Talk:Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Archive 2

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

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Question by Croq

Just a little question: Who are you Miranche ??? Admin, employee of Wikimedia ??--Croq (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Croq, thanks for the question. I am a Wikipedian who wants this circus to be resolved as reasonably as possible, and based on some kind of understanding of what's actually happening rather than on he-said-she-said and mutual mudslinging. In real life I have experience with writing and administering questionnaires, which I hope will help in this effort.
If you are also asking (as I think you might be) what gives me or anyone else the right or authority to start this process, the short answer is, Wikipedia/Wikimedia policies and guidelines. The long answer I gave to Kubura here. The gist of it is, this process is not mine or anyone else's but it's run by consensus by people who want to help in doing so.
Welcome to the discussion. Miranche (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If I had conflicts with admins or "structures of power" in German Wiki I could start campaign in Facebook, collect some "I like´s", ask a journalist to write something critical in a newspaper and start activity like this one in meta? Right? Should we try an experiment doing that, as a kind of a precedent? I have some ideas... Should not be an issue. There are surely many people in all the wikis around the world who could do it in this way. But what would this mean for this project in general? --Croq (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
We're not campaigning on Facebook and we're not writing newspaper articles - we're gathering evidence of abuse. Why should that be a problem? Because, if there's no abuse, we'll come up with nothing. I don't understand what you're trying to say. GregorB (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course you´re not campaigning. For me it´s not a problem to list difflinks (translated into English). That´s what those who started the that hate speech campaign against hr:wiki admins should have being done first, to prove what they say. What I tried to explain is the way how the guys started the hate campaign and that this could be repeated for political reasons also in other wikis. With attacks on persons (admins) by putting names and pictures in media an shouting out "..."that ones are fascists, or Nazis and misusing wiki for this and that propaganda.. or whatever ." Everybody who checks the admin´s user contributions knows very well that this admins are no Nazis, Fascists or Comunists. By the way, the guy who started the edit war in hr wiki after which followed the hate campaign was "Dobar Skroz" https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posebno:Doprinosi/DobarSkroz . Any idea what means this chosen name? Please take a look here: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2646/3960517036_27c048e162_o.jpg .I think more and more that that's´a job for the Law enforcement agency. Kind regards --Croq (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's a job for the "law enforcement agency", why are you posting it here? What are we supposed to do about it? GregorB (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Croq, this isn't about Facebook group nor about media hype. Forget about those two, since that is completely out of topic here. This is about misusing admin rights and violating wikipedia rules and guidelines. Get it? Good. Now we can start. --Ante Perkovic (talk)

Gregor, of course it´s not about us to do anything about the hate campaign. The Law enforcement agency can only investigate against the creators of the hate speech campaign. I am very curious now to see where admin rights were misised from Ante´s point of view. Now you can start.--Croq (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion Croq just violated rule w:WP:LEGAL--DobarSkroz (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I was away for almost 4 years, and Seiya and others already wrote most of the recent examples I knew about. I think the bigger problem is their off-wiki activities, but I'm not sure Jimbo or whoever will wan't to investigate that. It's up to users of Croatian wikipedia who personally experienced mind-washing on IRC to begin to understand who are they dealing with and what mind tricks they play on them. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Think global, act local". Investigation? Seems more to be a kind of a "Witch-hunt". But do what you want to do. In my opinion "...act local..." --Croq (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thumbs up from Jimbo

[1] Miranche (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hr wiki notification...

...has been archived. Nothing untoward really, Kafić is archived on the 1st day of every month, which means that in this particular case the notification has been visible for less than 24 hours. I'd suggest posting it again. (In fact, I'd even ask if it would be possible to create a site notice.) I have a slight hunch that this will not be exactly welcomed, though, but I don't think that outright refusal is acceptable. GregorB (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to put it back. As I remember from my 2005-2010 days there, archiving procedure included cut and paste of new discussions back into main "kafić" page. Someone propably "forgot" to do it this time. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I can't (at least not in an easy way), because GregorB username belongs to someone else there, and I can't post as an IP because the page is semi-protected. Such action BTW carries a certain risk of getting blocked, but whoever would do such a thing might very easily get desysopped and/or blocked himself. GregorB (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoever removes that from "kafić" will get nice personal paragraph at Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Content :)). --Ante Perkovic (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Chances are the "personal paragraph" would be the least of his worries...[2] :) GregorB (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw this as soon as it happened, will repost the announcement. Didn't get to it yet. Miranche (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miranche (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Forgot about WikiProject Croatia. This one is on me, I'll post a note there tomorrow. GregorB (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Who will moderate this?

