Talk:Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Archive 5

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.

Komentari s ogranaka - Comments from the forked pages

There follow comments from the forked pages (conduct, content) which do not fit the format of the evidence gathering page. Please do not archive this section. Miranche (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Prep to archive. Miranche (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Slijede komentari s ogranaka (postupanje, sadržaj) koji ne pristaju u oblik glavnih stranica za skupljanje podataka. Molimo ne arhivirajte ovaj odlomak. Miranche (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Priprema za arhiviranje. Miranche (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Upute

Na Meti je netko zadao opće upute, ne konzultiravši se s hr.wiki zajednicom. Primjerice, naveo je "Slobodno doprinosite ovoj stranici anonimno", što znači da netko netkog ovdje može prozivati poimence, a da kritičar krije svoj pravi wikipedijski identitet. Takve uvjete nalazimo na kamenovanju kad se vezanoj žrtvi stavi vreća preko glave, pa ga kamenuju. Kubura (razgovor) 04:43, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubura, razumijem Vaše brige, ali kao što sam Vam, vjerujem, više puta napisao, molim Vas da držite na umu da doprinosi ovim stranicama stoje ili padaju na osnovi činjenica i argumenata. Anonimnost smo dozvolili kako bismo omogućili doprinose ljudi koji se, bilo opravdano ili ne, boje da bi zbog svojih kritika na račun hr.wiki administratora mogli biti kažnjeni. Ako neka zlonamjerna osoba podnese neutemeljene podatke to svakako možete obraniti činjenicama i argumentima, ali ako dobronamjerna osoba za sebe zadrži utemeljene podatke kako se ne bi izložila onda to nikada nećemo saznati. Miranche (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Komentar na kraju ogranka o stranice postupanju - Comment at the end of the Conduct page fork)

Primijetio sam da brojni kritičari NISU pretpostavili dobru namjeru administratorima, ophoditeljima i suradnicima hr.wiki, a napadi su otišli do Godwinova zakona. Kubura (razgovor) 06:28, 16. studenog 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Kako su kolege suradnici hr.wiki komentirali

Kolege suradnici hr.wiki reagirali su na ove napade na administratore hrvatske Wikipedije i na napade na hr.wiki općenito. Vidjeti sadržaj Kafića od studenoga, Kafića od listopada i Kafić od rujna. Kubura (razgovor) 06:28, 16. studenog 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Još neke stvari koje su napadači zaboravili

Neka pravila koja su prekršili napadači na hr.wiki i na admine hr.wiki. Na engleskom su dostupna ovdje.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information (hr:Wikipedija:Maltretiranje#Objavljivanje_osobnih_podataka)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Assistance_for_administrators_being_harassed
"Wikipedia administrators' actions can bring them into direct conflict with difficult users and at times they too are harassed. Typically this happens when an administrator decides to intervene in a dispute with a view to warning or blocking disruptive parties or preventing their continual troublesome behavior.
Administrators are volunteer editors like any other user. They are not obligated any more than any other user to take any specific action beyond expected good conduct and responsiveness, and they are not required or expected to place themselves in an uncomfortable situation, to undertake actions which will diminish their enjoyment of working on Wikipedia or place themselves at risk in any way. Administrators who feel that they may have such a situation are advised to seek advice, discuss privately with other administrators, or pass the matter to another administrator willing to make difficult blocks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks
This page has been created in response to the increasing numbers of admins who are being threatened and harassed off-site or in real life because of admin actions they have taken on Wikipedia.
The real-life harassment is usually possible because admins have inadvertently given out too much personal information about themselves, perhaps incrementally without realizing that an adversary would be able to piece the information together, or because when they first joined Wikipedia, they felt they had no reason to preserve their anonymity.
Although comparatively rare, examples of harassment can include cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without their consent, verbal humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and mocking.
Ovo ćemo prevesti i na hrvatski. Kubura (razgovor) 07:53, 16. studenog 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Komentar na vrhu ogranka stranice o sadržaju - Comment on the top of the Content page fork)

