User talk:Miranche

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Miranche. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

- Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Luburic translation

Sorry for overwriting. Seems to me that I tried to fix my worst blunders at the very same time as you did. Thanks, nevertheless. Regards, Ksivonci

Evidence

Instead of voting on every example of alleged abuse (which is very impractical, because I am planning to submit more than 100 examples of abusive blocks) I suggest that we first gather evidence, and then sort it somehow. I assume that most of these examples will focus on only four administrators (SG, Kubura, Zeljko and Roberta) so we can sort them by administrator. After that, users can vote on their conduct based on the evidence collected.--Wikit 07:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--Wikit 17:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

<discussion continued here.>

Da li je potrebno navesti i Potemkinova sela i Ukazanja u Međugorju kao primer opičenih članaka i od mene često pominjan slučaj Darka Maksimovića kao primer zloupotreba adminskih moći? -- Bojan  Talk  05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

:D Someone took out the worst part out of hr:Potemkinova sela. But Ukazanja u Međugorju -- definitely. Every article that has "jugokomunisti" or any derived word in it is practically guaranteed to be POV. And I don't know about the Darko Maksimović case, but as Wikiwind said, s/he has collected a number of abuse examples so you can ask her/him. Of course you can also submit it on your own once the page is ready. Miranche (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The article about hr:Vjekoslav Luburić too, please. I'd do it myself, but I'm relatively new to Wiki and I never took my time to understand really how these complaints have to look like. Isveikata (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Could the article about "secular fundamentalism" (hr:Sekularni fundamentalizam) be also included in Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Content? --31.147.6.116 11:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

YES to both of these. But if you don't have time to format the submissions, please add them to the Unsorted submissions section on the appropriate page -- content for articles, conduct for blocks and other actions. It's a lot of work to document these details and moving your suggestions to the unsorted section is all I have time to do right now anyway. Since we're on a Wiki, obviously, everyone can do so. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Content

Da li IP adrese imaju pravo glasa? --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Poništio sam glas jednog anonimnog korisnika ali pre toga sam pitao Stewarde da li IP adrese imaju pravo glasa oni kažu ne. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Molim

Nažalost, ne koristim osobni mail (ni druga slična sredstva komuniciranja) na wiki. Dakle, dostupan sam samo kroz stranice za razgovor. Nadam se da se ne radi o nekoj preosjetljivoj temi... GregorB (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Shvaćam... Detalji očito nisu za javnu diskusiju.

Iako bih, naravno, volio znati sve okolnosti, imam puno povjerenje da ćeš iskoristiti informaciju koju imaš na najbolji način. To znači da ćeš moći procijeniti ide li naš proces, u svjetlu tih podataka, u pravom smjeru.

Kad Rjecina2 kaže "ne očekujem da će se realno govoreći ostale stvari promjeniti", ne gledam na to kao na prihvatljiv ishod. Ali, kad sam u diskusiji rekao "it doesn't matter one way or the other", mislio sam upravo na to da - kakve god planove i dogovore netko imao ili mislio da ima - ovaj proces se ne da zaustaviti i bogami će imati posljedice.

Međutim, razmišljanje o "planovima i dogovorima" mi govori protiv "Plana A" (postupak na hr wiki), jer naslućujem da se "uprava" pobrinula da se taj smjer napada zatvori. Jesam li u pravu? GregorB (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dokazi

Što se tiče ovih dokaza [1], da li se oni samo odnose na sadržaj nekog članka ili se mogu dodati i zasebni individualni primjeri zloupotrebe administratorskih ovlasti (blok bez razloga, ucjene, korištenje ovlasti samo kada nekom odgovara...)? Ima li za to neka posebna stranica, npr. "Admin powers abuse"?--Seiya (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Joj, nisam ovo ni uočio, hvala. Sad ću malo pogledati tu kategoriju.--Seiya (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Poštovanje! U vezi rasprave između mene i Ivana Štambuka, meni je u redu da ostane u onom "padajućem prozoru". Nemam ideju gdje premjestiti. Iako se ne slažem da je to off-topic. Mislim da je točno gdje treba biti. Prihvaćam napomenu o tome da navedene rečenice nisu potkrijepljene aktivnostima na wikipediji, ali upozoravam da je cijela priča počela izvan Wikipedije, kao nasrtaj dobro organizirane grupe pod krinkom fašizma, uz pomoć uglavnom pro-vladinih medija i ministra Jovanovića, te uz redovito pozivanje sugovornika koji imaju ideološke osnove za pljuvanje po wikipediji. A na samoj Wikipediji se dokazi za to uglavnom niti ne mogu naći. Teke neke sitnice i frustrirani pojedinci zato jer njihov trud nije prihvaćen kako su željeli. Cijela anti-hr-wiki inicijativa je pokrenuta baš zato jer se znalo da će se okupiti svi nezadovoljnici željni "pljuckanja" po onima koji su im "-je-" pretvorili u "-ije-" ili "kurikulum" u "kurikul" i slično. Nakon što se s prepravkom nisu mogli pomiriti, slijedila je svađa, pa blokiranje... i tako te priče većinom idu. Čitaš tekst i vidiš da je po srijedi osobna frustracija. No mislim da ste dobrim dijelom u pravu, i da bih se zapravo kao suradnik:Zekoslavac mogao obratiti medijima, jer je očito cijela priča tamo i počela. Šteta što je Jimmy Wales reagirao i priču uveo na Wikipediju, davši time priliku nezadovoljnicima da napadaju prilično kvalitetan rad na našoj wikipediji. --Zekoslavac (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Mihailo (mitropolit)

E ja tek sada video tvoj komentar pa da ti odgovorim. Ne može neko koje anatemisan i raspop da vodi Crkvu, ne može vikar postati poglavar Crkve kao što je u ovom delovima članka rečeno:

Zamijenio je prvog poglavara obnovljene Crnogorske pravoslavne Crkve, vikarnog episkopa Antonija Abramovića koji je preminuo 1996.

