Notice: file_put_contents(): Write of 698830 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36
Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive283 - WikipediaJump to content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
General editing behaviour
5 January 2020 Sadko stated “I have a duty to my ancestors” with respect to his editing, setting the scene for the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour they have engaged in ever since
27 September 2019 stating that editors that disagree with them have a “corrosion of intellect”, and 25 March 2020 Calling opposing editors “punks in kafana (a dodgy type of Balkan tavern)” against WP:NPA
28 October 2020 Further indication of adopting a victim mentality and an axe to grind
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7] These all involve removal of negative material from clearly reliable sources from an article Sadko created about a highly controversial recent Serbian film about the Croatian UstašeJasenovac concentration camp (Dara of Jasenovac) between 5 and 25 February this year
6 March 2021 Inserting negative material about a historian criticising the Chetniks on Dubravka Stojanović (this is a classic case of pushing obvious academic gaslighting; Stojanović says Serb historians are involved in historical revisionism/negationism, so Sadko adds material from a Serb historian claiming she is involved in historical revisionism…). This is clearly in response to and intended to undermine Stojanović’s negative comments about Dara of Jasenovac which were incorporated into the film article by other editors. Sadko has not incorporated any negative reviews or comments into the article, which confirms his obvious POV editing and agenda.
Sadko has made quite a number of other appearances on the dramaboards in the time this report covers (since the account was renamed from User:Mm.srb in August 2019) , as the editor being reported or through making gratuitous comments, baiting or casting aspersions regarding others involved in discussions, including:
1 January 2021 Issues with Sadko’s editing behaviour identified by Joy (a long-time admin operating in this subject area)
Since January, I have been largely inactive on WP due to RW stuff, but have been collating material for this report when time allowed, and have only just been able to complete that task.
I've been given a dispensation by Vanamonde93 for going over the usual limits. Long-term POV-pushing is one of the most insidious aspects of Wikipedia, and one with which I have long experience as a content creator and admin in the Balkans subject area. It is hard to counter and it is harder to make a case against its exponents than against editors who cause intense but short-term disruption. I could add many additional diffs of the same sort of editing behaviour. One of the worst aspects of what Sadko has been doing is that their editing is clearly at the core of a significant uptick in highly disruptive and blatant POV-pushing editing and battleground behaviour on former Yugoslavia articles that has been going on for over a year. In that time, in addition to a small group of longer-term pro-Serb/Serbia editors, many IPs and new accounts have appeared to support Sadko’s efforts, either to reinstate Sadko's edits when reverted, or to chip in on talk pages to create the impression of a “consensus” supporting their edits. The meatpuppetry and off-wiki coordination implications are obvious. Equally, Sadko often supports and reinstates edits made by these IPs and new accounts.
This has created an environment where editors from other countries in the Balkans have responded in kind, themselves supported by IPs and new accounts, as well as existing POV pushers, particularly pro-Croat/Croatian ones, but also others. My primary subject area is Yugoslavia in World War II, but as you can see from some of the above diffs, Sadko's editing behaviour spreads wider than that into all subjects relating to Serbs and Serbia and their relationships with other former Yugoslav peoples and countries. Sadko’s creation and POV defence of the Dara of Jasenovac article is just the latest in this war against neutrality on Wikipedia.
In order to help prevent the high level of disruption and POV-pushing centred on Sadko, I recommend they be topic banned from Balkans and Balkans-related articles for at least six months, with scope to appeal after six months expires if they are able to show that they can edit neutrally in other subject areas in the meantime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intending to reply point-by-point to Sadko's response, although I will respond more generally in a day or two. Given I have been given some dispensation as to length and diffs, Sadko's response length is fair enough, as they are the subject of the report. However, the length of other editors' comments (particularly those that take one or either side in Balkans articles) need to be looked at by reviewing admins. Long TLDR/off-topic comments re-fighting past battles are of no use here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I will be posting further, as requested by reviewing admins. Probably later today Australian time. Unfortunately, RW stuff is sucking up most of my time at present. I will note that most of the editors posting here claiming there is "nothing to see" are the usual suspects, many of whom are themselves highly partisan (from one side or the other), and reviewing admins should take that into account when reading their contributions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, and apologies in advance for the length of this. The key aspect of long-term POV pushing is that it usually does not cross the line into easily blockable "smoking gun" territory. It needs to be looked at across a considerable period of time, and the restrictions on 20 (or a few more) diffs actively hampers effective reports of it, because only examples can be used. I used 22 diffs over a year and a bit, but I could have provided many more. Long-term POV pushing (which I agree Mikola22 is also involved in, for the record, and which needs to be dealt with) is a consistent pattern of partisan editing behaviour that erodes the Wikipedia pillar of neutrality. Editors that engage in it are trying to minimise negative material about their "side", and maximise negative material about the other "side". The majority of the POV-pushing that has been ramping up in the last year has been coming from Serbophile/Croatophobic or Croatophile/Serbophobic editors, and Sadko and Mikola22 are probably the worst offenders from the respective sides (although there are several others who are not far behind, some of whom have commented here). The numbers of editors pushing their POV and battlegrounding in the Balkans area has, over the last year, become completely unmanageable from an admin perspective due to a high level of disruption, and is significantly eroding the quality of the encyclopaedia in this area. They may well be coming from Croatian Wikipedia (which is a cesspit) and Serbian Wikipedia (which isn't great either).
But back to Sadko. If you look at Dara of Jasenovac, not only did Sadko create the article about the film (which was highly promotional from the beginning), but they consistently defended the film from criticism for weeks (as evidenced by the diffs above, and others I did not use), and never added any information about criticism of the film at all. This is absolutely typical of Sadko's editing behaviour, in this case, they are enhancing as much as possible the victim status of Serbs (which is of course entirely correct in the case of the Jasenovac camp and the genocide of Serbs by the Ustasha more generally), while minimising or eliminating completely legitimate and serious criticism of the film and the motives behind it from reliable sources. This is Sadko's default editing position. Sadko claims I am "involved". But am I really? I am trying to ensure articles in this space are neutrally written, and when I disagree with him, others on his side, or editors on the opposing side, protect articles to stop edit wars etc, I am just protecting the neutrality of the encyclopaedia. I have no barrow to push here, and am not aligned with any side, although I have been "accused" of being from every faction of the former Yugoslavia at one point or another.
In response to Vanamonde93's specific question: If you look at this edit on 1 December 2020 that you mentioned, Sadko is changing "genocide" by Chetniks (Serb guerillas) to "ethnic cleansing". At this point, the question of genocide vs. ethnic cleansing had been discussed on the talk page in April and May of that year, and any fair reading of the thread (now in the archives, but here) would have concluded that the consensus (if you take out the comments by the later Balkans TBANed WEBDuB and Antidiskriminator (both Serbophiles), and Mikola22 on the Croat side), was that the correct term was genocide, and several reliable sources were provided by those arguing that point (including me). But Sadko ignored this when he made the 1 December 2020 substitution, and it was then the subject of a further discussion at that time (here), which again resulted in a consensus that genocide was the right term, despite the intense involvement of WEBDuB again (Antidiskriminator had been TBANed by this stage). When the matter was raised yet again in late December 2020 as an RfC (the continual rehashing of disputes where a consensus has already emerged is frankly exhausting), it was closed in support of the description of it as genocide. So, Sadko was acting against an existing consensus in 1 December 2020, and that consensus has been confirmed twice since.
In conclusion, the TBANing of Sadko (and Mikola22 for that matter) would significantly reduce the ridiculous amount of POV-pushing and battlegrounding going on in the Balkans space by editors trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against their "side", something that has been going on at intense levels for over a year and is eroding the quality of the encyclopaedia in this space due to the constant undermining of neutrality, a core content policy. Rosguill has suggested that liberal application of temporary TBANs may help establish higher standards of editing behaviour, and I heartily endorse that approach. When it comes to POV-pushers in this area, like WEBDuB and Antidiskriminator, TBANs have been the only thing that has worked. In my nine or so years here, Wikipedia hasn't been good at dealing with long-term POV pushing in the Balkans; it took years for Antidiskriminator to get indefinitely TBANed despite his outrageous POV-pushing behaviour and multiple reports. Any editors TBANed as a result of this report will get the opportunity to show that they can edit neutrally in areas outside the Balkans, and in six months they can ask for it to be lifted if they have demonstrated they can do it. If they have, I will support their return. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is of interest to the reviewing admins, my view is that 0RR restrictions will just result in meat puppetry, socking and gaming of the system. These editors will not back off in the current climate in which mid-level edit-warring and POV-pushing seems to be normal. They will continue to push their POV by any method they can. There are few admins active in this area, and as can be seen below at at ANI, any report (even one where there is supposed to be a word limit) results in TLDR screeds of twaddle re-fighting past battles. I know from experience with Antidiskriminator that TBANs work against individuals, and handing them out more liberally will not only protect the encyclopaedia from the assault on its neutrality that individual editors are carrying on, but will have a deterrent effect on others. I urge you to adopt a robust response or we will be back here in a few weeks with more of the same. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G’day Bishonen, I was very disappointed with AB’s approach here, and also with their recent behaviour in articles, which has been quite battlegroundish at times. In the past I have been able to collaborate with them on a couple of Balkan FAs, but I’m afraid that won’t be happening again given what has been transpired here. I think a logged warning for AB is appropriate. While there are other problematic editors who have posted here, Maleschrieber isn’t among them IMHO. Khirug can be problematic due to a tendency for some Hellenic editors to reflexively support fellow Orthodox editors (in this case, Serbophile ones) but I’m not sure a logged warning is justified as yet. Thanks to all the reviewing admins for ploughing through the TLDR posts below and resolving to take firm action. I am sure this will improve the editing environment significantly, and your attention is greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I was and am here to build an encyclopedia, and I did so for a number of years, improving subjects and articles which were in poor state, and sometimes tagged for +10 years. I do not claim that my editing is perfect or anything of the sort, but the text posted above takes it to a whole new level.
Most of the diffs presented have been cherrypicked and taken out of context, by an administrator, no less, with whom I had several strong disputes and disagreements in the past.
Out of the diffs presented across many years and months of editing, I am guilty of 1 ad hominem comment made after the IP edits which pushed fringe viewpoints on Nikola Tesla for several years.
I can also understand that there is this interesting idea being introduced in the report, which pretty much states that my ban will somehow magically lead to things being calmer, during the time that the editor making the report is absent. That is both naive and offensive. It serves as means to present me as the main cause of the supposed chaos, which was ever-present in the Balkans-related topic to begin with. It is even more irrational considering that I have been hounded and harassed by persistent disruptive IP editors.
Examples of cherry picking and not giving proper context in the report:
#4 November 2019Resulting in Sadko making a concession that he would stop edit-warring to avoid a block In fact, the deal was about 1 article only, Old Serbia, which was fully respected to this day. There were no bans after that little incident; in total I was banned for that once and another time for going over 3RR when one editor denied the existence of a whole nation. That is all, for 10+ years on the project.
5 January 2020Sadko stated “I have a duty to my ancestors” with respect to his editing, setting the scene for the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour they have engaged in ever since. Nonsense and obvious lack of good faith. I was referring to Historical Revisionism and Anti-fascism, which are some of my personal values. "My duty" was presented in the report literally, for obvious reasons.
Calling opposing editors “punks in kafana (a dodgy type of Balkan tavern)” In fact I wrote "LIKE punks in kafana", which is jut a figure of speech and a colorful comment on the atmosphere in the comment section. Another things, Kafanas are not "a dodgy type of tavern" (see the pictures), as somebody who lived in the Balkans and with a connection to the region, he/she/it is probably aware of this.
Another example - Dara of Jasenovac, which I created, improved, heavily engaged on the TP, tried to be neutral etc. PM was deeply WP:INVOLVED (an examplewhich was further analysed and tried to push the content including criticism of this movie by 1 irrelevant person who directed 4 short films (which he bravely presented as an evidence of my "POV" here + opinion stated by an NGO director who has nothing to with cinema or potential scientific analysis of political messages shown in the movie. He even ignored 3RR (please check the page history). Talk about "POV defence". I did not add most of the negative reviews because other editors added them, but I did add this one, which just proves how wrong this "agenda narrative" is. I really do not follow this line of thought, which obviously holds a bias against my editing and probably myself.