Opet se zaobilazi hr.wiki. Pogledajte komentara. Ovo su stvari koje se rješavaju ovdje, a ne na Meti. Kubura (razgovor) 07:29, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jednostavno rješenje

Ako se ne slažete sa sadržajem nekog članka, iznesite Vaše primjedbe na stranicama za razgovor tih članaka. To se ondje rješava.
Pročitajte Wikipedija:Rješavanje prijepora, Wikipedija:Konsenzus, Wikipedija:Ostati hladne glave kad se uređivanje zaoštri, Wikipedija:Pretpostavite dobru namjeru i držite se toga.
Ako želite napraviti značajniji zahvat, pri čemu namjeravate mijenjati prethodni sadržaj (znači, ne dodavati) najavite to na stranici za razgovor. Nastojte poštovati one koji su uređivali prije vas.
Ne vrijeđajte neistomišljenike. Optužbe u stilu "nacizam, rasizam, ksenofobija, fašizam i t.d." (bilo da ste uputili izravno suradniku ili na sadržaj) nisu način na koji ćete "pobijediti u raspravi", niti je to isprika za uklanjanje sadržaja članka (to krši Wikipedija:Bez osobnih napada). Primijetio sam da koliko je to puta netko napisao, a da ta osoba uopće nema pojma što ti izrazi znače. Samo "optuži za krađu sira", a to što sira nije ni bilo, "nije bitno".
Kada želite nešto promijeniti ili kad nešto osporavate, morate argumentirati. Imajte na umu Wikipedija:Provjerljivost.
Razgovarajte s neistomišljenikom. Postoji procedura za rješavanje sporova.
O kritikama ovdje: svaka nepotpisana kritika isto kao da nije napisana. U nepotpisane kritike spadaju i kritike "novih" suradnika. Ako imate što reći, napišite to suradničkim imenom pod kojim inače uređujete na Wikipediji (i pišite na stranicama za razgovor članaka), u suprotnom, sve spada na bukačku retoriku.
Uvažavati bukačku retoriku isto je kao kad bi se smijenilo predsjednika i premijera republike temeljem poruka tipa "odlazi" "ne valja" "pokvarenjak" napisanih izmetom u javnom zahodu.
Primijetio sam da su mnoge gornje primjedbe na račun kolega i ovog projekta Wikipedija:Maltretiranje i troliranje. Zbog ovakvih napada, militantni kritičari ometali su rad Wikipedije da bi nešto "dokazali".
Zlonamjernici su izvršili teški napad na hrvatsku Wikipediju radi destrukcije iste. Zaziva se eliminiranje neistomišljenika (koje se defamiralo), cenzura (brisanje cijele hr.wiki), ignoriranje lokalne zajednice, nametanje svojih ljudi.
Točno se vidi da su napadnute određene skupine suradnika hr.wiki [1], prijetilo im se u Wikipedijskom i izvanwikipedijskom prostoru [2], besramnost napada išla je do ovakvih stvari - objavljivanja osobnih podataka [3], a sve radi nametanja vlastite pristrane točke gledišta. Kubura (razgovor) 07:48, 24. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Molim uzdržite se od argumentiranja tipa argument ad hominem, argument ad populum ("svi kažu", "većina kaže"). Primijetio sam i ine brojne logičke pogrješke kojima se zlonamjernici služe radi nametanja svoga stava: Ad nauseam ("beskonačne klevete, ispiranje mozga") , Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum e silentio, Argumentum ad temperantiam, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Ipse dixit, Argumentum ad lapidem i tako dalje (Godwinov zakon se potvrdio). Kubura (razgovor) 23:28, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tako za sve gornje članke na koje imate prigovor, izvolite pisati na stranicama za razgovor. Za to nemate šta kriviti admine, nego nađite konsenzus, raspravite s neistomišljenicima. Budite pristojni, ispravno argumentirajte i to je to. Kubura (razgovor) 23:28, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

