Talk:Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Archive 3

Active discussions

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.

Inciting Croatian war veterans to attack the critics

(Archived from the Conduct page "Roberta F." section. Miranche (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC))

OFF-TOPIC: Inciting Croatian war veterans to attack the critics

Activities of admins that cannot be substantiated by information from Wikipedia itself are a matter for the media and/or the police, not for this page. The thread below has been enclosed into a collapsible box after the original question what to do about it was ignored. Ivan & Zekoslavac, please let me know if you would like to move this conversation to the RfC page (where it IMO belongs in its present state), or moved to the talk page (where it could be turned into a constructive question on whether & how to keep evidence on off-wiki activities). Until such time, I suggest that further replies to the thread go into the box with the rest. Miranche (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Inciting Croatian war veterans to attack the critics
[1] - Today the FB initiative Razotkrivanje sramotne hrvatske wikipedije ("Exposing shameful Croatian Wikipedia"), that initiated all this apparently, has made a post on their traffic which shows a spike of user activity originating from a web portal used by Croatian war veterans. According to the post, User:Roberta F. has called for them to "attack and close" (napadnu i zatvore) the authors of the initiative, because they [the Croatian Wikipedia] are being attacked "because they are Croats" (napadamo jer su Hrvati). Not only does this imply that anyone criticizing Croatian Wikipedia is a non-Croat (as you can see from the RfC discussion, where there have been abundant accusations of me and others being "Yugoslavs", "Serbs" and so on - this is a common defensive mechanism in the minds of nationalists who prefer to boil down issues to "us vs. them"), it implies that the supposed attacks are being orchestrated by anti-Croats. Croatian war veterans are still massively armed, and suffer from PTSD, and making this kind of extra-wiki threats is dangerous and despicable, and indicative to what lengths are some of the sysops willing to go simply to preserve their positions. Also: If someone has the exact post by Roberta F. on that portal, they should share a link so that it can be translated. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