Another example - Changing “Genocide” to “Ethnic cleansing” on Chetnik war crimes in World War II This is a tricky one (and a sensitive topic); only several academics call these terrible events this way and it something relatively recently introduced. There are authors who do not call it genocide, and PM if familiar with this. As it can be seen, presenting a different viewpoint will lead to a person being labeled. Ethnic cleansing is also factually correct and undisputed.
Another example - *14 January 2021Adding an image of Muslim SS to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina – hugely undue POV pushing . The page history would suggest that the image was not added by myself, it is relevant, on-topic and it was removed without any discussion. Considering that other editors thought otherwise, I have removed myself from that discussion.
I did not attack other editors on "dramaboards", I've merely stated my opinion, calmly, most of the time. Some comments may seem be a bit more salty, which can happen to anyone. This insinuation is an attempt to prove that I am a part of some wider plot.
I have only 1 account and I have no means to gather "supporters", as it is bluntly implied without any evidence. The fact that there are several editors who are following my edits (which I am very well-aware of), has nothing to do with me, and it is outrageous to hold it against me.
this diff was presented as If I was a Muslim hater and supporter of these crimes. In fact, the information was simply added without any sources! Another article in which PM was involved and where he had his online battles with editor Antidiskriminator, who created the very same article. no sources
[8] This diff was a matter of dispute as it obviously introduced a number of reliable sources. PM missed to mention that and the fact that I've let it go and that this particular dispute has been taken to the TP.
6 March 2021 This diff was used to present me as somebody who is trying to dig dirt on my "opponents". In fact, the article/source used, written in Serbian Cyrillic, which PM can not read and can not understand, was written by 1 influential university professor and academic, going point by point as to why a part of this historian's statements are problematic. It's mindboggling and even creative to present my edit as some sort of agenda, because, well, I was supposedly angry because of her viewpoints of 1 particular movie. The edit was an improvement (in my book) and it was not challenged so far. Presenting that diff is even comical and show how far a person can go in order to present somebody they disagree with as a vilian.
[9] This diff was presented as if I was removing information about massacres, while in fact the editor just copied the source and the sentences made little sense. The editing history clearly shows that I did not edit or reverted further.
3 December 2020Deleting NPOV addition regarding Ante Starčević on Anti-Serb sentiment That is very far from the thruth. There was a lot of fake balancing on the article about this person, who was a chauvinist and a racist. No admin actions were taken because of these edits at the present time.
What was presented as an example of my "trolling" (I'm not entirely sure what that means) by PM was directly or indirectly about myself and my actions and I did not offend anyone with my responses.
TP, my TP/Archive1 and page history on Vlaho Bukovac suggest that we did reach a consensus and improved the article (I added most of the references), while the person who reported me was temporarily banned for several reasons. This context was not given here and this, should be, on the contrary, an example of joint work and consensus.
Pinning some sort of "problems in the wide topic of Balkans" on me is not fair, but I did not expect anything else. I am just 1 editor, with no administrative power over anyone's editing.
This report even includes reports of my editing (which did not lead to anything) by long-term disruptive editors who have been blocked across the project and used fascists as sources several times. [10] I reverted a number of their questionable edits and was accused for whatnot. The reporter is well familiar with this fact. And I do understand WP:NOTTHEM, I am just trying to add context and explain that there was no selection of diffs in this report, it was all lumped together.
An example of a discussion in which PM was also involved. By all means, add it to the report. I presented reliable sources which claim that 1 information present in the article was obviously wrong, it can be checked in 3 clicks, please, be my guest. What happened? I was accused of whitewashing war crimes/criminals, insulting the victims, the whole shallow bravado. And he/she/it left the debate. Wow.
[11] This was a response to angry allegations that I am following somebody around, which is and was nonsense, because I edited the page before. Using this "evidence" is mindboggling.
PM has also made snide comments about my capabilities as an editor and intellectual in the past. I can't dig them at the moment as I need to work soon, and I do not think that they would do much good, I've been around enough to understand how the system works.
Another thing, it just seems weird to ban 1 editor from editing about, for example, culture/art history/geography of the Balkans or any other region, if their edits, which are presented as disruptive, have all been about history in the first place. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)04:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) The sources claimed so, not myself. TP debate was over and in the end there was a consensus about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that dispute in fact, it is a nice example of a civil debate. 2) Yes, there were cases of assimilation of many groups even in the Middle Ages. Cheers. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) It did not improve. 2) I never accused any admin of being anti-whatever, that is not my opinion and never has been. 3) My editing is not linked to anything but the intention of improving the encyclopedia and material on the topics which are generally not in a good shape. 4) That was a typo, I have an app. which auto-corrects English on my work, considering that I use other languages on a daily bases, "deaf" (diff) is an example. :) 4) There is no "minimalization", it is utter nonsense. That is a sensitive topic which was a matter of debate. Please do not try to present that I had some hidden intentions or the idea to minimaze anyone's victims, which is something that I never did nor will do. The very fact that we had a lengthy debated about the wording and everything else suggest that there is no consensus on the matter, and do not blame that on me (or several other editors who had a similar stance), but rather - the sources and the lack of consensus amongst scholars. Another things, this sort of subtle labeling, accusations of attempts to "minimaze" victims and the general pressure (this has been taking place for a while) is the exact reason why I did this. That is the amount of pressure and lack of good faith which people can generate on these topics. The same narrative can be seen in this report. 5) Ha, now this is great, I did not "defend a fringe theory that Serbs and Russian lived in early medieval Macedonia". The author, a university professor with a PhD in archeology in fact stated that Antes are the ancestors of modern-day Russians, and that Antes, and other Slavs, settled Macedonia. I went by the source, that is all to it. 6) The edit on Jovan Ćulibrk was factually more correct. Another thing which would give perspective about this one: This also happened on the same article. Before that edit, we had this question as well [12] 7) I was in favour of !keep and improving the article (the more important part) and I see no problem with that stance, considering that Noel Malcolm, Noam Chomsky and other notable scholars have discussed it at length. The article was in a poor shape and I was in favour of improving it. Thank you for your comment. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)05:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to answer as short as I can. This is my reply to the second post by PM.
When the matter was raised yet again in late December 2020 as an RfC (the continual rehashing of disputes where a consensus has already emerged is frankly exhausting), it was closed in support of the description of it as genocide. So, Sadko was acting against an existing consensus in 1 December 2020, and that consensus has been confirmed twice since.PM presented this diff as an evidence for my alleged default behaviour. If you look closely the user in favour of this formulation was reverted by a senior editor (Buidhe). The reporter quotes the RfC when discussing my edit from 1 December. That is quite interesting, considering that the RfC was initiated on 25 December. I made no further edits about the wording after the RfC was initiated (which established the consensus). This can be easily checked.
At this point, the question of genocide vs. ethnic cleansing had been discussed on the talk page in April and May of that year, and any fair reading of the thread (now in the archives, but here) would have concluded that the consensus (if you take out the comments by the later Balkans TBANed WEBDuB and Antidiskriminator (both Serbophiles), and Mikola22 on the Croat side), was that the correct term was genocide, and several reliable sources were provided by those arguing that point (including me).Opinions stated in the discussion in late April/May: In favour: 3 (Tezwoo, PM, Mikola22), against - 3 (Sadko, Antidiskriminator, WEBdUB), Neutral (prefers a middle solution, alternative wording) - Ktrimi991. I would say that is textbook no consensus. What the reporter failed to mention is that the editors who were banned (this is highlighted in order to present me as guilty by association) were banned long after that discussion in April/May 2020 and mostly for other reasons, 1 editor was banned in January 2021and another in September 2020.
but they consistently defended the film from criticism for weeks (as evidenced by the diffs above, and others I did not use), and never added any information about criticism of the film at all.Not true. Here is an example of criticism added by me.
become completely unmanageable from an admin perspective due to a high level of disruption This is supposed to motivate other administrators and gather sympathy, but the reality is very much different. I have been editing for over a decade, longer than the user reporting me, and no one considered TBANNING all that time. Any content disputes I may have engaged in since December 2019 were to undo edits I considered disruptive, to a large extent by Mikola22 and now banned sock Miki Filigranski.
they are enhancing as much as possible the victim status of Serbs Utter nonsense. History is only one of several topics which I'm interested in. I am more active and have been contributing for years on topic like Culture, Arts and Religion, having created dozens of articles on these topics and improving a number of articles, like Serbian literature or Slobodan Jovanović or Atanasije Jevtić and many many others.
and when I disagree with him, others on his side, I'm sorry but is this "us vs. them" type of comment???
(although there are several others who are not far behind, some of whom have commented here) + will note that most of the editors posting here claiming there is "nothing to see" are the usual suspects I am the subject of this report, leave other editors out of this.
They may well be coming from Croatian Wikipedia (which is a cesspit) and Serbian Wikipedia (which isn't great either). This is also extremely unfair and offensive. No article on SW, which is not perfect mind you, ever went full Holocaust denial like the case was with the CW. It is simply unfair to many hardworking editors from sr.wiki who have outstanding results, which can be seen here and here.
As a testimony of good will, I am willing to recuse myself from the Balkan topic area for a month as a sign of good faith and to show I am capable of neutral editing. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)22:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy post by Santasa99 has 3 main points, I'll try to keep it as short as possible.
1) The first thing he/she/it did was "to show" that there is some sort of secret bromance/connection between AB and myself. It is completely nonsensical and WP:ASPERSIONS. Considering that I edit the topic which has only several active editors, it is only natural and logical to exchange messages on the TP at some point and overlap in regards to which articles both of us edit, like I did with this editor only recently. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, is it not? I can't see what is the point in posting diffs to show that I have asked other editor to contribute to articles about Arts which I have redone and rescued from a poor state, like Serbian literature? If there was some sort of context or relevance, that would be understandable, general comments with a bunch of text are bludgeoning the report considering that the amount of text posted is already huge. Santasa posted a diff which he claims proves "canvassing". In fact it was a neutrally formed message posted out in the open on the editor's TP. drmies explained how things stand, what is allowed and what is not, gave comments to the editor writing to his page about unreliable source used and everybody moved on (or so it seemed), business as usual.
2) The next claim is that I have "special ways of sophisticated disruptive editing by removing scope" and what not. That is absolutely not true and even imaginative. As seen here I engaged on the TP a lot. As it can be seen here, two more editors were not accepting the massive removal of content by Santasa99. I agreed to remove some of it and added a ref. or two, but having seen the TP discussion I have left the article as it is now, which can be seen in the page history. Completely misleading. The second example presented as my "disruptive work" is List of Serbian films. You can see the debate here and who did the hard work - here. The same can be observed on other pages, where I tried hard to get to a solution acceptable for all, which is usually very hard. Please check this out - I am the one who is allegedly changing the scope and doing God knows what. What a spin.
3) Adding those outrageous accusation of hounding is just too much. If there was a basis for such a claim, the editor would make the report long back. I have facedand faced this sort of harassment before (we simply edit the same type of articles), and my answer is stated in one of the diffs presented by fellow editor Santasa. Notice the way this editor is addressing me in one of the diffs presented: Well, obviously, you have no clue, As far as I know, accusations of hounding are a serious matter and should not be thrown around like that - for over a year. They are doing it quite frequently. The funny thing is, there were no such accusations made against me in the last 5-6 month by the same editor. I guess I was on a break from my notorious hounding agenda during that period; it's not like I don't have way more interesting and usable ways to spend my free time.
Additional points: 1) Editor Sa99 comments about the fact that there is a clear difference between Serbians (citizens/nationals of Serbia of all ethnicities) and Serbs (ethnicity+nation) and calls it "an ambiguity". What is up with that? 2) Some of the diffs presented are attempts to "get even" because of prior "lost battles" like this one and many many other crusades which led to permanent ban of the editor posting the comment being on the table a couple of times, I'll stop myself there as anything more from my side would be off-topic and not okay.
