I think this exchange is becoming unproductive. [[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup>[[Special:Contributions/Fainites|<small>scribs</small>]] 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this exchange is becoming unproductive. [[User:Fainites|Fainites]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Fainites|barley]]</small></sup>[[Special:Contributions/Fainites|<small>scribs</small>]] 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:Be that as it may, note that word seems to travel rather fast. Already the rather famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.95.249.97 151.95.. IP] of the banned [[User:Ragusino]] is pushing his personal ideas on the [[Ethnic cleansing]] article, on the [[National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe]], and the [[Foibe killings]] article, of course, sourced'' in full'' by some Italian guy's diary. And all today, for some reason. We can expect to see more of that. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:Be that as it may, note that word seems to travel rather fast. Already the rather famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.95.249.97 151.95.. IP] of the banned [[User:Ragusino]] is pushing his personal ideas on the [[Ethnic cleansing]] article, on the [[National Memorial Day of the Exiles and Foibe]], and the [[Foibe killings]] article, of course, sourced'' in full'' by some Italian guy's diary. And all today, for some reason. We can expect to see more of that. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::Hi direktor, listen, honestly I think this is working just fine. This way you do what you most like (policing and patrolling articles) with admins filtering your actions. You say what you want and admins check if they are right or not, and only do the right ones. Hey, this way you seem like some mafioso or something, working behind the scenes... You still need to learn not to directly insult other editors on your talk page, good mafiosos have others doing that instead, and with more charm. You still can edit every other issues around wiki. I have football for exemple, it´s nice to refresh one itself from time to time. Oh, but I forgot, you hate football... Try womans [[synchronised swimming]] or [[Greco-Roman wrestling]], oh, the last one better not, you´ll actually find polemics between ''Grecos'' and ''Romans'', better stay with syncho. Well, if you came until here, you should know that is time to delete my comment, just remember, don´t be mad at me, after all I didn´t do anything to put you in this situation. Nice synch! [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk:FkpCascais|talk]]) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok you won: never more contribute by me in dalmatian articles ok? I'm not a sock, so thanks me for house of cerva and stop bother me or accusing me i'm not interested any more in YOUR influenced pages.
Another edit war
.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
DIREKTOR, a week ago you were involved in a long discussion on Stepinac. You left the discussion saying were too busy at the time to deal with the detailed points on sourcing and so on raised there and would come back to it later. However, shortly thereafter you were involved in a budding edit war on Pavelic. Then a full blown edit war on Croats. I appreciate all of these Balkan articles are the subject not only of endless dispute but also random POV attacks, but there does seem to be a pattern of various ediotrs carrying on the same Balkans wars from one article to another with very little constructive editing or real attempts to reach consensus. The prime example was perhaps that argument about the translation of the title on the Yugoslav Front article on which agreement was reached yet nobody actually added the translation. Everybody had gone off to argue about something else by then. I appreciate this is not just you but perhaps you might like to consider these points.Fainitesbarleyscribs 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you are right. Let me try to explain. The Balkans articles have just one main problem: they're open for editing to the general public in the Balkans :). There was bitter war here just 15 years ago. And with war comes wartime propaganda, or to be more accurate, a wartime mentality of extreme nationalism is created (out of necessity, basically). With this, a large number of "glorious national myths" are grounded firmly in the public's mind. People generally believe one thing, while the facts are demonstrably opposite - and it does not matter whether you can "prove" the falsehood of the myths and demonstrate the facts: the myths MUST be true. Its something like challenging one's religious beliefs. Like a fundamentalist Muslim and a creationist Christian debating, in such a discussion the actual facts are of the least importance.
