Requests for comment/Reforming local self government system on Croatian Wikipedia

Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

A self governance issues - the nexus of disinfo problemsEdit

First of all, many thanks to WMF for engagement (finally) and the author of this document for accurately describing all the most pressing issues had over the last decade. The document IMHO gives the reader a good overview of what happens when a small wiki is left to it's own devices and because of it's small size it is unable to defend itself from even a small but organized group of bad faith people with an agenda.

Of the three recommendations I find the first, the one about the "robust self governance" to be the most important because it is the only one (in my opinion) that addresses the cause of the problem, not the possible solutions of the particular case of (which are outlined in 2nd and 3rd recommendations).

So, personally, I find the (lack of) proper self governance to be the root and cause of all problems on However, since the main subject of the whole assessment process (as well as of the resulting document) is the current disinformation problem has, the part of the document that deals with works of the "kabala" is lacking a bit in details on how exactly the "kabala" ruled the for more than a decade.

Basically, the main thing that led to disinfo disaster was the lack of suitable mechanisms to control the actions of the admins. Without such mechanisms in place to ensure the will of the community trumps admin's wishes it was entirely possible that once the "right" admins were in their seats, and the majority within the admin group was secured, it was game over for

Self governance the wayEdit

The problem is very serious and has a long and complicated genesis. But to be blunt, as a long time user and editor on, when it comes to "self governance", I can say only this - There is no such thing on! Please try to understand: the most closely resembles a feudal system where all the governance processes themselves are firmly positioned in the "benevolent admins" hands, by the hands of the admins. And seemingly, they do not want willingly to give up that power, not even today. Currently, on there are no real mechanisms for a wiki community to influence, guide and correct the behaviour of admin caste. Any modern and functional community is ruled by laws, or in our case on wikipedias - the wiki policies and guidelines. On the wiki policies and guidelines themselves are either missing or are just hijacked by the admin caste to ensure their rule cannot be questioned or disrupted. On top of that, the people responsible for interpretation of the policies and guidelines are admins themselves, often inventing rules ad hoc. And on top of that, there is no ArbCom - a panel of editors which has the authority over the admins when it comes to rules interpretation and enforcement.

So basically instead of the system where admins are to obey and enforce the will of the community we have the system where ordinary users are sheeps, led by our "benevolent" shepherds - the admins. Of course, as often done by real shepherds, if you oppose the decisions of admins you end in the kettle. (Please excuse me for generalizing admin's behavior perhaps a bit too much, but there IS a kind of toxic comradeship amongst the admins that I find exculpatory enough in this case.)

I might agree that the current set of admins are much better than the ones during the "cabal" rule (there are good admins on the right of the political spectrum also, and amongst the "old" ones even), but the fundamental problem still remains. Six months have already passed since Kubura & Co. were dethroned and what has changed? At first, for a short while, admins (even the old ones who cooperated with the "cabal" or were the part of it) were softer, more tolerant toward critics, more open to changes. But unfortunately, as the time went by, the situation slowly but surely reverted to it's old "normal" before the new normal was even established. While some of the admins (most, but not all of the new ones) supported the community wanting the changes by participating in writing the new policies where policies and guidelines were missing, or by rewriting the existing ones, as well as supporting the cleaning of the POV content that disgraced our in the public eye, the rest strategically opposed most of the changes that would introduce any form of admin control mechanisms and in effect start to build a form of local governance on more modern than the medieval one we currently have.

How admin caste operates?Edit

When I said "strategically opposed" to the changes, please allow me to illustrate what exactly I mean by that:

Break, ignore and bend the rulesEdit

I was the person that together with few others translated and adapted the main content policies and guidelines from to replace the old, garbage ones for the purpose of neutralizing the POV pushers that made disinfo hell from I can say that my perception is that only the three to four admins were 100% behind the effort with one admin as a lead and collegaue in autorship and presentation of the new rules to the community. The majority of admins were and still are silent, seemingly not interested at all in laying the foundations for the future of by replacing the old compromised policies and guidelines. And why is that? I'm not saying the admins should write the new policies by themselves, but for the most part the ONLY input I had from them in writing the new content policies was the old "cabal" mantra: "we do not have to have the same rules as has because the rules are not always applicable to". Really? A content policies from like WP:NPOV or WP:VER are not directly applicable to That was the only thing to contribute after 10 years of inquisition by cabal? That and silence? And not doing anything else supportive?

Before I'm accused of not assuming a good faith here (inaccurately but purposefully translated to Croatian long time ago as "assuming the good intentions") let me just summarize the results of our efforts on writing and rewriting the's policies and guidelines: 1) Adopted new policies: - WP:No Original Research (was missing entirely), WP:Edit Warring (was missing entirely), WP:Reliable Sources (was missing entirely). 2) Still not adopted, in process: WP:Neutral Point Of View (was and still is poorly written), WP:Verifiability (was and still is poorly written). 3) Still not adopted, NOT in process: WP:Five Pillars (not accurate in sensitive parts). 4) Admin related new rules: number of new policies and guidelines regarding the admins themselves that are written in the last 6 months equals ZERO. 5) Admin related current rules: number of current policies regulating the admin practice and conduct also equals ZERO.

Let me emphasize this once more: the only rules that were adopted by the community till this moment were the ones that we didn't have at all, in any form - WP:NOR, WP:WAR and WP:RS. Meanwhile, WP:NPOV and WP:PRO are ready for adoption for months, but still are not adopted and seemingly are on ice. No discussion. No opposition. Nothing. Just silence. Because yeah, who needs such trivial things such as WP:PRO and WP:NPOV for battling the disinformation on when we have our all wise and benevolent admins ready to help us? And of course, we do need rules for admins since they are so wise and benevolent. Right?

So you see, the first mode of operation for cabal-like groups AND cabal-compatible power hungry mentalities is: Do not have rules! Just make the rules as you go but only when you need them. Remember, when there are no rules, nobody can accuse you of breaking them in the first place.

Eliminate the opositionEdit

Personally, I was also involved, together with other pro-change minded colleagues, in fixing the most notorious POV articles on We were constantly sabotaged, disturbed and provoked by POV pushers, which resulted in verbal clashes with POV pushers and admins who protected them (Blocks...) Admins did their job eventually, kind of, but not to go into the details to much (without being provoked to do so), I'll just summarize the bottom line here: The admins seem to want to protect POV pushers for some strange reason. Maybe it's fear of being accused to be "vindictive", I don't know. All I know is that I'm blocked (2 months) for protesting about admins avoiding for months to dismiss a POV pusher from the role of patroller (official cause: not assuming good faith), and the other prominent "POV-buster" colleague blocked (2 months) for (again) criticizing admins for not enabling us to delete POV content (outright right wing extremism garbage) without consent from admins (official cause: personal attack). So now we have a patroller who was caught in blatant POV push still patrolling the while the people who try to change things and eliminate the POV are being punished and ostracized for frivolous imaginary reasons (as interpreted by who else than admins) such as not assuming good faith or personal attack on admin for criticizing admins obstructing the removal of POV. Good job!

(BTW, The POV pusher patroller still active on I mentioned above - the one that get me blocked by proxies a week ago, not during the "kabala" rule - is the same one who reverted any mention of "war criminal" from the intro sections of the articles about Croatian war criminals multiple times [1][2][3][4]. You can read all about problems with war criminal articles in the Disinformation Assessment itself.)

The second mode of operation for cabal-like groups AND cabal-compatible power hungry mentalities is: Make it personal! When editor is in fact not breaking any rules, act offended for no real reason and quickly block him! Just accuse the editor of personal attack, and if you stick to the "no rules" rule from above, the editor will not be able to defend himself. Moreover, even if the user manages to unblock himself somehow by appealing to other admin i.e., every consecutive time you block the user for the "personal attack" or "assume good faith" or "disruption of Wikipedia" the next time it will be even easier, because the critic will now have a "history" of bad behavior so you could even construct a "personal attack" or at least "assume good faith" case for any other user who opposes the block. Don't mind the policy that for any personal attack claim admin should recuse himself (WP:INVOLVED) too much. It's new (smuggled into some "obscure" content policy), and nobody seams to give a damn after all.

(Now even the allied admins are starting to refuse support to the editors that want change because of the 1) toxic comradeship I mentioned before and because of 2) character assassination campaign performed over all dissenting voices asking for change by rogue admins that want to rule now and forever. We have a history of clashes with admins by now. It became an argument against us all by itself just as described right above, under the "second mode". Even the clashes with "cabal" admins 8 years ago are being taken against us regularly. Go figure...)

Could this happen to your favorite wiki?Edit

So, dear friends, this is the state of as I see it now. It's (not so) slowly falling back to the old ways and it will go back unless you are going believe the serious accusations I was forced to make here. The disinformation situation is a little bit better only because admins are collectively forced to help fixing it by the global community, not want to expose themselves. But the real problem of local governance, the cause of the whole mess, just cannot be fixed without the wider support which will ensure that first the right policies and guidelines are in place, and then the right practices are established within the community. By "right" I mean the policies, guidelines and practices as found on other more functional wiki communities around the world. You are all more then welcome to help! And make no mistake about it - no matter how big your wiki is or how good your wiki is organized, your wiki could be next.

I'll end this long rant of mine with the excerpts from never adopted version of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - Wikipedia:Arbitraža which can be found here: [5]. To better illustrate the rogue admin problem I would've prefered if I could give you excerpts from version of WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN, WP:DEL, WP:APPEAL or similar, but THERE AREN'T ANY! (1st mode of operations, remember?). Instead, I hope this little "pearls" from the mind of the "cabal" leader SpeedyGonsales will help you understand the mind of average admin as it was for the last 10 years, and I fear maybe still is.

(Croatian Wikipedia does not have ArbCom, and the admins have the supreme and unchallenged authority over the

  1. Croatian Wikipedia ArbCom is modelled after the Arbitration Committee found on English Wikipedia, however it does not function in the same way as it does on English Wikipedia.
  2. ArbCom exist for the common goal - creating the free encyclopedia.
  3. ArbCom consists of three members, of which two are admins, and one ordinary user.
  4. The members of ArbCom are nominated by the administrators of the Croatian Wikipedia, after which the elections are held.
  5. The written rules should not be taken explicitly.
  6. Wikipedia is not a democracy but is a subject of benevolent oversight of its administrators who will intervene if need be.
  7. Editors who evidently submit the complaints without valid reason may be sanctioned by notice or be blocked by the ArbCom, even prior to the complaint formal deliberation.
  8. If the complaint is dismissed, the counter-complaint may be filed automatically because of the harassment.
  9. Editors are to be warned not to file complaints without reason because by doing so they are wasting ArbCom's time.
  10. ArbCom may, if need be, update and change the ArbCom policy by itself.

I hope this excerpts and the whole post clearly illustrate the problem the has. Hopefully now you have a glimpse of the mindset of rogue admins and their methods and it clearly shows that it's very hard for individual users to anything to oppose it. I also hope you will perhaps agree with my opinion and the opinion given by the Assessment itself that the communities themselves, especially the small ones with poor self governance infrastructure (just like is) are not equipped to deal with problems of this magnitude by themselves, and that outside help and guidance in establishing the self government infrastructure is needed in one way or another. If you do, I would really like to hear your ideas on how to do it.