  •   disagree Croatian war veterans were not asked to attack. "Exposing shameful Croatian Wikipedia" (facebook page) - liars as expected. I have read original message by Roberta F.
She said who she is and asked people to "report that page to Facebook with hope that Facebook might shut it down".
She also invited people to visit page "Exposing shameful Croatian Wikipedia" and to see for themselves how much hate speech there is: "see for yourselves what posts they write - too much hatred". So I also did that. And it turns out that Roberta F. was right. So many hatred in posts and comments I haven't seen for a very long time. Such hatred is equal to that one in procommunist or "Greater Serbia" groups.
Roberta F. also said this facebook page targets administrators of Croatian Wikipedia, revealing their true identities - which is also correct. And much more - place of residence for some of them was also revealed!
"They are showing us as Ustashe and catholic-talibans", Roberta said. And she didn't say that they attack croatian administrators. She said that they attack administrators who they see as Croatian (she meant pro-croatian, which is obvious when you read the text). You will get conformation at the end of my text, I will use Ivan Štambuk as an example.
But there is no sign of anything Ivan Štambuk or Exposing Shameful Croatian Wikipedia wrote. This is disgusting and terrible lie!
Also most of croatian war veterans DON'T have PTSD, and most of them don't have any kind of weapon. Everyone in Croatia knows that they don't pose a threat. They created and defended this country, they put an end to brutal killings and savage murderers... so they are the last ones who would kill you. Besides, they are not killing their neighbours who were on the opposite side of the battlefield durign the Homeland war... so why would anyone attack you?
User Ivan Štambuk was blocked on Croatian Wikipedia, by decision of community. Everyone was for that, no one against it. He was constantly harassing people, laughing at those who were thoroughly replacing non-croatian words with real croatian words in text... And he also suggested a vote on English Wikipedia to unite serbian and croatian language. To him, serbian and croatian language are obviously the same. And it seems that on english wikipedia, that is also the case. But it wasn't always like that. Go ahead, check why Ivan Štambuk was blocked on croatian wikipedia permanently, and what people had to say about it. I don't see any regrets at all.
So who exactly says that croatian wikipedia is shameful and why? --Zekoslavac (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uhm don't worry "Zekoslavac" (I wonder whose sockpuppet are you, smells like User:Kubura again, the same spelling mistakes), I wear that block as a badge of honor. Blocked because you did nothing wrong, as a form of "revenge" by the petty nationalists who were frustrated that they couldn't obstruct Wiktionary's merger of B/C/S into Serbo-Croatian header. And being intellectually humiliated at their own terrain (Kafić, i.e. the CW Village pump). Anyone with the knowledge of Serbo-Croatian can see how that discussion went, and how hopelessly ignorant you all were. Yes it was always like that, the so-called "Croatian language" was invented 20 years ago, before that it didn't exist, and nether did the so-called "Serbian language" and "Bosnian language". But this is not the venue to discuss that...
Can you link the User:Roberta F.'s post at that forum so that the FB post's claim can be verified? I haven't seen it, but I'm very eager to. I'm not "lying", but simply providing a notice, and did so with reservations and verbatim quotes. War veterans are generally mentally unstable people, Croatian war veterans in particular (tens of thousands diagnosed with PTSD, many still having illegal weapons) and can become dangerous if instigated. I don't really buy the story of User:Roberta F. simply trying to protect the identity of hrwiki sysops that were named on the FB page. Of all the organizations that she could've contacted, she chose the most militant and dangerous group. Obviously we're dealing with an attempt to make real-life threats to FB initiative authors. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Ivan Štambuk, I find your words and approach quite offensive. You wear that block because you deserve it, my personal opinion. If you can say that croatian language was invented 20 years ago, with all evidence against you, means that you should be blocked on every encyclopedia in the world! And the only one humiliated was you. So I really don't understand your personal agenda. I have to appologise, but I don't have knowledge of Serbo-Croatian. I have knowledge of Croatian (official and dialects), and I do understand part of Serbian (mostly basics) due to similarity, and to same roots of many words that are in common. We are not dealing with real-life threats to FB initiative authors, and I don't see how that is "OBVIOUS". So you ARE lying after all. Are you an associate of that facebook page? Yes, I do have link, and I won't provide it for you. When I see how you talk to other people, how you make fun of them, and that you have personal agenda, and when I see that you support FB group spreading lies, hatred and in some places calling for violence... And when I see how you talk to me ("sockpuppet"?!) No, I won't provide it for you. Also, I don't think that part of our conversation about Roberta F. is off topic, but it is true that it cannot be confirmed by Wikipedia itself. As this whole case against croatian wikipedia can't. User:Miranche is partially right: activities from outside wikipedia belong outside. So I think that I should try writing a few articles about shameful wikipedia myself.
To other readers who want to understand some facts about croatian language, history, ethnicity and difference from serbian, please watch at least part of this croatian documentary with english subtitles.[2] --Zekoslavac (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, I wear that block because none of you had a single argument against treating Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian as Serbo-Croatian, so you started a pathetic vote to ban me for "disrupting" Wikipedia after you failed to counter my explanation in Kafić. You can almost cut the miasma of hopelessness and frustration in that discussion. None of you know anything about linguistics, and after almost two decades of statist brainwashing on how "different" Croatian and Serbian are, and how Croats deserve the "right" to their own language (N.B. no such right exist in the international law), you are truly convinced that trivial differences that can be enumerated on the fingers of one had legitimize separate language treatment. Despite what the rest of the world think, and what Croatian linguists themselves were saying before the 1990s when the "independent Croatian language" was invented. You don't have any real arguments, which frustrates you and you resort to the only thing you have at your disposal - blocking dissenters. That's why the CW's article on Croatian language (w:hr:Hrvatski jezik) is utter junk, 98% of the article deals with politics and 2% with he language itself. But that's expected, since the whole notion of the so-called Croatian language is a political issue.
Regarding the understanding of Serbian - you're lying, just like any other Croatian nationalist does when it comes to that painful topic. Serbian and Croatian are 100% mutually intelligible, Serbian shows are shown or Croatian TV channels and vice versa without subtitles, Serbian politicians, actors etc. are not subtitled or "translated" when giving interviews on TV or papers, Serbian tourists don't need interpreters when coming to Croatia for holidays, Croatian nationalists (such as Mir Harven, aka Hroboatos) understand perfectly well Serbian interlocutors on hrwiki and various Internet fora... It's pointless to lie in the age of Internet, your subjective and way-overblown assessments regarding intelligibility can be shown to be false in minutes by anyone knowing to use a search engine.
Yes it's important, because some of the commentators on the RfC page have mentioned real-life harassment by User:SpeedyGonsales's clique. If that is correct, I would like to put this into context and provide an opportunity for them to shed some light on it. Perhaps they're scared, I don't know. Contacting a web portal that is visited by thousands of armed and mentally unstable veterans (many of them fake though) is dangerous and cannot be ignored just because it happened outside of hrwiki. It has everything to do with this case.
PS: Yes you are an obvious sockpuppet, you have no edits anywhere but always frequent these discussions at the right moment. Why don't you log in to your main account? So strong on words, but so scared when it matters. Typical right-winger. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  •   Off-topic Thank you Ivan for the post & Zekoslavac for the reply. While it's important to document indications of off-wiki activities that affect Croatian Wikipedia, and while, if true, this kind of an action by an admin truly is beyond the pale, this topic is talking about events that are happening completely off Wikimedia servers.
Activities of admins that cannot be substantiated by information from Wikipedia itself are a matter for the media and/or the police, not for this page. Ivan & Zekoslavac, I suggest, in order of preference, that this thread be moved, or enclosed into collapsible boxes. Please let me know if you're ok with moving it, and if so, where. Miranche (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ivane Štambuče, do sada si napisao na wikiprojektima toliko nedoličnih poruka, degutantnih, besramnih, bezočnih, vrijeđao hrvatsko, radio na štetu hrvatskog, da nitko ne mora nitkog nahuškavati na tebe niti to itkome od hrvatskih suradnika pada na pamet. Zašto bi itko prljao ruke?
Ti si to obavio. Toliko da si i bakama od preko 90 godina digao živce.
I kako te nije sram govoriti o izvanwikipedijskim prijetnjama, a projekt i kolege s izloženi su medijskoj inkviziciji, izvanwikipedijskom uznemiravanju, OUTINGu. Pa bojiš li se ti, čovječe, Boga? Kubura (razgovor) 06:12, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