GregoruB je sve na šta naleti "pristrano" (biased stuff). Nema argumenata, nego "on je to tako rekao". Oratio ad nauseam. Kubura (razgovor) 23:55, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Primijetio sam da brojni kritičari NISU pretpostavili dobru namjeru administratorima, ophoditeljima i suradnicima hr.wiki. Kubura (razgovor) 06:28, 16. studenog 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o sadržaju - copied from the Content page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Rasprava na stranici za razgovor ogranka o postupanju - Discussion on the Conduct fork talk page)

(Preneseno sa stranice za razgovor ogranka o ponašanju - Copied from the Content fork talk page. Miranche (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

A kako je zamisljeno da anonimusi doprinesu svojim eventualnim prigovorima? --109.121.19.30 00:32, 23. listopada 2013. (CEST)

Zašto bi? Nitko se ne treba skrivati iza nekih brojeva.--MAN_USK recider 13:52, 23. listopada 2013. (CEST)
Možda ima debelih razloga. Napose Wikipedia je enciklopedija koju svako može uređivat, a da nema pritom obvezu stvoriti suradnički račun. Ili ova wiki ima neka druga pravila? --93.86.39.224 19:43, 28. listopada 2013. (CET)
Nema razloga, nitko vas neće pojest ako budete pisali sa svojim suradničkim imenom. Ako ste blokirani to je već druga stvar.--MAN_USK recider 19:48, 28. listopada 2013. (CET)
To što vama nisu zamislivi ti razlozi, to ne znači da oni ne postoje. Nemaju svi isto poverenje prema belosvetskim moćnicima, vladarima iz senke, NSA-u i sličnim mangupima. Uostalom ova wiki nije baš na dobrom glasu, pa da bi još i njenim superuserima i inim suradnicima ukazalo se takvo jedno poverenje. --178.221.216.106 01:32, 30. listopada 2013. (CET)

Done?

Let's close this. No real activity for over a month. I have some minor things I'd like to add but there's a lot here already. I have too much work in real life at the moment and this shouldn't be waiting for me.

For the record here are the bits I wanted to take care of, and I still may if/when I get the time and people are amenable to late submissions:

  • List more material from the Facebook group under Unsorted, at least through the Seiya mobbing incidents in November. Add appropriate sorted submissions for the most notable irregularities
  • Include or link to remaining discussions from the hrwiki forked pages
  • Under Content, add a submission regarding POV coverage of Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće, portrayed as neutral rather than right-wing, and suggest to fact-check articles that cite HKV as a reliable rather than a POV source
  • Similarly, suggest to look for other POV sources, such as dnevno.hr & blogs, whose use as reliable sources is widespread

As for the next step, we should ping Jimbo & possibly the Stewards' noticeboard that the process is over. We should also probably invite people at the main RfC page and at hrwiki to comment. Thoughts? Miranche (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I wouldn't bother repeatedly asking people on hr wiki or anywhere to comment, since nobody commented anything for months. Just inform Jimbo Wales, who endorsed this process, and stewards, that this phase is over and let the stewards and/or WMF or whoever to take over, if they find it appropriate. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that it'd be good to at least leave a note in Kafić that the process is over in terms of submissions -- or, perhaps, that further submissions can be considered on a case-by-case basis through the talk page -- but that anyone is still free to comment. GregorB, thoughts? Miranche (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No word from Gregor; if there are no objections in the next 12h or so I'll declare the process finished. Miranche (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Closed. Also archived old threads. Miranche (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Idemo ovo završiti. Nema prave aktivnosti preko mjesec dana. Ima par manjih stvari koje bih volio dodati ali ima tu već puno. Ovoga trena imam previše posla u stvarnome životu, a ovo ne bi trebalo čekati na mene.