Please note - this is my personal point of view and it should be regarded as such. I'm sure others (especially some of our feudal benevolent overlords) will disagree, but I have diffs, screenshots and google translate to back up my claims if need be. I might be perceived as disruptive true, and usually "they" accuse me and even punish me for that reason. But, what's not to disrupt here exactly? Imbehind 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


Hello Imbehind! You have forgotten to point out an important distinction in this rant: nobody is disputing your edits nor preventing you from correcting POV content in any way. The behavior you were blocked for does not relate to the POV issues, but to your own inability to maintain a cool head, communicate with your fellow editors in a civil manner - especially if they have diverging opinions, nor to extricate your own emotions and beliefs from a civil discussion. Nobody needs to experience abuse or insults simply because they disagree with you. Calling admins lazy, calling fellow editors pieces of sh*t, and violently demanding administrators take action without consensus having been reached defies the spirit of collaboration this project strives to reach. I hope you take some time to truly reflect and hopefully improve your own behavior instead of calling for admins' heads. Respectfully, a hrwiki admin. Ivi104 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Ivi, this is not a post about me or you. It's a post about my opinion on the state of Croatian Wikipedia in general. But if you feel you need to talk about me here, please continue with your character assassination effort to further demonstrate the method (I mentioned in above post) to your colleagues. But please, use diffs for your claims in the future. Thank you. Imbehind 13:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Imbehind, could you post a single diff where any admin (or even an ordinary user) is actively discouraging writing/improving any rules for hr wikipedia? --Argo Navis (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Argo, this is not a post about me or you. It's a post about my opinion on the state of Croatian Wikipedia in general. But if you feel you need to talk about me here, please continue with your character assassination effort to further demonstrate the method (I mentioned in above post) to your colleagues. But please, use diffs for your claims in the future. For instance, you should be able to quote me saying above that admins were "actively discouraging writing/improving the rules". You can't? If that's the case then double thank you! Imbehind 14:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
But, this is about you! It's about your (and your pals') fixation with the idea that admins are actively protecting Kubura's POV. I, personally, fixed probably more then a hundred articles writen by Kubura's socks, but that didn't really saved me from accusations that I *protect* his POV. And the (blocked) user who harrased me with those accusations repeated that a dozen times. He was warned several times not to do that, even promised to stop doing that, but he continued and he was finally blocked. Why should I bother giving diffs when you didn't provide any diffs yourself? This entire rant is just your own personal POV, without diffs backing your claims. It's worth nothing more then any other personal opinion. If you can't prove admins are *actively discouraging writing/improving the rules*, then what exactly *is* the problems with admins? Should we be forced to help writting the rules? If you are unsatisfied with the pace of changing rules on hr wiki, why do you single out admins? --Argo Navis (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Imbehind is an user who was blocked several times because of personal attacks, and even swearing, on wikipedia. Although he did a great job fixing some POV, unfortunatelly, he did much more harm with his uncontrollable temper and lack of communicating skills. Noone blocked him for POV fixing. Actually, many admins admire his POV-fixing work. The same admin who blocked Imbehind in May (Maestro Ivanković) supported giving Imbehind auto-patrol sttaus 2 months before, precisely because he trusted Imbehind's POV-fixing changes.
Imbehind, this rant above is, unfortunatelly, consistent with your rants on croatian wikipedia. Just like there, you are expressing your frustration with slow progress in implementing new rules on croatian wikipedia, but you conveniently forgot to mention that noone is actively discouraging any rule changes nor POV fixing on hr wikipedia. I understand that you hoped that many more users will join you in POV fixing, but you are forgotting that none is obliged to do that. If someone prefers working on non-controversial articles to POV fixing and translating rules from en wiki... well, you'll just have to learn to live with that. Please, try to keep your frustration to yourself, instead of attacking entire community just because they don't satisfy your expectations.
Regarding alledged "cabal"-styled behaviour of "new admins", unlike before 2020., you are free to question admins behaviour. You are free to propose formation of ArbCom. You are free to propose any change in rules. You are free to start de-sysop vote on any admins. You are free to propose new admins. --Argo Navis (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This is funny, as I was blocked so i can experience wiki vacation [6], something that would be quite forbiden by new rules they constantly ignore [7], so Argo Navis, don't lie here. You love to break the rules(like my block when I was removing POV pushing, and you was reverting it[8] [9]). And you didn't block him when he was using bad language, but when he asked admins to start doing they job, some months later. His 2 month block was to shut him up. Kanikosen (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You were not blocked for wiki vacation, admin used an euphemism. You were blocked for constantly and persistently assuming bad faith and accusing multiple users that they are trying to sabotage POV-fixing. You communication is extremelly toxic, full of systematic assuming of bad faith, and you need to work on your communication skills.
No, Imbehind was not blocked for bad language, but he was warned to improve his communication. He stopped swearing but continued with agresive comments. The block reflected all the problems in his communication. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Did he? So there was real reason for my block? Really? What did I do wrong to warrant 2 months vacation? Do tell. And what happened to no one was blocked for removing POV, I just show you diff, of you returning your friend Kubura POV and my block. So no, you can't remove POV on Croatian wiki when Argo Navis is there to defend it(as first you have to fix entire article, and only then you will be able to remove POV parts). You gave up on fixing POV after another user proved everyone that your work is subpar (same method of work you tryed to force on me) and you quit saying don't come back crying to me [10].
Can you translate comment Iambehind did that warranted 2 months ban as from what I am seeing, he called for you admins to start moving and that was it? Kanikosen (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Calling Kubura "my friend" very much sums up what is problem with you. I'm not going to discuss my role in the everts that led to solving the problem of Kubura, but I can asure you that a lot of people reading this are reacting to your comments about me and Kubura with one big WTF??? I rest my case. --Argo Navis (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Kanikosen, you are not telling the complete truth here. You accused me of reverting your edit and restoring Kubura's text, but you conveniently forgot to say what very same day, I completelly rewrote this section and removed most of it, while keeping a few sentences that were undisputed. When you look at my total work (3 edits in row), you get this. This paints quite a different picture of what you were trying to prove, doesn't it? --Argo Navis (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Meta-Wiki is certainly the place to have this sort of discussion, but at this point it appears beneficial to remind participants of our civility policy. Despite perceived history or current activities, remember to assume good faith and keep your discussion civil and productive. Meta-Wiki, though being the host for significant discussion regarding the Croatian Wikipedia, is not the host for exporting problems that can be handled on hrwiki or for exporting incivility. On that note it would be beneficial (as some users have realized) to back up claims, especially those that could be interpreted as accusations, with diffs or other evidence. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The key point here is that any of these problems *can be handled locally on hr wiki*, so this is not a topic for Meta. If the community is not satisfied with some of the admins, anyone can start de-sysop proposal or RFA for new admins. If nobody can give a valid proof that problems can't be handled locally, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. --Argo Navis (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis for most I can agree with you, but to claim that *can be handled locally on hr wiki* is not quite precise and adequate as there are very few contributors there in general + even less with voteing rights ++ 33% of those were happy to have Kubura back with 3 toxic admins (so much for 'community')...Please lets not reduce complexity of the situation, modalities of work and ways to handle all this. Also I mostly do not agree with Vermont on what he thinks is adeqaute communication (with tons of passive-agressive and 'sealioning' in English) and also how (proactive) project custodians should act (hence my block on Simple), but this case I agree Diffs are the best way to communicate issues in different contexts and scales (Wikipedia in Croatian language, Wikimedia projects in Croatian/SerboCroatian + multilingual projects/contexts like Meta, Wikimedia mailing-lists..) that are official Wikimedia infrastructure. --Zblace (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Zblace, as you have mentioned it, I believe there is a need to clarify for readers. First, accusations without evidence are often considered aspersions, which are an issue of civility. And I am not sure who you are accusing of sealioning; my administrative note, or the arguments above it. I am not here to participate in debate or have an opinion on the issues involved. My intention with my edits in this discussion is to keep the tone welcoming and the path constructive, in line with our civility policy and intended contributing environment. Second, your block on the Simple English Wikipedia is a mix of a checkuser and conduct block due to your using the project and sockpuppets for some type of misinformed and terribly-planned social experiment. It is entirely unrelated to this. Please do not conflate your conduct issues there with my reminding people that Meta-Wiki has a civility policy here. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Zblace, considering years-long "cleaning" of opposition, 1/3 of votes to keep old admins is actually quite low. Also, I believe some of those votes were protest votes because some users were also irritated by part of "opposition" users (Kanikosen being prime example), and they feared that there will be some revenge. One of the reason for that is Kanikosen's comments like this. Kanikosen constantly posted comments predicting dire consequences for people who didn't participate in removing Kubura (whether supporting Kubura or just ignoring the problem with him), and he was warned multiple times not to do that, for example here, by Lasta. In situation where the community needed a period of peace, since everyone was tired od endless arguments in village pump, some new admins decided to put extra effort to solve problems peacefully (in off-wiki talks, when needed), giving the community time to adapt to new situation. Admins were tolerant of users on both sides of ideological spectrum equally, even Imbehind was unblocked after off-wiki discussion with him, when he recognised his mistakes in communication. Unfortunatelly, Kanikosen and Imbehind constantly asked for revenge and punishment for their "enemied" and that is the main cause of conflict with them. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis, it is highly relative and subjective reading if 1/3 of toxic voters (counter global ban and decade of manipulation+supression) is high or low...let's agree to not agree on interpretation of this. As for Kanikosen's comments I would think that is maybe not strategic in communication or to be more blunt, not 'socialy-lucrative' (small language Wikipedia should not use contributors even if they lean to rightwing nationalism), but rather explicit in what he understands would be correct course of action (my own is also different from both of yours and Lasta's) his big 'sin' here was stating (OK, maybe too often) what many people from my social circle would think is adequate way to do with manipulative nationalists in open and participatory global knowledge project (written in Croatian language, but not just Croatian). So I would again agree to not agree on this interpretation of Lasta and you on what is the most adequate. I would be also hesitant to talk of single 'community' and judging what is 'adequate' for it (that sounds a bit patronising, as if people involved are not consenting adults). Anyway - this is now #offOffOFF from the topic of what this page should be used for and Meta admins should consider to move to new page+namespace. --Zblace (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis, thank you for your input. I should have clarified; though this page is not a proper outlet to pursue changes on the Croatian Wikipedia, discussion regarding it's current state, especially relative to believed inaccuracies in the Disinformation Assessment, is more than welcome. So long as the discussion is kept civil, of course, which fortunately it has been so far (though is quite heated, hence my perceived necessity for a civility note). Best, Vermont (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually Vermont I would strongly disagree... - this is now #offOffOFF from the topic of what this page should be used for Talk:Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021and Meta admins (or others facilitating?) should consider to move to new page+namespace...It is this kind of detours that make Meta (spagetti like structure) incomprehensible to people who are not fully committed to Wikimedia work daily (priviledged) and is it extracting too much mental power and/or alienating people who can not afford that (unpriviledged). As prominent custodian/Wikimedian you should not encourage this type of writting just to fulfill curiosity. --Zblace (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the "proposal" and related conversation is very clearly off-topic, and no consensus gained here can be applied anywhere as it is very much out of scope for this page. In that matter you are completely correct. This isn't an RfC, this is a talk page. However, when it comes to pages and discussions taking place on Meta-Wiki, you are incorrect. If you want to find consensus-building discussions, just look at the main page, or Requests for comment which has a listing of every request for comment currently under discussion and those recently closed. Or perhaps note how, whenever large discussions take place here, editors use MassMessage, mailing lists, banners, and other forms of notifying those who may want to participate. It doesn't take much "mental power" to find the discussions that matter; it is literally on the main page. If anything it's many times easier to find important discussions here than it is on content projects. To note, your cheap shot about "privileged" Wikimedians is not easy to take lightly. You've done this in the past, when you accused me of being anti-LGBT after your conduct/sockpuppetry block on the Simple English Wikipedia. Both are rather offensive to me; I am pansexual, and work a full-time minimum-wage job, and I don't come to Wikimedia to be insulted or accused purely on the basis of your assumptions of bad faith. To note, I want you to give your opinion, but I want you to give that opinion without aspersions, explicit or implicit. It is in the best interest of both you and the Wikimedia contributing atmosphere. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
[11] And this is why I am arguing, even now that Vodomar and anyone who did this (faked CU check to save Kubura) need to get perma ban. And Argo Navis is against that. I don't see how someone who faked something like CU check could remain on project? But Argo is not on same page as Ombuds Commission [12] . I am standing behind my words, people like Vodomar need to be removed from project. And why did you spoke in plural when every call i had for ban was one person, ex admin Vodomar. Man who did what? Faked CU check and had IPs of how many users after he lost CU rights? Kanikosen (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Kanikosen, you used word "lie" in summary of your comment. You just can't stop assuming bad faith? This is just tipical of you. On hr wiki, you did mention that Jure Grm should be permabanned, maybe even for some other users, didn't you? Do I have to look for a diff to prove it? --Argo Navis (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Vodomar - he obviously left wikipedia, no need to humiliate him any more then he humiliated himself. Unlike you, I think blocks and bans should be prevention, not punishment. Also, I don't like hitting people who are already on the floor. I find it sadistic. --Argo Navis (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis Funny, feel free to find that diff. As you can see here [13] administrator Jure Grm was molesting me and abusing his admin tools. That was confirmed by 3 other admins on And you know what Argo Navis did, nothing. He did everything he can to stop Jure from losing his admin tools. All I did ask was for him to lose his tools, as he was abusing them. I had 2 admins comming to me in private in discord(i have ss of those conversations) begging me not to start de-sysop process, one even telling me that he will do it. I was fool for being good sport and listening to them. And then, we had this atrocity [14] Argo did his best to protect Jure. So yes, I have problem with that.
Humiliate? Vodomar faked CU chek Argo, plus he had acces to our IP adresses after he lost CU check rights. You are fine with that? Kanikosen (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Which part in "block should be prevention, not punishment" you didn't understand? Also, here is your plural for perma ban. --Argo Navis (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't "protect" Jure, I just did what I thought is the best course of action in that moment, taking into consideration that Jure lost his nerve because the admins tolerated your own constant rants and attacks on everyone who you saw as enemy of the project. If we blocked you in time, Jure wouldn't lost his nerve. I feel personally responsible for tolerating your behaviour for too long and thus causing frustration in great part of the community who felt we tolerate your rants just because we are "on the same side". Blocking Jure after we tolerated your own bad communication would, in my opinion, cause another round of conflicts in the community. As in many other cases, I thought we should try to find a solution without any penalties, at least while the community is still in transition from previous period. Unfortunatelly, it always leaves some beligerent users, like you, unsatisfied. Don't forget I personally unblocked you based on WP:INVOLVED when Jure blocked you. Jure was very fruatrated with my action. I'm not on Jure's side nor on your side, I'm just trying to solve the problem with the least demage to the community. You might question the quality of my decisions, but you shouldn't constantly assume my bad faith. --Argo Navis (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Antisemitism and Holocaust denial is not for perma ban? Thank you Argo for showing why I have problem with admins on And to translate myself, this was not for only one year ban, but for perma ban. And I stand behind that Argo Navis. And checking now you admins unblocked person that wrote this[15]. For real? Why?
Argo, did Jure molested me? Yes or no? It's not my problem his mental condition, but his work on project. That man blocked me, insulted me, then his coments about Serbs, Atheist are ok in your book[16]? That is admin material? And when did you unblock me, after how many days of arguments, and was it after I told you I am going to Meta to repot that block? Then, 20 min later, unblock. That block should never happen in first place. You just proved that admins are beyond any responsibility. You truly wonder why I have problem with work you do as admin? Kanikosen (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Great part of the community Argo Navis? You, and Jure? Who else? As from what I can see, people having problems with my work are your friend Kubura, Vodomar, Jure and you. So please explain, what majority of users on project have problems with me, do tell. Kanikosen (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
To end this, as there is no point arguing. I'm not assuming your bad faith Argo, I'm telling you that you just do not know how to do your job properly. I know you act in good faith, that you are a good person and have good intentions, and really trying your best. But Argo, sometimes our best is just not enough. Your decisions are questionable. As an admin, you should implement the written rules, not improvise by yourself and create chaos. I provided enough diffs about your admin errors and explained how your decisions affect the project. You do not answer my questions but only attack me personally so what's the point in talking to you? I am done with you. Kanikosen (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Folx you are all hugely of topic of this page and this content (worth discussing) should be moved elsewhere...discussing it here does not help WMF advance follow up to first larger scale practical action they did after a decade in HR Wikipedia. Please assume good faith in my wish to have this re-located and structured as useful communication and make operable action. --Zblace (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for the possible solutions to the problem of dysfunctional local self governance on hr.wikiEdit