Guys, how about using boxes for translation, so that English is on the left and Croatian is on the right, side by side? (E.g. like instructions, only borderless.) Should make it easier for English-only readers, they'll have to scan only the left-hand side of the (already quite long) page. GregorB (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I can do this as translations start trickling in, and (this, I assume, does not constitute canvassing) I'll start contacting people who have already submitted to ask them if they can translate their submissions. Miranche (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Prijevod podataka o Vjekoslavu Luburiću

Može pomoć u prijevodu ovoga slučaja članka o "Vjekoslavu Luburiću" previše je toga i bitno je dosta a nebi želio da nešto krivo prevedem [3]--DobarSkroz (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Može, ako mogu mjestimice prilagoditi tekst tako da je više usredotočen na konkretne podatke. Miranche (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Naravno, slobodno je za editiranje--DobarSkroz (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot, Gaystarnews

"How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history", links to "Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays". GregorB (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind , GregorB....

Not to cite sources from authors who

  • do not understand Croatian language- they can not undestand the issue therefore
  • do cite Kukuriku government fig leaf (aka Jutarnji list)-we all know what they have written

--Anto (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is just FYI, not "sources" or "evidence". I don't see your point either. I don't care if Zoran Milanović personally wrote all the articles in JL - and why should I? Since I can: 1) read, and 2) think, I'm therefore able to distinguish what is true from what is false, and argue about it. The hr wiki defenders tend to find 101 reasons why this or that source shouldn't be "believed". Well, in the Evidence pages there's nothing to "believe", these are facts. So, to whomever would like to defend the hr wiki: hic Rhodus, hic salta. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Theyn, why in the world are mentioned here??? here we are supposed to present some kind of evidence. Recycling the same crap on random websites are not an evidence.--Anto (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No, we're not supposed to present evidence here, this is the discussion page. GregorB (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence on Kubura

(Archived from the Conduct talk page. Miranche (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

Does it make sense at this point to gather more evidence about Kubura's conduct? To me it seems as if what is already there is sufficient to desysop him five times over. Is his case clear enough to be (more or less) immediately submitted to hr wiki for discussion? GregorB (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The more I think of it, the more I believe the proper course of action is to take Kubura's case to hr wiki. It is a clear fork in the road. To put it simply: if Kubura is not desysopped by hr wiki upon discussion of conduct evidence presented here, that would serve as an irrefutable proof the community is dysfunctional.
Judging by the course of events thus far, and the recent comment by SG, hr wiki admins are obviously using a rope-a-dope strategy against this initiative, counting on exhaustion and eventually indecision. They'd prefer to stay out of the fight, and that's why it's important to force them into it. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we have a good sample of Kubura's conduct. There is probably more, but these incidents are enough to get the picture. I still think we should wait a little bit more until the official end of evidence collection, if some users who are not aware of this page want to submit additional evidence.--Seiya (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It is mostly a question of how to allocate one's effort in the most efficient way. I feel that submitting more stuff on Kubura is not too productive at the moment, given the severity of the incidents already covered. Yet, it always pays to be thorough, so let's make the most of the remaining 10 days, and then we'll see what comes next. GregorB (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This is local wiki issue