Da se zna, evo stvarčica o kojima bih se još htio pobrinuti, možda i hoću ako/kada uhvatim vremena, te ako ljudi budu voljni prihvatiti kasne podneske:

  • Popisati još materijala s Facebook grupe pod Nerazvrstano, barem do incidenata mobiranja Seiya-e u studenome. Dodati razvrstane podneske za najznačajnije nepravilnosti
  • Preslikati ili povezati na preostale rasprave na ogranku ovih stranica na hrwiki
  • Pod Sadržajem, dodati podnesak o pristranom napisu o Hrvatskom kulturnom vijeću, koje je prikazano kao neutralno a ne desno, te predložiti činjeničnu provjeru članaka koje navode HKV kao pouzdan a ne pristran izvor
  • Također, predložiti da se potraže drugi pristrani izvori, poput dnevno.hr i blogova, čije je navođenje kao pouzdanih izvora rašireno

Što se tiče idućeg koraka, trebamo javiti Jimbu i moguće na stewardsku oglasnu ploču da je postupak završen. Po svoj prilici bismo trebali i pozvati ljude na glavnoj RfC stranici te na hrwikiju da komentiraju. Mišljenja? Miranche (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Slažem se, ali ne bih nepotrebno tražio od ljudi na hr wiki, ili bilo gdje drugdje, da komentiraju, s obzirom da nitko nije ništa komentirao mjesecima. Samo obavijesti Jimba Walesa, koji je prihvatio ovaj proces, i stjuarde, da je ova faza gotova i pusti stjuarde, WMF ili koga god da preuzmu, ako smatraju da je to prikladno. --Argo Navis (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Pa, mislim da bi bilo dobro barem ostaviti poruku u Kafiću da je postupak gotov što se tiče podnesaka -- ili pak da se dalji podnesci uzimaju u obzir pojedinačno kroz stranicu za razgovor -- ali da su svi još uvijek slobodni komentirati. GregorB, mišljenja? Miranche (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nema glasa od Gregora; ako nema primjedbi u sljedećih otprilike 12h proglasit ću postupak završenim. Miranche (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Zatvorio. Također, arhivirao stare razgovore. Miranche (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request from Roberta F.: remove links to the Facebook page

It is very worrying that users saved on Meta links to Facebook pages where was published some personal informations, some addresses, photos and where Facebook users call for violence towards me (and also other Wikipedians from hr:wiki) and issue death threats. People from those Facebook page are associated with the media, and on basis of vandalism or disruption of user relationships they create sensational newspaper articles and so encourage each other. Having links on Meta towards the Facebook group, Meta advertises them and bypasses privacy (security) of Wikipedians, because no one can guarantee that personal data will be removed or that the extreme threats will immediately be deleted, but on the contrary, circle of people who are brave on hate speech is expanding.

Yesterday on hr:wiki someone left a message where among other again threatens revealing personal information about users of wikipedia: "Also, please tell me if I should disclose the name and address and certain other contributors of Wikipedia, for example, of someone who was born 12.12., And the like." Can you remove all links towards the hatespeech Facebook group? --Roberta F. (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC) (Copied from SN Miranche (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC))