Before anybody objects to my criticism for not giving any solutions, let me try to do just that.

As you may noticed in my previous post, I do kind of hold a grudge. But it's not a personal grievance against any particular person, admin or otherwise, but rather a deep frustration with the current form of dysfunctional local self governance that produced ten years of "Cabala" as well as all of our current post-Cabalian problems. Also, I would like everybody to understand that we (yes, there are more then two of us) don't have problems with "admins". We have problems only with those admins who want to continue their adminship within the existing and flawed local self governance (LSG) system we've inherited from Cabala, as if nothing happened six months ago. As it is already elaborated in the Assessment (Recommendation #1), and as I (hopefuly) illustrated in my previous post, there is a serious problem with current LSG system in the sense the root and the cause of the problems with Cabala was not personal, but systematic and we have to fix it before it destroys this second incarnation of our We have no other option but to change the flawed system that got us in this situation now the Cabala's admins/leaders are gone. If we want a to succeed we simply do not have to luxury to continue on the path set by Kubura&Co, pretending there are no more problems, but must forge a new, better and more Wikipedia spirited path for our community.

Please try to understand, the problem is not personal. It is systemic. That's why I did not mention any names in my previous critiques. That is why I didn't answer to the personal attacks made by my dear colleagues Ivi104 and Argo as I often do on (and I will not engage with them if they decide to continue either). Cause it is not Argo Navis or Ivi104 that created the flawed system of LSG, it was SpeedyGonsales, Kubura & the rest of the Cabal. Because of that it pains me to see my former (and I hope future) allies react in a personal manner when we were only criticize their behavior - their clinging to the old ways of LSG which was the root cause of our problems in the first place. They should be able to understand a simple fact of life: the only personal thing one might have against the admins on is due to the fact that no slave or serf really likes or loves their master or king. So if they want to be loved, they must allow things to change. As simple as that.

Dear friends, the job of saving the was not done and finished in the moment when Kubura left. His global ban by the global Wikipedia community was just an opportunity for a fresh start, but if we do not fix the mess that Kubura&Co left behind, will collapse and die out in no time at all. And when I say "mess", I don't mean problems with POV articles but I'm referring to our current inherited local self governance system that looks more like some medieval kingdom then like modern, vibrant and diverse democratic society the Wikipedia is today.

The admins have many responsibilities in this new chance that was given to us, a chance for a transition towards a functional community. For if the transition is to be successful, the first responsibility admins must fulfil is for them to stop being afraid of the change. Dear admins, open your eyes to the possibilities, you don't even have to do the necessary changes all by yourself, you don't have to do it at all, we have people who will do the most of the work, but please, at least do not stand in the way (or worse).

Cause simply cannot continue to exist based on principles, policies and rules like: "The written rules should not be taken explicitly" or "Wikipedia is not a democracy but is a subject of benevolent oversight of its administrators who will intervene if need be." It is wrong, it is unethical and it is in total opposition to everything Wikipedia stands for! just cannot survive another decade under the total admin domination, no matter how benevolent they might be.

To avoid this grim scenario, I propose the three following steps to recovery:

Step 1 - Stop fighting the change and lets try to fix things togetherEdit

I would like to ask of all truly benevolent admins here, publicly, to finally get out of their foxholes and trenches, to stop looking at the problem as a personal one (solved by Kubura exiting the scene), to stop perceive the critiques of the flawed LSG as a personal attacks, to stop assuming bad faith every time a person opposes them or demand from them to do their duty, to stop being loyal only to their colleagues and finally to start acting as a part of the community which elected them to implement the changes in LSG as quickly as possible. We, or at least the majority of us that voted for changes, did not want an improved model of Kubura to rule over us, but a new!

Step 2 - Reform the local self government system to meet global Wikipedia standardsEdit

We cannot operate any longer as some distant, backward, stubborn, overall weird and conspiracy theories obsessed cousin, but have to embrace the global Wikipedia community in its entirety. For start, we just have to write, rewrite and fully conform our current principles, policies, guidelines and practices to the global Wikipedia standards as quickly as possible, together with our mindset.

To that effect my proposition is to formally, as a Croatian Wikipedia (once and if the consensus is reached on, seek help from the global Wikipedia community in rewriting all the policies and guidelines on the that are not in compliance with either principles, the practice or the spirit of the global Wikipedia movement. It must be done because the said policies, guidelines and principles are the very backbone, the blood ad veins of our future local self governance system, and are currently deeply compromised by the Cabal.

I also propose for to seek help, advice and oversight from our more experienced colleagues in the matter of implementation of the new policies, guidelines and practices, for as long as needed, or at least until the local ArbCom is ready to take upon itelf their duties.

Since admin rights have been abused for a decade, I propose that the re-establishing of robust LSG system starts with thorough overhaul of all policies regarding the admin conduct, rights and duties (and since there are none, we just have to write them.) :) The first and the most pressing priorities should be the following:

  1. Help with writing of policies and guidelines governing the admin conduct, rights and duties (WP:ADMIN - there is none currently)
  2. Temporary oversight of admin adherence to WP:INVOLVE, WP:ADMINABUSE and WP:TOOLSMISUSE principles as defined in future WP:ADMINS policy
  3. Help with full rewrite of policies abused by Cabal to block and silence the editors: WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT etc.
  4. Temporary oversight of the blocks and other admin practices regarding the use of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT etc.
  5. Help with reaching the consensus about transparent block and ban policies and related criteria for their usage (there are none curently).
  6. Temporary oversight with aim to prevent block use for solving personal disputes between admins and editors.
  7. Temporary oversight with aim to prevent usage of blocks and bans for punishment instead for the purpose of prevention and protection of the Wikipedia.
  8. Temporary oversight with aim to establish the practice for blocks and bans to be progressive in nature, not ad-hoc and unpredictible as they currently are.

The second priority should be the local ArbCom because we can't expect for our colleagues to babysit us ad infinitum. It is a crucial step because if we do not establish a local governance and control mechanisms all the effort we already invested and will invest in project in the future could again undo itself and revert to the current state easily. For this to succeed we could also use help from global community in the following areas:

  1. Help with writing the ArbCom policies and guidelines (there are none)
  2. Help with electing and establishing Local ArbCom with power to mediate in matters of consensus, dispute resolution, admin misuse and abuse etc.
  3. Help with education of ArbCom members

And finally, there is a pressing matter of the main thing we are supposed to do - the Wikipedia articles themselves and the disinformation content they currently contain. It is a third on my list simply because only the healthy community can produce a healthy content. Once the robust local self governing system is established, NPOV violations and NPOV violators will not be able to remain on for very long. New content policies and guidelines are mostly ready or are already adopted, but still we need (some):

  1. Help in rewriting the rest of the current policies and guidelines.

Step 3 - Actively seek regional cooperation and collaborationEdit

As a part of Wikipedia global community we must not take part in regional politics, especially the bad ones. However, we have the chance, and in the spirit of our movement even the obligation to cooperate with our colleagues not only in the region, but worldwide. To this end we must do what ever is possible to cooperate and collaborate with our closest neighbors and try to reach a regional consensus on how all of us collectively could make our local Wikis better.

Personally, I'm not taking any sides (yet) on the recommendations #2 and #3 that the Author of the Assessment made, because it's not a simple thing and no clear vision on how to reach proposed goals was given, nor it's 100% clear that the proposed steps would indeed solve anything. On the other hand, I'm 100% certain that no later than 300 years from now, if there even will be local Wikis, the West Balkan one will be united in one common edition. So, lets start preparing for that moment in a timely fashion, shell we? :)

In any case, for sure, It wouldn't hurt to at least detect what we can do NOW to avoid quadrupling the time spent on writing the separate articles for each of the BCMS editions. I'm also sure there are articles which would only benefit from any kind of collaboration. Lets devise the mechanisms to work together on these at least, before we try to wrestle with the more controversial ones. Once we have the mechanisms, the controversies will slowly but surely fade away with time, as they naturally do.

