy articles (in the sense that they are supported with 0 sources) and half illiterate, which means that nobody "tought" them about wiki guidelines. Also, using questionable sources is an issue to be addressed (e.g. using the paper published by Catolic Church that are in their very nature biased; using explicitly right wing extremist web portals etc.). All this means that hr wiki has a whole "generation" of "tainted" (in the lack of the better word) editors that think that all this is normal. So, if you remove controversial articles, and if you remove "problematic" admins, is it really going to solve the problem? I'm writing this from "the outside", I've been contributing as unregistered user for some time, and I spent the last few days reading the RFC, hr wiki village pump and so on, trying to undersand this whole situation. So, if you all consider my thoughts irrelevant or something like that because I'm not a registered user, please ignore them. Cheers! D.

All very good observations - hr wiki indeed has some deficiencies in both standards and procedures. Many editors apparently see it as a little more than an "article mill". ("And what the hell, finding and adding references only slows you down".) In the wake of the recent controversy, there were comments in Kafić that basically said "Let's go and create more articles". While I appreciate the elan, I couldn't resist thinking: well, nobody ever said (Jutarnji list in particular, to give a fresh example) that hr wiki doesn't have enough articles - the problem is in their quality. So, is "let's churn out some more" the best slogan for improving the encyclopedia? Changes in quality won't come easily, but first we have to ensure efforts in this direction aren't systematically obstructed, as they have been. GregorB (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you GregorB! I completely agree with you. The point is quality, not quantity. Another proof that hr wiki really needs help is sequence of events from this morning. Admin Zeljko blocked user Argo Navis for two years (because he raised the question of Speedy Gonsales not founding out that user Croq had 10 sock puppets after his cu, yet cu done by another admin proved it). After that, admin MayaSimFan deblocked him. Zeljko again blocks him, admin Sokac121 deblocks him, Zeljko again does his thing, and now third admin - Saxum, deblocks him. The story repeats, admin Mario Zamic deblocks user Argo Navis. Last time I looked, Zeljko did his fifth block, again. All four admins that did deblocking said that you cannot block someone for asking legitimate guestions. see here Again, hr wiki needs help. Cheers! D.

Thanks for the heads up, this new development is very significant. (By chance I asked the same question in Ex13's talk, but I've received a non-answer.) GregorB (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The pattern that was already established has merely persisted - conflict resolution process on hr: is fundamentally broken because the sole constant is the massive use of the blocking facilities. It's high time for the stewards to intervene and end the perpetual silliness. --Joy (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What's worse, it is not possible to establish a meaningful discussion, as everything is now perceived as a part of the battle. The stewards will not intervene - they are apparently not authorized for anything other than limited and strictly remedial actions, and here the only remedy is a full project reset. This has no precedent really, and I see no other option than to talk directly to Jimbo and/or WMF, but I imagine myself in their shoes: someone drops in and says "Hey, this project is in shambles, let's reset it". Surely Jimbo won't say "Well, okay then" and have everyone at hr wiki desysopped. I still don't have an idea on how to approach this. GregorB (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask for non-binding opinion? -- Bojan  Talk  20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While I'm sympathetic to this proposal, I also share GregorB's reservations voiced above. In fact, all explicit proposals voted on on this page share one problem -- they are completely ad hoc. I'd prefer to start with a discussion of realistic options which would consider probable pitfalls as well as implications for other projects, and ask for a vote (or rather a !vote) only after there is a considered plan of action with a reasonable amount of support. At this point, the Project restarting process proposal, even though it's in alpha, is the closest there is to a guideline of this sort. The discussion about it among experienced editors gives some confidence that possible consequences have been anticipated, and at least a modicum of legitimacy. Miranche (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

References

I?

I to je to znači, ništa se ne mijenja, a fašizam ostaje na hr wiki?