Before we start, we need to ensure that this conversation will not be flooded with endless off-topic monologues of users like Kubura, Mir Harven or Croq who will try to portray this as a part of some serbo-neocommunist-masonic conspiracy. All off-topic rantings must be deleted without mercy! Who will moderate this and ensure that discussion is on-topic? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This potential problem has been discussed, see "Notifications vs Canvassing" section in Archive 1 (Beginning with "The invitation has to be carefully worded, and I see a problem here", etc). I'd say talk page is no holds barred, let people say what they want to say, but the actual evidence pages may become saturated with various rants, and this is a real danger. Miranche and I are watching the pages - so far so good... GregorB (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link to the discussion, or just search for "carefully" in the archive. To get to my own take on trolling, search for "cautiously." Hmm, I see a theme developing here :)
By the way, we have already started. Miranche (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What about off-wiki activities?

The biggest problem of CW is not blocks or harsh language but extreme Meatpuppetry by user:Roberta F. and user:SpeedyGonsales. Roberta F. is very good in helping newcomers, especial on IRC, but unfortunately, she is misusing confidence she earns that way. In 2009., she was blocked by Arbitration comity for slandering people she found dangerous to her position. SpeedyGonsales is owner of IRC channel (at least he was in 2009.) and he and Roberta F. even blocked other admin (user:Dalibor Bosits) from official IRC channel in 2009!

They are basically controling wikipedia from outside the pages! For example, every time some people from outside their circle tried to push some initiative, they insisted on consensus, calling people to come to IRC channel, and then used meat-puppets there to discourage any proposal. On the other side, whenever Speedy and Roberta come with an idea, they say it was agreed on IRC or something like that.

I don't want to go into details, because there are people who knows much more about this, but I just wanted to point out that there is more to this issue then just blocks and articles! --Ante Perkovic (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ante, welcome to the discussion! The point of this page is IMO to document all that can be documented by looking at article histories, and that's really difficult to do with meatpuppetry. There are indications -- for example, in surfing on hr.wiki about this mess I saw Flopy, in explaining why he quit ArbCom, mentioning offline pressure from others. So if you or anyone else can dig up such indications, they go under Conduct. If not, it has to happen somewhere else, because the purpose of this page is limited, for better or worse, to whatever can be documented using publicly available data. Miranche (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I suspected this was (and still is) a problem. (Last week I had a WTF moment when I saw this - granted, that was 2006, but still...) In hr wiki, it appears that the problem is even broader than meatpuppetry: it's tag-teaming (see section "Tag team characteristics" - isn't that just a little bit like hr wiki?)
However, diffs are "where the rubber meets the road" - whatever a group of people decides off-wiki, they must act on-wiki to make it work. The diffs are there and I believe they will be sufficient. I may be subjective here, but I'd say our submissions on SG are already sufficient to desysop him on the spot, after just a couple of days. GregorB (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats Off topic, Ante.´Sounds like a divorce court negotiation. Better to concentrate in difflinks which proof that the admins are spreading Nazi/fascist propaganda. --Croq (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Conversation with Suradnik:Kubura

Suradnik:Kubura left a long message on my hr.wiki talk page, to which I responded as fully as I could, time permitting. GregorB and anyone else, please feel free to pitch in. The most important consideration that I think can use a second opinion is whether or not the announcements on bs, sh, sr Wikipedias comprised canvassing. Miranche (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrisy. Nothing new from Kubura. From Kubura's point of view it OK to rally hr.wiki editors to go on en.wiki or English Wiktionary. And Wikiwind and me are among the last editors on sr.wiki who can be labelled as nationalists. Btw, how deep in past we should go and how many entries would be necessary? We can dig dozens of articles. Some of them are exposed on Facebook-- Bojan  Talk  04:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