For this step I propose a more general approach - a call for volunteers with interest in collaboration with colleagues in the region to make a formal groups all across the region. Once and if the groups of volunteers are formed, it is up to them to devise their purpose and methods.


Here are my proposals. No calls for vengeance or "revenge", no calls for retribution, no dire consequence, no demands for heads or personal attacks, just a big fat pile of HARD WORK waiting for us all to do it, if we want to succeed. I am ready to carry my part of the load, and it will not be a tiny one, rest assured (if my private circumstances allow me to participate as much as I'd like to). There are people on that have had this entrenchment mentality for more then a decade, and for a good reason at that. But now, perhaps, is a time for that mentality to end. It must end, or it will be the end. Imbehind 16:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments (2)Edit

current form of dysfunctional local self governance

Please provide a diff proving that hr wiki self govetnance is flawed.

No problem. Would these suffice? [17][18][19][20][21] (The last one is my favorite: "Croatian Wikipedia is such a garbage that even it's owners want nothing to do with it")
Non sequitur. This was not about local self governance, it was about specific group of people hijacking a wikipedia and ignoring the rules in order to stay in power. If admins are not OK, WMF relies on the individual communities to solve the problems of bad admins with desysop voting. This process was not possible under the cabal because, in all admin votings, both RFAs and desysop votes, Speedy agressivelly attacked anyone who voted different from him. This is not the case with any admin today. If any hr-wiki admin any time tryes to intimitade voters in order to influence the vote, feel free to come here and scream "hr wiki self govetnance is flawed". Until that happens, please use regular community decision making process. If you are not satisfied with any admin, you are free to start desysop vote. Or, if that is too stressfull for you, you are free to propose a new admin who will be more simpatetic to your view of the situation. Did you try any of those actions? No! Of course you didn't. Because, deep down, you do understand that great majority of hr-wiki users view the situation radically different from you and a few of your friends you can't get what you want through community. That's why you decided to come here and tried to get what you want by bypassing local community. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
So basically your "argument" goes as follows: Once upon a time, we all lived in perfect harmony in our little kingdom on the Adriatic sea. We had everything we needed and our lords were just and benevolent and everybody knew his place. Then a dark force invaded our lands, led by evil Knight Kubura and his sorcerer SpeedyGonsales. They conquered our castles and ruled over us for a decade. It was a decade of chaos and misery. Anyone who raised their dissenting voice was aggressively attacked and silenced by the evil sorcerer SpeedyGonsales and so on. Everything for you revolves around admins, and in reality, on other wikis, admins are just a small but important part of local self governance system. On the local self governance was always admin centric and so much so that it never occurred to anybody in power in the beginning (again admins, including you) to even try to put in place a set of policies and guidelines that would limit the admin's power and ensure adherence to Wikipedia principles just in case that some day a set of not so much benevolent admins would replace you. You (the admins) never even understood the value of ArbCom as a control mechanism, and never tried to establish it permanently on The one time the ArbCom was used (or maybe just considered, I don't remember) it was only for the purpose of inter-admin fighting and forgotten about when the fighting among the admin caste ended. So when Kubura&Co finally took over there were no rules or any other control mechanism to oppose them. Everything continued to revolve around admins, and with rudimentary (and flawed) content policies it was easy to transform into a right wing disinformation hub. And even now, after you were the victim of Kubura and Speedy together with the rest of us, you simply do not understand what was the real problem from the beginning. The self governance system is not to choose the people who appear benevolent and give them the absolute power and hope for the best. That's not a system but a costly display of plain stupidity and incompetency. Such "system" of governance is closely related to the early feudalism, where the small villages were ruled by elected elders, and not at all related to the democratic, self governing society with rules and mechanisms like Wikipedia. But please Argo, continue to glorify the advantages of such travesty and if you can, refrain yourself going "deep down" into my head. You just do not understand many things. My head and self governance concepts included. Imbehind 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hr-wiki was admin-centric because people who were admin, like Kubura and Speedy, forced it to admin-centric mode. Today nobody, especially not new admins, want hr wiki to be admin-centric. For example, here: hr:Wikipedija:Kafić/Arhiv 2021 3#Prijedlog: Zahtjevi za komentar (Requests for comment, RfC) umjesto Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora? admin Koreanovsky proposed changing the conflict-solving mechanism in a way that entire community discusses about conflict resolution, not just admins. Koreanovsky started the discussion on March 21, you were deblocked 3 days later. What stopped you from joining that discussion and propose the very same thing you propising here??? --Argo Navis (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding new rules, also, admins play roles of ordinary users. I didn't see any admin trying to use his adminship to force his opinion. If you wan't new rules - write them and propose them. Just like you already did several times and just like your new rules were put to discussion and eventually to voting (example: hr:Wikipedija:Prijedlozi/Dopuna postojećih pravila WP:NPOV i WP:PRO).
So, if admin don't play special role in bringing new rules and current admins agree with involving broader community into the conflict resolution process (the discussion you ignored), where exactly do you see the problem with admin-centrism? --Argo Navis (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom was created in 2009. in order to solve some conflicts that couldn't be solved any other way. Before 2009., nobody thought it's needed. It was dismantled in 2010. due to off-wiki harassment by Speedy and Roberta. Until 2020., it wasn't possible due to the cabal rule, and after 11/2020, nobody put up a proposal for creating ArbCom. I understand that you like the idea of ArbCom, but you aslo must understand that not all wikis have it and also that if the hr-wiki community doesn't want it, you'll have to live with that. You might see lack of Arbcom as a sign of "dysfunctional local self governance", but, hey, that's just your opinion - the one you didn't even bother to share with the community (or if you did mention it, you didn't actually proposed it). I, personally, like the idea of Arbcom. If you wanted Arbcom, you should have proposed it to the community, not here. Why didn't you? --Argo Navis (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC) IS admin-centric. Period. It does not (still) have even a basic set of policies and guidelines which would enable and promote the practices and the spirit of modern self governance system. Let me remind you, until we did not translate them from only a few months ago we didn't have AT ALL WP:NOR, WP:RELIABLE or WP:WAR on And we still do not have anything resembling a decent WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY policies. Also we do not have AT ALL WP:ADMIN, and WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. So your claim about "specific group of people hijacking a wikipedia and ignoring the rules in order to stay in power." is wildly inaccurate. What did you think was going to happen? That you will all live hapilly ever after? Look, they did not need to "hijack" anything. They did not need to "ignore" the rules. They were elected admins and once elected they just made use of the fact that THERE ARE NO RULES and rule based mechanisms to limit their actions. So basically, it's not really a fault of Kubura and Speedy that the admins (you Argo personally, since you were admin then, and your colleagues) simply did not grasped the serious implications of not erecting a robust and resilient self governance system with mechanisms which would enable the community to battle rogue admins with an agenda of taking over the if such occasion ever arise. What's the most disturbing thing, ffwd 10 (or more) years, is that you still do not get it. You still think that everything was perfect in the beginning and that Speedy, Kubura & Co only with lots of luck, entirely by chance, used one single moment the other admins waren't looking and "hijacked" the project. 😂 In fact, the system of local self governance was so flawed and easily taken over as if it was planned to set it up like that so it could be "hijacked" at any moment. And you call it functional? 😂 If you think's self governance system is functional (then and now, because it's the same system) as it appears to be the case, I don't know what to say to you other than that you had your chance to design a robust LSG and apparently failed. Now, since you even won't admit the failure, please step aside and let others to set the things right. Or, if you're willing to reconsider your position and change your mind, join us and collaborate.
One more thing. You asked me why I didn't make my proposals on The reason is that for even 10% of the things I wrote here I would be permabanned. And you know it. I was banned several times for A LOT less than this. I'm just sorry that you are unable to converse (at least) like this on with people that obviously annoy you like myself and Kanikosen. What's more, I'm even more sorry that WP:INVOLVED does not exist on just so we could talk to each other over there, without you feeling the admin itch too much. But it is what it is. Imbehind 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC) IS admin-centric. Period ??? I asked you to be concise. You are doing it wrong. This is not a valid argument. You are right about hr wiki missing some basic rules, but that problem is being solved as we speak (in this very moment, there is a vote for two rule updates that you personaly translated). Also, noone is stoping anyone on hr-wiki to propose anything, quite the contrary. Your comment that you didn't comment in March because you thought you would be permabanned in baseless nonsense. So, there is apsolutelly no need to discuss new rules here because that process works perfectly.
The idea that any rules would stop Speedy and Kubura in taking over hr wiki is naive. Speedy was harassing users and we did have rules about harassment from the start. Speedy systematically acussed people of breaking WP:AGF while at the same time assuming bad faith in others. In 2009., we tried with ArbCom, but he harassed them off-wiki. We tried in 2013 with de-sysop vote, but he scared people off the votings with threats. So, despite having imperfect rules at the time, the takeover didn't happened because od bad rules but because of determined and well organised network of people who decided to have things their way. Given enough people organised in group, it could happen in any wikipedia (especially smaller ones), regardless of the rules. I'm sure WMF is aware of that, but sticks to it's non-interference principle because if finds it less of two evils (also because it can't happen on bigger, more important, projects). So, if you wan't to "fix" anything, try to "fix" entire Wikipedia, not just hr wiki.
hr:WP:INVOLVED doent't exist as separate rule, but it is part of another rule. I know it because i deblocked Kanikosen after Jure blocked him preciselly based on WP:INVOLVED. --Argo Navis (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I would like everybody to understand that we (yes, there are more then two of us) don't have problems with "admins".

I can assure you that number of users frustrated with your constant rants on hr wiki is also higher then 2.

I know. Good for you. You must be proud of the support you gained recently from the users such as our mutual friend patroller I mentioned above. Did you ask your new follower to revert his edits on war criminal articles yet? 😂 Looking forward to the re-elections in any case.
Admin re-election is just another idea of yours that didn't gained suport from the local community. No point in pushing it down our throats again. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I'm not really a campaigner for re-election policies. Mentioned it once or twice in a conversation. I meant DE-election. Nothing personal, but I find SOME of your actions and positions to be detrimental to But again, people can change and maybe you will if you'll listen some more. For instance, try to understand why Kanikosen compares you to Kubura next time he does that. It's nothing personal to him, why you insist on it to be personal every single time? Imbehind 14:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Because of that it pains me to see my former (and I hope future) allies react in a personal manner when we were only criticize their behavior

Nope. Kanikosen constantly and very clearly question my motives and explicitely said "you do this on purpose" meaning my goal is to protect current state of POV articles.