This report is making less sense after every reply (not that I am content about it or anything). If some of my comments made on the report are not civil or they are against any Wiki guidelines/rules, do let me know so that I can work on that. Another thing, a bunch of comments which should have been about my editing only have gone full or borderline WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HARASSMENT and WP:PERSONAL. For example, two editors have tried to use my prior nickname as "evidence" for... What exactly? Nobody commented about that except for 1 editor. What is up with that? How is that allowed, considering that there is no real context or connection made directly? Not to mention all the other repeated comments and diffs, which are borderline WP:BLUDGEON, repeated armchair Pseudopsychology of my editing (which is something I never did to anybody) and what not. This is simply outrageous. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)00:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recently posted comments are just more of the same; diffs are presented where there were disputed (which ended in some sort of consensus), to some editor's dislike, as if they were not a part of the very same dispute. Some of those were posted by Resnjari.
The thing is, banning me will not do any real good or betterment in the long run. Introducing 1RR rule in the are might help. Semi-protecting a long list of articles would help. As stated before, I could take a break from editing after these rules are introduced, and let us see what happens.
Once again, I am very interested how is it possible that comments which are: textbook pseudopsychology, nonsensical accusations of "hounding", borderline ethnic bashing, other judgmental comments which are not on-topic and are borderline ad hominem, can be a part of this report? Is this acceptable on a wider scale or am I missing something? I could give plenty of examples.
I refute the comparison to some other editors mentioned, the comparison can't stand because I am: a senior editor, I have been banned only 2 times for 24h for all those years, I've written and rewritten a bunch of articles and most importantly I do not go around searching for info. which would present any nation in a negative way. Most of the diffs presented follow a clear pattern of action and my reaction.
@Amanuensis Balkanicus, it is enough to see editor Sadko's report against me on WP:AE. Review of that report from administrator Peacemaker67 has shown that there is nothing or very little in report. This was bad faith report. As for the second attempt ANI (2021), and the merging some of my statements from the past(2019) in Nazi context, I have explained that a hundred times. Krunoslav Draganović, which is the biggest Ustasha and Nazi for you, Sadko and others for me in 2019 was a historian esteemed in the Croatian Church, quoted in many Croatian school papers, presented in libraries by leading peoples of the Catholic Church in Croatia, even Noel Malcolm use his sources. I don’t know about his Nazism at that time and I don’t know how you can’t understand that? Regarding "Ustaše on meta.wiki" I didn't mention the Ustashas anywhere. At that time the source which was on Cro wiki in some article, some editor on meta.wiki exposed as a problem of Cro wiki. I thought at that time(2019) that it was RS and since I supported Cro wiki I also supported their decision to use that source because I didn't know at that time what actually mean RS although I never read that source. For me at that time every source is RS. I was also ask for negative reviews of that source and no one, not even you or Sadko who were there exposed this negative reviews.
To summarize, from your answer it is clear that attacks based on artificial facts continue against me and that I am only one on your mind. Anyone who neutrally evaluate your accusations against me, you accuse as my support which clearly shows yours bad faith in relation to me but also disrespect for administrators. I don't think that's right. Mikola22 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: You may not have read my answer but report of Sadko against me(here) was very weak and false which I knew right away at first reading, ANI(2021) report was a set of my edits and my statements from past(2019) when I didn't know the rules of wikipedia nor do I know then what wikipedia actually is. @Amanuensis Balkanicus is editor which supports editor Sadko on all occasions no matter what. Do you see that he mentions some Ustashas which I didn't mention, do you see that he keep repeating the same thing even though it was explained to him in good faith what is it about, do you see that he is just continuing the work of editor Sadko, he twice reported me for alleged sockpuppetry, it is constantly somewhere behind me waiting for my mistakes. When I as editor started entering information's in articles for NPOV ond other information's about Vlachs, Milan Nedic, Partisans, Serbian history, various maps etc..they didn't like it. I suggest you read article about Milan Nedić, Statuta Valachorum before my edits and after my edits, see my edits on Yugoslav Partisans article, look at the historical forgeries that have been promoted on Vlachs of Croatia article(talk page) or Serbs of Croatia, take a look at my debates about forgerie (or mistake identified in the sources of Sima Ćirković) which still exist on several articles(Eparchy of Marča etc.., and "200 thousand Serbs who came to Slavonia and Croatia"), etc etc. This is their problem, not my statements from 2019 or the use of some source which is used and by British academic. If various historians and academics say that Serbs or part of Serbs are of Vlach origin, it is not my fault, blame Noel Malcolm and others don't blame me. Therefore when you do an evaluation of the actual situation you have to get to the heart of the problem. When someone promotes primary historical information that "Serbs inhabit the Roman Dalmatia", it would be ok put the NPOV information's which exists in various sources. By the way, we heard this information as one-sided information(just as it has been in various articles) from Greater Serbia ideologues. This is problem. Mikola22 (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg:there is evidence that he has a) defended the claim that the number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp was "probably 1,654"
I don’t follow Roman Ljeljak, I just said what I knew in 2019 about this information. As far as I remember, for the entire complex of Jasenovac camps, he found in the Belgrade Communist Archives number of 29 or 26 thousand killed(I don't remember exactly) and just for Jasenovac(inside Jasenovac not for the whole camp complex) he talked about that number which is also found in Belgrade Communist Archives. I am not defending that number nor am I interested in numbers, my answer "Therefore, if no Croatian historian has refute this document, then it is probably correct.", I mean the document(that it is a legitimate primary source) not the numbers. We need to have sources at that point which refute his book(no source for refute is exposed). Context is that Roman Leljak bases his claims on original Yugoslavian documents. And this polemics is about whether his source is RS or not because on Cro Wiki use that source(Roman Ljeljak) in articles and this was exposed as one of the problems for Cro Wiki but at that time we have no RS which refute or negatively evaluates his source and Cro Wiki is not guilty for that. My earlier answer in this context "Considering it is a sensitive issue Leljak chose the way(historical interpretation) in which documents speak instead of him. This is logical because documents he uses speak very differently from official history. I am not defending his claims I say that he "speak very differently" but he uses Yugoslav sources which no one else mentions. And whether or not this source is RS must be told by the sources(I learned that then on the English wikipedia) but at that time this sources do not exist. Mikola22 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: you know I will respect every decision, but still you have to be aware that I came among them 5 or 6 editors, also I was very inexperienced because I didn't know what wikipedia actually is and they used this situation well. I think that two of these 5 or 6 editors are blocked, the third would be editor Nicoljaus who worked for some period in tandem with Sadko, and Sadko as the fourth is close too. If I were from beginning in interaction only with editor Sadko and not with all of them I certainly wouldn’t have so many reports and edit wars because they all worked together. So we are not completely equal to share common punishment. Also as we hear from them, when I came to wikipedia they all started getting into trouble and slowly disappear from wikipedia? They worked here in good faith for years and then some anonymous(Mikola22) person with hundreds of sources, information's, checking the sources from articles, removing OR information's etc, disrupted their good faith conception? Yes there were mistakes but I think a lot of good has been done. Mikola22 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one game play. Editor Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko vs Mikola22, article Smiljan. Information from the source "Serbian Orthodox Vlachs lived in the hamlets of Selište" and OR information which are supported by these two editors "which was aligned with ethnicity; in Smiljan the Orthodox, who were ethnic Serbs, lived in the hamlets of Selište". In that moment they know what the source say but they together pushing OR and violate the rule wikipedia. [13][14] My edit [15]Mikola22 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have and this game play. Article is Flag of Serbia. Here are together editor WEBDuB and editor Sadko. The source mentions primary information from 1281 that on some canvas(fabric) two colors are mentioned "Red and Blue". Based on that, they support a flag(of some anonymous person ie editor) with this information "Flag of Vladislav I (reigned 1233–1243), as described in 1281." which obviously have today's modern Serbian flag as pattern but with context "from 1281". They continue to promote OR information although the administrator Peacemaker67 tells them that it is OR. They act as if they are alone on wikipedia.[16][17][18] Talk page discusion[19]. Mikola22 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR map of editor Khirurg and editor Sadko although this has been explained to him several times. Article is Serbia in the Middle Ages. This map is based on primary source De Administrando Imperio. In this case, the area to which Serbs coming includes and parts of Croatia, Montenegro(Duklja), Bosnia, Bulgaria, probably Albanian territory but this fact primary source DAI does not mention ie that Serbs coming to these areas. Despite everything, they promotes this map, even though they knows that this is a violation of wikipedia rules.[20][21] and map[22]Mikola22 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR and fringe information. Article is Višeslav of Serbia and there we have information that According to De Administrando Imperio the other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and the "land" of Duklja(Montenegro), but primary source DAI does not mention Duklja which were setled by Serbs. The fact that Serbs appear in that area in a later period has nothing to do with DAI or "according to DAI" fact and this was confirmed by a neutral(Englesh) editor on RSN(which should be respected).[23] But in this case editor Theonewithreason who has support of editor Sadko[24] continue to promote OR information ie context in this article. Mikola22 (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR and fringe information. In this article Serbia in the Middle Ages we have interesting situation. Participants are editor Khirurg and editor Sadko. Information During the 822 uprising, Serbs supported the rebellion, thus siding against the Frankish Empire and indirectly supporting the Byzantines. This information is from source of some archaeologist. The context is rebellion[25] in Lower Pannonia(810 – 823). In primary source Royal Frankish Annals which speaks of rebellion Serbs are mentioned in one word"Ljudevit escaped to Serbs", and in no rebellion context. Sources or historians which would talk about participation of Serbs in that rebellion do not exist. But that doesn't stop mentioned editors from supportng fringe information even though everything has been explained to them and they know that.[26][27][28]Mikola22 (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of information from historian who denies the existence of Croats in Montenegro, considering them as CroatianizedSerbs and information from some internet portal which is not RS. Article is Andrija Zmajević and information is Zmajević was born to a Serbian family. Editors which support information from these portals and historian are Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko.[29][30][31]Mikola22 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is Yugoslav Partisans and giving suport[32][33] for information in the introductory part of the article ie that "The multi-ethnic resistance movement was majority Serb but had significant minorities of Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks."(edit which has not passed because sources do not have such information, and because most editors decided that, talk page[34]) He as editor knows that in article exist this information "According to Tito, by May 1944, the ethnic composition of the Partisans was 44 percent Serb, 30 percent Croat" and this is not minority fact. His right as an editor is to support whatever he wants but at the same time he remove information from strong RS that Serbia’s contribution in Partisan movement until the autumn of 1944 which means the last six months of the war was disproportionately small.[35][36]Mikola22 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of OR and fringe map. Article is Časlav of Serbia and everything is explained on talk page[37] but despite that editor Sadko with support of block sockpuppet editor John L. Booth and editor Theonewithreason(also used sockpuppet account in some others edits) continue to promote OR and violate wikipedia rules.[38][39][40][41][42] A simple solution in good faith is correction of irregularities in that map, but it is not an option for them, for them it is better to continue supporting OR and fringe information although they know that in fact they support violation of rules. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is Croatisation. I am not reverting the article in state before editing of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth, although it is requested by admin Sro23 ("Closing. Also, does anyone want to clean up the sock's contributions?" from 5 March 2021)[43] I only remove edit in which I saw problem in the sources(I didn't research the rest at this time).[44] My edit is reverted by editor Elserbio00[45] After I exposed problem on talk page[46] editor Sadko returned edit of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth two times[47][48] After my notification of the editors on talk page and the fact that it is a requirement of admin and that in Uskoks section we have problems, editor Vacant0 as third editor made revert ie restored information's of sockpuppet editor John L. Booth [49]. And then coming and forth IP editor and made revert[50] So they are all aware that it is request of admin(talk page [[51]]) and that at least in Uskoks section we have problem but they persistently return controversial information to the article and knowingly violate the requirements of the admin and wikipedia procedure ie rules. Mikola22 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Croat and Catholic participation in Herzegovina uprising (1875–1877) and leaving information's only for Serb participation. After I entered information's from the sources blocked editor Antidiskriminator and editor Sadko remove my information's with claims I quote: "WP:UNDUE hypothesis in attempt to Croatize this uprising" and "POV pushing, fringe and undue"[52][53][54] although they are very well aware of the fact that and Croats and Catholics also live in Herzegovina, they actually make up the majority of Herzegovina population as a whole(it would be logical that some of them also took part in the uprising). After I found more sources including a Serbian author who also talks about Croats as participants in that uprising they stopped their actions. Finally the blocked editor WEBDuB remove information from the introduction part of the article about Croat and Montenegrian participation in that upraising although a strong Serbian source speaks about it.[55]. Since I'm not sure what can go in introduction part of the article I didnt make revert of WEBDuB edit. Later there were attempts to remove my information's and sources(some IP editor) but while I am here these information's must be respected because they are from strong sources, Mikola22 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eight sources challenge. Article is Military Frontier, and I have 8 strong sources for information that in Military Frontier and Vlachs are coming, part of the sources uses context "Vlachs and Serbs, etc" ie that they coming together. But for editor Sadko even 8 sources is not enough because it is, I quote: "Germans and Vlachs were a tiny minority compared to Serbs and Croats, this formulation is not WP:NPOV and looks like WP:SYNTH"[56]. I think that I'm holding the record of wikipedia with this edit, because not 8 non-Croatian sources are enough for punting one information to the article. Eventually I had to add two more sources, "The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics" from Ivo Banac and the best North American book in the field of Russian and Eastern European studies for 1984, and source of Austrian historian Karl Kaser expert for Military Frontier. It is ultimately 10 sources. Mikola22 (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is Serbs. My first edit ie removing of OR and primary information[57]. Editor Sadko has nothing against this edit as can be seen from his later edits. Later comes blocked sockpupet editor John L. Booth and restore this and other information's.[58] After this edit is reverted from editor Pipsally, editor Sadko comes and returns controversial informations to the article(including my information for which the OR and WP:PRIMARY problem was detected)[59]. In the introductory part of the article(which is part of that revert) also exist and historical context information "The territorial distribution of Serbs is affected by the World War II genocide and 1990s Yugoslav Wars, after which Serbia became home to highest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe." which in the sources does not exist as a common context. In this context this information is also WP:OR, very likely and and WP:FRINGE. Given that the editor Sadko knows these facts he still suport OR and posible fringe information's by giving support to the editor John L. Booth. Mikola22 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support the statement of administrator @Peacemaker67. This block will be final for me because I don't follow other parts of wikipedia. What a ride it was. I have been anonymous and alone from the beginning and I managed to learn most of the rules of wikipedia although I didn't even know what wikipedia really is (because I hadn't read it until 2019). The only person I appreciate here is "editor" @Peacemaker67 and his word is commandment. It is very possible that some of my information will start to disappear but let others take care of it(if they are interested in these information's and because they are based on strong sources). I just couldn’t edit differently because there were too many of them. It was simply such a situation. Thanks to everyone who stays. I will edit until this process is complete. Tnx. Mikola22 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I resent is when editor Sadko report me here all administrators supported his report although in fact nothing was written in it (which I knew immediately) or very little which was later establish and by @Peacemaker67. I blame you(administrators not you @Peacemaker67) for that but I forgive you. Mikola22 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I've noticed the issues with this user's behavior myself, and I'm only posting in a separate section in an effort to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
In short, yes, having people editing in this topic area while they can't seem to follow some basic tenets of Wikipedia and rules of the contentious topic area in particular - is pointless. For example, we shouldn't have to keep explaining what should be the glaringly obvious rules on the basic integrity of reproducing what sources say like I had to do here. Or what's an ancient primary source and what's a modern secondary source, like I had to do here. Add in advocating for biased pamphlets masquerading as articles and then railing against evil admins who are out to get them, like it happened here, well that's just depressingly bad.