Vikarni episkop ne može biti poglavar Crkve a da prethodno nije imao vlast najmanje 5 godina u svojoj eparhiji.

Bio je potom pravoslavni paroh Carigradske patrijaršije u Rimu gdje je kasnije i proizveden u arhimandrita.

Arhimandrit ne može da bude jer on pre svog raščinjenja nije bio monaško lice.

Čovek je 90-tih godina hvalio Miloševića i bilo Velikosrbin a posle postogao Velikocrnogorac. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Naravno da mogu. Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Zamolba

Možete li provjeriti ovaj ban molio bih vas... http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suradnik:Iilija64

Moving stuff to the talk page

No objections, it belongs there. GregorB (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wheel warring

You may want to publicize the comment here: [2] --Rschen7754 20:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Prebacuj

Imaš pravo, na krivu temu mi je komentar, Speedyev argument obiteljskog zakona je bio u članku Istospolnih brakova (kako se sad članak ponovno zove)--DobarSkroz (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Slike na stranici o sadržaju

U redu, prihvaćam tvoje argumente. Moj je stav da tamo ima previše teksta te da neki stranac ili Steward to neće imati volje sve čitati, pa sam ubacio te tri slike kako bi nekako "aktivirali" zanimanje. Tema "Specijalni rat 1995.-2012." je toliko neuhvatljiva i izvan bilo kakvih dokaza da takva slika, koliko god nevjerojatna bila, doista najbolje ilustrira mentalitet fantazije koja se tamo najozbiljnije navodi. Ali neću inzistirati, treća strana najbolje zna, pa ako smatraš da slike treba ukloniti, može.--Seiya (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafić

Miranche, zamolila bih te da prevedeš u Kafić svoja (među posljednjim) razmišljanja koja sam iskopirala u izvorniku. Lijep pozdrav --Roberta F. (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Facebook

Zašto se toliko insistira da se obrišu Facebook postovi? --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nije retoričko pitanje, samo pitam jer nisam bio u toku. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse and defense against allegations

Since I just intervened to remove a discussion/debate/train wreck on User talk:Jimbo Wales here, I want to make it clear that I have no position on any side of this dispute, it was simply inappropriate there, and, unless certain conditions are met, anywhere on meta. I have experience in successfully confronting admin abuse, and I've also been blocked and banned for it. I'm willing to assist you, *and* the other parties. Just ask, and, given limitations on my time, I'll look at a situation. I will also put this comment on other related user talk pages, but I'm travelling now with limited access. Good luck at finding and implementing consensus on your project. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Aren't Jimbo's talk pages usually filled with various discussions/debates/train wrecks? They're like a hybrid of en:WP:VP and rationalwiki:RW:CC (with maybe a little bit of en:WP:ANI sprinkled in for good measure). Leucosticte (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bok

Videl sam tvoju napomenu, razmem i zato se nisem oglasil. Zemi da nis ništa napisal. Ak ti budem trebal, samo jako viči (engl. Shout). --Dobar, los, zao (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Abd

Left a comment in his talk page. I'd still favor a project restart over other possible remedies.

The evidence page may appear rather daunting, and to some it may be unconvincing, even incomprehensible, but it's the best we got.

The greatest threat to the resolution of this issue isn't the evidence page being unconvincing, it is the let-the-community-take-care-of-itself attitude. It is not going to happen. Non-action will invariably lead to status quo. I believe this is the most important thing one should argue now. GregorB (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The best we got." Okay. Then the best is not good enough. Make a better one, take the time to do it right. Draft it in user space. There, the user in whose space it is drafted should ordinarily have editorial control. Such user(s) may decide whether to allow others to participate, and attached Talk page should be open for all to comment. The user, however, may blank comment considered disruptive, best with an explanation left in place. Once the user considers it ready, and considering possible comment, there are multiple possibilities. The user could convert the meta Evidence page into a page that refers to pages underneath. The original evidence page would be moved underneath its original location, with its history and attached talk. A neutral page would replace the redirect created, with a link to the original page and any other proposed evidence pages, attributed.
• While this is in process, the user-controlled pages would be linked from the current Evidence page as new drafts. I would take pains to avoid encouraging people to review the existing page, in detail, because if they do, and if they don't see what they would need to see, they may then not be inclined to look more deeply. This is what you are up against: most users are not likely to read much evidence before they come to conclusions. The presentation of evidence to overcome this is a serious skill, practiced most commonly by lawyers, in real life.
• Once there is a set of proposed Evidence pages, it is possible to mini-RfC which evidence pages should be read. That is, users would "vote" on them as useful to read. They all remain, available for reading, and the votes might reveal something useful. What does it indicate if, say, an administrator on hr.wiki opposes the reading of clear, neutral evidence? Or, in the other direction, should an hr.wiki administrator present clear, neutral evidence and one of the critics opposes reading it?
• (to answer my own question: it would show that these users have become entrenched. It does not establish that they are right or wrong, simply that they have become incapable of examining evidence neutrally, they will accept or reject evidence based on pre-existing opinion. Very common. If we were to sanction everyone who does this, who would be left to run the wikis?)
• Good luck. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)