He is just doing good ol' reductio ad absurdum act on you. Let's not pretend, shall we? He knows and I know your motives are not to protect the POV. There you go. Satisfied? So please do not use this strawman publicly and try to play victim again. And if Kanikosen ever again tells you that you behave just like Kubura, instead of using your admin rights and influence to banish him, ask him why he thinks so. Don't you want to know? I'm sure he will gladly explain it to you. Or what? You think he just meant to insult you with it? His plan was to get himself banned? Right? Face it Argo. You just don't know how to take a criticism from anyone. Just like Speedy was. There you go. You made me compare you to Speedy. Sleep on it. Maybe you'll grow a thicker skin, who knows? ❤
It's not a strawman. He specifically said I really think you're doing this so you can make Kubura a victim. And it's not just once, he does that every time. Even here on Meta, he called my comments "a lie". I don't care what were his plans. He must learn to discuss without constantly assuming bad faith. It's not my problem if that is too much of a challenge for him.
I don't have problems with criticism. I changed my opinions multiple times on wikipedia, when faced with good arguments. I even accepted some idea similar to what Kanikosen proposed, but only after another user proposed it in civil manner, with clear arguments. You and Kanikosen are not the only people working on POV. There are a few other users who do the same job on articles as you, but never had any problem with admins or any other user. If i were you, I would ask myself why is that, while doing in the same thing in articles, you always get in trouble and they don't. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Are you aware how the claim that you actually think he seriously holds a position that you are trying to make a victim of Kubura sounds? 😂 As I said before, he is pointing out the absurdities of your actions in dealing with POV. You're just very obviously and desperately trying to preserve content even if it's POV written by Kubura because you seem to think that berried under paragraphs of POV crap there's maybe, just maybe, a few legit sentences. 😂 I get that. You're not the only person which (probably) preserves old mobile phones and cardboard boxes for years. 😁 But Kanikosen has other approach, more of the necessity than of the conviction. There's just too many of articles that Kubura made (tens of thousands). If we are FORCED by YOU to sift through each and every one of those articles the POV will never be purged. And if you think clearly for a minute, the editors who fix POV are not in any obligation to follow your instructions. We only need to follow the rules. The rules say that WP:POV, WP:NOR and WP:VER problematic content and articles have to be removed. If you want them preserved, then change the rules, but you cannot force us to follow your instructions instead of the Wikipedia policies! It's not the place of any admin to impose their will to the community without the consensus of the community. If I remember correctly (you or Kanikosen can correct me if I'm wrong) you DID revert Kanikosen POV fixing and asked of him to rewrite the articles? Right? For opposing your decision Kanikosen was eventually blocked, and then you object when someone compares you with Kubura. The funniest part is when you were approached by another editor which did not triggered you by default, with the same arguments Kanikosen had, you give in to his arguments and walked away. The point is not that you were in the end able to accept the criticism, but that you shouldn't argue from the position of power in the first place. Ever. (WP:UCoC)

the only personal thing one might have against the admins on is due to the fact that no slave or serf really likes or loves their master or king. So if they want to be loved, they must allow things to change. As simple as that.

Please provide a diff that proofs than any admin "doesn't allow things to change".

I did not say "doesn't allow things to change" anywhere. What's wrong with you man? Don't you know how quoting works? What I said was "they must allow things to change" and I leave to the audience to judge the difference. This is not the first time you misquote people. Is it on purpose? I don't know but it's RUDE & WEIRD at the same time. (and a bit dumb since you copy/pasted my quote one line above your misquote) 😊.
You said "they must allow things to change". "They must allow" implies that they don't allow do it now. It's not misquoting, it's common sense. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo, this is just ridiculous. You do exactly the same thing on, not just to me (and not just you). I would laugh it off, but I got banned multiple times because of this strawman crap of yours. And you are not the only admin doing it. Mostly all of you do. You (admins) are just continuing using the methods the Cabal used before you and there are no control mechanisms to prevent it. That's the problem, not your nonsense behavior or you personally. Nevertheless, you should know better than insisting on your interpretations of what other people said. Or speculating on what people's intentions are. And then insisting people have bad intentions. Then blocking people for it. I won't even try to explain what exactly I said and just leave it to the others to draw their own conclusions about how operates with something like this practiced by admins. Imbehind 17:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

seek help from the global Wikipedia community in rewriting all the policies and guidelines on the that are not in compliance with either principles, the practice or the spirit of the global Wikipedia movement.

Any help with improving the rules is welcome, but all rules must be adopted through standard community procedure. AFAIK, local ArbCom is good idea, so I don't have to waste my time on reading rants of rightfully blocked users.

I agree. Rules should be adopted through standard community procedure. But still, WMF owns the so it could be done in any fashion WMF deems appropriate. Regarding your waste of time you are also right. You waste a lot of time for yourself. See, this is your first constructive contribution to the debate on this page in 3 days and you wrote almost half as much of the content I wrote. Anyhow, it is weird to see how a person which is right so often can also be so wrong sometimes - keep repeating "rightfully" if it will make you sleep better. (Skin grows while you sleep, so...)
WMF owns the, but local self-governance is one of the main principle of the whole idea. Hr wiki was under the cabal for 10 years, with Speedy and Kubura agresivelly molesting anyone who dared to complain, threatening people based on their votes. I personally wasted a lot of my time trying to pursuade various institutions of WMF to do something. If Kubura wasn't naive enough to use 12 socks in 2020 stewards elections, he would still be in power, together with the rest of cabal. But if you think WMF will listen to you and make a precedent based solely on your arguments ... --Argo Navis (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Actively seek regional cooperation and collaboration

I like the idea of people from the region finding compromise in the article on, e.g., hr wiki, and then translationg it to serbain, bosnian... --Argo Navis (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. One more thing, as I asked before, please stop with this passive-aggressive nonsense (because you're not that good at it without your magical admin powers). We should be on the same side. You do not need to like me, but we should have the same goals and since we will work together, I'll behave if you will try to behave too. If you'll continue along this line, go ahead, but please also continue to stay clear of any direct personal attacks cause I will not respond and you'll just waste more of your time. Imbehind 23:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note on scopeEdit

This page is for discussion relating to the Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment. It is not for making proposals, posting aspersions directed at present project administrators, or anything else outside the scope of commenting on the Disinformation Assessment. Imbehind, if you want to make a proposal that can actually have any effect besides dying in talk page obscurity, please see Requests for comment. This is not the place. Zblace, thank you for asking for action on this. In the beginning the scope was questionable, but the discussion seemed beneficial (to the overall mission). At this point it's patently out of scope and should be diverted to somewhere where it would be in-scope. If anyone has any questions please feel free to ask. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add to the already posted comments. If you wish, you can move somewhere else, just post me a link somehow. Imbehind 01:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo & Vermont please propose a more suitable place to continue this public discussion since Argo obviously wants to discuss further and his posts are slowly becoming more productive. A subpage maybe? Anything except Because, I'm currently blocked on for a period of 2 months for simply asking admins to do their duties after 2 months of doing nothing about the formal request to address the behavior of notorious POV pusher (the one who removed "war criminal", mentioned in the Assessment, still patroller), so I can't engage there. Also, if I ever continue to criticize admins on, I will be blocked for a period of ONE YEAR (or worse), as proposed by Argo Navis himself [22], so not it's not just me and Kanikosen, but really nobody is currently able to discuss anything on freely - a number of other editors told me in private conversations on Discord that they do not want to criticize admins or their practices on for the same reason - they fear retaliation. Because if "they" are able to block two of the most visible pro-change users which contributed hundred of hours (each) for NPOV fixing and writing the new policies and guidelines (Kanikosen & me) in the past 6 months for blatantly fictive reasons (breaking WP:AGF in the process), you can imagine what others think will happen to them if they also try to criticize the current state of affairs on The other editors are probably reluctant to engage the discussion even here on meta for the same reason - they do not want to be blacklisted by some admins. I'm sure Argo thinks that it's not the case, but what are we supposed to do in this situation? He denies admin abuse, but the certain admin's practices and actions tell a different story. (For instance, in order to silence me completely, on I'm currently blocked from even editing my own talk page or from even sending emails. This practice is usually reserved only for evident vandals, which is pretty much the treatment I have on despite unanimous praises for dealing with NPOV and for writing and rewriting policies and guidelines. And why? Only because I dared to criticize the actions (or inactions) of certain admins.) Imbehind 16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I propose to continue this discussion on hr wiki. He is blocked for his aggressive tone there. I explained in reply to his complaint to the block that he is right regarding admins beung reluctant to close the local RFC that he was inetrested in, but his own previous aggressive tone made admins procastrinate in hope some other admin will close it and have to deal with Imbehind's comemnts that sometimes compete in length with Fidel Castro speeches.
First off, if you think comparing you to Kubura is personal attack, what I'm supposed to make of your comparison with Fidel Castro? Maybe it's a compliment since Fidel Castro was really a good orator, who knows? Also, your explanation about my block doesn't hold water. According to you I'm right about admins doing nothing, but then I'm not allowed to criticize admins for doing nothing because admins are in some kind of psychologic shock because I post long comments or something like that? Please explain in a bit more details.
Imbehind, this is another misquote. I just compared your ability to be concise with that of Fidel Castro. And I stand behind that opinion. Your inability to be concise is the main reason why admins procastrinate when they have to deal with your comments. Noone is payed for being admin and you should do your best to be concise and on topic. You almost always fail that. --Argo Navis (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
As I got 2 months ban for saying you work as admin is same as Kubura, will you block yourself now for 2 months? And Argo, you mention how many times that admins are there to keep order, be mediators for problems on project, and now you are posting that you are not pay to do that? You don't say, we are all volunteers here. So why did you accept to become admin if you will not do your volunteer job? You didn't need admin tools for that. Kanikosen (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm helping as much as I can, considering the free time I have. It's rude and disrespectful to write sheets of paper where the same could be said in less words. Noone has the right to monopolize other people's time. I read my comments 2-3 times before posting. I shortened my last comment by half just before posting it. It's a matter of plain decency. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Argo let me get this straight: You claim that the reason admins did nothing with NPA (admin noticeboard request) is because of Imbehind's inability to stay concise? Or, as you claimed before, because nobody wanted to deal with Imbehind's comments after the decision? Is this your personal opinion or this is a consensus among the admins? And still, I do not perceive a difference being compared to Castro on being concise with you being compared to Kubura for not dealing with POV. Just as I'm not inconcise or verbose for different reasons than Castro, you protect the POV for different reason than Kubura. And now, for some reason, you think it's OK to call a person "rude and disrespectful" simply for being inconcise? I don't know what to say. Are you trying to insult me by purpose or it's just your inability to stay polite? Because I told you before why I'm not as concise as I could be on - because admins have a practice to pull words out of context and accuse editors of various form of verbal delict in form of WP:AGF or similar. I simply don't have the luxury to be concise there. Every time I criticize something I must provide a full context in fear of being misquoted or misinterpreted (like you did even here several times). When admins on, before taking any punitive actions, simply ask an editor to explain the meaning of his words, I'll be more concise. It's really simple - admins (nor anyone else) do not have the right to interpret other people's words. If you need to know what a person was trying to say before you issue a block, you should ask the person themselves. In the end, It's easier to be concise when attacking people, then when defending yourself, especially faced with a gang of bad faith strawmanning admins. Imbehind 13:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis, one more thing. Are you going to address the self governance issues I wrote about or maybe my proposals on how to change things at all? So far you did not address not one word from those but apparently you have plenty of time to discuss Kanikosen's and mine faulty character. Are my analyisis and proposals also a bit too lenghty text for you to digest? Should I write an executive summary in the future for you and the other admins? Cause to me it seems like it's not the problem of not having enough time, since you obviously have plenty of time to engage the other subjects. Instead, It looks like maybe you just don't care about what we have to say? Don't get me wrong, I find a conversation about personal stuff useful. But the subject of this RfC is not personal relationships between users on but itself. I would appreciate if you'll be able to shift the conversation away from personal problems toward general problems has. Imbehind 14:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I most certainly will address them. In your text above, you accuse all admins of ignoring, breaking and bending the rules - yet you haven't provided a single valid example. You have only provided examples of actions you believe should have been taken, that had no sufficient community support to be done. Examples include Jure Grm desysop case: hrwiki has 14 admins - of which about 5 gave their opinions on the matter. Even if all of them agree on an action, consensus still hasn't been reached because most the admins haven't given their explicit consent to take actions. BlackArrow de-patrol case is basically the same thing - you believe the user should be sanctioned - despite the consensus not being present. When we refused to act punitively, you aggressively demanded we take action and insulted the admins as a body in the process. Your words are not the law. You are not the community, you are a part of the community. You can call us out all you want, but in the end, we are bound by the same rules as is everyone else: we cannot act on such matters without consensus. Ivi104 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this for real? So you finally admit you are useless for these situations as 70% of you ignore your job? Thank you Ivi104. You proved my point. Kanikosen (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If you think current admins are "useless", instead of constantly bashing us, feel free to start a RFA for any other candidate of your choice. This is how wikipedia works. --Argo Navis (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
And how would you called Jure Grm situation, shining example of supreme adminship? You could not even remove molester from admin tools? Kanikosen (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

if I ever continue to criticize admins on, I will be blocked for a period of ONE YEAR (or worse), as proposed by Argo Navis himself

— Imbehind
This is a blatant lie. This is what I wrote: shorten the blockade to 14 days, with a warning to Imbehind that the continuation of any aggressive rhetoric entails a one-year block.
This was very cheeky misquote. I didn't mention attacking the admins at all, and I even proposed shortening the block to 2 weeks (after cca 10 days already passed, so it's cca 4 more). This false misquoting is tipical for Imbehind. --Argo Navis (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
As I said before - don't you know how quoting works? Let me help you - it involves quotes - " So, I never "misquoted" you because I didn't quoted you at all. The statement I made about not being able to discuss on because I fear long term block is a statement of opinion, not statement of fact. However, I think my opinion is warranted - your aggressive defense of yourself and your actions in this discussion confirms it: It is a fact that I never even mentioned you personally in my posts. The need you feel to defend yourself in person just shows that you are inclined to interpret a general objections as a personal attacks. Nothing new really. And any similar critique I could write on would also be perceived as a personal attack, agressive behaviour, not assuming good faith and similar excuse for a long block.

