Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Wiki Rainbow Health in Croatia
Request for modifications of proposal edit
Hi User:I_JethroBT_(WMF) hope this finds you well. Due to delays and scope change we have few modifications to make that effect the project proposal. We had late start with outreach work due to delay of the conference and reduction of Workshop to short intro webinar. Then we got cought into end of the year and holliday season. Also I personally experienced hostility on HR Wikipedia that still prevents me from effective work. If you do not mind I propose extension of at least 3 weeks with few modification (including scope from HR to SH, WD and Commons) or putting the project in hibernation for some time and revisiting later in 2022. If this is not an option we can report on activities and the current state of work in January and leave it at that. Thank you and have a fine winter break --Zblace (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Also I personally experienced hostility on HR Wikipedia that still prevents me from effective work.
- What about your behavior on hrwiki - multiple admins have described it as hostile:
- 6136215: This range, between hyperactive Ivi who is pretending to play a superhero and rescuing hrwiki from 30 women and HrW_initiative, entering 'bad' and barely 'relevant' content and 'threathening' the project (!), leads to the fact that one person (+ an enciter CROXYZ) is dictating the dynamic and the atmosphere on the project.
- 6133878 Ivi104 rides again (to ride: vulg. jargon - to have sexual intercourse)
- 6114332 Thank you for 'fixing' the article by removing all criticism and controversy. It is now truly ready for Metapedia.
- 6137831 Dear (srwiki admin) I am glad you are here with Aca, as one of two srwiki admins, so that I can no longer easily be accused of serbofilia.
- @I JethroBT (WMF): Since this user has displayed a history of problematic editing and uncivil communication mostly related to work they have received grants for (in addition to the above, see also simple:User talk:Zblace, User_talk:Vermont/Archive/2021#Scope_and_continuing_discussion), I would kindly like to request the user be prevented from receiving any further grants and that all their past grants be reviewed. Thank you! —Ivi104 05:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I will not go into discussing this in details with Ivi104 here, as we have had these discussion on HR (where also number of users and admins disagree with his hastly actions all through 2021), but I will indeed confirm that differencies of opinions on what is POV, COI, paid editing, Wikimedian in Residence and many more are to high for me to be productive (especially as HR has no regulations on much of this). So while Ivi104 is an admin, Croxyz is priviledged user and with Aca is adjunct team mate (as generational Discord buddy), where between them is 'easy to decide' what articles... I keep distance. Enjoy the HR as it is, while you can. --Zblace (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
where between them is 'easy to decide' what articles, sources and new editors are shitty
Zblace, you know that I really appreciate all your motivation and your good faith, but please notice that right now, in this moment, we (= the hr.wiki community) are discussing about new hr.wiki criteria in a RfC (= the RfC is almost about be marked as resolved), because the absolute majority (actually, probably the entire community) agrees that the current notability on hr.wiki is horrible. According to the current hr.wiki criteria (version 6130574 as of December 4, 2021 at 13:47) we would have to delete probably 70% of the articles. There won't be such drama anymore as soon as we fix the hr.wiki notability. In the meanwhile, there was even a Reliable sources/Noticeboard established on hr.wiki. Best regards, Koreanovsky (Ča–Kaj–Što?!) 13:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking in as non-conflicting HR admin. I appreciate it. I am glad to see that process of establishing rules is happening for HR at least now, but only after I was attacked on multiple unrelated issues (read: excuses) and after non-admins intervened with both miss-conduct of Ivi104 and with proposals for resolutions. Meanwhile I have super vague topic ban until end of 2110?! So much for the HR admin situation and practice.