Roberta F., this strikes me as a question related to editing the Evidence pages, and perhaps for Meta administrators, rather than for stewards. I've copied your question over to the talk page and replied to it here.
Thank you for the question, I understand your concern. I've linked to the Facebook images because they contain substantive allegations on irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia. The links are there to facilitate separating actual allegations of irregularities from POV speech and occasional hate speech, as you say, thereby moving what's relevant to the discussion of Croatian Wikipedia from a POV context into the structured context of the evidence pages.
Most of the relevant information is in the Wikipedia screenshots published in the Facebook group. Since these screenshots are works derived from Wikipedia and hence under the same free content licenses, I have personally suggested copying them from the POV context of Facebook to Wikimedia Commons, and created the appropriate category for them. If and when someone copies over the images, I agree the links to Facebook can and should be removed. Unfortunately uploading dozens of images to Commons is too much work for me to do on my own at the moment.
Until such time, the links to publicly available Facebook content, just as links to critical news stories, contain information that may be directly relevant to the discussion of alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia. We cannot control user comments on these images, just as we cannot control user comments on news stories or youtube videos. Miranche (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Miranche, are you telling that because you do not have time to copy some screenshots to wikipedia we should disregard en:Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_attacks and en:Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_link, and promote Facebook group which is slandering and threatening Wikipedia users and on which they talk about future vandal actions on Wikipedia? If so, you are disrupting Wikipedia project and help harm it's users. --Roberta F. (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Roberta is lying. There was only one comment with her picture which she put on hr.wiki before and wrong town (not adress) where she doesnt lives, and that comment was deleted same day 4 moths ago. There were never any death treats on fb page except to me. But there are announcements of violence from Kubura to Argo few days ago on hr.wiki .[[4]] And shes the one who called for violece when has called Croatian war veterans to "attack and close" the authors of the initiative, and than I got several death threats to me and my family,[[5]] (Trasl. "we will find you eventually and fuck your dead mother") ;before any media wrote a single word about hr.wiki issue.--DobarSkroz (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Roberta F., let me break down the reasoning here so we can see what particulars we do not agree upon.
First, points that may involve every possible link to a social media post about Croatian Wikipedia on the evidence pages.
  1. The purpose of these pages is to document and, if possible, substantiate allegations of irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia, including those reported in the media. Many users, including myself, find this effort useful.
    If you disagree, this is a discussion for the main RfC.
  2. "Media" in the above item clearly include social media. I agree with you that the Facebook group in question contains many distasteful and hurtful comments and occasional downright hate speech, mostly directed against a group of hrwiki users which includes yourself. However, since this group concerns itself exactly with alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia, and if we agree on point 1. that documenting such allegations is useful, then in principle, the Facebook group may contain information pertinent to this effort.
    If, on the contrary, you believe that because of distasteful criticism and occasional hate speech it is impossible even in principle to extract any relevant information on alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia from the content posted in the Facebook group, this is a very bold claim with which I strongly disagree. I would, however, like to hear your arguments, and if we still disagree I will gladly take up the issue with a Meta administrator, arbitrator, or equivalent. (In further text, for simplicity, I'll just call this outside person "Meta admin".)
  3. If the Facebook page contains information possibly pertinent to this effort, there needs to be a way to keep track of such content. The natural way to do so is in the Unsorted submissions section, whose purpose is to document information sources where allegations of irregularities may be found. Note that the Sorted submissions section, which contains actual structured documentation of alleged irregularities, is now closed.
    You may agree with points 1. and 2. but argue that neither keeping old nor adding new information about the Facebook posts is useful because gathering sorted submissions is now closed. In this case, IMO you have a point. I would argue instead that it's important to keep a record of information that was considered but did not make it into the main submission section. In addition, due to recent attention by stewards to the October/November 2013 desysoping vote & its aftermath, it's also important to mention information sources about these events, and I invite you to record sources that support your own point of view. Omitting possibly relevant information is IMO a greater evil than including information from POV sources & letting others evaluate them knowing they're POV. This issue concerns the functioning of these pages, so if we disagree on it, we should involve other users who have been contributing here to further discuss the issue.
  4. The easiest way to refer to possibly relevant information on the Facebook page is to link to it directly.
    We may agree on points 1. through 3., but disagree on including direct links because, per this guideline, they contain "Advocacy by banned users", which is "almost always unwelcome" (see also my next reply). Thankfully, most of the useful information on the Facebook page is in screenshots, and it is with this in mind that I have suggested to copy the screens to Commons. As this is very labor intensive, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that people who insist on removing the direct links shoulder a part of the effort. If you disagree, I would welcome an opinion from a Meta admin in this regard. If they agree with you that all direct links to posts in the Facebook group should be flat-out prohibited, I will gladly either remove the links completely or replace them with uploaded screenshots.
Second, points that involve particular social media posts about Croatian Wikipedia.
  • If you point out particular cases of "harassment, attacks, or privacy violations" against individual users in specific Facebook posts linked on the evidence pages, I will gladly replace direct links with screenshots and/or summaries of relevant information. If the harassment, attack, or privacy violation is in a comment on a post rather than in the main body of the post, I hereby ask DobarSkroz who is FWIK involved in these pages to remove the offending comments. (Thank you!)
  • If you believe a specific Facebook post linked on the evidence pages cannot possibly be relevant to documenting and substantiating allegations of irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia, please raise the issue here and let's discuss it.
