Razlika između inačica stranice »Razgovor sa suradnikom:Denny«

(Novi odlomak: Controversy surrounding this wikipedia)
 
Denny, the controversy surrounding this wikipedia has been instrumented by a number of editors who on their own accord resigned from the project after the AO was dismantled and the it's decisions were reversed. This group left the project, but they bided their time to regroup and take over the project and conduct their own clean out, first by organising a Facebook hate and critique group, and then using their connections with the tabloid media, then using the minister to exert pressure and single out members of this community. In a concerted attack applying pressure from whatever platform they can and using arguments such that the Croatian Wikipedia is promoting fascism and homophobia, a common war cry used now to isolate and shame people. This group is trying to claim that the admins are responsible for the content on the wikipedia (which they are not) and they are the one's who are instrumental in steering this project (which they do not as well). As you have seen in the past, there are some editors and some users who have different political, linguistic and historical views of the world, and each person has their own upbringing and baggage they bring to this project, but this is not an excuse to be used to turf any person who has different belief system - they should be noted and accepted. Once this group takes over, they will seek revenge and exert their pressure on user's that do not confirm with their POV of the world, and we will see disruptive editors arrive who will push their own agenda onto this project destroying this whole project that many editors have worked on it since 2003. We all make mistakes Denny, but put this into perspective, that this will create a precedent and this project could be taken over by anyone who is willing enough to use similar tactics. This means that this wikipedia can be taken over by any corporation, government, party, lobby or interest group, because being a small project were you have a small core of active editors it is quite easy to infiltrate. I will give you a scenario: you have 5-6 people who can commit 20 hours a week and know how to program in python/perl etc, the 5-6 person crew create 10 user accounts each with different e-mail accounts, which is created from a different IP address using readily available VPN services. You generate text using tables - quite easy to do, and create scripts, programs to load 2-5 a day at specific times. You then use 2-3 accounts with human beings editing, replying commenting etc but it would be also possible using AI programs to create replies to specific queries. This needs to go on for some time, and like in a chess game edit after edit the pawn user account, go up the rank, the group gets admins, once the critical mass is reached then certain users in a particular wikipedia are harassed, bullied. Then you just recruit more people to continue the harassment, until some people start to break. You create a bad environment to work in, one part of the user base do not contribute very much in creating new articles, they only do small edits, perform category changes and create a lot of noise with their harassment and argumentative approach to work. Some people have a low tolerance and leave, some people stay there but as time goes by this patience and commitment wanes - and then if need be you involve a Social Media campaign, backed up with "old age" media, you lean on some government departments. Then you start a campaign to vote some people from certain tools and assign it to their own users, since the group controls 50 odd sockpuppets, and they have a number of other users who support them, how easy is it to get the necessary majority. Once in total control, they boot everyone out and the project is theirs until they want to or until another group is willing to spend the time and money in going against them. This can be done in a low tech way as well you just need more people to do the job and some coordination. Consider that you are allowed to vote with 100 edits and that you need to be there for only 2 months, wow how hard is it to create a new user every 2 months. Create one user, make 100 small edits wait for 2 months and you are in, and just keep going on and on. And then when time comes, you can vote anytime you want. Look what is the users who had voted, they reappear after hibernating for 1-2-3-5 years and are allowed to vote. Denny check the contributions of each of the user who have voted, and you see what I am saying. I am not saying that Speedy, Kubura and Željko were perfect either and they probably should have been a bit different in their approach, and they can and should change, but on the other hand once they are removed we will see this wikipedia destroyed and merged with the Serbo-Croatian wikipedia within a years time if not earlier. [[Suradnik:Ljubuski78|Ljubuski78]] <small>([[Razgovor sa suradnikom:Ljubuski78|razgovor]])</small> 22:32, 30. listopada 2013. (CET)
 
== An important message about renaming users ==
 
<div class="mw-content-ltr">
Dear Denny,
''My aplogies for writing in English. Please translate or have this translated for you if it will help.''
I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.
 
As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide [[mw:SUL finalisation|single-user login finalisation]] (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.
 
Why is this happening? As currently stated at [[m:Global rename policy|the global rename policy]], a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.
 
The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.
 
Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called [[m:Global renamers|Global renamers]]. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the [[m:SRGP|requests for global permissions]] page on 1 September, a week from now.
 
In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to [[:m:SRUC|the request page for a global rename]].
 
Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.
 
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the [[m:SUL|Help:Unified login]] page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for [[m:Talk:Global renamers|global renamers]]. You can also contact me on [[m:User talk:Keegan (WMF)|my talk page on meta]] if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.
 
Thank you for your time.
-- [[m:User:Keegan (WMF)|Keegan (WMF)]] [[m:User talk:Keegan (WMF)|talk]] 20:24, 25. kolovoza 2014. (CEST)
 
<small>--This message was sent using [[m:MassMessage|MassMessage]]. Was there an error? [[m:Talk:MassMessage|Report it!]]</small>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Keegan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Keegan_(WMF)/MassMessage/Crats&oldid=9637985 -->