- Also please notice what I wrote initially here and what Ivi104 did and was asking for! This is one more reason worth removing him from Admin position, but as long as you are 3-4 active and not 13 admins as listed, I understand you will not give up on him. But that is your economy of sustainabiliy. I will save some of my productive energy for other wikis and other work. --Zblace (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, for those of you not aware, I'm Chris, a program officer at the Wikimedia Foundation. I support our funding programs for the CEE region and related discussions about proposals we fund. Before getting into this issue, I have removed comments from Zblace and Ivi104 on the basis of violating our behavioral guidelines for discussions regarding funding, and have contacted them about the concerns. With that aside, I am needing some additional context around this situation before I can respond to this request from Zblace:
- Actions like blocks and topics bans are important factors when it comes to funding decisions, and it is important for our team to understand the substance of why they have occurred. Can you confirm if the topic ban decision was made based on this discussion that you initiated, or were there other discussions or factors involved? For clarity, please link to any discussions that directly led to the topic ban decision.
- Who implemented the topic ban? Was this a decision by a single admin, a community decision, or some other process?
- Please summarize the topics that the topic ban includes.
- You wrote on Zblace's talk page about the length of the topic ban: Zabrana traje do uvođenja smjernice COI (that is, "until the COI guideline is introduced"). Where is this COI guideline being discussed or worked on in the community?
- Did any other admins disagree with this decision?
- Koreanovsky and Ivi104:
- What is the relationship of the RfC Koreanovsky described to the COI-related concerns here? When this RfC is concluded (which it sounds like it will be soon), will it help establish the COI guideline that is related to the topic ban or is it unrelated?
- @I JethroBT (WMF): Thank you for reaching out and helping to resolve this!
- Zblace has been writing about people he works with (mostly activists and feminists), non-notable topics, associations he is directly involved with, and he is citing sources from his project sponsors with no regards to their objectivity and reliability. When issues with these articles were corrected or the articles were deleted, Zblace would violate civility policies and involve himself in edit warring in an attempt to restore the article to his version. One particular patroller, @Croxyz:, has corrected a significant amount of Zblace's work, and Zblace raised an ANI request in an attempt to prevent the user from continuing to correct his work, citing content control, targeted supression, and the like.
- in an attempt to prevent further conflict, Zblace was warned on the impropriety of such behaviour, was given instructions by several admins on his talk page, the Village Pump and ANI, regarding what was acceptable and what was not. This did not deter them in continuing like nothing was said.
- In an attempt to prevent further violations, I added Zblace's most used biased sources into Spam-blacklist so they could not be added to more articles. This was not recieved well, and a discussion was started, citing censoring, supression and misuse of admin tools. In retrospect, I agree I should've consulted the community before implementing such a far-reaching change.
- User's behaviour was potentialy against ToU:
- ... and Zblace has failed to state their involvement with these people and associations. Since the discussion was rather lengthy, and there was no apparent consensus on whether the user's action constituted a violation of ToU or not, I started a regular vote on wether or not to impose a permanent topic ban on topics of civil society and social action in Croatia, in an attempt to prevent the user's obvious conflict of interest.
- This discussion was even lengthier and even more heated, and with no consensus, so in an attempt to settle everything down, I proposed the topic ban be imposed only until COI guidelines were introduced. This decision was well met, with only one oppose vote, so the topic ban was implemented and remains in effect.
- The guidelines are being discussed in an ongoing RfC.