(Archived from the Conduct talk page. Miranche (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

This is local wiki issue, issue of Croatian Wikipedia, so please, send your comment on local wiki hr:Wikipedija:Kafić/prigovori_na_Meti_1._vrste. You will get the answers there. Kubura (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, all these users are blocked on Croatian Wikipedia, and thus have no oportunity to speak out. You can have only a monologue there. Or a trial where one side has no chance to say anything. But here, on Meta, everyone has the right to say something.--Seiya (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Seiya, you are not blocked on Croatian wikipedia, so you can argue there. Users who are blocked can argue their cases on appropriate pages. Community of Croatian wikipedia is answering to issues (or "issues") raised here on our project (as Kubura wrote above), and I see no reason to argue here, as that would seem as "forking of content". SpeedyGonsales (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless all those in question are unblocked and have the right of free speech, this is not a debate, but a monologue. DobarSkroz, for instance, can he write anything on Croatian Wikipedia? Or Maria von Nudeldorf? Or Koryansky or scores of other users? But here, they have the right to express their opinion.--Seiya (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Kubura thank you for starting this, I'm glad that the discussion is taking place in parallel on I'll put the link you provided on top of this page (please feel free to edit its presentation) & move this discussion to the talk page. Miranche (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The link to hr: has "Upute" as the first section in which Kubura is ranting. Splitting the discussion into two pages as an idea is dubious at best, because it forks the effort, but this is downright ridiculous. --Joy (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Joy, thank you for the comment. The Croatian pages were created by Kubura on 18 October as an alternative forum for discussion, and I thought it'd be best to acknowledge this and copy the comments from the appropriate threads over here; GregorB agreed. It isn't an optimal solution but IMO it does much more good to do so than to ignore the discussion on pertinent to the same issues discussed here, and in a parallel format. I do realize that the manner in which those pages are presented and maintained has elements of the absurd, and if you have suggestions on how to address this without getting bogged down in an infinite troll loop, I'm all ears. My main purpose in acknowledging the mirror is (a) recognizing the fact that some users are, for whatever reason, more comfortable discussing these issues on, and (b) getting all opinions expressed on those pages, at least those under "Sorted submissions", included here.
You'll find that the discussion on the versions of these pages has been dead for about a week. Miranche (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a non-trivial difference between accommodating people who don't speak English and accommodating people who can't maintain even a pretense of neutrality. I mean, fine, let them dig a deeper hole for themselves, but do realize that all of us others are volunteers and that all of this material takes a lot of time and effort to cover. Adding more material, esp. in a manner that egregiously voids the assumption of good faith, is counterproductive. --Joy (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. Here's roughly how I'm thinking, and I'd be interested in your opinion as you have considerably more experience than I on both & Wikipedia in general.
  1. Currently, the dominant culture on is one of, for wont of a better word, extreme xenophobia. It's a mindset that divides users into insiders & outsiders, takes personally every criticism of the project from perceived outsiders, judges arguments by the author rather than on their merits, and views as suspect every discussion of what goes on at the project that does not take place on the pages of the project itself. When I say dominant culture I don't mean it's the majority culture -- as the recent vote showed, that's up for grabs -- but it is one that is widely tolerated and encouraged, and it largely calls the shots. I'm sure you're familiar with the mindset, I got a sense of how it plays out in conversations with MaGa and a shorter one with Vodomar; all of these were instructive.
    I didn't read all of that, because, again, I simply don't have endless free time, but I did read the initial reactions, and on the face of it, you've read just a wee bit too much into them. They are defensive, and that is perfectly understandable, because they are a group that was in fact attacked through the facebook page and the newspaper articles. There were clearly some reasons for that attack, but it was still an attack that went way beyond the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. I think it's fair to cut these people some slack in that regard. Heck, even this RFC probably had a fair few contentious statements, and its scope is (necessarily) wider than those issues, because we now see all sorts of people crawling out of the woodwork. The most egregious example of that is the mention of a user called Rjecina, a person who was banned from both en: and hr: at some point. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it's fair to say that it's suspicious and it muddies the water. Now, if this defensiveness can't be broken through with a bit of effort, then we have a problem. --Joy (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    I hope you're right, but I'm not very hopeful, for a number of reasons. I certainly agree that the newspaper & Facebook attacks have gone far beyond the encyclopedic issues, but the fact that it was natural to expect a defensive reaction in part corroborates my suspicions. I'd expect a functional encyclopedic community which has worked out its political differences to admit & address the issues where the critique is found justified, while responding reasonably and articulately where it isn't. That's the ideal, sure, but the reality from what I've seen doesn't even begin to approach it. The inarticulate "demanti" that addressed zero specifics of published criticism, the hunkering down and retreat into kooky victimization narratives, and the similarly ideological & content-free defenses from Hrvatsko Narodno Vijeće and all really just played into the very caricature portrayed by the critics & scandal-mongers.
    Additionally I've run into similar mindsets while perusing the archives from before the stories broke into the media. One example I'd single out that's IMO totally out of line with Wikimedia principles is the irrational abuse dished out to anyone who crossed over between SH & HR wikipedia, acknowledged they copied content from SH, or dared to compare inter-user relations at SH to HR in a favorable light. Sure, the treatment comes from only a few users, but I didn't see them sanctioned so it's apparently considered acceptable. I also see that implying an association with was used in an attempt to discredit you.