A non-trivial volume of (fairly ridiculous) Balkan edit warring is going on at en: practically all the time - indeed whoever follows up on the links above will notice that often times it was interactions with editors who have since been rightfully blocked for various policy violations. The 'warring' parties feed off one another's ridiculousness, and create what seems to be a perpetually toxic environment. If an editor has 25k edits under their belt and still has to be moderated in this regard, then that is a lost cause and a waste of volunteer time and effort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, about comments by Amanuensis Balkanicus
Amanuensis Balkanicus, the fact that all this tendentious editing is considered par for the course in your eyes is actually pretty depressing, and demonstrates how the casually toxic environment has become more of a norm in the WP:ARBMAC topic area, as opposed to being an exception. The proper way forward is to enforce the rules of decorum, for example also extending a topic ban on this Mikola22 user for their own violations of the rules of decorum. Not letting Sadko and them continue to battle it out for years to come. Hell, for all we know, all of them could be persistently violating the sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry policies and in another 20 years we'll have another Kubura situation and nobody will care. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I have and continue to vehemently disagree with AB's assessments of 'nothing burgers', just like I did in the ANI report initiated by myself (but then closed before I could respond there). Back then, on Narentines, Sadko didn't violate 3RR because he 'only' reverted twice, while continuing to flame [Crovata's sockpuppet] on the talk page. I didn't press on the issue of the latter sockpuppet because it was helpfully fixed in the meantime by someone else, with a proper application of the sockpuppetry policy. On the Partisans talk page, I curiously never heard an actual argument in response to my numerous, source-based explanations on how these "We must have ethnicities in the intro!" claims were bogus. So, yeah, there's only so far we can go in being lenient with these rationale-free behaviors - it very soon descends into toxic claptrap. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill thank you for coming back to the point. I am entirely unamused to see the discussion spammed to death again just like the last time I had contact with this matter. This is basically gaming the system to death - an abuse that is pretty much obvious is met by kilobytes upon kilobytes of wikilawyering. And that is both by allies and enemies of the accused! Apparently they all sense that keeping the waters muddy is the main trick here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, about comments by Khirurg
I should note that the claims by Khirurg in their assessment of Peacemaker67's completely reasonable interpretation of consensus are egregious wikilawyering. I didn't immediately remember seeing many of this user's contributions before, but a quick look back into the history found me their comment saying "Keep Topic is notable. The state of the article notwithstanding [...]" on the AFD where I got flamed by Sadko for saying anyone who voiced unequivocal support for that ridiculous abuse of an article should have their contributions examined by admins. A quick look into their contributions immediately shows a lot of drama, and I noticed a fair bit is about labels like "Greek/Ancient Greek" - note how the Narentines edits of Sadko that I had noticed before were also about labels, int that case "South Slavs/Serbs". So, yeah, it seems fairly clear we've got another classic bit of axe-grinding on our hands here - whoever closes this discussion and doles out the topic bans, please take note. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter what do you mean by "the state support of Croatian, and, to a less extent, of Serbian nationalism"? Are you saying you observe editors somehow supported by these two states, or? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter Okay, I don't think this comment is helpful in this context, where one of the topics at hand is Dara of Jasenovac, which was funded by the government that you assessed to be less in support of nationalist aims, yet was then widely observed as pursuing the latter. I think we need to focus on assessing how editor contributions affect Wikipedia, rather than on whether 'their' government is better or worse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter We're in complete agreement on that. Just saying, value judgements about the external impetuses aren't necessary. For example, even when Croatia was part of Yugoslavia, there were notable expatriate organizations advocating a wholly biased interpretation of history. If Wikipedia had existed back then, there'd have been plenty of folks POV-pushing for their cause, even if they didn't have active government support at all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will be lengthy, but it extensively dissects the points raised by Peacemaker67, and I promise you, is well worth the read.
Sadko is a user who's been editing Wikipedia far longer than anyone likely to comment here, including Peacemaker67 (and excluding Joy). Full disclosure: I've worked with PM67 for around a decade and together we promoted 3 or 4 articles to FA status and several others to GA. I've always considered him a constructive editor, although we've had minor disagreements in the past. By early 2020, my perception of PM67 began to change, because when push came to shove, PM67 began to almost invariably side with "Croatian POV editors " (his words, not mine) in content disputes.
After his six-month topic ban in January, WEBDuB (an editor I believe is Serbian) appealed to PM67, but the latter told him he supported the topic ban until WEBDuB could "demonstrate he could edit neutrally." [60] This all seemed rather peculiar to me, given that PM67 has treated the Croatian editor Mikola22, whose editing is far more problematic than WEBDuB's or Sadko's, with kid gloves time and time again, using his considerable clout as an admin to ensure he evades sanctions. This comment defending Mikola is from the other day. [61] This glaring double standard was noted by Griboski shortly after WEBDuB's topic ban. [62] A few months ago, PM67 also came to Mikola22's rescue in an AN/I and argued that Mikola's outbursts had been misconstrued because English wasn't his first language. The diffs in which Mikola said those awful things were from 2019, and thus "stale", PM67 said. [63] Water under the bridge. Let bygones be bygones. But with Sadko? Then it's perfectly acceptable to cherrypick diffs from 2019 and use them to portray Sadko in the worst possible light, first language and age of diffs be damned. Mighty convenient, chief.
Let's take a look at PM67's "evidence" of Sadko's supposed malign behaviour:
Sadko stated “I have a duty to my ancestors” with respect to his editing, setting the scene for the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour they have engaged in ever since.[64] So you consider this snippet phrase from a much longer paragraph an apropos example of a comment presaging WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, but not Mikola22's remarks about the Ustaše on meta.wiki which were the subject of an AN/I in which you defended Mikola22? [65][66] Sadko has been editing since 2008. If this "set the scene" for his so-called WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, what has Sadko been doing for the past 13 years? By your own logic, he's been a constructive editor.
Calling opposing editors “punks in kafana (a dodgy type of Balkan tavern)” against WP:NPA[67] and stating that editors that disagree with them have a "corrosion of intellect"[68] As far as incivilities go, "punks" and "corrosion of intellect" are G-rated. I hate to say this, but I've heard worse from you, PM67. One time you even said you had no issues with calling other users "arseholes" or telling them to "fuck off" in certain circumstances. [69] Fair enough, I get frustrated sometimes too. But don't then turn around and feign outrage that an editor you disagree with used mildly naughty words at some point in time. Clearly you have no intention of holding Sadko (or other users you don't like) to the same standard you hold yourself (or users whose POV matches your own).
Further indication of adopting a victim mentality and an axe to grind[70] Leave the armchair psychology to the armchair psychologists, chief. Sadko was responding to Mikola22's claim that anti-Serb sentiment is a myth created by Serbian intellectuals. While "bias" and "hate" are strong words, Sadko was totally justified in opposing Mikola's rhetoric. Perhaps you also believe anti-Serb sentiment is a "myth"? Do tell.
These are examples of trolling of the talk pages of editors that oppose his POV[71] and [72] I find this highly amusing since yours truly has been the target of very public and gross "gossiping" by OyMosby and Peacemaker67 in the past. [73] Sadko has every right to interject in a conversation that is about him. Given that he was called a hypocrite by OyMosby in the preceding paragraph, his passive aggressive tone is mild given the context. [74]
Changing “Genocide” to “Ethnic cleansing” on Chetnik war crimes in World War II[75] Run-of-the-mill content dispute; this particular edit came before the start of a months-long RfC into the matter (which was only concluded a few days ago and in which I personally did not participate).
Removing the WWII Chetnik genocide of Muslims and Croats from List of genocides by death toll[76] Yep, because its WP:SYNTH and WP:OR (Geiger, the source used to cite the death toll in question, doesn't use the term genocide), although the edit summary Sadko provided is admittedly lazy.
Deleting NPOV addition regarding Ante Starčević on Anti-Serb sentiment[77] This paragraph was sourced to a reference from...1918. I seem to recall something about WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS. Sadko was fully justified in this diff. Why was this even included as "evidence"?
Continuing POV-pushing work of the indefinitely Balkans-TBANed User:Antidiskriminator, removing mention of the numbers of Muslim civilians killed in Battle of Višegrad[78] and [79] Umm, yeah, because there were no sources provided for the 2,500 figure in those diffs. Ctrl+f and check for yourself. Totally justified. Again, can't tell why this was included as evidence of "wrongdoing".
Clear disdain for non-Serb nationalist sources and POV comments on Talk:Battle of Višegrad20 December 2020 I see two users (Sadko and Santasa99) whose first language isn't English squabbling about obscure sources they both know little about. Cringy? Maybe. Malicious? No. Grounds for a TBAN for either of them? No.
Adding an image of Muslim SS to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina – hugely undue POV pushing[80] Why is it "hugely undue POV pushing"? The division was part of the country's history, wasn't it? In any event, Sadko wasn't the one who originally added the image, he was merely restoring it after it was removed by Santasa99 without consensus. [81] The user who originally added it was GenoV84[82] Again, very sloppy "evidence collection".