BokicaK, I understand your frustration and share some of it. Certainly in this context I don't think it makes sense to get into the discussion either about particular edits you've made on hr.wiki (as I replied to Kubura), or those that hr.wiki editors have made on en.wiki (outside of the Conduct page). But points about principle which are made reasonably deserve a reasoned reply, and if you believe both that they're done in bad faith and that there isn't any other way to respond to them but claiming bad faith, an argument why you think this is so. If not, IMO it's better to not address them at all than waste one's energy on bickering.
If there's progress to be made in this mess with reason & information rather than through a bar brawl, please let's do so. In this regard I think it's crucial to get as much evidence onto these pages as possible. This includes taking the examples off Facebook, where they're non-transparent and in a strictly POV context, dating them, and sorting them onto these pages, as much as we can. I started on a couple of them, I know it's lots of work. GregorB & I suggested to give it a month. We'll see how far we get.
With this in mind, thank you for your contributions to the evidence pages! Miranche (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I read his message. Kubura makes some good points and some not-so-good points. E.g. the point about the translations is a good one, so let me address it right away: I think anyone who is the subject of a given submission (i.e. it discusses him or his actions) and is not sufficiently fluent in English is entitled to a translation of the submission and related comments upon request. I'm willing to translate these personally.
Regarding to 30-day deadline: less than that and there maybe won't be enough time for everyone to gather evidence and submit (it is a lot of work). More than that may only be worse for the accused, as they will have to follow the discussion for an even longer time period. I'd say 30 days for submissions is OK (I'd be perfectly willing to discuss a possible extension, though), and we could even make it 60 days for comments.
That's my thinking right off the bat, I'll respond to Kubura in the evening, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you GregorB. Agreed on all points. Miranche (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

BokiceK, You say for yourself that You're not nationalist? Do You find this as "non nationalist edits": [3] You removed the the words saying that Arkan is a war criminal) and this [4] in which you removed the info that says that Serbia (greaterserbianists) attacked Croatia ("velikosrpska agresija na Hrvatsku" -> "rat").
Also, long ago, I adviced You on Your talk page and in summary [5] that certain pictures are provocations for Croatian community ("Bokice, ne uzmi mi ovo za zlo, ali mnogi ćedu ti ovo shvatit ka' tešku provokaciju.). Hoisting the ex-Yugoslav flag is a provocation for Croats. Kubura (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My dear Kubura, this your defense is the best attack against You.

  1. You have nothing to say on blocking a newby indefinitely after one edit (which is not a vandalism)
  2. You have nothing to say of your irrational purism and molesting of Croats who are not sufficiently Aryan who's Croatian language is not sufficiently pure of Serbian words. You are so ignorant that you think MediaWiki is using Croatian orthography...
  3. You write easily refutable slurs against me (BTW how can You accuse somebody for nationalism when he was/is keeping flag of country that promoted brotherhood and unity. Looking forward to read you new fringe conspiracy theory). And You have nothing to say on users who keep quotes that glorify fascists on their user pages? -- Bojan  Talk  09:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a moment

But just FYI please find below what wrote Prof. Neven Budak: http://www.novossti.com/2013/09/neven-budak-necemo-obrazovati-samo-za-trziste-rada/

Citat gosp. Prof. Budaka: : ""Nitko nije radio ozbiljnu analizu hrvatske Wikipedije, pa se ne može dati ni neki meritorniji sud, ali dojam je da je taj broj devijantnih članaka vrlo mali u odnosu na ukupnu hrvatsku Wikipediju i da to nije neki ozbiljniji problem Wikipedije. Naravno, trebalo bi naći načina da se tekstovi koji iznose evidentne neistine ne mogu pojavljivati na Wikipediji. "

My translation into German for the German native speakers (as my English is insufficient):

Niemand hat die kroatische Wikipedia ernsthaft analysiert so dass man kein maßgebendes Urteil abgeben kann jedoch besteht der Eindruck dass im Verhältnis zur Gesamtzahl der Artikel der Anteil der Artikel mit inhaltlich von allgemein akzeptierten Normen abweichenden Inhalten sehr gering ist und daß dies kein ernsthaftes Problem der kroatischen Wikipedia darstellt. Natürlich sollten wir Wege finden, um Texte, die offensichtliche Unwahrheiten beinhalten nicht auf der auf Wikipedia erscheinen...