Rest assured this is not over yet. Next thing we do - apart from winding down the evidence gathering process - is we contact the WMF, i.e. a member of the Board of Trustees. GregorB (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least one thing has changed - yesterday, the right-leaning Večernji list picked up on the level of absurdity that is tolerated on hr: - http://www.vecernji.hr/hrvatska/na-wikipediji-clanak-o-specijalnom-ratu-protiv-hrvatske-908986 --Joy (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent developments: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:Vituzzu --Argo Navis (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Manipulation with contents of articles, using vandalisms to make a newspaper sensationalistic "story"

Jutarnji list and Tportal recently maliciously and sensationalistic transmitted, and maybe even create their own "news". Check articles (examples):

• http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/znanost/304455/Sokantan-tekst-o-specijalnom-ratu-protiv-Hrvatske.html (December 13th 2013)
• http://www.jutarnji.hr/kaos-na-hrvatskoj-wikipediji--quot-specijalni-rat-protiv-hrvatske-1995--do-2012--quot-/1146776/

This "news" is related to vandalism https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specijalni_rat_protiv_Hrvatske_1995._-_2012.&diff=4225668&oldid=4225525 which originated from IP https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posebno:Doprinosi/109.165.158.40 from neighbouring Republika Srpska entity of BiH. Such behavior of media is not unprecendented, we already had similar cases, documented here and here

It is evident here that media attention is focused on obvious vandalisms which were removed in 5 minutes (1st vandalism), 18 minutes (2nd vandalism revert), so presumption that these vandalisms were made in collujsion with the media is not unrealistic. If not in collusion, why they give space in their media to obvious vandalisms? I see that as promotion of vandalisms on Croatian Wikipedia. Having in mind that Internet portals of Jutarnji list and Tportal are quite read (Jutarnji is 3rd or 4th newspaper in Croatia, Tportal is owned by biggest ISP in Croatia), this promotion of vandalisms is so much stronger attack on freedom of speech on Wikipedia in Croatia. That is nothing but clear evidence that some media in Croatia have some interest in Wikipedia, which is evidently not free/libre encyclopedia. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why that "article" wasn't deleted in the first place? -- Bojan  Talk  22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy, that is just one of many possible explanations, and You took it for granted because it fits Your stories. You are trying to make this scandal look related to facebook group or media, but neether is true. Media hype was just something that made regular wikipedians understand that they are not alone in their discontent, which existed for years before the scandal,

About the wiki joke... First of all, this is completely irrelevant for RFC. Second, I first saw the permalink to this story on facebook group. So it's most likely that they did it, or someone else did it and showed it to them. Media took it from facebook group. Also, some media reported that, although entire article looks like a parody, majority of text was genuine, undelated to joke. I must admit I had hard time distinguishing which part us joke and which is written by Croq or some of his socks and patrolled by Kubura. Let's just delete it and avoid further embarrasment. BTW, just to clarify, Speedy isn't one of the guys who insist on keeping the article. Good to hear this, Speedy. --Argo Navis (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, one man's vandalism is another man's joke. This vandalism/joke took a few hours of work for guy who did it and 10 seconds for guy who reverted it. Media jumped in to have a free story. That's how media works everywhere, there is no need for conspiracy theories. --Argo Navis (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Vrijeme prolazi, a što se točno mijenja?

Kada će svi ovi dokazi biti primjenjeni u praksi jer se konstantno pomiče taj rok u nedogled kada će se kontaktirati fondacija? I sada je još jedan suradnik dobio ban, radi čega? Što Željko ima dupla pravila?

From what I understood, nobody wants to take responsibility for radical moves, so they're waiting to situation to sort itself out. Which in practice means standing idly aside while gradually even more editors get blocked under absurd pretext. Like User:Imbehind that you are probably referring to in your comment, while at the same time his homophobic interlocutor hr:Suradnik:Ilkov2 who sees leftist "planned secularization" conspiracy in every corner doesn't get punished. Kubura apparently still continues to spew radical nationalist rhetoric at the main discussion board [114] where he confesses his belief in a "special war" (and insult fellow admins by calling them fikusi), while Mir Harven similarly continues to advocate the usage of "real Croatian" by suggesting that Croatian Wikipedia endorses words that nobody uses such a promičba, mješto, lučba [115] (while simultaneously disparaging the incumbent government which he sees as "anti-people's"). The ruling clique continues to use the passive-aggressive method that has worked in the past: User:Zeljko and User:Kubura drive off editors by their excessive blocks and strong language, which makes the rest (which are just as radical but not so vocal about it) come across as good guys in regular correspondence. There appears to be some kind of effort to gather wider editor participation to possibly balance out future policy/adminship votes - but too little too late. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Previše razgovora je bilo na ovoj stranici koji nije donosio ništa, a premalo konkretnih stvari. Kojega se to stewardsa upoznalo u detalje sa situacijom?