- If you should have any further questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank you once again for looking into this! —Ivi104 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @I JethroBT (WMF) I would like to clarify this part "Zabrana traje do uvođenja smjernice COI" of your questions because I was involved in this, as an attempt to de-escalate the situation. It is a measure agreed upon between Ivi104 and even Zblace as a temporary measure (until WP:COI is agreed upon in the hr.wiki community). That temporary measure replaced permanent topic ban Ivi104 unilaterally imposed on Zblace, which was too harsh (Ivi104 agreed and changed the initial permanent topic ban measure to temporary), especially considering the fact that hr.wiki does not have WP:COI in place which would regulate contributions made by Zblace. The argument is that until we have a consensus about WP:COI on hr.wiki nobody (including Zblace) should not be tbanned for not following the rules we do not have. Temporary measure (tban of Zblace), agreed upon by Zblace, was there to allow the community to try to deliberate WP:COI without distractions, and as soon as WP:COI would be agreed upon, tban would be lifted. For now, I would not like to go into much more details (I'll asnswer any questions though), but please bear in mind that AFAIC nobody can claim that Zblace disregarded any of the hr.wiki policies regarding WP:COI because there are none. IMHO personal grievances (that are obvious) should not be entertained when deliberating serious matters like this grant. Imbe hind 💊 15:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
|Extended policy discussion beyond the scope of this proposal --I JethroBT (WMF) (talk)|
Hi @I JethroBT (WMF): There are currently two active RfCs on hr.wiki. The one I said is about to be resolved soon, is only about the criteria for hr.wiki articles (the current criteria is really, really outdated and bad). The 2nd RfC is about finally introducing the policies and guidelines that hr.wiki is not having (= there are really many) but hr.wiki is urgently needing them since it is the "most basic infrastructure". This 2nd RfC is also about finding a consensus for a guideline about Conflicts of interest and paid editing on hr.wiki. There have been a lot of discussions about such topics like topic-ban, conflict of interest and paid editing in the village pump, but since nobody really knows how to intervene in a correct way or how to treat such cases (as said, we are not having the most important policies and guidelines, we do not even have a blocking policy and never had one!), I decided to open the RfC, so everyone can write their ideas, proposals and opinions. Basically, when this RfC is resolved (it might take a little bit until that happens), we will hopefully have a guideline for conflicts of interest. Best regards, Koreanovsky (Ča–Kaj–Što?!) 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
|Extended discussion on conduct and good faith beyond the scope of this proposal --I JethroBT (WMF) (talk)|
Hi @I JethroBT (WMF):, I apologise if I interpel here, as I see Ivi104 and Koreanovsky are being addressed, but if I can have your permission I would like to present my point of view of the conflict between Zblace and Ivi104, as I am one of the administrators of HR Wikipedia who took part directly in discussion. We have had multiple users (especially new ones) experiencing wiki harassment by Croxyz. In recent months this especially escalated in at certain moments and with specific types of users and content that Croxyz finds problematic as systematic deletion practice. On the WikiOna event wiki marathon by Roda.hr where most of the content (during or immediately after) was either marked for deletion, blocked for publishing including Ivi104 changing the translation workflow so that there is no way to publish relatively new users (during the first few hours of event). Few of us intervened to save around 40 articles from deletion and bitter experience that new female contributors had. In terms of quantity and quality most of the articles were filling huge gaps and were doing it with translations from EN (as for notability confirmed), with few local and new that were all but one (recommended for integration into others) were useful and beneficial. Ivi104 also without consultation with other admins introduced spam filter blocks to sources that are not only not spam, but also valid enough and included organizations that promote our core values or Croatian Gender Equality Ombudsman.  Ivi104 made claims of COI (without proof), misinformed judgement on paid editing (counter arguments presented by steward Martin Urbanec) and on Wikimedian-at-residence status, for which we also do not have rules and regulations. This created an under informed witch hunt atmosphere on Discord without proof, but mostly based on the domain of email address Zblace is using that ‘connects’ to one NGO (employment from more than 15 years ago).--Dean72 (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, what Dean72 says is true. From now on I would treat all actions by Ivi104 as his personal vendetta against Zblace. The topic ban for Zblace has never been approved by the Croatian wikipedia community (topic ban is poorly regulated there, plus only two regular editors voted for it: Ivi104 and Croxyz), and no proof has been given — other than Zblace's e-mail address on a (once) semi-public mi2.hr server — for his COI with respect to "ALL Croatian civil society topics" (COI has to be more specific, to a single organization; Zblace does not benefit from ALL Croatian civil society organizations for sure). In fact, Zblace is being accused for writing on topics and activities (quite benignly, truth be told) that WMF might have been providing funding for: on the Croatian Wikipedia page he wrote about an edit-a-thon that he organized, which started the whole witch-hunt craze. Ponor (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Mind you all educational and outreach work from last two years on HR was erased by Croxyz, though it has media citations (and does not mention me). Pure abuse and supression in under-regulated Wikipedia. --Zblace (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I decided to take a closer look at the entire scenario, so I can expand my knowledge about it and maybe help to slove it faster and better. I also want to leave a few questions here. In the end, call me a "badmin" but it is my honest opinion that some people are taking this waaaaaay to personal. But seriously. Discussing on this meta page will, in the end, probably have no positive inpact on hr.wiki, but since there is the illusion that "meta is allmighty", let it be like this...