"As everybody should be informed about this, could please somebody translate in English? Maybe Miranche? --Croq (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Noone has made a serious analysis of the Croatian Wikipedia, therefore a more meritory judgement cannot be passed, but the impression is that the number of deviant articles is very small in relation to the entire Croatian Wikipedia and that this is not a serious wikipedia problem. Of course, it should be so arranged that texts which contain obvious untruths could not be published on Wikipedia." Evo. I zašto bi ova neinformirana izjava očito slabo informiranog čovjeka bila bitna?

Croq and 188.252.205.7, Dr. Budak gave a nuanced answer and the entire paragraph is worth reading, and in fact it sounds quite different with the parts Croq left out. But IMO his statement is relevant to encyclopedic articles, so w:Croatian Wikipedia#2013 controversy, hr:Hrvatska Wikipedija etc., not to this page. Miranche (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections on the Content evidence page

Question -- how is the order of sections working out in the "Sorted submissions" part of the Content page? I was going to reorder it alphabetically but I realize it may make sense for people to add new entries at the end, so it's obvious which are the newest. Thoughts? Miranche (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is easier to edit in the end of the section rather than in the middle, and it is not to hard to find stuff regardless.
Possibly a bigger problem is an inevitable overlap between Content and Conduct: currently the Conduct page is "incomplete", because serious individual lapses described under Content are not mentioned. Perhaps just pointers (basic info, with description such as "See [link to foobar at Content]"?
This brings us to another looming question, which I'm going to describe in the following section. GregorB (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, agreed on the order. As far as overlap goes, I've hinted at it in the instructions: I think it's perfectly fine to have the same incident both in Content & in Conduct, as long as we note so, and I've been preparing to do this with User:Joy's contribution to Conduct from last week [6]. Miranche (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What happens once evidence gathering is complete?