Imbehind is banned

I was banned because of double standards Kubura (and other admins) use frequently to get rid of the editors who oppose him. Kubura warned me a few days ago that my remark was trolling, and now that I've warned the editor not to troll, I was banned for 30 days. Cabal was on the defensive for a few months, and now they seem certain that the stewards will not act. I'm beginning to feel the same. :( --Imbehind (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SpeedyGonsales going even more aggresive

Thanks to slow (if any) reactions from WMF, looks like SpeedyGonsales feels like nothing can stop him now.

He called me a troll twice for no reason.

He blocked hr:user:Dean72 for 14 days for "trolling" while at the same time tolerating much more aggressive behavior from right-wing hr:user:Ilkov2.

And, finally, he banned Imbehind from changing hr:Ante Pavelić for a year! Imbehind didn't do anything wrong in main namespace, but he insulted WW2 fascist leader, dead for half a century, in corresponding talk page, calling him kreten (cretin, moron). So, according to SpeedyGonsales, because of that, Imbehind can't change hr:Ante Pavelić for a year.

I must say that Imbehind (who is blocked by Kubura for a month for literally no reason) is one of only a few users who dared to engage in fighting pro-fashist bias in articles in last few months. Dean72, who is also blocked today, is another. And, that's basically it, regarding fixing pro-fascist bias on croatian wikipedia. The story is over.

I can only conclude that Kubura and SpeedyGonsales are feeling safe and secure. And furious! This is only the beginning of the cleansing. Things will get much much worse then in 2009-2013 period!

WMF, please do something! --Argo Navis (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Imbehind was not blocked "for literally no reason". He has a history of rude communication. Block by Kubura explained here.[116] After the expiry of the previous block (because of rude language), he continued with rude communication (naming the very calm and inconflictive user as "troll", althogh the calm user said "guys, let's end with the endless discussions, let's work" - and Imbehind told him that "users like you that have a need to troll on discussions" - "suradnike koji poput tebe imaju potrebu trolati po raspravama" "if You do not have anything constructive to write, than better don't." "Ako nemaš nešto konstruktivno za napisati, onda radije i nemoj"). Imbehind was previously blocked for bad communication manners [117] by other admin (ManUsk), and also by others. See his talkpage. Yellow and red cards by various admins. Although he was once warned [118], without being carded (and he was previously rude in expressions), he continued. Imbehind's block log. [119] Imbehind really needs to control himself. Kubura (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You were not called troll, but your edit was called as trolling. And for a good reason - just that, trolling, which is sufficiently clear described on your talk page. There can not be two set of rules, one for you and other for all other users, there can be only one set of rules, which are to be applied to all users, regardless of their nickname. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not called troll, but my edit was called as trolling??? This is a good one :))). Classic SpeedyGonsales argument :).

Come one, Speedy... I gave perfectly good comment that, while blocking users, admins should avoid blocking user talk pages, because that way, we might speed up conflict resolution. I avoided giving concrete examples on purpose, so my comment wouldn't look like I'm attacking anyone in particular. Roberta F. reacted mostly positively, Kubura also took a notice, but You were the only who see this as a problem! Later, I contacted Zeljko, since he was admin involved in most of these examples, and he didn't make any fuss about it. Problem solved, message delivered, wikipedia improved. So, basically, you called me a troll, just because I made a suggestion, but didn't immediately gave references for all the claims I made? Is that your idea of adminship? Calling people trolls just because of that? No excuse? Not even admitting You are wrong?

BTW, Speedy, for a short period of time, I even thought Wikipedia can work with current admins. Considering how aggressively You reacted on perfectly legal de-sysop voting, I felt something like real mother in Judgment of Solomon - better to keep a baby alive then to split it. I felt we reached some silent agreement that You and your comrades will stop molesting users based on their worldview, while "opposition" will stop complaining about previous oppression. That way, You would have a fresh start, and we would have normal wikipedia. Based on your and Kubura's sudden offensive last few days, looks like You just want to do things old way, or even much worse. But, I believe there is still a chance for that silent agreement I mentioned. Think about it... --Argo Navis (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To my best knowledge, there is no wikipedia rule that forbids to call out trolling edit a trolling edit. Regardless who is author of edit and who describes that edit as trolling. Only merit here is argumentation why some edit is trolling. You gave no argumentation why your edit is not trolling on hr wiki. I gave argumentation why your edit is trolling on hr wiki in same edit in which I called your edit as trolling.