    But I admit this is all influenced by my prior beliefs; basically, some systematically tolerated behaviors at have flipped most of the red flags I've learned to look for to identify authoritarian vs. merit-based environments in Croatian workplaces IRL. Which all just may mean that I'm not the right person to try to break through the defensiveness. I hope that if you try, you won't encounter a commitment to misunderstand rational argument. Miranche (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. It is IMO undeniable that a few admins and users are, strategically and/or by acting out their personal political convictions, manipulating the project in bad faith to keep this culture dominant. As a result -- and also corroborated by the recent vote -- there's a large population of users who function within this mindset, support and trust these admins, and hence are likely to consider a process that takes place off hr.wikipedia suspect and perhaps illegitimate by default. I think it's clear their mode of operation is not exactly compatible with Wikimedia principles, but many see themselves as veteran Wikipedians in good standing, and one cannot assume they're all acting in bad faith. In fact, sadly, most are probably just acting out of habit.
    Yes. When you set up a vote, a group dynamic easily overcomes encyclopedic principles. The problem is the notion that things are resolved with direct voting. It's why en: always has what we call !votes == non-votes. --Joy (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    This last vote was in the end a !vote, too -- although I think it did manage to prove that the opposition viewpoint is far from marginal. Miranche (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    Actually the last vote was a vote. I didn't notice any obvious proof that the closing admin assessed the final result on anything other than numbers. The fact that it was the same person that previously tried to obstruct the process does nothing to reassure me in their ability to assess the result. --Joy (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    I meant it ended up being a !vote de facto, as it didn't lead to any explicit decisions, but it did impart information about the distribution of opinions among users -- which of course different people will interpret in different ways. De jure, yes, it was supposed to be a majority vote, although it's not clear if it would've been respected had it turned out differently. Miranche (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Whatever Kubura's motives in forking these pages, then, a large number of well-intended users are likely to perceive his intentions as good, which IMO automatically bestows legitimacy to the fork. In addition, as you can see from the material I've copied over, the discussion that took place there also involved prominent voices opposing the dominant admins, which bestows further legitimacy on those pages. In short, then, I'd argue there's every reason to consider the conversation that took place over there, prompted by the same pieces of information submitted here, a natural and integral part of this discussion.
    I actually disagree with your premise here. Any encyclopedia editor who reads the top-of-the-page rant must immediately say to themselves - okay, stop, there's something funny going on here - why is this person trying to preface a fact-finding process with an opinion? If that doesn't happen, then the discussion is a priori tainted. --Joy (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    I see your point. On the one hand, ever since I saw the "demanti" I've come to expect a dose of ranting as standard operating procedure on, but that's certainly not the reason to ignore the fact that, as you say, the rant defeats the purpose of the page. I agree this needs to be addressed.
    My own thinking is, it would still be good to (a) link to the page in some capacity, for the reason outlined below -- to give well-intentioned people who for any reason prefer to discuss at rather than Meta an alternative; and (b) copy new comments from over, because, though the discussion is tainted, most people who participate in it do so IGF and discuss the same items submitted here. Certainly calling hr pages a "fork" (grana? račva? krak?) is better than "mirror", but they can be acknowledged in a manner that's still visible while less direct.
    Please let me know if you have any suggestions regardless of whether they follow these lines. Thank you. Miranche (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. With this in mind, the least I think can be done at Meta is to provide prominent links to the pages at, so that any user who is for any reason uncomfortable with the Meta discussion can go converse about it there, as well as copy the discussion from there, to recognize that it's Wikipedians talking about these very same issues. Do I think the pages at are necessary -- maybe, were they started in good faith -- probably not, are they well maintained -- not at all. But ultimately IMO that's all secondary.
  5. Finally, just as you say, if the side benefit is more rope, well then so much the better.
Miranche (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts here. Sadly, while I admit i had high hopes at certain stages of the vote, it is now apparent that my initial assessment (hr wiki being too dysfunctional) was correct.
And many things are dysfunctional, not just one: the admin old guard, their bloc of editors, the set of procedures, the approach to the encyclopedic work, the entire mindset. (A benign example: in Kafić, some are now exclaiming "let's go and create more articles", as if hr wiki was criticized for not having enough. So yeah, let's churn out some more arbitrary and unsourced stuff just to enhance one's article count. I always thought that, had I worked in the hr wiki for all these years, I'd have written 1000 articles by now. No need to bother with the refs, much easier and quicker that way.)
Voting procedure is one of the problems of hr wiki: since all votes count and simple majority wins, there is no need to provide arguments for one's vote, nor there is an opportunity to address the arguments of others. Generally, the discussion quality is very low, due at least in part to this. Still, if the administrators had the power to interpret the !votes, en wiki style, this would be perhaps even worse, for obvious reasons.
As for the Croatian work for "fork", in this context I can't think of anything better than grana. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see my reply to Joy, thank you! Miranche (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