Deletion of material mentioning Serbs killing Muslims and the resulting split between Chetniks and Partisans[83]WP:COPYVIOs can be removed on sight ("Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find.")
These all involve removal of negative material from clearly reliable sources from an article Sadko created about a highly controversial recent Serbian film about the Croatian UstašeJasenovac concentration camp (Dara of Jasenovac)[84] Has there been an RSN discussion about the reliability of Radio Sarajevo? Not to my knowledge, there hasn't. Until Radio Sarajevo's reliability is sorted out, Sadko is well within his rights to question its reliability.
Unsourced POV pushing regarding the views of Ante Starčević on Croatisation[85] The content was originally added by the sockpuppet John L. Booth, and Sadko was making a blanket revert to that version. While I disagree with Sadko in this case and would not personally have reinstated the banned user's edits (as per WP:BANREVERT), this is hardly tendentious. OyMosby did the same thing recently after I implemented WP:BANREVERT on another article. [86] I have no intention of seeing him TBANNED over that.
Inserting negative material about a historian criticising the Chetniks on Dubravka Stojanović[87] So PM67's issue is Sadko added WP:BALANCE to the article? I can cherrypick that time PM67 added nothing but glowing reviews to Philip J. Cohen and yours truly had to balance out the reception section with more critical reviews. I certainly never considered seeking a six-month topic ban against PM67 until he "could figure out how to edit neutrally".
Sadko has made quite a number of other appearances on the dramaboards in the time this report covers (since the account was renamed from User:Mm.srb in August 2019) I don't see what the point of underscoring the fact that Sadko's username used to be Mm.srb other than to emphasize that he is Serbian, especially given that none of the links you've provided about the warnings Sadko has received were made while the account was called Mm.srb. Not a good look, PM. I'm very disappointed to see this from you.
And lastly, only two of the AN/I's and AE's that PM67 has cited were directly about Sadko's editing, and both ended in Sadko's favour. There's a damn good reason for that. None of the closing admins who weren't WP:INVOLVED saw enough reason to take any measures against him. But why one AN/I and (now two) AE's, you may ask? Because Sadko's involved in editing Balkan-related articles, that's why. I don't know if you've noticed, but no one can agree on anything here.
The last AE cited is rather interesting in that it included the participation of two glaringly obvious anti-Sadko sockpuppets that I subsequently exposed and who were then blocked (Miki Filigranski and Thebeon). Naturally, no one cared in the slightest about the socks, including Joy, the initiator, until I came around. Joy's tunnel vision with regard to the conflict between Miki and Sadko, and his apparent bias against the latter, was even called out by El C. [88]
In conclusion, literally everything Sadko has ever-so-dubiously been accused of here is either something that is standard fare in this part of en.wiki or has been done by the vast majority of Balkan users who have commented here or are likely to comment here. All in all, this report is quite disappointing, not least because PM67 is a longtime admin, who (in theory, at least) is supposed to be impartial and "above all that", especially when it comes to petty regional quarrels as we've been seeing over the past 18 months. Not to mention the incredibly poor quality of evidence that's been put forth. A great big nothing-burger all around. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: It's encouraging to hear that you're at least open to treating Mikola with the same "gloves" you would Sadko. That's a marked improvement over PM67's approach, so I commend you for that. Apologies if I seemed overly harsh earlier, but once I saw the thoroughly unconvincing (and in some cases, misleading) nature of the diffs provided, it was frustrating to have to put aside over an hour of my valuable time to address each point one by one.
I also understand your eagerness to stamp out systemic POV-pushing given what happened at hr.wiki (which is now being reversed, thankfully). However, it's inappropriate to compare Sadko (or Mikola22, for that matter) to Kubura because (as I understand it) Kubura was one of very few admins on hr.wiki, giving him a disproportionate influence over the project. Given their editing histories, I don't see either Sadko or Mikola becoming admins, literally ever. But taking actions that give the impression that admins favour a certain "editing bloc" over another is not the way to go (as I think you're starting to realize), and would actually contribute to the toxic environment you are referring to.
Believe it or not, I used to write GAs and DYKs on a regular basis because for many years the topic area wasn't the den of instability it has become in the past 18 months. Now I have no time or energy to contribute meaningfully to the project because I have to deal with drama on half-a-dozen articles at a time on an almost daily basis. It's all become quite exhausting. That being said, this drama didn't start with Sadko. It largely started with an uptick in editing by Mikola22 and OyMosby (among others) in late 2019. COVID-19 made things crazier because suddenly people were working from home and had more time to edit. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Some really interesting suggestions. Option #2 seems like it might provide a good framework for improving the overall editing environment. I can't help but see parallels with the Arab–Israeli conflict and India–Pakistan conflict topic areas. Maybe it would be best to implement a 1RR policy across all the articles in the topic area, plus permanent extended confirmed protection of all the articles that are reasonably construed as being contentious (there are probably several hundred of them). This would obviously need Arbitration Committee approval but given that multiple constructive editors here have stated that the constant feuding has significantly eroded their willingness to meaningfully contribute further to the project, maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadki has been editing productively since 2008 and has generally managed to stay out of trouble, and has kept a clean block log since 2019. He performs valuable work on badly neglected topics such as Serbian cinema and arts; for instance, he has created over 70 articles on Serbian art personalities [89]. He has not violated 3RR, nor does he regularly game the 3 revert limit.
The "punks in a kafana" and "corrosion of intellect" diffs are extremely mild and I have seen (and been on the receiving end) of far worse from other Balkan editors. And in Peacemaker's own words civility is mostly subjective[90] and robust discussion is entirely warranted regarding Yugoslav topics. These disputes can get very very intense (in Peacemaker's own words, try the patience of a saint), but I have yet to see Sadko cross the line. If these are the most incivil diffs Peacemaker can find, that would make Sadko one of the most civil editors in the topic area.
The diffs regarding the claim that Sadko has quite a number of other appearances on the dramaboards in the time this report covers either do not involve Sadko at all [91][92][93], or were created by editors with an opposing POV, in an attempt to get rid of Sadko. In none of those reports was Sadko sanctioned. If anything they reflect well on Sadko, who was dragged to the drama boards in bad faith several times, maintained his composure, and emerged vindicated.
The vast majority of the "consistent POV-pushing" diffs are part of typical content disputes in the topic area, and what constitutes "POV-pushing" is entirely subjective. Of course, if one has a pro-Croatian POV, these diffs could be seen as POV-pushing, but as someone who is somewhat familiar with the subject, it is not immediately obvious to me what is so egregious about diffs such as these [94][95] (Radia Sarajevo is not WP:RS). Regarding changing "Genocide" to "ethnic cleansing" in the Chetnik War Crimes in World War II article [96], that is an extremely controversial topic, and Sadko's edits are not out of line with much of the scholarship in the area. The title of the article adter all is "war crimes", not "genocide". These diffs have also been convincingly address by Amanuensis Balkanicus, who is much more familiar with the topic area. In any case, Sadko has participated in the many dispute resolution attempts, such as RfCs, and has always abided by their outcomes.
Much of Sadko's editing is in response to POV-pushing by Mikola22. If anyone deserves to be topic banned, it is Mikola. In this report here [97], there is evidence that he has a) defended the claim that the number of victims of Jasenovac concentration camp was "probably 1,654" [98] (actual number: 83,000), b) lamented the very existence of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia [99], c) introduced material from notorious Nazi sympathizer Dragoslav Krunovic [100], among others. Yet instead of taking action, Peacemaker casually dismissed the ANI report as nothing more than a disturbing trend of Serbian POV editors trying to get rid of Croatian POV editors from en WP[101], which successfully derailed it. He even played the English is obviously not their first language, and their meaning is sometimes not clear. card. Does this apply to Sadko as well, or no? While we are all obligated to adhere to NPOV, this is even more true of admins. I found Peacemaker's defense of Mikola extremely disturbing to say the least.
Lastly, the allegations of meatpuppetry, off-wiki coordination, and using IPs are entirely unsubstantiated and should be removed or struck. We can't have stuff like that in an AE proceedings.Khirurg (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker's most recent addition does not contain any new evidence, and basically boils down to something like "Sadko is really really bad, trust me on this". Regarding the edit from Sadko on December 1 2020 [102], I note the RfC was initiated on December 25th [103] and closed on January 21. The edit by Sadko predates the RfC by almost a month. Furthermore, all the votes in the RfC where a consensus was supposedly reached regarding the genocide question are from editors (with the exception of Peacemaker) who are heavily involved in the topic are and strongly favor a particular POV. Two of the votes are just !votes without any reasoning provided. I would argue that is a very weak consensus and the RfC was prematurely closed before the 30-day period ended. Nor do I see anything resembling a consensus in preceding discussions in the talkpage [104]. All I see is users with similar POVs agreeing with each other. But if there is no "smoking gun", there is no case. This is a very difficult topic area, and things often get hot. If we start banning people evidence-free, it would set a disturbing precedent. Khirurg (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Balkans editing environment has improved in the past six months largely as the result of topic bans and increased admin oversight on a daily basis. El C, Peacemaker67, EdJohnston, Drmies and other admins have played an important role in establishing oversight. Every time a Balkans editor has been reported, blocked or sanctioned admins have been accused of having an anti-/pro- Croatian/Serbian/Albanian bias.
Sadko's editing is linked to persistent, mid-level edit-warring very often based on a POV narrative and a personalization of disputes with other editors: Fake balancing which only brings confusion to the readers - POV editing with aims to narrow down early Serb medieval history only to Rascia.[105], sheep voting has been seen in several requests for renaming so far, this is a free project and I am quite free to suspect[106]Do you have any Wikipedia rule or guideline which would support your deaf???[107] The POV narrative is also evident in the reports they file and they have been logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement log#Eastern Europe and warned to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes on 29 June 2020. They still personalize disputes in reports as in The reported editor is a big time WP:BULLY. I’ve seen this at work several times, in RL he would instantly get fired for Mobbing (...)[108]. The bigger problem is that their editing is often focused on specific POV narratives whether it involves minimization of crimes of Chetnik Nazi collaborators against Croat civilians (That is still only several historians, as I said before, there is more mentions of genocide done to the Muslims, which is not the general case for Croats. The title alone seems awkward ("Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats") and a verbal construct of Wikipedia editors. The number for the Croats are simply not there, neither is the scale of crimes, which simply can't be compared to most of similar terrible events.[109] or defense of a fringe theory that Serbs and "possibly" Russians lived in early medieval Macedonia[110] or arguing that that the virulent antisemitism of Nikolaj Velimirović in the 1930s is not antisemitism but something "very different" ..anti-judaism (immediately prompting the intervention of another editor [111]) or trying to !keep articles like Demonization of the Serbs.