Above you firstly tried to ridicule what I wrote yesterday, namely you either imprecisely or falsely described what I wrote on hr wiki, and when I clarified or corrected you, you ridicule this. Your attitude regarding me speaks lots and lots here.

Then you are writing that you avoided giving concrete examples on purpose. Is there problem with content of articles on hr wiki? Yes, with some, no more or less than on any wikipedia. Is there problem with administrators work on hr wiki? Yes, with some, no more or less than on any wikipedia. Is this page long? It is. Does it show that something is wrong? No, it show that some users are having a grudge against something (it's not polite nor I like to presume reasons why some user or users do what they do).

Problems can be solved if they are clearly described, and worked upon. I'm doing just that, I'm recently insisting that every user who writes complaint to be specific, so we could do something about it. To either ask user to change his edits in future, to warn him/her/them, or block him/her/them if needed/necessary. But idly going that "something is rotten in state of Danemark" probably using slight irony as you did in your edit I called as trolling, well, that is trolling.

Finally, there exist occasions where and when it is not only polite but farsighted to not be specific, but this is/was not the one. As you (former admin) was pretty loud recently calling for desysoping of three without success, I think that there is a merit to ask you to be specific, and not to watch silently you ranting vaguely that some administrators did this or that. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As I explained, since de-sysoping failed, I'm working on plan B - make wikipedia better through peaceful suggestions (not "ranting" as you called it), without trying to blame 3 admins for situation. You just cherry-picked my words, assumed bad faith, and wrote a insulting rant on my talk page. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, what "slight irony"?!! You are really begining to see non-existing things! This is exactly the main problem with you. You are so determined to find cynicism, irony, bad faith or provocation in anyone's words. This is why so many conversation with You leads to dispute and block. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I called your edit trolling, and clearly described why it is so. Now you write that I assumed bad faith and wrote a insulting rant. If calling trolling edit a trolling edit is insult for you, than in future do not troll but be specific. Qualifying your edit as trolling together with description why it is so - if that is rant, maybe you do not understand what word rant means. Only reason why I have not translated your edit here and wrote why it is trolling is that I tried to explain you why some edits/decisions are OK or not OK, and somehow you often could not accept my description as valid, but oftentimes you are taking totally opposite view. I can understand that you can be in denial, or that you are defending your edit regardless be it right or wrong, but to my knowledge wikipedia users should:

• when editing articles use sources (scholarly approach)
• when editing talk pages and mentioning incorrect edits of other users use difflinks

You do not accept that if you are ranting that some sysops did this or that, that such edit can be called trolling. It is your right. But if you call that insulting, then you are over your head. Insults are insulting, your above try (Classic SpeedyGonsales argument :)) of ridiculing me is not proper/correct, and me calling your edit as trolling is not an insult, that's actually the fact. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling people trolls (or their edits trolling, whatever) is an insult, personal attack. If you don't get it, I can't help you. --Argo Navis (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Double standard, Argo? When a newbie shows rude communication from the beginning, continues with that through 4 months (and he openly admits that he curses a lot [120] "ali se slažem da bi ubuduće trebao malo bolje kontrolirati svoj vokabular. (Ja sam dalmatinac, mi beštimamo čim zinemo) "), than "he is blocked for no reason". But when an expert and experienced admin, that has support from the majority of local community (the most productive users!), recognizes that that user has an edit pattern of a troll (troll with rude language), than "it's the personal attack". Kubura (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubura, as You just said, Imbehind openly recognised his mistakes. After that, he showed significant progress. And then, you blocked for a month just for asking another user not to ask for a discussion to end and go to "work" (like hr wiki problem is lack of articles, and not their quality!). And Zeljko even threatens him to block for a year next time, and then infinitely. Looks like You realized that Imbehind will finally begin to behave by-the-book and you will have to reason nor excuse to block him in the future, so You decided to provoke him with unjustified month-long block, just to keep him complaining? --Argo Navis (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubura, you are using my words out of context, cherry picking as always. What are you trying to do here? Do you think your behaviour will be justified here with more lies and slander? Do you also think that your pathetic warnings to your fellow cabal apprentices are going to go by unnoticed? You warn them not to give reasons for block while blocking me for no reason... How stupid do you think the stewards are? Let me tell you something, my dear experienced cherry picker expert: If and when the stewards decide to act, you will find yourself cherry picking your new nickname in no time. Until then, enjoy yourself! In the meanwhile, I'll get busy on Meta documenting the works of your cabal. --_Imbehind_ 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For starters, I've noticed that SpeedyGonsales is still a CU, despite the fact he got only 54% of the vote in the last elections. Since the CU requires 70% community support, I've asked stewards to make it a little easier for him in the future. [121] Hope you'll agree with me on this one. --_Imbehind_ 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Imbehind, I seconded your request. Are there any other privileges SG has, such as bureaucrat, that require supermajority support? It would help if you posted a link to the relevant hrwiki guideline. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