I will agree with Dean that the behavior of Croxyz was very problematic. The more I scroll the diffs, the more I realize that Croxyz, at some point, just seemed to be reverting a lot that Zblace added in various articles. In some cases even without a discussion. That is just who it seems to me, when I take a look at some diffs.
However, as I already wrote in the hr.wiki village pump on December 12, 2021: Any user will be blocked (not only Croxyz) if they continue with such behavior and it seems like Croxyz, after my comment was published, finally stopped with removing sourced content (atleast I nobody brang anything to my attention about that). If anyone starts again removing sourced content, they will be blocked, that's it! And I am not going to add input to this, since we are not here to show that we are right! To me, the "Croxyz case" seems solved, but I have to admit that is understandable how and why Zblace must have felt, at some point, like someone is "sabotaging" his work. Atleast it only seems like this to me, I am not saying that it is like that. But: If Zblace continues with incivility (especially personal attacks over little disagreements, which was also seen on other Wikimedia projects), I will also intervene. The policies and guidelines count for everyone, not only for one user.
It would be good if an expert could explain what would be the right intervention when there is the belief that there might be a COI - and what kind of evidence is allowed to be published on-wiki.
But back to hr.wiki and the "Ivi case". I took a very close look to the scenario and I have to admit, yes, Ivi's intervention is indeed very controversial and it is understandable why people view it as problematic, no doubt. In my honest opinion, it would have been a bit smarter to solve this in a local RfC, since there are not COI rules yet on hr.wiki, but that will change soon. In the end, what happended, happended and we can only change the future, not the past. So, in my opinion Zblace's topic ban needs to be removed, especially since the COI-rules are being discussed and proposed right now in this moment. When we finally adopt our local rules, everyone who is or might be in a COI, will have to stick to the rules. And anyone who wants to make changes to the COI rules, should also inform the community if they are in a COI or not. On December 13, 2021 I have posted my idea about solving this in the hr.wiki village-pump and it seemed like we followed it a little bit - even if most of us were unaware, but we skipped the first step! The first step was, removing the topic ban: In dubio pro reo.