PM's suggested sanctions are justified and will improve the editing environment - as all sanctions have done. Its limited 6-month scope will allow Sadko to focus their editing attention on other pages and reflect on their perspective. The ban could then be lifted via simple admin action without a discussion at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2021
@Newslinger: I have filed or been involved in most JohnGotten sock reports and I will file another one about a new account. The examples you found are not the only ones about Sadko and JohnGotten. Pipsally removed some of their edits before the block and started removing all of their edits per WP:DENY after the block. Sadko reverted them and tried to restore JohnGotten's edits with no explanation (before the block), talkpage discussion or even the basics required by an edit summary for the restoration of sock edits (after the block). The best example is a revert with the summary Not an improvement (before the block - a highly contentious edit which restored at the second paragraph of the lede of Serbs the sentence The territorial distribution of Serbs is affected by the World War II genocide and 1990s Yugoslav Wars). Sadko's support of such account use is continuous. Just before PM's report, I reported to EL C, a new account (CrnogorskiKralj(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)) which replaced in hundreds of articles the Montenegrin language template with the Serbian one and tried to explain themselves on my talkpage that I shouldn't be bothered because he was removing an "invented" language. El C blocked them, but before that happened, Sadko came to the discussion at El C's talkpage to relativize the new account's conduct and claim that despite the "unfortunate wording" they are factually correctUser_talk:El C#Massive edits. The account has been blocked and cleanup is needed at hundreds of articles, but it becomes even more difficult to manage because of such interference. @Rosguill:@Drmies: I disagree with administrative measures which aim to solve problems which can't be solved administratively, but I think that PM's report is not a case which asks for the broad application of sanctions about low-level infractions. I can't prove it to you unless you edit daily in the Balkans topic area, but even the existence of this report has had a particular positive effect. Because most people who are involved in ex-Yugoslavia disputes are 'wary' of the report and how it might affect the topic area, edit-warring on all sides has dropped significantly in the past week. It highlights that admin oversight sets editing standards.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: If the editing environment is a market and admin oversight is the regulation of that market, placing articles under XRR restrictions will have a specific effect: tag-teaming will increase. It's already observable across ex-Yugoslavia articles that when certain editors reach 3RR, others continue the reverting. Under lower than 3RR restrictions, the number of editors on each side will play a greater role and large teams will assemble to make sure that the 'correct version' is preserved. XRR restrictions will also affect editors who support neither side. I think that we need targetted restrictions/sanctions. The escalating last warning>6-month tban>indef tban is a good scheme, which in practice is already present in some decisions and has improved the situation. The only problem with its consistent application has been that it takes a long time to prepare a good AE report.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really tell if the environment around Balkan-related topics has been improved over the course of past six months since I've been trying to stay out of them ever since I made my account. What I have noticed is that since the beginning of this year there has been more POV pushing by all sides, and because of it I had to step in somewhere even though I didn't want to. I don't think that it's worth for me to make statements about Sadko's unacceptable behavior because other editors already proved some point. Sadko has been here for over 10 years now and there is no doubt that he might did something wrong in the past, but I personally think that he isn't that type of an editor to do these unacceptable edits on purpose. I've been following Sadko's edits since the beginning of this year because he has been involved in some of the Balkan-related topics and I generally can't see any POV pushing by him. I'm pretty sure that I'm not wrong but if I am you can correct me on this one. I think that my comment won't make any difference here but I personally wanted to comment on this situation because I saw similar and worse editing by user Mikola22 but I'm not sure if his edits have been discussed before. Vacant0 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hard to be concise at the same time and work out something elaborate that should show a wide range of violations - in terms of behavior and content. The toxicity of the Balkan scope can hardly be tolerated, and the root of all the problems is, of course, the emotional attachment to local identities, which editors cannot or do not want to control. I’ll try to put together a statement in as few words as possible and as few “diffs” as possible, and if any administrator finds it interesting, I’ll provide clarifications.
First to contrast these enormous defensive walls of text of Sadkos tag-team buddies, such as Amanuensis Balkanicus (AB) (this illustrates existence of exclusive circle, [112]→[113], or how they together suspect Mikola from time to time [114]→[115]→[116], [117]→[118] (there is Sadko's attempt to get rid of Mikola in one such report, which closing admins called weaponization of the process but Sadko escaped with warning); this didn't stop Sadko from trolling my own TP uninvited for reason they perceived as similar (I never respond to such requests, though): [119]); false equalization by insisting on "POV pushing on all sides"; noticeable attempt to distract this report by redirecting attention from Sadko to Mikola (who else), while questioning Peacemaker's integrity as a neutral editor and admin by all three parties, Sadko, AB and Khirurg - so, let it be registered that AB is not neutral agent and that his agency as a pusher of Serbian perspective (POV) on Balkans topics (history, Yugoslav Wars, and so on), is felt, for instance, when they found themselves implicated in meatpuppetiering with messages like this to Sadko, regarding this, they removed the AB's message immediately and went to help; or like this, where AB asking Sadko for support against admin Drmies' concerns after the issue was raised by Maleschreiber. Drmies warned AB of canvassing and both, AB and Sadko, of tag-teaming on highly sensitive topics, adding that what they did was partisan and not neutral (Drmies advised Maleschreiber to take it further to ARBMAC). How these editors, who edit from the same POV as Sadko, appeared here if no one invited them, is something noticeable in many examples in AN and voting, with sr.wiki editors without being active on en.wiki appearing out of nowhere (diffs for this can be provided on request) - I learned about the case by interacting with Sadko's edits at the List of Serbian painters, a case of disruptive editing which I am about to post below.)
Sadko peculiar method of disruption is changing scope where arguments fail. In article List of Serbian painters, I tried to remove painters who do not belong to the list because they are not related to Serbia, but Sadko restored these items (painters) twice, and on third revert they did this, with an edit-summary, Lead changed, as it gives a wider range of possibilities for growth of the article + numerous great Serb painters were not born or lived in Serbia., followed with this, with an edit-summary, data restored, per lead, and from this point onward reverting dragged through several weeks, avoiding 3RR. All that time I tried to bring them into discussion on the TP, but they apparently didn't think that their change of the article scope should be open for discussion, only the content, however, as soon as I would restore article appropriate scope in the lede, Sadko would resort to blame game, stating in "edit summaries" that it's me whose editing is disruptive because I am changing the scope - extremely irritable summaries in this case aren't far from outright trolling. I strongly suggest reading Talk:List_of_Serbian_painters in its entirety - it has three sections/discussions, much shorter than any individual statement in this report, and it is quite illustrative in exposing Sadko's focus (do I dare say obsession) on ethnicity, which combined with emotional attachment to identity drives this kind of attitude, or as Sadko explains this phenomenon best by saying that they "have a duty to (their) ancestors" to fix the project and correct mistakes on Wikipedia. Oftentimes they use their own preconception on ethnicity in conflict with entire set of guidelines dealing with ethnicity vs. nationality. As Sadko ambiguously explains it in this exchange, [120]→ [121] (Sadko is/was Mm.srb), this ambiguity is reflected in their usage based on personal whim, as it suites them from case to case, and although they correctly observe the problem of double definition for Serb(s) and Serbian(s) could possibly result in existence of double articles, they proceed to use this ambiguity themselves elsewhere, such as in case of List of Serbian painters, which they tried to turn into list of Serb painter, against whole host of problems attached to such re-writing: article is titled List of Serbian painters not Serb painters, turning scope into ethnic-based exclude Serbian painters of all other ethnicities, which we then can't include elsewhere, and so on (again, on TP I discuss all aspects of the problems created with this approach and they respond, so pleas read it). Similar thing happened here, while here Sadko defended and reverted my attempt to change scope which was terribly conceived, almost outright nationalistic, as it can be seen from diff. However, where it does or doesn't suits their POV, they interchangeably play with the "ethnicity" - example: when asked about it, they responded with this, but then changed a tune in this; this also means they are aware of what they are doing. Never apologizing Sadko seem content with Balkan-scope toxic situation: Wikipedia is not the place for you, as there are constant complaints about somebody being harsh or something like that. Unfortunately, Balkan-related topics are not always milk and honey and that's not likely to change. ([122])
Another problematic issue is following (hounding): me - Sadko
I complained many times since late 2019, at least twice at user's TP: first time, and again.
Few examples: instead of individual diffs I offer my User contribution page filtered between 02:13, 20 June 2020 and 23:58, 20 June 2020 where it can be observed editor jumping from page to page behind me; me - Sadko.
I could provide more diffs on this problem if necessary, also in case of other editors being followed by Sadko, if that would be appropriate.--౪ Santa ౪99°21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadko:, we can check timelines here ?--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC) As a side note, since when we refer to editors with "it" - we refer to each other with singular "they" forms of third-person personal pronouns, hence, I am not "it", I am "them"/"they"/"their(s)"/"themsel(f)ves" for you and anyone else in here, unless I say differently.--౪ Santa ౪99°04:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:@Ymblanter and Drmies: these walls of text are unfortunate necessity, in Joy's words, if we want to "to get rid of (...) obvious gaming of the system". But - I hope you won't mind if I say so - there is something that could be done, and it's very simple, usual solution for the (un)usual problem: a stronger, closer, more committed oversight on admis' part - and the idea for how to fulfill such commitment could also be simple: admins could agree between themselves who will step in (one or two) and offer to volunteer their time and commitment to closely (maybe even exclusively) oversee Balkan scope and editor community, with all its peculiarities (Ed Johnson has done a lot, but they never committed "officially" to follow inner dynamics of this particular community specifically and exclusively).
As a side note: as far as I can tell, there are no Bosnian Muslim and Montenegrin editors currently that I know of, who would be editing on the contentious subject (of Balkan history, culture and politics); there are at least three times more editors editing with Serbian slant then those who edit from the explicit Croat bias. In the last couple of years some of the worst violators in the users-names of Zoupan and AnulBanul (Serbian and Croatian sockpuppetiers), Shokatz and Ceha (blocked, Croatian), Antidiskriminator and WEBDuB (banned, Serbian), are now gone. However, we lost invaluable members who self-imposed premature "retirement" on themselves, due to their refusal to participate in editing under such a toxic atmosphere - an examples I encountered are/were likes of Ivan Štambuk (whose invaluable contribution (expertise really) in sphere of Serbo-Croatian linguistic gave en.wiki and its articles on the subject credibility with correct info based on local and international mainstream scholarship), Timbuktu, Director or Producer (not sure anymore who between them), Potočnik, to name a few more. Needless to say, they were on the opposite side from "all" other POV-pusher groups, "all" being just two groups really (Serbian and Croatian), Ivan in particular - bottom line, they all left because of persisting toxicity and lack of strong, close oversight.
If I am really correct in my observation, then, it significantly undermines usual claptrap about "all sides pushing their POV's equally" and evermore common trope that under Balkan scope locals are all more-less steeped in nationalistic bias and tribal quarrels. A curiosity, though, is that locally neutral POV always existed and is related to application of Serbo-Croatian, or more commonly Yugoslav, lens through which one perceive more commonalities than differences between Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks (Muslims), Bosnians (Bosnianandherzegovinians), and Montenegrins, in both real life and in project - with that being said, all of these editors that came to my mind, with enough certainty can be recognized as Croatian, which means that Croatian editors come from both camps, pro-Croatian and nationalist, and neutral and anti-nationalist, where I have yet to encounter Serbian editors who belong to the later camp.
With this in mind, admins shouldn't lose from sight the fact that this report is filed by outsider, whose credibility as neutral editor and admin with integrity that can not be doubted. Finally, evaluation of which state (Croatia or Serbia) inject more nationalism in its respective society is unnecessary distraction, potentially even harmful for editors as naive as Mikola, who may feel that they can correct Ymblanter observation, and in doing so, in good faith but their weak English, compromise them self even more.--౪ Santa ౪99°22:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Vanamonde93: I'm prepared, ready and open for whatever should come my way, from warning to t-ban to block - one thing though, I don't need to get impressed with explanation for rational behind any sanction that may or may not eventually come my way, if it's delivered with reasonably convincing sense of fairness in assessment within such an overwhelming amount of diff's that concern so many editors and their conduct, not just myself, with Oy Moysbi,--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC) →(inserted remark:)→ however, do not and can not, because it's rhetorical and logical impossibility, concern those few who left their defending statements but are themselves on the opposite from the report directionality.--౪ Santa ౪99°01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it's been pointed out by other editors and admins, most of these diffs regarding Sadko aren't egregious. But let's just take a couple of examples listed here; Sadko's removal of genocide from the Chetniks war crimes and list of genocides by death toll. There was legitimate debate back then over this. Buidhe, who is a prolific editor in topics of Holocaust and Genocide supported these same "POV" changes. 12 It's a real issue of historiography (and WP:OR as far as it being included on the list). @Vanamonde93: This is also in response to your inquiry. There is more background on this in this thread, although it is long.
Most of the less-than-ideal editing behavior from Sadko has coincided and been directly impacted by the arrival of Mikola22, who has shown an exclusive preoccupation with Serbian topics and articles, editing from a Croatian nationalist POV. It is then easy to see why that would provoke a reaction from Sadko and result in a battleground atmosphere. I proposed a topic-ban for Mikola in an ANI Report in January. Rosguill, the lone uninvolved admin and editor in that report, who has also commented here, supported it before those with a similar POV to that of Mikola came out in droves to derail the thread.