One third of the way into the evidence gathering window, I have very little doubt that the evidence is actionable. There are several options (I have identified three). Depending on which option we focus on, there may be a need to gather additional evidence or structure the existing evidence in a slightly different way. GregorB (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The options are:
  1. Hr wiki action against individual admins
  2. Wikimedia action against individual admins
  3. Project restart
I think it is fairly obvious now that #1 is not going to work.
For options #2 or #3 we need to demonstrate:
  1. Major and continuous admin misconduct
  2. Content problems resulting from such misconduct
  3. The community's inability to replace the admins due to suppression of dissenting editors (blocks and/or harassment)
This is a three-prong test, and while succeeding in demonstrating all three does not really guarantee anything at this point, failing to demonstrate any single one of these three may doom the entire process. Of course, #1 is Conduct, #2 is Content, and I think it's crucial to provide #3. Thoughts? GregorB (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if this page is the best forum to discuss what to do with the evidence, although I agree that it's compelling, as well as with your analysis. Personally I'd like this process to continue & gather another layer (or three) of evidence. In fact, since I've been responding to questions on hr.wiki & categorizing Fb group posts, I haven't had a chance to submit another batch of content & conduct I find objectionable. And talking about the hr.wiki community's ability to deal with this (as well as about questionable blocks), what's your take on Rjecina2's goodbye message, especially its second to the last paragraph ("Pošto...")? [7] Miranche (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not a bad venue to discuss, although it is a bad venue to decide (obviously, we can't possibly decide anything of the sort here). This is important because someone will ultimately get in a position to decide. My line of thinking is as follows: if I didn't know better, the first question I'd ask would be "if the admins are as bad as you claim, how come they weren't deposed by the community". The #3 above (say, a list of people who were banned or quit due to conflicts with the admins) would answer that question. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Many users were blocked because they criticized admins. Usual excuse was "personal attack" or something like that, so proofs of intimidating the opposition will be quite easy to list. --Argo Navis (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Gregor, fair enough. Here's my take on the three courses of action you mention:
  1. Hr wiki action -- I wouldn't write it off. It would be good to see whether anyone at hr.wiki can use this evidence page as an asset, and Argo's comments suggest there's a chance of this. IMO the lower the level at which immediate action is taken the better.
  2. Wikimedia action -- IMO still may be desirable even if something changes on hr.wiki, as the situation seems truly without precedent and needs to be understood. This is why I think it'd be useful for this process to run its course, regardless of what happens on hr.wiki.
  3. Project restart -- only if it's shown that the situation is truly at an impasse.
Miranche (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The order of these three options is indeed by decreasing desirability. Still (to use legal terms), while going straight to #2 may look like forum shopping, going to #1, failing, and then going to #2 may look like double jeopardy (and will require doubled effort). GregorB (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: double jeopardy, that depends on specific issues that are hypothetically handled on the two different levels. If they're different, then no double jeopardy necessarily takes place. Miranche (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what can be done on croatian wikipedia, but translating these evidence pages, even without corresponding comments, would might prove useful, one way or another. --Argo Navis (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree (if anything, these submissions would be much more compact and easier to read), but what is going to happen then? This would definitely be the preferred course of action, but chances any of the admins would be voted down are pretty slim. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we should try to get some response from admins accused of misconduct. They should at least clearly say if they want to participate in examining the evidence here on Meta or they will just ignore the process. If they decide to participate in this process, then they should answer the accusations mentioned in evidence. If not, we will at least speed up the process. --Argo Navis (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Argo, glad to hear that people on hr.wiki haven't given up hope :) Correct me if I'm wrong, your suggestion is basically to translate the "Description" section in every submission, as the header info is relatively short & you think we can do without comments, for now at least. If this is correct, there's still a lot to translate and there'll be more, so it poses the issue of logistics -- how to go about it:
  1. Invite people who submitted the info to translate it themselves. I can definitely translate what I've submitted.
  2. Ask people to volunteer to do so, which could be done on Kafić.
  3. Gregor mentioned in his response to Kubura on my hr page he'd be ready to translate specific info, and I know I would too. But there's a lot and if only a small number of people end up doing it, I can say for myself I'd like to get a sense of priorities, in other words, which submissions would be the most useful to be translated first.
By the way, the convenient but grim fact is that if anyone who tries to discuss this info openly gets blocked, we'll have (more) evidence for Gregor's #3 above. Miranche (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I just got back to editing hr wiki after 3.5 years of ignoring it, so I'll stick to patrolling and adding wiki-links for now :). Also, I'm short on time :-/. --Argo Navis (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the notification, the hr wiki admins presumably know about this discussion (notified through Kafić). At least some of them (e.g. SG) are sufficiently fluent in English to understand it and respond. Initially I thought they'll be all over it, but they have completely ignored it thus far. (I have a hunch what may have transpired, but it doesn't matter one way or the other.) Anyway, I feel it would be OK to invite them individually, and my translation offer here on Meta still stands. About hr - not sure at the moment, will think about it. GregorB (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Argo Navis, I really appreciate your comments here, every bit of information and advice is welcome. And rekindling of some good old wiki fire is never a bad thing (except perhaps when one is short on time, alas!) :-) GregorB (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't think a hunch is needed re: what transpired on hr.wiki. From the comments on Kafić and my user page my sense is that, sadly, hr.wiki admins have likely decided to boycott the process which (a) they had no significant involvement initiating, (b) doesn't happen on hr.wiki, and (c) still happens largely in English. There's more, but we can do something about (c).
Argo, yes, thank you very much for your comments, and any assistance or advice on how to facilitate translation would be appreciated. As we all have little time, I do think it may be a good idea to ask people who submitted the info if they're willing to translate their descriptions. Miranche (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
And yeah, finally, Rjecina2's words are indeed cryptic. It looks like something's going on behind the scenes. Whether these words have something to do with ongoing admin elections and the absence of the "usual suspects" from this venue, we can only speculate... GregorB (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me also say that there is a significant difference between the first two options and the option #3: what happens to banned editors? Under #1 and #2, they stay banned; the community may reconsider their bans on an individual basis, but the community seems to be crippled right now. Under #3, all bans become void. GregorB (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Must say I'm disappointed. It is already fifth week since this controverdy begun, and nobody in WMF investigated our well-backed claims on very serious irregularities such as using Wikipedia as soapbox, violations of BLP, blatant historical revisionism, poorly sourced articles and original research, driving people crazy and blocking users who have opposing views under silly pretext, stalking, ignoring non-free image policy... Current CW only brings damage to whole Wikipedia. -- Bojan  Talk  15:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I must say I expected a more active approach by the WMF. Still, I believe that solid evidence speaks for itself, and that, once the process is finished, things will begin to unravel. GregorB (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
To be the devil's advocate, what we have now, while compelling, is IMO still vulnerable to criticism that one could dig into any Wikipedia's edit history and cherrypick examples to discredit some of the more prominent admins. However, I think chances are ever slimmer that anyone would make this argument in good faith. The question then becomes, is this evidence sufficient to convince a skeptical outsider? Could anyone suggest a skeptical outsider to ask?
In any case, another layer or three of evidence can't hurt. BokicaK, I agree this is frustrating, but as GregorB said, the bottom line is that solid evidence speaks for itself -- and rock solid evidence speaks even better. Also I may be wrong, but realistically speaking even with solid evidence any comprehensive action on WMF level such as project restart may take months. It would certainly require figuring out what precedents are being set etc.
With this in mind, I think it'd be a good idea to take up the suggestion to translate the "Description" paragraphs into Croatian, so that the Evidence pages are more transparent at hr.wiki. Despite the relative lack of involvement of hr.wiki admins & editors on these pages, they're the ones who'll be the most affected by whatever eventually happens, so it can't hurt to make the info better accessible. After all, we did start these pages with the aim to be bilingual.
Finally, GregorB, I think it's early to speculate what happens to banned editors if #1 or #2 happens until such time that #1 or #2 starts happening :) Whatever happens I do agree it'll be important to advocate lifting all bans on editors other than obvious vandals and proven sockpuppeteers. Miranche (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
solid evidence speaks for itself...