Another thing is, I believe that this is something the local community might not handle anymore, if things keep escalating like this here. That's it. Happy New Year. --Koreanovsky (Ča–Kaj–Što?!) 17:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Koreanovsky: Your insights and cool-headedness are appreciated, but I do not believe this will resolve the overreaching issue of such behavior continuing. This discussion has become sidelined in more ways than one. The original argument I opened up with is Zblace's hostility towards users who do not agree with him. This issue has not been addressed. All further issues have arisen from that initial one. I have tried communicating with Zblace multiple times, calmly, to try and reach a common ground. Each time he responded with aggression. Croxyz has also tried communicating with him, and Aca, and numerous others - always to the same effect, aggression and dismissal of all our concerns, along with personal attacks and claims of suppression. Until we address the underlying issue of communication, our work here is not done. In dubio pro reo does not apply here since the issues described are not in doubt. You yourself have agreed that Zblace has crossed the line more than once. We always postpone blocking him, and he always takes it as a go-ahead to continue on. Since Zblace is not open to correcting his aberrant behaviors though communication, other methods needed to be explored - topic bans and blocks. I would also like to hear your propositions on what exact actions to take to address persistent communication issues, COI issues (until the COI guideline is deployed), and what have we learned from this to prevent such occurrences from escalating too far next time? —Ivi104 18:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
|Extended discussion over hr.wikipedia project policies and concerns over conduct --I JethroBT (WMF) (talk)|
Most of the conversation here does not concern the grant. There are many people involved in this grant which have nothing to do with all these elements and might be suffering from it. Furthermore most of this is editorial concerns and has nothing to do in a grant submission involving training of newbies. I have been known on fr-wp for opposing paid editing and being at the same time engaged in removing gender biases also on working on LGBTIQ topics. I would be willing to serve as an external advisor to the grant to check that there is no COI on this if Z.Blace would accept the principle. I am a member of the commission for conflict of interests of Wikimedia France so I think I do have experience on this and I come from a wiki which applies strict notoriety criterias to articles. All this to ensure constructive criticism (anyone can improve here even the way the criticism is adressed here can be improved for the sake of keeping a healthy community) from both sides. All criticism is legit, but flooding a discussion page is not the way to do it constructively. Witth wiki love, Nattes à chat (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and Happy New Year, though I am sorry the new year has to begin with this kind of conflict. First, thanks to all of you for your comments and feedback here (@Zblace, Ivi104, Koreanovsky, Imbehind, Dean72, and Ponor:) regarding the situation. I am currently on vacation this week, so I am not able to review and address the extent of discussion here. Not all of it is immediately relevant to this funded project or the proposed change, as some of it reflects ongoing policy discussions on hr.wikipedia regarding COI and other community policy matters as well as the topic ban itself. The Community Resources team does not intervene in these discussions, as these matters are for volunteer communities to develop and decide upon on their own based on the needs for their project and community. The topic ban for Zblace still appears to be in place at this time, and so to the extent it affects the proposed grant work, we are not able to support funded work that requires Zblace to edit project content on hr.wikipedia related to the topic ban until it expires or is removed. If that should happen, please notify me here or e-mail me at ceeca_rapid wikimedia.org.
Zblace has proposed the following: If you do not mind I propose extension of at least 3 weeks with few modification (including scope from HR to SH, WD and Commons) or putting the project in hibernation for some time and revisiting later in 2022. I am inclined to accept the proposed change to avoid issues that the current topic ban would affect. If this topic ban is overturned at anytime, any grant activities that require Zblace to edit the project could resume without issue, though the decision for whether to edit there or not is up to the discretion of the grantees based on these circumstances, and is not required. The new end date for the grant is 21 January 2022, with final report due on 21 February 2022.
I also acknowledge there are concerns here around Zblace's conduct in areas where there are content-related disagreements, and that this issue has come up before. However, I also note there are concerns and ongoing discussions here around admin conduct around these very issues on hr.wikipedia, as well as some concerns about the topic ban itself. This is a complex situation that would benefit from community discussion and decisionmaking on important policy areas discussed above. If there are additional conduct-related issues related to this or other topic areas in the future, this persistent issue will need to be addressed before the applicant is eligible for additional funding in the future, regardless of what Wikimedia projects are involved. It is important to remember that we hold grantees to high standards and expect them to serve as role models for others in the movement. However, to the extent there is significant community disagreement with an administrative decision to block or topic ban an individual, this will affect our decisionmaking regarding eligibility. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for accepting the modification of the project proposal, keeping the discussion and context of this at least somewhat comprehensible and I am sorry that this took time of from your vacations, with abrupt and messy urgency for a few of us.
- I hope that situation in HR Wikipedia will be better in 2022. -- Zblace (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Request for no-cost extension till 15 March 2022 edit
Due to unforeseen circumstances in January we would like to request an additional extension of the project. There were family and health issues that resulted in cancellation of events planned in January which we would like to reschedule to February. Also, we are facing low response and lower interest from targeted populations. We are planning additional outreach and promotional activities at no additional cost.