(Archived from the Content talk page. Miranche (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

This is local wiki issue, issue of Croatian Wikipedia, so please, send your comment on local wiki hr:Wikipedija:Kafić/prigovori_na_Meti_2._vrste. You will get the answers there. Kubura (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kubura thank you for starting this, I'm glad that the discussion is taking place in parallel on I'll put the link you provided on top of this page (please feel free to edit its presentation) & move this discussion to the talk page. Miranche (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Kao što smo dobili odgovor zašto je administrator Željko ustaša u privatnom životu, a navododno neutralan na Pa kada već moliš da tamo odgovaramo, odgovori nam za sva vremena. Je li Željko ustaša ili nije? Ako jest što dokazi kažu, tvrdnja da nema nacizma na je čista laž koja dolazi iz tvojih usta. iilija64 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Extending evidence gathering period?

Is there any way to extend evidence gathering period for a few weeks beyond Oct 30? Situation on Croatian wikipedia is volatile, and just a few days ago, SpeedyGonsales made serious threats to small number of people who dared to criticize him and other 2 guys. I believe more evidence of improper conduct are being created on daily bases. -- 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be open to extending evidence gathering for a few more weeks. Could you please provide links to one or more of the incidents? Thank you! Miranche (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see the evidence gathering period extended - there is a mountain of potential incidents to submit and analyze, and this is hard work. Right now I don't see a particular reason not to continue for at least a couple of weeks into November. GregorB (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Prolonging is pointless if foreigners don't want to read and give their opinion. I didn't see any in last week or two. -- Bojan  Talk  02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Prolonging = more evidence and more discussion. It is not fully clear at this point how and where this evidence will be used though, but collecting (more of) it won't hurt. GregorB (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Gregor, there is a whole lot to be parsed. We started on a Sunday/Monday (29/30 September), 30 November is Saturday, so if we extend gathering to the entire month of November we'll be at full 9 weeks. Miranche (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. I think we gathered enough evidences to de-sysop a god. -- Bojan  Talk  02:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you BokicaK, but standards for humans are lower :D Plus apparently there are people who still want to keep this line of info open.
Btw, do you mind if add your analysis of how often people are blocked on to these pages? Not sure under which category it would go, but it would make a good addition.
I'm really sorry you got blocked, btw. Let's hope these pages yield some concrete results in the near future.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” -- w:MLK. Miranche (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. -- Bojan  Talk  11:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we generally agreed to extend to November 15? Miranche (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No objections to Nov 15. GregorB (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start by changing the notices here & on What's your take on the suggestions I brought up below? Miranche (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  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.
Return to "Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Archive 3" page.