If the goal here is to create a less toxic environment in the Balkans editing area, then the fairest and most appropriate solution would be to implement a topic-ban for a period of time against both Sadko and Mikola as suggested by AB, Joy, Rosguill and PM (and agreed upon by Mikola). Otherwise, it is selective punishment and enforcement of rules. --Griboski (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong case for @Sadko receiving a topic ban on all Balkan topics. Peacemaker67 has made a succinct case and Maleschreiber has presented additional examples. As not to tread ground they already covered, i will note one recent interaction with @Sadko and myself when it came to the article about Niš city and the etymology of its name. I added content based on WP:RS, about its placename formation via reliable scholarship discussing that partial formation through early medieval (proto) Albanian-Slavic linguistic contact. The bit about the role of Albanian was removed by @Sadko [123] who said it was an "irrelevant piece of trivia and WP:OR, Ancient Greek it is." The bit about Ancient Greek was not contested or removed, only elaborated upon how certain other linguistic input and changes resulted in its final present form. So then why is it "trivia"? Because Albanian is mentioned? So i reverted Sadko [124]. Sadko responded with an edit where he reinterpreted the Albanian of the sources to mean Illyrian and wrote it as such [125]. That smacked of WP:OR. I had to point out the sources made no such claim and readjusted accordingly and out of courtesy kept much of @Sadko's wording from previous edits [126]. The sentence on the name etymology achieved its current form after some more edits on the page by other editors and myself.
At the same time this issue did bleed into the History of Niš page. Here a similar cycle was begun by @Sadko's edit [127] and then responded to by Ktrimi991. However administrator Drmies opened a thread [128] in the talkpage after seeing both @Sadko's and @Ktrimi's edit summaries as they "tickled my fancy, as did Sadko's edit summary". I engaged in the talkpage, so did other involved editors and admin @Drmies. @Sadko never once bothered to engage in the talkpage to explain or make the case about reasons for exclusion. The reason I bring this Niš placename example up is the rationale for content exclusion and reverts by @Sadko was not based on something substantive like policy or guidelines, but "triva" and so on. What is one to make of that apart from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editing.
And this sadly has echoes of 2017 when the same matter at the History of Niš was contested by @Antidiskriminator on grounds that "undo POV pushing of Greater Albanian autochtonous mythology per WP:BRD. Take it to the talkpage to gain consensus" [129]. The talkpage discussion imploded into toxic farce [130]. My point is @Peacemaker67 is a good judge of character and is one of the few brave enough administrators willing to engage with the Balkans topic area and deal with hotheads. @Antidiskriminator was topic banned for nationalist editing after years of problematic behavior only when his editing was put under the spotlight by @Peacemaker67 in this forum. So when @Sadko is brought here by @Peacemaker67 and edits by @Sadko exhibit WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with WP:BATTLEGROUND characteristics, isn't it time for a proper long topic ban? And not a short one of some weeks or months. As some have said, Sadko is an editor harking back to 2008. The problems have increased, not decreased. Who is to say we won’t be here again and again.Resnjari (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Having read through this report and mulled over it for a decent amount of time, I feel like I need to write some sort of comment here, even if I'm unsure what the best outcome would be. It's clear that Sadko has a consistent POV, but most of the diffs presented here strike me as defensible. The most troubling behavior that I see here is the comments defending the prominent use of a medieval source at Talk:Narentines as mentioned by Joy, which, despite its relevance to Balkan historiography, requires further analysis and interpretation by more recent scholarship. As I have previously suggested sanctions against Mikola22 at ANI, I'm not exactly opposed to the idea that they deserve a tban, but it's not clear to me whether banning Mikola22 necessitates a ban for Sadko as well. I'm wondering if the liberal application of temporary tbans to POV editors in Balkan may help establish new standards for behavior around this subject matter, while allowing borderline editors to eventually return to the topic and demonstrate their commitment to building an encyclopedia once the waters have settled a little. signed, Rosguilltalk19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering myself whether such a liberal application might not be the best solution. I keep marveling at the copious amounts of time these editors have to write up these notices, provide the diffs, respond to them, respond to the responses, and keep a record sometimes going back years. Don't they need to eat? Drmies (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working my way through this; anyone besides Peacemaker and Sadko would do well to be more concise going forward, as I suspect y'all have already scared off many patrolling admins. Peacemaker67, I hate to ask you to lengthen your statement, but I'm looking at diffs like this one, and while that may be taken as evidence that Sadko has a POV, it's only a problematic edit if he is actively misrepresenting sources or ignoring consensus in the sources to push fringe views. Can you elaborate on those diffs to show that this is the case? Vanamonde (Talk)21:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now ploughed through the entire history of Dara of Jasenovac and it's talk page, and that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. It's frustrating, but unsurprising, to see the same patterns of stone-walling and argumentativeness appear here as in other prominent political and nationalist disputes. Having read through that history, I am convinced Sadko needs a break from the topic area. Mikola's conduct on that particular page was not egregious, but they are not exactly covering themselves in glory either, and I think a warning to them is the minimum necessary. There's others at that page whose behavior is worse; I'm not going to name them, because they haven't participated here. More generally, I think this area could benefit from more uninvolved admin intervention, and from quicker use of limited TBANs, partial blocks, and/or EC-protection. I am not in a position to undertake such monitoring. El_C does yeoman's work in difficult areas, but we can't rely on him for everything. If no single admin is willing to dive in, more frequent posts to AN/ANI/AE might be necessary (yes, I did just say that). Vanamonde (Talk)18:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to go through the excessively long and accusatory statements here. I remain convinced that Sadko and Mikola require topic-bans, of at least 6 months. I was also thoroughly unimpressed with the conduct of OyMosby and Santasa when reading through some of those diffs. I believe a logged warning for both of them is the minimum required. For the record; I had noted those patterns before they posted here, but chose not to comment on them given their lack of participation. Vanamonde (Talk)00:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99: If you want me to take your opinion into account, please express it in plainer language. @Bishonen and Peacemaker67: I would add that I am very willing to liberally apply EC-protection where semi-protection isn't quite cutting it; while you're making your list, PM, I'd appreciate if you could look into that as well. Vanamonde (Talk)15:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the diffs in the initial report lack a "smoking gun" violation of policy that would justify a topic ban. Content-wise, the worst diff I see is Special:Diff/1010666091 (as well as Special:Diff/1010680495), which shows edit warring to restore inadequately sourced controversial content about Ante Starčević that was originally inserted into the Croatisation article by John L. Booth, a sockpuppet of the previously blocked editor JohnGotten. As stated in the policy on proxying, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content", and to be compliant with the verifiability policy, these edits needed inline citations to support the controversial content about Starčević. A pattern of edits like these two would justify a sanction, but I believe these two edits by themselves do not.
Behaviorally, the initial report shows a concern with respect to the following comments, all of which fall short of the civility policy:
Special:Diff/918206068: Describing another editor's comment as "a sure sign of corrosion of intellect"
Special:Diff/947289150: Stating that other editors are "behaving like punks in kafana" while accusing them of "labeling other editors and ignoring Wikipedia:Civility" in the same sentence
As it is likely that editors will add more comments to the existing discussion, here is some general advice for participating on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard:
Be concise. Lengthy responses are more likely to be skimmed over by reviewers, which would reduce the amount of consideration afforded to your points. If you have written too much, feel free to collapse the less important parts of your comment using templates such as {{cot}} and {{cob}}.
Provide diffs. Commentary is not very useful for assessing the situation, unless it is supported by evidence. Reviewers are more interested in the actual edits that were made, and less interested in general opinions about the dispute. Clear-cut examples of policy violations are the strongest form of evidence.
Address the reviewers. The sectioned format of this noticeboard is intended to encourage involved editors to speak directly to the reviewers, instead of to each other. This makes the discussion more manageable. If you would like to address a point another editor has made, try to do so while staying on topic (which in this case would be focusing on whether Sadko's editing is sanctionable).
Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232 § Capitals00, I see that there is precedent for issuing topic bans on all editors who exhibit a long-term pattern of battleground behavior in a topic area covered under discretionary sanctions, regardless of whether the reported edits are sanctionable when viewed in isolation. Based on this, I support Ymblanter's "scorched earth" recommendation, with a change: per Bishonen, indefinite topic bans are preferable to time-limited topic bans, since the affected editors would be required to make constructive edits in a less contentious topic area before appealing. An indefinite topic ban for both Sadko and Mikola22 from Eastern Europe and the Balkans would raise the standard of conduct expected of all editors in the topic area. — Newslingertalk03:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I had one more look. On one side, it is clear that Sadko consistently pushes POV and performs mid-level edit-warring. On the other hand, pretty much everybody in this area does the same (and the state support of Croatian, and, to a less extent, of Serbian nationalism does not really help). It persists for many years, we have discretionary sanctions in the area available for ages, and it does not get better. I see, in principle, two ways to solve the problem. (i) "Scorched earth" policy - everybody who is out of line, gets a DS alert, second time out of line causes half a year topic ban, third time brings an indefinite topic ban. From this position, Sadko is at the stage when a 6 month topic ban would be appropriate. (ii) Instead of removing editors, we can try forcing them to behave, which can be achieved by configuring 0RR sanctions on all problematic articles. I am not sure the resulting discussions are going to be productive, or possibly even editors would be mobilized to gain advantage and fix articles in particular states, blocking reverts, but we can try. In this narrative, Sadko needs to get a fairly strong warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, I agree with most of what you say, but the problem is that line--which line? I think most editors crossed all those lines a long time ago--you said it yourself, "mid-level edit warring" is a kind of normal here. Even this very report shows it: something as important as an arbitration request is just another opportunity to write up thousands of words, as if each of these contributors here thinks this is their own platform. And it's that sheer verbosity in ALL of these areas, on article talk pages, on user talk pages, in ANI requests, that make this so tedious. I wish I knew what to do here; all I've been able to do is work with individual editors on individual little things. And when working on that, many of these editors are fine to work with. But when three of them get together, oh my. I'm sure there's a bunch of good jokes about that. A Serb, a Croat, and a Bosnian Muslim land on the moon... Drmies (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Yes, if we go down this road - which I am still not sure is the right way to do - well, then everything counts, edit-warring, POV pushing, etc. Like if we do it for PIA. Any mild violation of any policy - and you quickly get reported to AE, with a dozen of editors happy to present arguments against you, and you get half a year to do some other things on Wikipedia and fell happy you have not been blocked. Indeed, I had extensive experience with Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, where sides would never change their positions whatever happens, they would argue forever, try to get a numerical advantage, but never take a step back, and they only way to operate there is to remove the editors from the conflict area. It is a pity that this has to be done, but if this is the only way we have to be strict and not make exceptions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy:, no, I am not aware of any editors being paid by these governments to edit Wikipedia, nor do I impiy this. I mean state support of ideology.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Editors are not operating in vacuum. They go to school somewhere and learn whatever the school decides it is good for them to learn. They are exposed to the information flow and they are not necessary able or even expected to take it very critically. Yes, sure, when they edit Wikipedia, they are expected to follow NPOV and RS and whatever, but the ideas about which sources are reliable and what POV is N depends a lot on the background. To take an example not pertaining to Serbia or Croatia, in 2007 the Ukrainian president awards the highest merit of the state to Stepan Bandera, who outside of Ukraine known as terrorist, Nazi collaborator, and Holocaust theorist, and in 2020 we have a stream of canvassed driveby Ukrainian editors, unhappy with how our article portrays this Hero of Ukraine, who are able to bring our own sources and who call the article POV. So I am not really looking forward to welcome several hundred neutral, highly educated and knowledgeable new editors this year, capable of cleaning up all the nationalistic bullshit and to rewrite the articles as NPOV. We have what we have, and we need to take administrative decisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read most of the above — time I will never get back! — and I support at least two topic bans and plenty of semiprotection. I'm convinced it will be a benefit to the area if Sadko and Mikkola22 are removed from it through topic bans. Perhaps also Khirurg, per Joy. As one of my hobbyhorses, I feel there should be no time-limited topic bans, which can simply be waited out, after which an unreconstructed POV-pusher can return and start up again. Let's do indefinite bans with an option to appeal in six months. This obliges the users when appealing a) to have some decent editing in other areas or other Wikimedia projects to point to, and b) to make some commitment for the future, which if necessary can be held against them. I don't mean to sound bad-faith-assuming, but without such considerations, it is by no means the case that re-bans are cheap. They cost blood, sweat and tears.