... (Kanikosen & me) in the past 6 months for blatantly fictive reasons

It's not fictive. Kanikosen was blocked for systematically harrasing me with accusations that I'm trying to protect Kubura's POV. He was very very clear in his accusations, and even here in this discussion you said that (something like) "I should know he didn't really mean it". Imbehind, please, stop misquoting and making false claims. --Argo Navis (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should elect admins with thicker skin next time? What do you think? And again you mention "misquoting" for some strange reason that makes no sense.
P.S., Imbehind, you can always open plain old RFC on Meta, but be sure that I will list every possible misquote and tweaking of the facts that you used here in order to explain to the community what are we dealing with. Also, you will probably have to prove that problem can't be solved locally. --Argo Navis (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't you think it would be more productive for this discussion to include the critique of my analysis or my proposals then for you to continue with your character assassination / ad hominem attacks you seem to like so much? Because when Argo wrote "in order to explain to the community what are we dealing with" What Argo really meant was "in order to explain to the community who are we dealing with" and that's ad hominem attack. And before you complain I'm twisting your words let me quote your previous sentence, just for context: "I will list every possible misquote and tweaking of the facts that you used here". "You" is a person, or me in this case. I can't even start to contemplate on how many Wiki-policies you violated in this simple sentence, but please do your worst, just try to "quote" as I do by actually copy/pasting your exact words within the quotes. Imbehind 12:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
One more thing, can you again stop diverting the discussion towards personal stuff cause I's not productive? When I asked where to move this discussion I've given my reasons for doing it. You might not like my reasons, you might even think that my reasons are not valid, but you should understand (and you frequently do not) that people are entitled to their reasons and opinions and that you should not engage every time trying to correct them. Especially from the position of power because it leads to conflict. That's why a robust set of rules (policies and guidelines) is needed - to enable us to avoid relying on admins opinions but to community driven rules instead. Imbehind 12:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm familliar with your fixation on the idea that every single detail in rules should be defined. It's not possible. We are translating missing rules from en wiki and accepting them through voting. Isn't that robust enough? It's impossible to define every possible situation im the rules. It's birocratic nightmare. We will *always* have to rely on the interpretation of rules by selected group of users, elected by the community, that are called admins. It works like that everywhere. If the community don't like the admins, it should de-sysop them and select new ones. If admins are sabotaging de-sysop process then, and only then, you should ask for help from the outside. --Argo Navis (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Not everything should be overdefined. Just the rules that are frequently misapplied like WP:AGF and similar and the less we depend on interpretation of those, the better. And we have to introduce the missing rules (especially about admins and blocks) still. Admins who will not stick to the rules will have to go away, as simple as that. We had a consensus about the blocking, we have new templates even, and it's forgotten already after a few months. That's why those rules will be compiled in detail. I hope you will support those. Imbehind 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
So we should have you, Argo Navis, as arbiter? Argo, can admin on croatian project be blocked or punish in any way when they overstep? Kanikosen (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Imbehind, based on my knowledge of your ideas, I will probably   Oppose your proposals. Is that a problem? --Argo Navis (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem at all. That's why I wrote, and I quote, "I hope you will support those". Imbehind 16:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Kanikosen, admin can't be blocked without local RFC, where only admin's can give opinion. That's the rule written in 2010 and delivered with 20:18 vote. If admin do break the rules, he can be sanctioned or just warned, admins must decide what is the best course of action. If you don't like the way admins make their decisions, you are free to start de-sysop procedure. If you don't like the rule, you are free to propose a different one. --Argo Navis (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I did, and what did you do? Derailed and found yourself insulted for even saying that admins have to much power and blocked in every step my attempts to get concensus[23]. I can post diffs entire month. And you told us all (I have screen shots on discord plus diffs) that Speedy abused and personally assaulted people to get those rule changes. And you personally blocked any attempt for us to change those rules. Kanikosen (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
So, Argo said that "admin can't be blocked without local RFC, where only admin's can give opinion", and later "If you don't like the rule, you are free to propose a different one". How can anyone conclude anything other than that Argo apparently likes the rule which makes admins immune? Why I'm not surprised? :) Imbehind 16:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Imbehind, You are imune to logic and keep assuming my bad faith. I support changing the rule (and even if I don't, I have a right to have any oppinion), I specifically said that on hr wiki, but I don't see it as a priority, so I will not invest my private time in writing a new rule proposal. Anyway, my personal opinion on changing any specific rule should not the subject of this RFC. --Argo Navis (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I assumed nothing. I've just asked how to conclude anything else from your own words. Cause in all this years (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) you did nothing to change the admin immunity rule and you also said that if somebody dislikes a rule, he should propose a new one, which you didn't. I guess different people just have different priorities. Also I do not like to put words into other people mouths, just as I don't like words put into mine. So, if you believe the rule is bad, than say so clearly in the future. No problem. Imbehind 17:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Kanikosen, I reacted to your proposal with a comment. This is perfectly legitimite. I'm shocked that you dispute my right to comment your proposal. Please be more specific and give me a diff to my comment by which I, in your own words,"personally blocked any attempt for us to change those rules.". --Argo Navis (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis You mind telling us what did you wrote in that topic, share your opinion from there in english here? So you can't tell that I mistranslated you? This diff when you write to me, please [24] Kanikosen (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a long comment. Please translate the part you find problematic, explain why is it the problem, and I will reply. --Argo Navis (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Everything in it. Expecially ficus part. As on Jure Grm case you proved you are worst than that. And if you consider that long, do I have news for you... Kanikosen (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Dissenting comment: Imbehind's "mission"Edit

Dear Wikicolleague Imbehind, seeing as I don't have much time for your "philosophies", I shall be very brief and clear. I've never blocked anyone without a valid reason, and the same thing applies to your recent case. It doesn't matter how "holy you think you are" – you're not! And that's for a very simple reason: you've once admitted "that you were purposely hired as a provocateur at hrwiki" (I can provide you or any interested stewards a screenshot of your exact words!). So what are you actually trying to do here at Meta now? The same mess or a similar One-"Concerned"-Man-Show? From the very beginning it was obvious from your actions and contributions what you are doing, who you really are and what your "mission" is. Therefore I'm not buying any more of your words, writings, your too long comments or your often-times unfounded complaints. Sincerely, Maestro Ivanković 14:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is what we keep on saying, admins on Croatian project love ad hominem. It's all they have. So Maestro Ivanković, can you tell me why is comparing someones work with your friend Kubura work as admin worth of 2 months ban (with blocked email and personal user page? Kanikosen (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
You have not been blocked for comparing someone's work to Kubura's - the issue is your approach to communication and handling of disagreements. Nobody needs to experience abuse or insults simply because they disagree with you. The only ones applying ad-hominem attacks are you two. Anyone who disagrees with either of you is immediately labeled a cabal member or POV protector. Instead of malforming our words and drawing false conclusions, would you please address Maestro's comment at face value? Ignoring someone's argument does not make it any less valid. Ivi104 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you mind showing us diffs of those insults Ivi104? And you where member of Kubura Cabal (Maesto left cabal when, same with you?) how should I call you? As every single time, my comparassion was in the way you work, and that same as old cabal? You abuse one rule, [25] WP:AGF. So I would ask you, show us diffs of my insults. As calling you same as Kubura is insult how? You are admin only thanks to him, same as Maestro. Kanikosen (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Ivi104, Argo called me "Fidel Castro" a moment ago. :) I'm not insulted (and I like Castro), but I think being called Fidel Castro is far worse then being called Kubura in the West. What now? :D Imbehind 16:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Response to personal attackEdit

  Comment Dear Maestro, your little "revelation" is no secret, because if it was, you wouldn't have screenshots. But please, quote me here, I don't have anything to hide. :) It is a known fact that I joined and became active on in 2013 because of the campaign that spilled off-wiki, not by my own doing, but because of the Cabal and the disinformation campaign they managed to pull off on-wiki, and the off-wiki reaction that followed. There's no mystery really. No "hiring" as you imply (assuming bad faith). Instead, since I was not yet familiar with the way the wiki works and could not yet contribute in any other meaningful way it was suggested to me that if I wanted to help on that I should simply criticize the behavior of SpeedyGonsales and Kubura, within the bounds of the rules, and see for how long I will be allowed to do so, until I'm blocked (I have interesting screenshots from that period also). Are you suggesting I should be punished now for opposing the Cabala in 2013, given the recent epilogue with Kubura globally banned, others (but not all members of the Cabala) desysoped? It's like asking to punish the WW2 resistance fighters for breaking the law to oppose the Nazis. Good luck with that. 😊 Or, do you maybe think I should apologize to Cabala now? Maybe you even think I should apologize to YOU for things I said to Cabala? Who knows? But know this: I'm OK with any request for revision of my blocks (and all conversations) from 2013 and I stand by the most (if not all) of what I've said then. Are you prepared to do the same? For instance I remember your passive-aggressive accusations of me of belonging to "them" (the resistance) in 2013 on my talk page [26], just as I recall your recent passive-aggressive, borderline Gestapo like harassment, when you issued multiple demands [27][28][29] to Aca on his talk page demanding from him to explain to you what he meant by his statement about misuse of admin powers. Would you like me to continue with your diffs, Herr Maestro? Cause I'm not the one who was admin during the Cabala rule, you were. And you did absolutely nothing to oppose them. Actually, one could argue you actually helped the Cabala to stay in power, but I wont do it here, cause neither you or me are the subject of this RfC. Please understand, and as far as I know (I have screenshots too, remember?) you were spared from the disgrace of desysoping with the rest of Cabala recently and given a new chance ONLY because you showed remorse and, quite frankly, because you switched loyalties when you detected the Cabal was going to be destroyed. You ask about my mission? It's really simple. To fix in such a way that no editor in the future will fear admins and that one day any admin who thinks he can launch a personal defamation campaign against ordinary editors will be removed from duty in a blink. If anything, I'm really glad we are clear now that you do not share the same mission. Good luck explaining that to ordinary editors on And no, I'm not "hired" by George Soros (unfortunately). The "hiring" was done by one of your current colleagues. :) Imbehind 16:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That is certainly a very interesting take. However, I would take issue with certain things you have written above:

And you did absolutely nothing to oppose them. Actually, one could argue you actually helped the Cabala to stay in power

That is an factually incorrect statement. See Maestro's talk page and search for any comments written by Speedy. I remember the two of them butting horns from my first contribution on hrwiki. See BA's 1st admin proposal as an example. When I first became a contributor, Speedy was intensely harassing me, and Maestro was there to help me and countless others who were nearly chased away by Speedy's overbearing behavior.

To fix in such a way that no editor in the future will fear admins and that one day any admin who thinks he can launch a personal defamation campaign against ordinary editors will be removed from duty in a blink.