solid as the livesand. LOL. This is not math. This is the social science. --Anto (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This works for me and I think is appropriate in this case. Any alternative suggestions? Miranche (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no single proof that these issues on hr.wiki are bigger than issues on any other wikipedia. All this histeria by dissatisfied hr.wiki users and tabloid-style journalisma by pro-regime fig's leaf such as Jutarnji list.--Anto (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true, there is no proof these issues are bigger than issues on any other wikipedia, but they don't have to be, and proving such a proposition is not the purpose of these pages. GregorB (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
These issues can not be solved by meatpuppeting foreigners with no language skills. Let alone the knnowledge of history and politics of Croatia.--Anto (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. It is lucky circumstances for CW sysops that foreigners can't understand our language.
  2. We are not giving (only) examples from distant corners of our common history; we are giving examples such us Potemkin village or Straw man. -- Bojan  Talk  11:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ante just called all newspapers except "Glas Koncila" pro-regime tabloids. HINA is tabloid also?--DobarSkroz (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
People, do not feed the trolls. Oh well, do, if you so desire. Anyone who labels people as "foreigners" on Wikipedia IMHO doesn't understand the first thing about Wikipedia. Miranche (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not "labelling". People who are not familiar or do not participate in certain group society are foreigners. Such as I would be for Chechen , Ojibwe or Telugu wikipedia. Like you are!--Anto (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Anto, the very point of Wikipedia is that everybody is an insider by default. The only thing that I or anyone else needs to prove oneself, and the only thing that matters, is that I can make myself understood in a reasoned way. What I say is judged on its own terms, by how well it's argued and supported by evidence, and by how well it conforms to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Sure, if I don't act along these lines I can mess up, but this depends only on what I say or do, none of it depends on who I am. Specifically, whatever I say is not judged by anyone's opinion on whether I belong to a community or not; it is not judged by my race, class, gender, profession, sexual orientation, or educational background; it is certainly not judged by my citizenship or ethnicity; in fact, none of this information is anyone's business unless I choose to disclose it. The feature of being blind to everyone's background and taking every claim on its merits and its merits only, along with a community that enables this, is exactly what makes Wikipedia as strong and reliable as it is. I don't care how anyone divides people in their life off-Wiki, but whoever insists on bringing these divisions to Wiki and using categories such as "foreigners" as a basis for judging the competence of others is, at best, mistakenly bringing up information irrelevant to the process of editing Wikipedia, and at worst, violating WP:AGF as well as any number of other guidelines on the most banal grounds possible. Whether out of inexperience, by mistake, or on purpose, s/he does not understand the first principles of Wikipedia. Miranche (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.