Secondly, disruptive IPs and socks have been mentioned above. Surely the most affected articles need to be long-term semiprotected, and then, if that's not enough, raised to extended confirmed. I'm not familiar enough with the area (even though this AE has been an education!) to know which ones, but I see Croatisation, for instance, is currently unprotected. Surely articles like that need to be semi'd for years. A question for Peacemaker: I know you've already spent a lot of time on this, but could you provide for us a list of articles that are in your opinion candidates for long-term semi? Bishonen | tålk09:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for this list, Peacemaker67. Unless somebody else objects, I will semi all those for a year in a day or so. (Other admins are welcome to help.) Drastic? Yes, but the nationalist editing in the area needs to be curbed. Bishonen | tålk11:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Closing. The amount of text above may have reached a point where people will no longer read it. The request seems quite important, and should not be allowed to roll off into the archives without action simply because the involved parties on both sides have made it such a chore to read. Compare the forlorn appeals for conciseness above from Vanamonde93, Drmies, and Newslinger, and the sharp comments about "spamming to death" and "wikilawyering" from Joy (an admin posting outside this section). T-banning Sadko and Mikkola22 indefinitely, plus semiprotecting Peacemaker's list of articles for a year, seems to me to be a reasonable outcome of all the uninvolved admin comments here. I will close this request accordingly in 24 hours, unless there are objections. Also, I specifically ask people to address whether there ought to be logged warnings against anybody. Bishonen | tålk16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you Bish. I think a few logged warnings might be in order. I am disappointed in Amanuensis Balkanicus's tone in these proceedings--this is not a joke, and it's not a place for cynical stabs. Khirurg and Maleschreiber managed to be relatively concise and somewhat objective, so that's great. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support a logged warning for at least Amanuensis Balkanicus, perhaps Khirurg also, per their own statements above, and per comments by Peacemaker and Joy. Bishonen | tålk21:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I would support a logged warning for Amanuensis Balkanicus. I have not researched Khirug's contributions enough to take a position on a warning for them, one way or the other. I do not see anything egregious in their statement here. Vanamonde (Talk)21:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The facts in the case don't match the claim. There was an RFC, OgamD218's edit appears to be consistent with the RFC AND their edit summary clearly invited others to tweak if they felt necessary. No action taken against OgamD218 in this case. I would warn FDW777 that when they file an AE/AN/ANI case, they need to more careful that the claims are substantiated by the facts. Note, this doesn't mean the edit is "perfect", as this is a BLP, and subject to more than just the RFC, as our policy on BLP applies, but any shortcomings can be addressed through the normal editing and discussion process. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
It appears this has been resolved favorably, which I'm grateful for, but feel I should get several facts on the record:
- The Good Faith policy was abused by FDW who outright lied in their report. I ask admins to please look more closely at the background of this, incl the RfC and ANI discussion by CeltBrowne. No major dispute existed, general consensus for inclusion = every editor disagreed with FDW from the start, so they dragged things out for weeks, Stonewalling, filibustering and using other bad faith tactics.
- The edit i restored wasn't made "in haste", this is a lie, it was in the RfC.
- FDW made a false report under a false basis, the issues here have nothing to do with The Troubles, FDW uses threats of sanctions for breaching the 1RR to bully other editors even in instances where it shouldn't apply.
- I don't have a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, this lie is easily exposed by reading the 2-3 neutral edits I made that outraged FDW.
- FDW does have a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, in addition to this incident specifically, the PIRA page linked was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article.
- The tactics FDW used here and uses regularly should be addressed. I ask the admims here to please look more closely at this, as pointed out by Dennis Brown - 2¢Unless I'm missing something, what took place was exactly the opposite of what is being claimed here.OgamD218 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as the one who wrote the text being quoted, the statement is not intended to imply that the information has to remain out of the article until agreement on the text is reached. It may also be relevant to note that this AE request follows the opening of an ANI discussion by a different editor. Sunrise(talk)15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved and don't wish to be involved in this dispute in any way. But as I pointed out at ANI, it might IMO be acceptable for FDW777 to revert an addition if they had started a discussion explaining why they feel the addition was a problem and preferably suggesting how it needs to be improved. I might even agree that while that discussion was ongoing, the text shouldn't have been re-added. But with the RfC, FDW777 cannot IMO just revert an addition and demand others start a discussion. While I normally think disputes where both party are demanding the other start a discussion rather than being the one to start one themselves, are silly, in this case the ball is clearly in FDW777's court to start a discussion. Any addition seems to be trying to fulfill the consensus achieved and therefore can be taken as an improvement not explicitly needing discussion. If FDW777 feels the proposed addition is a problem they need to explain why, rather than expecting someone else to explain why there needs to be a change as we have already established the that. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
It seems like the re-addition of the content following the RfC is justifiable, per Sunrise's comment above. I skimmed through the linked talk page discussions; while there might be some OR/SYNTH issues, it seems like the related content disputes need additional outside participation and/or dispute resolution. In the absence of diffs showing inexcusable tendentious behavior, I don't see a need for sanctions at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk18:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does it seem appropriate, but the edit summary "consensus has been reached that this merits inclusion, but you're more than welcome to make appropriate edits as to wording and other details" would seem to say they were open to others tweaking it and not taking a hard line on the prose. Unless I'm missing something, what took place was exactly the opposite of what is being claimed here. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit tricky as it involves a BLP where (according to the talk page) the subject has denied being a former member of a particular party, but sources say she was and the RfC says she was. My quick look did not find a source with the denial, but if it was strongly expressed the denial would need highlighting and the RfC would be faulty. If the current text (OgamD218 11:05, 19 March 2021: McDonald stated she had been "in the wrong party"...) is correct, the denial might be disregarded. Regardless of all that, FDW777 needs to accept they are outnumbered and should follow the RfC until a new discussion focusing on the denial overrules the current wording. The current wording agrees with the RfC. I would close this as no action. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new has been presented as evidence, and the events given have already been reviewed by the community as a whole. Timothy is basically appealing the outcome of an ANI discussion, but the rationale is simply that he didn't like the outcome. Since he has not provided us with a substantiated conflict, mistake or other fatal flaw in the close, it would be inappropriate for us to review. In fact, this is simply a second bite of the apple. As such, the appeal should be denied. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
I believe this is the appropriate and latest version of AE sanctions for Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Per "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs" I link to this ANI discussion [131]. It contains an abundance of diffs and comments, and the recent discussions on this talk page [132]
I write this reluctantly as I've largely decided to leave, but I returned this afternoon to see if anyone had closed the recent ANI thread here. I expected no action, but to my surprise Wikieditor19920 had received a topic ban and Nableezy had received a "final warning". I definitely do not believe a "final warning" is adequate given the entire situation and that this is a DS area, and I cannot see how this outcome is anywhere near equitable. Wikieditor19920 may well merit a topic ban given the entirety of the circumstances, but for them to receive a topic ban while Nableezy skates away with a warning is beyond believable (but it does validate my thinking about the dysfunctional mess at ANI).
Yesterday I was planning to post to AE for a review and was waiting for the ANI thread to close because I've seen AE requests rejected because of an open ANI, but several admins had seen multiple editors requests to close and move to AE and not taken action and the situation continued to get worse. I came to the conclusion this entire mess was a waste of time, no one was taking the mater seriously and walked away. But because I think this is an inadequate and inequitable outcome, I am requesting the conduct of Nableezy be reviewed by AE. That the ANI report was allowed to spiral out of control (again) is absolutely inexcusable; its outrageous editors cannot expect orderly civil discussions at ANI.
I think AE needs to consider the discussions as a whole to determine if DE/TE is a problem. I ask that the discussion at ANI and at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran as the most recent be examined in this regard. If Nableezy's editing is acceptable, this should be made clear to all; if it is not acceptable, it merits a topic ban since this is a DS area. If Wikipedia allows a Lord of the Flies atmosphere to reign, they will get editors that thrive in this type of environment and will continue to lose editors that want an orderly civil atmosphere to build and improve.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I already received a logged warning for all this. And I acknowledged how thin the ice I skate on is, and I acknowledged my own shortcomings both in that ANI and in past edits. Not sure what else I am supposed to add here. I dont think Ive done anything wrong at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran, Timothy has been upset that I decline to wait a month to remove what even he agrees is material that fails verification. Our standards for content get more stringent in contested areas, not more lax, and the idea that we should retain potentially false material for a month doesnt have any policy basis and so I declined to follow that plan. I dont see how linking to an entire talk page is useful either in showing problematic conduct, but if there is some specific diff there that somebody would like me to address please let me know. nableezy - 23:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to preempt any editor in this topic area who thinks they are doing me a favor by chiming in here, kindly dont. Obviously I cant say that to anybody who wishes to jump in to support a ban. nableezy - 23:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue: You really need to post some diffs here, preferably some diffs that hasn't come up before (and which gave Nableezy a logged warning.) I believe Double jeopardy still holds? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those who suggest it is problematic to ask for a different outcome at AE than one that was achieved at ANI from the same evidence. But also, what I saw at ANI is that in a short space of time, TimothyBlue went from supporting a topic ban of both, to then supporting the eventual outcome, to now demanding action against nableezy again. There's nothing wrong with that but TimothyBlue surely you can provide some diffs from those 2 days or so when you came to your final conclusion rather than expecting people to read a very long ANI etc to find whatever it is that lead to that conclusion. I mean what's the point of people reading stuff from the part which would lead the your middle conclusion i.e. in support of the outcome you are now unhappy about? Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just an observer. As an ardent, personal supporter of Israel I have hesitated to toe-dip into articles in the topic area, but have read some of these debates with interest, including the WP:ANI. I boldly removed the filer's closing of the WP:ANI discussion as a rather naked conflict-of-interest, was surprised to see it went unchallenged until (properly) re-closed by an administrator. I have never to my knowledge interacted with Nableezy, and I must say this Enforcement filing smacks of vexation. The matter was settled there. Zaathras (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I am unconvinced that the best way of resolving a long and contentious ANI discussion is to open an AE discussion that will inevitably end up being an extension of it. Also, given this ("Nableezy it looks like you won. Congrats, run wild, have fun. Its sad for Wikipedia your tactics have won") it looks a bit like trying to get different admins to impose a sanction because the first one didn't. Black Kite (talk)00:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made four comments in the lengthy ANI discussion and I am sorry that at least one of those should have been expressed more clearly to indicate that I was talking about activity by the regulars on the article talk page, not the comments by participants in the ANI discussion, and not the comments by TimothyBlue. I still think that Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran#Morocco shows standard procedure and no battlegrounding. I haven't examined all of the over 100K bytes of text since that section started but the key point is that I cannot see an answer to Nableezy's initial (and very polite) question about whether there is a source supporting the very strong claim that Morocco is a member of an allianceagainst Iran. Again, I haven't examined the 100K bytes but at least the initial discussion shows model behavior from Nableezy and misguided suggestions from others that support sources which plainly fail verification. El_C closed ANI with the appropriate result and this request should be closed in 24 hours if there are no precise details of a problem that was not addressed by El_C. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994
How much are the opposing parties asking for? 100% exclusion of transphobic deaths. They are politicizing the deaths. Zero compromise, deletions of explanatory paragraphs, purposeful obfuscation, and total removal of the people listed in 2021 without presenting the opposing sides of the argument is biased and not neutral. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is about not biting editors like me. You need to think about the implication of de-platforming me. Right now, other editors don't dare to add Diamond Kyree Sanders to this list. Whereas I would add her name and explain that the Cincinnati Police Department was quick to rule out transphobia without any identification of the suspect or meaningful investigation, saying, "This was a crime of greed. This had nothing to do with the victim’s lifestyle."[136] So, there can be no mixed motive? As the article I linked to states, Cincy police was using "insensitive language to describe Sanders’ gender identity." The HRC listing 11th which major news organization like ABC, CBS, and CNN will concur with while a squad of editors demand not only a zero listing, but also brook no discussion. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:9109:BAFB:F671:DCB4 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075: I'm literally arguing for a broader consensus at the talk page right now. Also no one wants to deplatform you, but we do want you to stop being uncivil. That isn't okay. If you agree to stop insulting people and railing against an undefined group of transphobic editors, then this will probably resolve ambically. –MJL‐Talk‐☖23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 2601:C4:C300:1BD0::/64, for your response. Based on the response, I support closing this report with no further action, noting that the warning has been accepted. — Newslingertalk02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left the IP a message here. This could be closed with an informal warning to the IP that disruption or personal attacks will result in sanctions. Feel free to contact me (perhaps with a ping from a talk page) if admin attention is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