BokicaK comment

SpeedyGonsales, are You happy now? You retained your position, but your pet project lost any credibility because there are sysops (!) who intentionally use Wikipedia for spreading conspiracy theories using a 23-year-old-mentallly-unstable girl as source, (deliberately) insert false information or they are outright liars (e.g. Željko)? Have You ever thought about that? -- Bojan  Talk  12:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

BokicaK, I must say I'm not sure what are you talking about :). And you are off-topic :). But, don't worry, if he continues being as bad admin as he is, he will have to go, one way or another. But, as I said, he still has a chance. --Argo Navis (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know I went off-topic, but I had to ask. Now deleted article on third Yugoslavia was talking about what would happen Croatia if she join EU citing Kristina Ćurković whose own family say she is unstable. In real world, third Yugoslavia was nickname for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Btw, Željko is a perfect example what qualifications are required for being sysop on Mr. SpeedyGonsales's wikipedia: ignorant liar (he denies that he kept a certain photo in his Facebook gallery) and bully (blocks whoever mentions that). -- Bojan  Talk  13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When you stop wasting meta talk page space with nothing and give some difflinks, I'll answer. You should know that limit of user responsibility is his/hers edits, but you blame me for newspapers article or deleted article without my edits? Hello? SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Read again. I didn't write you created/edited those articles. I consider You responsible for atmosphere in which Croq dared to write that anti-fascicm is genetic disorder 'cause he know he enjoy(s/ed) support from admins. When another user complained on that article is really, really bad, you mocked him (Proleteri svih zemalja, ujedinite se! - Proletarians of all countries, unite! ) and gave support to Croq's original research (that was later removed when this controversy erupted in medias). Further, I consider You responsible for fact that your fellow sysops and supporters don't know what are peer-reviewed sources (so they rely on fringe portals), write blogish articles (special war against Croatia, Croatian inferiority complex, Self-hating Croat, Third Yugoslavia (in real world that was state that followed socialist Yugoslavia), Secularist fundamentalism...)... BTW, nothing to say that one of your friends and sysops is a big liar, aside from being a fascist? Doesn't that damage reputation of (Croatian) Wikipedia? -- Bojan  Talk  02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The author's words were taken out of the context. The paragraph in the article spoke about the abuse of the word "Antifascism" by (Yugo)communists, but the true Antifascism as such is described affirmatively, as something positive. All the bad things done by Yugocommunists were listed, and the sentence ended with "everything completely different from the true word antifascism, the word that Communists manipulatively use to decorate themselves and to hide behind that word. "Sve potpuno suprotno od prave riječi antifašizam s kojom se komunisti manipulacijski ukrašuju i sakrivaju " Also "Komunistički pokret Josipa Broza ne može se međutim mjeriti s istim mjerilima kao i pokreti otpora nacizmu i fašizmu u zapadnom svijetu: nakon rata 1945. Hrvatska nije dobila demokraciju, nego drugi oblik diktature i strahovlade." Cited from this article [122]. More examples mentioned here.[123] Kubura (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, anti-fascism was not described affirmatively, with Croatian anti-fascists portrayed as beasts with genetic, spiritual and moral disorders. And nothing to say on Željko's lie(s)? Is telling lies a sin or a skill required for being a (hr.wiki) admin? -- Bojan  Talk  08:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Bokica, I wouldn't push Zeljko's private pictures too much. He has right to keep that information private. However strange this might sound in this situation, mentioning his political affinities is ad hominem. That's not his main problem after all. Regarding anti-fascism article and SG's role in overall climate, I completely agree with you. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, Ante, Željko is not a kid, he is in his 50s, if not in his 60s. He should think twice before he posted the photo with Pavelić in his Facebook gallery. And I couldn't not pretend I didn't see that. What good Pavelić brought to Croatia, anyway? Independence and rule of law or mass killings of undesired? He failed in every category. And he left behind his own men to save his life. I wouldn't feel comfortable (and many do not, this endless soap opera continues thanks to him and his pals) to work on project with person who admire Pavelic, even if he is an expert in other fields. But Željko lacks technical skills, he has double standards and he bullies weaker than himself. -- Bojan  Talk  11:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Just for the record, I'm not weaker! --Imbehind (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL this truly is a soap opera. I agree with Argo that Zeljko's choices on what to post on his Facebook page are not directly relevant to Wikipedia, but Facebook is by default public space, not private, so if we suspect a person's ideology affects how they act on Wikipedia, whatever they post on Facebook that is accessible to others is IMO fair game as circumstantial evidence of their bias. Given Zeljko's insistence in early November on not calling Ante Pavelić "fascist", along with removing NPOV labels & limiting the editing of the article to admins, his political self-expression choices on Facebook are IMO certainly informative.