  • If you believe links to specific Facebook posts which have already been turned into Sorted submissions can be removed, I agree, and I will do so in the following few days. By and large they're the posts marked by "Yes check.svg Done", so please feel free to do so yourself if you wish. In the unlikely event I disagree with your decision to delete a "Done" link because I think there may be more relevant info there, I'll reinstate it and explain why.
  • Finally, as a few screenshots from the Facebook group are already on Commons, I will replace the appropriate direct links with links to the screenshots in the next few days as well.
Hope that helps. Miranche (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
My dear Roberta F., I am glad that you learned english, congratulations, your english is as good as Sppedy's. My dearest, I can see that that you have problem, now there is one more user who wants to help Kubura in disclosing some more personal details. And I can see that both of them are wrong, there should be no disclosure at all. And I would like to see ofenders punished, without difference. And I think, dear Roberta F. that you should do the same, you have to punish all offenders, you can do it. Regards --Dobar, los, zao (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
This is too scriptic. If you want to send personal message to someone, message that only You two can understand, please use user talk pages. Or email. --Argo Navis (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Argo Navis, I agree. Dobar, los, zao, the purpose of this thread is AFAIK to evaluate in good faith Roberta F.'s request to remove the links to the Facebook page. Flaming her, especially making snide remarks about her English, is utterly inappropriate. For the record, Roberta F. or anyone else, please feel free to comment in Croatian if you find it easier, and I'll summarize your reply in English before responding to it, or if you prefer so and the length of your reply is reasonable, translate it fully.
Speaking of long replies, let me summarize my points above. Roberta F.,
  • If we can agree that the evidence gathering effort is useful, that it should record information about relevant media stories, and that it's best to include such information in a way that avoids direct links to sources that openly advocate a given POV, I would welcome a good faith compromise that shares, in some fashion, the effort of uploading the relevant screenshots from the Facebook group to Wikimedia Commons.
  • If you believe such agreement is impossible, please feel free, per Rschen7754 advice, to ask Meta oversighters whether all direct links to the Facebook group should be removed outright. If you do so, please include the link to this discussion in your request. Thank you.
  • If you would like specific links to Facebook removed or replaced by links to Commons, this should be no problem in any of the following cases:
    1. The information on these links is already entered as a Sorted submission (items marked by Yes check.svg Done), or the screenshot already uploaded to the appropriate Commons category.
    2. You can point out an explicit act of "harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia" at the specific target link you'd like to remove, and it's impossible to remove this occurrence at the linked post itself, for any reason. These cases should be easy to demonstrate.
    3. You can argue, successfully, that the content at the link cannot possibly be pertinent to documenting specific allegations of irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia. This will be harder to demonstrate, as most links have been included precisely because they describe such allegations.
Also, a couple more points to clarify:
  • The English Wikipedia policy guideline which says that "[a]dvocacy by banned users in offsite forums is almost always unwelcome" probably does not apply in this case, as it assumes generally uncontroversial banning policies and a functioning ArbCom. The purpose of the evidence pages is, among other things, to use the space of Meta to document claims by blocked users that the banning policy on Croatian Wikipedia is highly irregular. As a part of this process, information sources that contain such claims need to be recorded. Please feel free to request a second opinion from Meta admins or oversighters in this matter, and if you do so, please include the link to this discussion in your request. Thank you.
  • Conversely, information sources that argue against allegations of irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia need to be recorded as well, and everyone is free and invited to add links to such sources to Unsorted submissions. Note, however, that these sources need to meet the same inclusion criterion as those that criticize Croatian Wikipedia: the content needs to be pertinent to allegations of specific irregularities on the site. General editorializing is not enough; it should be clear that specific examples of controversial content or behavior on Croatian Wikipedia can potentially be identified based on the external content.
Hope this clarifies things. Miranche (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Miranche, thank you for your remarks. Maybe my remarks are out of order, but nobody can disqualify the truth coming from my words. She is approving Kubura's harasment, she does not even blink about that. That show's her position clearly, and describes her approach as paltry game. Or in short Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (rotten tomatos). --Dobar, los, zao (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Dobar, los, zao, thank you for your reply. What you say may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that Roberta F. brought up a specific concern and argued why it's supported by explicit Wikipedia guidelines. Whether or not she applies these guidelines consistently elsewhere, her present claim needs to be evaluated on its merits. Miranche (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Let me just comment briefly on this issue: my position is that we have to be very conservative when linking to problematic external sites (i.e. those that feature harassment, threats, privacy violations, grossly offensive content and the like). While it is difficult to draw the line, it is better to err on the side of caution. Without more concrete examples of problematic content it is hard for me to make a more concrete suggestion. GregorB (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, GregorB. In my mind the "Unsorted submissions" sections are valuable as a long term repository of information sources that haven't been used for Sorted submissions, but provide a record of the controversy -- and I'd like to hear your opinion on the merit of this approach. Overall I expect most Facebook links will be deleted or turned into interwiki links, whether to specific situations on hrwiki or to uploaded screenshots. I object, however, to a request of immediate blanket removal of all of these links based on minimum information. Many hrwiki users are understandably upset by the Facebook group, and the content (especially user comments) there can be rough, but I haven't seen enough specifics to convince me that every link to the group is potentially questionable. In this entire discussion, the only piece of specific information I've seen Roberta F. provide was this edit on hrwiki. Miranche (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The anon comment that User:Roberta F. refers to, allegedly "threatening" to disclose their real names, is actually a what-if response to a comment just above it, which was written by User:Kubura and in which he actually discloses another editor's real name. Hypocrisy here is appalling. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How and how long to collect comments? - Kako i koliko dugo prikupljati komentare?