Noone needs to fear admins. As long as everyone follows the rules and established procedures, admins are there to help. However, insults and personal attacks against any user (POV pusher or not), and bypassing of community consensus will not be taken in stride. Since you are a repeat offender of all of the above, you will be consequenced accordingly, to prevent further disruption of the project and to mitigate distress towards affected editors. If and when you correct your behavior, you will be welcome to continue working on the project. We are not the cabal, we welcome differing opinions, rule changes and any and all constructive criticism. We do not, however, welcome baseless accusations, such as your comparing all admins to the cabal, especially with an abusive sockmaster who openly circumvented community processes and discouraged any changes. Ivi104 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
But Ivi104, rule that admins can't be banned was made by Speedy, who in real life harrased people (argos words to us) to vote for it that way. So why do you use that rule and why did you blocked any rule change on that topic? Same with rule about PDN/AGF? You are abusing it to block people who are thorn in your side. Kanikosen (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You are abusing it to block people who are thorn in your side.

That is your interpretation and I'm sorry you see it that way. Speedy's own motives for proposing such a rule were self-serving, I think we can all agree on that. However, if we separate his motives from the rule, the rule itself kind of makes sense - bear with me please: admins are chosen by the community by virtue of their hard work and the community's trust they will make the right decisions. In a sense, they are the most trusted members of the community. If an admin acts in a way that would earn them a block, one could argue they are no longer deserving of the community's trust, and therefore no longer fit to serve as an admin. In order to be blocked, they would first need to be de-sysop'd. You are welcome to suggest both rules be changed, but you must remain civil during the discussions, and you must respect all other wiki rules as well as the community consensus on the decision. Ivi104 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

But Jure Grm case proved something else Ivi104? You didn't desysoped person who molested me [30] and blocked me (for stalking and PDN). You even came to me personally, told me you will do it, same as another admin, don't start desysoped Kanikosen, we will handle it, and then you tricked me and didn't started process. Argo saved him. So you will pardon me for losing fate in you(I will pretend that I was not blocked now for 2 months for saying exact line:your friend Kubura and comparing one admin to another admin)? Kanikosen (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yet another factually incorrect statement, I'm afraid. I clearly suggested Jure Grm be desysopped and even suggested a block based on his behaviour during that time. I did my part of the process, but the process was stalled due to no consensus having been reached. Ivi104 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
That is not true Ivi104. Why are you doing this as everything is public? We had 5 admins in his case[31]. Argo Navis, Dean72, You, Maestro Ivanković, Koreanovsky. Argo Navis-osoba koja se ovako ponaša ne može ostati na mjestu administratora(translation, person who acts like this needs to be desysopped). Then Dean72-desysopped. You, you wrote it here, desysopped. Maestro Ivanković-His usual writing a lot without saying anything. And then Koreanovsky asking for Jure to stop acting the way he acts. So Jure reminding admin is thanks for Argo blocking us to start vote and you lying to me that you will start it(admins, so I don't do anything) and then Dean72 saying to me that he will start process himself. Nothing of the sort happened, even with 3 votes for him being desysopped, and 0 against that. So your idea of concensus is a joke. Kanikosen (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
We had a majority saying that Jure Grm should be de-sysoped. We didn't reach consensus about any other sanctions. Anyone could have started the de-sysop vote. It takes a lot of time to write proper de-sysop proposal, so whoever planned to do it procastrinated, probably partly because of other endless discussions you two started elsewhere. So, here is a lesson for you: if you want to desysop someone, write a proposal yourself, don't rely on others. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
At first, I also suggested de-sysoping Jure. Anyone could have started de-sysop process for Jure Grm. Anyone can start it even now. The process was stalled due to lack of full consensus and plain old procastrination. When someone finally, much later, asked to close the case with de-sysop, I clearly said that although I won't support Jure's de-sysoping at that moment, I support the right of any user to start it. My comment and my position in the case was perfectly legitimate. --Argo Navis (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
True, or as I am saying it Argo Navis, don't trust admins on They will do anything to protect they cast, and after they told you (lie in your face) that they will do it, so please, you don't, we will. How would you call that Argo? Plus, what happened to I angered him so he stated molesting, harassing and blocking, but that is ok? It's my fault 😂? Kanikosen (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

rule that admins can't be banned was made by Speedy, who in real life harrased people (argos words to us) to vote for it that way. So why do you use that rule and why did you blocked any rule change on that topic?

— Kanikosen
That rule was not "made by Speedy". The vote for this rule was legitimate and me and any other admin has no choice but to abide to it. Don't ask admins to break the rules. Please provide a diff proving any admin blocked change of any rule or stop slendering us. --Argo Navis (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Argo Navis It was. Do I need post screenshots of you saying that to me? And you didn't had a choice? That is not true. Maesto=Wikivacation(my case)? I have posted over 10 diffs so far of you admins breaking rules, and every time you ignore it? So Argo, why do admins on are harrasing users? Did Jure Grm abused his tools? So just his case is how many cases of you admins breaking rules? And you defending him, here on meta(he lost his nerves so it's ok for him to harass, really Argo)? And your position and case in Jure Grm case is why is same problem now as it was in time of your friend Kubura. Kanikosen (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This rule was adopted in 1/2020, while Speedy was blocked by ArbCom, so he couldn't theoretically harras anyone. I confirm that Jure Grm broke the rules, but there is no rule which specifies when the users breaking rules should be sanctioned and when they should be just warned not to repeat it. I didn't say it's OK to break the rules, I just said that there are many ways to make user stop with problematuc behaviour. I explained this to you many many times. You, also, were not sanctioned multiple times, when you should have been blocked, so you should be the last person to complain on this. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Show us diffs of me breaking of rules Argo. Go on. And this is person that left project [32].Looks active to me. Why do you keep on lying Argo Navis? Why do you defend mollesters? Just why? Kanikosen (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  Comment I said that the purpose of this RfC is not Maestro nor myself. I will not spend much time on this diversion if not absolutely necessary. What worries me much more is that you apparently are threatening me with consequences for this RfC and expressing my opinion on Meta, although the opinion was requested by Meta itself here:[33]? Have I understood you correctly? You plan to extend my ban on because you think I'm disruptive here on Meta? Despite the fact I never mentioned any names in my remarks, despite I clearly stated that problem is not personal, but systemic, despite I said only a few admins are continuing to use the old Kabala methods, and despite I only compared your methods, not yourselves to Kabala? Is that what you're saying? No need to fear the admins you say? 😂😂😂 Imbehind 17:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I did not say anything of the sort. I am truly confused by that interpretation of my words. I apologize if my comments came across in such a manner. You will NEVER be sanctioned in any manner for any actions taken on another project. Furthermore, you have not done anything to warrant any kind of sanction here. Tbh I am amazed at your level civility and politeness in this discussion. Your arguments and interpretation of our actions are unusual, but you have remained mostly polite, you haven't insulted or been rude to anyone. Had you remained as civil as you are now, you would not have been blocked in the first place. Ivi104 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
How else to understand your words? Would you please explain what you meant by this then?

Since you are a repeat offender of all of the above, you will be consequenced accordingly, to prevent further disruption of the project and to mitigate distress towards affected editors. If and when you correct your behavior, you will be welcome to continue working on the project."

What is the alternate meaning of this? Since you appear to claim that there is one, please tell me and the community what it is exactly? Cause it surely looks like you wrote down something you shouldn't have by mistake. I would really like you to clear this up, cause Ivi104, it's looking really bad. Fingers crossed. Imbehind 18:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Right, I see the issue now. I was speaking in a general fashion about the offences you committed previously for which you were consequenced, as well as any future ones that may arise. I should have made my meaning plainer. I meant the statement generally, and was not referring to this particular discussion. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Ivi104 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Apology accepted. It could happen to anyone to mix past tense and future tense. No biggie. Yet, I'm still somewhat confused about how general meaning of the sentence differs from the particular one in the context of this RfC. But nevermind, as long as you are ready to disown your own words so clearly. Imbehind 19:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How certain admins on operate - A Case StudyEdit

I would like to ask everybody to refrain from diverting to other topics in this chapter, now that finally someone adressed what I actually wrote in the analisys and the proposal. I will continue the discussion from other thread here and if no one disagrees I will move the Ivi's and the following comments (by Argo and Kanikosen) above this post a little bit later, for clarity.

The assumptionEdit

Ivi104 and others involved, if you'll agree, I'll stick to BlackArrow's case for I'm very familiar with this case, and I'm not as much familiar with what happened with Jure Grm and Kanikosen. Also, this case is more than enough for me to illustrate how some of admins on are a) not doing their job, b) misinterpreting the 5P, policies and guidelines to their advantage and c) outright abuse the system to silence the opposing editors.

Also, please note that this is not an unblock appeal. I'm simply using the case I'm most familiar with to illustrate the point, if you'll allow me to do it and not divert to personal attacks once more. I remind you that I did not issue an appeal on because there was no point in doing it there in this situation. However, if there are good faith colleagues here on meta, this conversation has a purpose, perhaps even a greater one then simply documenting the whole matter.

I'll continue this analysis by assuming that BlackArrow's guilt for pushing POV is agreed upon, and that nobody involved (apart from maybe BA himself) does not disagree with that assumption. (If anyone doubts that BA violated the NPOV and other content based rules, please create the appropriate (and separate) chapter and we can have that discussion again, if you need me to.)

The timelineEdit

Now, I would also like of my colleagues to agree upon the other facts before I proceed with the analysis of actions of all parties involved. From my perspective the timeline of the whole case goes like this:

1. On 28th of March 2021 Ivi104 posts a notice on Admins Noticeboard of asking for administrative action for BA previous actions of pushing POV and trying to protect the POV by distracting and hindering the actions of users involved with fixing the POV. [34] Ivi104 proposed removing the patroller status and a topic ban of 1 year.

2. Discussion ensued during which BA did not accept any guilt for the things he did and accused others for misunderstanding him, blamed his situation on lack of communication and him not participating on Discord, diverting the discussion to the topic of Discord. However, most of other users agreed that steps should be taken to prevent this behavior in the future. My position on what should be done was the following:

One month of topic ban... but would accept an alternative solution - removing of topic ban as soon as BA publicly (or privately to an admin) accepts the guilt and promises not to push POV into the articles the way he used to. Regarding his patroller status, I agree with proposal Ivi104 made (removal)

3. The users agreeing that some measures should be taken were the following: Ivi104, Kanikosen, Imbehind, Ionic22, Aca, Argo Navis. There were differences about the length of the topic ban, or the users did not specify exactly what measures should be taken. Admins Maestro Ivanković and Neptune the Mystic suggested that before any measures should be taken that there should be a discussion with BA on Discord in order to try to find some other kind of solutions then ones suggested by Ivi104.

4. Discussion ended on 23rd of April.

5. On 15th of May admin Koreanovsky closes the case with status "out of date". He noted that the case will be archived in two weeks and added the remark that although he thinks the case is resolved, if somebody thinks otherwise, the case can always be retrieved from the archive and reopened. (It is appears that Koreanovsky was not informed about any previous resolution at this point. But perhaps he can confirm or deny?)

6. On 15th of May, the same day Koreanovsky closed the case I objected with the following (in concise form, object if you must):

Excuse me, I do not think the matter is settled. As far as I can discern, the most users had their say, and even if the discussion is over, the accused user BA did not put forward a defense which would make the measures, as proposed by Ivi104, obsolete. I propose for us to disregard the topic ban proposal, since BA behavior improved in the meantime, but he can't stay in a patroller role since it would mean additional work for other users who might consider to start patrolling the POV pushing patroller himself, especially because BA publicly never admitted his wrongdoings. Because of all that I appeal to admins to finally finish this unpleasant duty of theirs.