Kubura, pseudoscientific editorials from HKV (Croatian Cultural Council, a right-wing advocacy portal), however convincing they may sound to people who are already inclined to believe them, are NOT reliable factual information for encyclopedic articles. They can at best be used as a source for a sentence that starts with "Croatian right-wing intellectual so-and-so argues that..." Then if the article mentions that, it needs to be balanced with a digest of opinions from, say, Jutarnji & H-alter. Miranche (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bokica, I am against Fascist and keeping their pictures anywhere, I write that fact trying to avoid misunderstanding. Let us separate things here and there, let separate Wiki and rest of media. Zeljko did not keep his pictures on Wiki server and acc. to my oppinion that argument does not enter here, and i think that we will have to let that argument aside. His behaviour and views on Wiki, they are important and we should talk about that only, no matter what he is doing elsewhere. But, in reality, Zeljkois not important, not at all. He did not try to influence Wikipedia users with his political views (as far as I know), his main guilt is his short fuse and following (listening) his friends (Speedy and co). Who is important, and where all problems are coming from is Speedy and Roberta, followed with Kubura. That is real problem and another story. In reality, all problems are coming from there, and that is main source of all Evil (as Kubura wants to call it). They will tell you that they did not wrote a single letter of fascist propaganda, and that even can be truth. They will even tell you that they did not know about it (you can beleive that, I do not). But there is no single piece of evidence to support different claim. What they will not tell you? They will not tell you that most of that rubbish was written by persons with autopatrol status. They will not tell you that autopatrol status on hr.wiki is not automatic thing, that you need to be approved and promoted. And they certainly will not tell you that you cyn lose autopatrol status if you write rubbish. And real question is how many users lost their status for writing articles in that way (in reality, tolerating such users without action is approving of their act). --B. Ivsi (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't totally familiar with his political views, though I was aware they are leaning toward right. Thanks to the photo, I now know that he is prone to use admin tools to cover something we all saw, so I don't trust him and I can't expect that he will treat all users equally. He can remain contributor. I can't say same for Kubura: he is true leader of clique that push conspiracy theories and encourage writing of biased articles, that ultimately destroyed reputation of hr.wiki. User of hr.wiki should work hard for years in order to make hr.wiki reliable. -- Bojan  Talk  18:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubura (admin on hr.wiki) tries to provoke me for permanent block