The pages are now closed for submissions, but open for comments, which begs the question on how long this should go on for.

My own thoughts are between 2 and 4 weeks. Looking at the calendar, the first option would have them closed at the end of 2 February or noontime 3 February (keeping them open the entire weekend in all world's time zones), the second on 16 or 17 February respectively.

I am leaning toward the longer period because of RL considerations on my end. The shorter period would probably work just fine, too. Per my comments to Trijnstel, the pages have been open since October and everyone interested had plenty of time to comment.

Thoughts? Miranche (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion - Prijedlog

Here's a structured suggestion on how to carry out commenting. If there are no objections, it will become official 48 hours after the original submission.

  • The information gathering pages will be open for comments for 30 days from when these guidelines become official, up to and including Friday, 21 February 2014. They will close at 00:00 UTC, which is 01:00 CET, on the following day, Saturday, 22 February.
  • During this time the pages will be open to contributions in the comments sections of the Sorted submissions, and to all contributions to the Unsorted submissions.
  • Further Sorted submissions can be requested at the talk pages on a case-by-case basis.
  • Extending or shortening of the comment period, e.g. to allow time to finish ongoing conversations or to comment on any new Sorted submissions, to close comments earlier because of inactivity, or for any other reason, can also be requested at the talk pages.
  • The talk pages will be closed and archived after commenting ends on the information gathering pages, by consensus or no later than after 72 hours (three full days) of inactivity.