To address your point, you must understand that it is virtually impossible in such an atmosphere to actually do some real editing. You are "not allowed" to display virtually any facts since, if they agree with one side, they will surely offend the other. You will simply be reverted. In fact, the only way to actually bring about a serious article expansion is to aggressively establish the facts. Political correctness or "middle-grounds" has no place here. At least one side is nearly always dead wrong in these things, and 99% of the time its the members of the nationality to whom the myth belongs. Therefore one side, or sometimes both, eventually need to be be "broken" (no sense using euphemisms) one way or the other into giving-up (99% of the time), or acknowledging he/they are wrong (rare), so that the actual facts can be displayed and that at least some editors can edit without being molested. As you saw in the Chetniks article, often one is forced to "establish" the sources and the facts over and over and over again. All this is a full-time job: to edit an article with an unresolved issue you have to "fight" your way through a "battle" to be "allowed" to do anything. This is in essence why you see more conflict than editing.
See for example the Croats article. I tried to do some editing because the page looked abandoned and I thought I might not have to "fight" my way through. I invested serious effort: I found a nice format, I thought of a nice concept, a historical procession of notable Croats. I found the appropriate images of Croats, I carefully cropped them, checked the licensing, uploaded them, wrote all that-up - and now its gone. Plus I just actually got laughed at and insulted on the takpage, with numerous personal attacks (if you'd care to note). I did the research and edited the Stepinac article. I simply looked-up the facts and wrote them up - they're gone now. Sourced scholarly info. Gone. Now, am I stupid to waste hours of my swamped schedule like that again? I'm just a student over there, not even an intern, I hardly have a moment's peace. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do know what you mean about POVs like religious beliefs, having battled in pseudosciences myself. However, there is a danger of getting into the habit of acting as if every editor who appears is merely yet another nationalist mythologist and that every proposed change, however anodyne has a hidden motive. If I can give examples, on the Stepinac page, whilst I would agree that various RC tomes on lives of saints are unlikely to provide a fair summary of the more controversial aspects of Stepinacs life, why flog yourself to death and make sweeping statements about the likes of Ramet? She hardly gives him a free pass. But then she hardly gives Tito a free pass either - or Mihailovic. There is a danger also in being more than merely firm in holding the WP policy line. The fervent nationalists are not going to go away. However, the aggressive and insulting tone of much of the discourse on these pages will assuredly drive off the more moderate and thoughtful editors. Your edit on the talkpage, in response to a carefully set out analysis of source issues, which said To paraphrase your troll edit summaries: Alojzije Stepinac was a collaborator, get over it. It really is high-time this abhorrant, fascistoid, Ustaše-praising article is rewritten in accordance with (proper) sources. instantly personalises all the issues and everything gets derailed. Less involved editors then can't make head or tail of the issue without back-tracking through pages of TLDR insults, accusations and circular arguments. I would hope that with a little policing, sensible editors with a genuine interest in history may be induced to take part.Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. I'm not saying I don't go overboard in the "nationalists everywhere!" department from time to time but I do think I'm not wrong most of the time. The fact that I'm trying to relate is that most normal, ordinary people in Croatia would say Stepinac was not guilty - yet his activities under any interpretation of law constitute "mild" collaboration (corresponding with his "mild" five-year jail term). The same goes for Mihailović: most normal, ordinary folks in Serbia would say the guy was a "hero". E.g. I certainly don't think the guys at Aloysius Stepinac are "hell-bent zealots", they're perfectly normal people - from around here. They grew-up thinking Stepinac was a "martyr" for dying of polycythemia in his bed in a country estate (in which case I can see "martyrs" every day in the hospital :)), and they think I'm here trying to destroy the reputation of a "great Croat". (As far as this recent thing with User:Timbouctou is concerned, he's certainly no "nationalist fanatic", imo he's just annoyed his vote didn't work out and the article remained the same.)