7. Since nobody replied, I repeated my request for admin ruling on the case on 27th of May, two months after the case was opened by Ivi104 and two weeks after my first objection by writing the following (also in concise form, object if you must):

@admins, I do not know how else to interpret your silence in this case but as a carte blanche for BA and similar users in the future. I just don't know how. For patrollers the criteria of rule adherence should be even harsher then for regular users, and yet it seams there are no criteria at all. I was punished harshly in the past for a few vulgar words and it was nothing compared to systemic POV push user BA was charged with in this case, and his defense has not even tried to refute the charges. Maybe you really expect of other users to take upon themselves a job of patrolling the patroller? In the end you'll even act surprised because people leave the project. Dear admins, MOVE! For two months you did nothing on this case. You were not elected to be silent when convenient, to calculate or to ignore, but to ensure a proper functioning of the Wikipedia.

For this comment I was blocked for two months. However, after I was blocked it was revealed to me that there was a parallel, hidden timeline that goes like this:

8. On 24th of April, according to Ivi104, Ivi104 in private channel on Discord had a talk with BA which according to Ivi104 resolved the case. Maestro later, in the explanation of my block also refers to this as a resolution.

9. On May 10th, I contacted Ivi104 on private Discord channel and asked him what to do with BA's case. Ivi104 said to me that "he can't do nothing, since he was the one to initiate the request on Admins Noticeboard and that decision is on others to make". (this was 15 days after the supposed agreement between Ivi104 and BA)

This was odd. And still is because Ivi104 contradicts himself. Moreover, me not knowing that there is a resolution with BA is the direct cause of my objections on 15th and 27th of May for the case not being resolved. But lets continue:

10. On 27th of May Argo Navis replies to my second comment on Admin's noticeboard. He agrees with my recommendation that BA cannot be patroller any more and initiates the procedure (voting by current patrollers and admins) of removing the patroller role from BA. Argo claimed that is "according the rules". (It is clear Argo Navis also did not know about the "resolution" at this point.)

11. The next day, on 28th of May I questioned the Argo's decision to try to remove BA's patroller status by vote because I was not sure it was according to the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. My opinion was and is that Wikipedia has to abide by it's own rules and principles. The rules cannot be overridden by consensus or voting, only changed. But not the NPOV rules because those are sacred Wikipedia principles. If BA was violating NPOV rules, he violated the Second of Five Pillars, and there is no consensus or voting on that can allow the violator to continue his practice or to remain in patroller role. For making that clear I even cited the NPOV rule (in process of adopting on "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

12. The day after, on 29th, I was blocked by Maestro (not assuming good faith) [[35]] because he thought that my call to action directed at admins on 27th was done in overly forceful manner. He accused me of "hysteria" and "forcing the admins to act". He stated that while I do have the right to an opinion, "I do not have the right to force my opinion on others". He informed me that in face there was an agreement reached between Ivi104 and BA of which I'm not informed and concluded that as uninformed as I am in the future I should not even try to engage in "nagging" and "vigilantism", since in this case the "mutual disagreement Ivi104 and BA had have been long time resolved off-wiki on Discord".

13. The same day I issued a deblock request with the title: "Veritas odium parit" - a Latin proverb meaning "Truth begets hatred". My argument against the block was that I was simply observed what appeared to be true - that the case was not resolved, so I rightfully reacted asking admins to finally reach not the but a conclusion in BA's case - I clearly explained further that I was not forcing admins towards a particular conclusion but only advised them to respect the the fact that some rules on Wikipedia are not to be circumvented by voting or a consensus. I also clearly stated that I'm not aware of any resolution made between Ivi104 and BA in the meantime, and can hardly be blamed for not being aware of such resolution because it was not announced anywhere on-wiki. Finally I asked to be deblocked in a humble manner, and without bitterness because at the time the whole thing seemed like a misunderstanding.

14. On 31th Argo Navis reacted to my deblock request by accusing me of misinterpreting the rules because nowhere in current patroller rules is stated that the patroller status can be revoked because of NPOV violation. He characterized my previous objection on Admin's noticeboard as "Assault on admins because they do not want to break the existing rules" and gave reference to WP:POINT. He supported the decision by Maestro.

15. The same day I responded that Five Pillars are above all policies and guidelines and if a person violates 5P there are no rules which could save him from admin actions or from loosing his patroller status. I continued by rejecting the accusation of "forcing" or "attacking" admins. I just demanded "some" resolution, whatever it may be. I also told Argo that as long as admins have duties it is our right as editors to ask of them to perform that duties. I concluded by explaining that admins are not in any obligation to actually perform the duties, but also that editors cannot be punished for asking them to.

16. Argo responded the 5P are "just general principles", they forbid POV content, but do not define revoking of patroller status to a person which violates NPOV and that my interpretation of 5P is really a misinterpretation (I treat 5P like a chewing gum). Then, Argo accused me of being stubborn, because I "rejected in advance the decision" to vote about revoking of patroller status of BA. Finally, Argo told me that Wikipedia works on principle of consensus, and I'm just pushing my own agenda, regardless of anything. I could not replay any more, because I was blocked from editing my own talk page and sending emails.

17. On June 9th the proposal to strip BA from his patroller status by voting (only admins and patrollers) initiated by Argo Navis (#10 of this timeline) ended with BA retaining his status with 3 votes against the proposal, and 0 for the proposal. Maestro commented his vote against the removal of status by saying that for him the arguments from the both sides are equally valid, without elaborating which arguments or which sides. He did not explained why he was not neutral in that case. He did mentioned BA's experience and long membership as a significant mitigating, not aggravating circumstance in his violations.

To this day the deblock request is not revoked or resolved in any other manner (25 days and counting). I'm blocked completely and not able to respond to my talk page because it is also blocked from editing (flawed practice on Even the email is blocked, which is not the practice in other cases, probably to avoid me being able to officially make an appeal or contact other admins and editors. I requested from Ivi104 to at least deblock my email even here on Meta. He ignored my request completely.

(I would like of you to object under this post (separate chapter) if there is anything significant I misrepresented or omitted)

Pardon me for not being concise, but for me to proceed with the analysis I'm about to write, it is vital for you to agree that the above timeline is sufficiently accurate because I would like to avoid any distractions later, if possible. Everybody involved has been pinged. Please either raise your objections now, or allow me to continue.

I will continue tomorrow. Until then... Imbehind 01:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note, nobody HAS TO PARTICIPATE in this attempt to clear things up. If you would like to know what you should do to make things better then participate. If you don't care of simply do not have the time, don't. I don't want to be falsely accused of forcing you to do anything once more, but it should be clear to you that by not participating you will send a certain message to certain people for sure. Also, I would like to repeat my appeal to Argo Navis to inform the community of this discussion on the Village Pump on

Objections to the timelineEdit

I object to your interpretation of these events. To start with, the process was started by me, so logically, if I believe the cause of this behavior has been addressed, I see no problem with discontinuing the process. BlackArrow, Maestro, Neptune and myself had a lovely little off-wiki chat wherein we explained the issues I brought up in the process to BlackArrow. The conversation ended with BlackArrow understanding the issue, and promising to no longer engage in POV-pushing. The result of this chat is evident in BA's contributions - he has not made a single POV edit since. I see no reason to ever sanction someone who is reasonable and understanding. Everyone can make mistakes - as long as they learn from them and make an effort to improve on them. You may call it inaction or laziness, I call it being tolerant and understanding.

Let's look at this from a wider angle for a moment: before this discussion, you have had several quarrels with BlackArrow - you have even made questionable attempts at rule changes without consensus in order to propagate your intolerance towards him - you publicly declared any messages from him to you distressing and of bad faith, regardless of their content. You attempted to remove his messages from your talkpage despite the local rules prohibiting it. When warned about the impropriety of such behavior, you attempted to alter the local rules on your own, without consensus - all in an active effort to propagate your battle against an editor you disagree with. You made no attempts to properly talk to him nor to understand his viewpoint.

From these events, I can only surmise you saw an opportunity to gratify your previous behavior when I started the discussion to de-patrol BA. The issue has since de-escalated, and the only one looking for sanctions after everything is said and done is you. BlackArrow has even left hrwiki due to your harassment (his own words), and yet you still maintain that he should be punished even after he is gone.

I wish to also clarify your point 9: The reason I did not wish to disclose our conversation to you or publicly is simple: I wished to spare BA of the embarrassment and awkwardness of going through the discussion about fault. I am not interested in assigning blame, I only care about issue resolution. The issue has been resolved, and no sanctions were necessary. Any further discussion is pointless - especially discussions on how admins are not doing anything or how we are protecting POV pushers. The main takeaway from my unfortunately large wall of text is that I believe you should display more tolerance and understanding towards your fellow editors, especially if you don't agree with them. People of dissenting opinions aren't your enemy, instead, they bring an opportunity to learn from our differences and grow in the process. Ivi104 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Did I get this right? You are calling decade of POV pushing a minor mistake?
Why do admins on croatian project constantly lie that some person have left project when you just need to click on user contributions and see, that is not true? [36]? Why do you do that? Man is active on project, so he didn't left. Same as Jure Grm, he didn't left project [37]. Every single problem we have is still here, and your solutions are, let's pretened that never happened and block people who are dealing with POV pushing, so you could protect mollesters and POV pushers. And we should be ok with that?
Decade of POV pushing, and you want to spare him of embarrassment? And you have problem with us stating facts, that you are protecting POV pushers? One thing is to agree and dissagree with someone, another is POV pushing for decade and then just pretending nothing happened. Kanikosen (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Ivi104 Please note I clearly stated that this is a timeline of the case from my perspective (and the perspective of any editor on if we disregard #8 & #9 - the hidden timeline I was informed of much later). So basically, as far as I can deduce, other than this additions and clarifications of yours, you confirm that the timeline is genuine and have no other objections? Because, as I said earlier, I do not wish to misrepresent anyone and anything before I deliver my analysis. Imbehind 10:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
You have neglected to mention the outcome of the community vote under (10) [38]. The vote failed, 3 against de-patrol, 0 for. The community made a clear decision. By acting the way you wish and proceeding with de-patrol, we would openly go against that vote - which you have been accusing the admins of doing all along - ignoring community consensus. Ivi104 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your observation. I've added #17. Imbehind 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You missed the most important part of the timeline. On March 24, you were unblocked after long off-wiki (Discord?) talks with several admins. In order to be unblocked, you admitted your previous mistakes in communication and promised to lower your tone in the future. When you reacted to BA's RFC the way you did - agressivelly and with assumption of admin's bad faith, you broke the deal that preceded your March 24 unblocking. Please add that to the timeline. --Argo Navis (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm preparing to give analysis of admin's mishandling of the case Ivi104's reported on Admin's noticeboard on 28th of march which escalated into a block by Maestro on 29th of May, but as I said before, this is not my personal deblock request so I'm not sure how your objection is relevant. Relevant or not, your objection was made public anyway, and the relevance can always be easily established by the community itself after I publish the analysis. Meanwhile, neither you nor Ivi104 did not find it appropriate to unblock my email or to post info about this RfC on the Village Pump on Imbehind 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


Ivi104 practically explained it all in the beggining of Objections to the timeline, so I will just clarify part regarding WP:5P. The 5P sets a goal of having NPOV articles. As Ivi104 explained, in BlackArrow case, that goal was achieved. The 5P does not define details about how it should be achieved or how to sanction individual users. On the other hand, we do have very specific rules about removing patrol status from a user. What Imbehind did is insisted that we ignore our very specific rule and de-patrol BA based solely on his idea that WP:5P reqiire us to do so. Also, before consensus was reached in BlackArrow de-patrol discussion, and actually even before any comments were given, Imbehind asked where can he complain on the consensus that we are about to reach there. Such a behaviour, where a user rejects both the clearly defined rule and the consensus of other users even before it's reached, and insist on his own view, is not welcomed. --Argo Navis (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Argo Navis, thank you for your clarification, but you also do not seem to have any objection to the timeline? If so, is it OK for me to continue with my analysis? If you have anything else to add or clarify, or you object the way I represented anything in the timeline, please do that now, because I would prefer not to have to get back to this once the analysis of your actions is delivered or to be accused of misrepresentation post festum. Also, I would like to know will you or you will not inform the community on about this RfC in the Village Pump on, or I need to find another way? Imbehind 10:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)