Thoughts? Miranche (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Simplified. Miranche (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Added the provision on closing the talk pages. Miranche (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Evo strukturiranog prijedloga kako provesti komentiranje. Ako nema primjedbi, stupit će na snagu 48 sati nakon prvotnoga prijedloga.

  • Stranice za prikupljanje podataka otvorene su za komentare 30 dana od kad ove smjernice stupe na snagu, uključivo do petka, 21. veljače 2014. Zatvorit će se u 00:00 sati po koordiniranom svjetskom vremenu, odnosno 01:00 ujutro po srednjeeuroposkom vremenu, idućega dana, u subotu, 22. veljače.
  • Tijekom ovoga vremena stranice su otvorene za doprinose komentarima Razvrstanih podnesaka, te za sve doprinose Nerazvrstanim podnescima.
  • Dodatni Razvrstani podnesci mogu se zatražiti pojedinačno na stranicama za razgovor.
  • Produljenja ili skraćenja razdoblja za komentare, na primjer da bi se dalo vrijeme da se završe tekući razgovori ili prokomentiraju mogući novi Razvrstani podnesci, da se komentari zatvore ranije zbog nedostatka aktivnosti, ili iz bilo kojega drugoga razloga, također se mogu zatražiti na stranicama za razgovor.
  • Ove stranice za razgovor će se zatvoriti i arhivirati nakon što završe komentari na stranicama za prikupljanje podataka, po općoj suglasnosti ili najkasnije nakon 72 sata (tri puna dana) neaktivnosti.

Mišljenja? Miranche (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pojednostavio. Miranche (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dodao odredbu o zatvaranju stranica za razgovor. Miranche (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Argo Navis, I simplified the suggestion significantly. Please confirm if you're still in favor, thank you! Miranche (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Support Still support :) --Argo Navis (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's official. Miranche (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notifications?

The other question is whether any further notifications (apart from Kafić, main RfC, Stewards' noticeboard, and Jimbo, see above) are necessary. The proper way to do this, of course, would be to leave an individual note to everyone who participated in any of the discussions re: Croatian Wikipedia (info gathering pages, main RfC, Jimbo's talk page), but there simply isn't enough work power to do this.

The minimal option, and my current plan, is to notify only Kafić & main RfC, by adding a line to the current notices that comments are open until such and such a date. This may be repeated in Kafić on 1 February when they archive January & start afresh. Miranche (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Minimal notifications submitted. Any suggestions for further notifications are welcome. Miranche (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Move to talk page & archive: Alleged incitement of Croatian war veterans to attack the critics

Ivan Štambuk, Zekoslavac -- as the evidence gathering pages are now closed for main submissions, I am in the process of consolidating them. With your permission, I would like to move Ivan's statement about alleged incitement of Croatian war veterans by Roberta F., along with the ensuing discussion, to talk page archives, leaving a note in the section "Moved to the talk page". I will also move the thread if there's no reply in 3 days, by end of Friday 24 January UTC time. I've outlined the reasons for this in the thread itself. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, moving to archive, will leave message on user talk pages when I get the time. Miranche (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Notified the users who participated in the discussion. Miranche (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Close and archive

Hello all. Because of RL obligations I've just had a chance to ask Vodomar for his opinion, and I need to do some clean up in unsorted submissions on both pages before things are archived, so let's keep this open a few more days. One week at most, I'll announce here when I think we can close. With thanks, and apologies to everyone who wants to see this over. Miranche (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The unsorted submissions work is progressing faster than I expected and I'll probably be finished by UTC end of day today. I suggest keeping the pages open for 72 hours (3 full days) after that, e.g. to give Vodomar a chance to respond. If there are no objections, I will close the evidence pages at 00:00 UTC on 2014-02-26, and the talk pages 24 hours later. Miranche (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2014 (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.