I'm already blocked for 30 days by Kubura cause he wants to get rid of me on hr.wiki. Now he is trying to provoke my reaction on my user page so he can block me permanently [124]. He does this by issuing a warning to me on my user page because I wrote in the description of the contribution, also on my user page on hr.wiki, that he is "maltreating" me in his admin's duties TWO WEEKS AGO. Although "maltreating" can mean just "treating badly" (which he does, as an admin, and I mean it), as can be confirmed by any dictionary, he is purposefully insisting that what I meant was "torture". He is obviously trying to misconstrue my writings and provoke my response so he can act. I beg you for your protection because "Assume good faith" is worthless guideline where there is none! --Imbehind 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Just ignore it. --Argo Navis (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I recommend You to have a fresh start on Jan 31, after your block expires. Try to write more and talk less. Avoid "kafić" and concentrate on articles and corresponding talk pages. Forget about old sins, regardless who made them. Ignore provocations as much as You can. --Argo Navis (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Man_Usk and MaGa

Hi, I saw that the information gathering is closed, but that pages are open for comments and "limited new information". I have something to add here (if it's duplicate then please ignore it).

Several Wikipedias have their own versions of the article en:2014 unrest in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the Croatian one is set to be deleted, with the following statements (by admins) on the talk page:

https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Razgovor:Prosvjedi_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_2014.&oldid=4261087

• Man_Usk: I don't know in what way the rampage of hooligans would be an encyclopedic topic.
• MaGa: Remove. Wikipedia isn't a leftist portal. (Then when another user disagrees with him, he replies by stating that it would be sensationalist to have that article on Wikipedia and says "with that logic every labor strike would have their own article".)

- Anonimski (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonimski, thank you for the question. This appears to be a difference in opinion, not necessarily (yet) an irregularity. Wikipedia has a noted tradition of covering current events, so I certainly don't agree with Man_Usk & MaGa, and I think their approach is heavy-handed and possibly biased. However, unless e.g. the article is erased without properly addressing arguments for keeping it, or if someone is blocked just for expressing opinions different from administrators', I don't think it's a proper topic for the evidence pages. Offer counterarguments, look for coverage in international media, and try citing rules on other Wikipedias about what constitutes notable current events. Good luck. Miranche (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to discuss this issue here. The discussion on article's talk page is still ongoing and the article is not even deleted yet. BTW, Miranche gave you good advices. --Argo Navis (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again User:Miranche, it seems that the page has been deleted. I think that the arguments against deletion were sound, and I apologize for my lack of participation - I'm not fluent enough, and the other posters summed it all up quite well. None of the other languages' articles seem to have caused the same reaction from administrators, despite that the associated countries are further away from the Balkans region. Anyway, I just wanted to inform about how it ended. - Anonimski (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Link: https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosvjedi_u_Bosni_i_Hercegovini_2014.&action=edit&redlink=1

Anonimski, the user who started the page dropped the ball on it, and the page was erased because it was too short even for a stub (I think the requirement is at least 4 sentences, which sounds arbitrary and can certainly be questioned, but that's what it is). Anyways, the talk page with sources etc. is still there, so if anyone wants to restart the page they can do so. I personally didn't have the time. Miranche (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Information gathering finished - Skupljanje podataka završeno

The process of gathering information about irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia is now closed. The pages are open for comments and limited new information through Friday, 21 February 2014. Miranche (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC) (edited Miranche (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC))

Postupak skupljanja podataka o nepravilostima na hrvatskoj Wikipediji je završen. Stranice su otvorene za komentare i ograničene nove podatke do kraja dana u petak, 21. veljače 2014. Miranche (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC) (uređeno Miranche (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC))

The outcome?

This is how tportal.hr sees it: Kako se rasplela sapunica o hrvatskoj Wikipediji?. A well-informed article for once... GregorB (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. That seems to suggest that all of the issues mentioned above have been resolved on hr.wiki, or that there have been no further conflicts in the past 2 months. Could some of the people who voted in favor of the above proposed results comment on this summary? –SJ talk  03:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the guy who was interviewed in the tportal article. Yes, there are no conflict over subject because old users do not want to change disputed articles (because they don't believe it's safe thing to do), and new users do not want to come because they expect someone "from above" to solve the problem before that. Looks like most Croats decided to boycott the project. --Argo Navis (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is solved since trying to pick up a random hr.wiki's and putting it into google translator will show you what's wrong with Croatian Wikipedia. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Information gathering pages closed - Stranice za prikupljanje podataka zatvorene

The information gathering pages -- submissions, comments and talk pages -- are closed and have been 2 days ago. Miranche (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Stranice za prikupljanje podataka -- podnesci, komentari i stranice za razgovor -- su zatvorene prije dva dana. Miranche (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)