Concerning Ramet. I think we have a misunderstanding there. Ramet is an excellent author. However, so is Bernd Jürgen Fischer. Now, I've read most of Ramet's stuff and when you brought her up I checked out the statement you quoted. It has no direct backing. Fischer, however, does. He bases his statements on the work of Alexander and her research into Stepinac's activities in April 1941 (the month Yugoslavia was occupied). Not to go into details, but his activities at the time do constitute treason under any Yugoslav law (collaboration with the occupying forces). On the other hand, I can't find anything Ramet uses to back her statement up, let alone anything that addresses the evidence otehr sources quote. I'm not saying she's "pro-nationalist", no way, I've used her myself, all I'm saying is that this is an obscure issue and that she is contradicted by research quoted by other historians - she may be simply wrong (and frankly, Fischer is a historian of high repute, whereas S. P. Ramet is a political scientist). --DIREKTOR(TALK) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one of the points I was trying to make is that the very controversy makes the Stepinac's and Mihailovic's more interesting. As in - are the British noble defenders of democracy and freedom or are they evil imperialist fascist bastards - or are the two necessarily mutually exclusive. On Ramet - I would think we are entitled to assume she did her research before writing her conclusions. You don't expect little blue numbers attached to all her sentences. I don't think it's an obscure issue and she devotes quite a chunk to it. If there is genuine controversy (not as in Intelligent Design I mean) then that ongoing controversy is part of the subject matter of the article, particularly when it is still such a live issue in ex-yugo.Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring at Fausto Veranzio
Please stop immediately the edit-warring (1, 2) at Fausto Veranzio. There has been a clear consensus in the Talk:Fausto Veranzio#Requested move redux from June 2010 that he was a Venetian from the Venetian Republic. I think you'll still be very much aware of this discussion given that you were found canvassing then other users. It was enough of an editwar then, so please not again the same stuff reloaded. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR - do you just not realise how rude you are? Look at your post about Timbouctou on the info box dispute. I started a fresh discussion to see if people could agree at least some of the names and then discuss the rest. Timbouctou made a perfectly civil contribution. Your response was a litany of personal insults. Do you simply not realise you are doing that? Fainitesbarleyscribs 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see: he started it. See his first post in the topic, personal attacks one next to another - completely unprovoked. And he just called me "arrogant" 2 mins ago. As for the MASSIVE posts, Tim has a bad habit of writing those and frankly its annoying. I had previously told him several times, very politely, apologizing all the way, that I can't be made to write for 30 minutes every time he posts some essay like that, and completely unnecessary to boot. People just ignore his essays 90% of the time anyway, and respond partially (if at all). As opposed to simply ignoring him, I'm trying to get the guy to be more concise so we can actually discuss instead of write letters to each-other.
I'm not a polite guy, I know. When someone starts something I'm not going to post any outright personal attacks, certainly, but I am not exactly going to be courteous with the guy. His previous vote is no way to go. And it failed, anyway. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What, "Please Sir - he started it!". Just look at some of what you wrote. random list Timbouctou is suggesting for some strange reason, objective arguments and judgement overrule "mob sentiment": , This is just nonsense, that ridiculous "voting" affair from months ago turned out to be a useless farce, and User:Timbouctou wants to make sure all his futile efforts therein were not in vain.. Now - I don't object to calling nonsense "nonsense". But do you see how your remarks are not just saying the proposals are nonsense, but grossly personalising matters against Timbouctou? Many of your posts are like this. You say Tims posts are TLDR, but what about the effect of each talkpage being covered with the sort of intensly personal rants such as these from you? Any sensible person with genuine historical interests is just going to run a mile - and who can blame them.
Further more, the discussion which brought this forth was not, for example a POV campaign to call Tito a surrogate Nazi in the pay of Hitler, or an attempt to remove any reference to catholics as anything other than the devils spawn, but a discussion over the pictures of 16 famous Croats for goodness sake! Lighten up. Fainitesbarleyscribs 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added and excluded few images on the infobox at the page. I followed the statistics, how much an article about some person was viewed so persons with most views were added or remained, whatever. I saw your activity ther on talk page, so, you agree with it? I saw that you had "problem" with Rade Končar, can we sort this out?
--Wustenfuchs 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that right? As I can see only Italians voted "support". The problem are english books wich don't refer him as Vrančić, we'll see how long it will take. I'll see what I can do...--Wustenfuchs 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, do what you need to do. Discredited my self? I don't bealive so...
Sorry, no energy for discussion, they reverted my edit very fast... maybe later.--Wustenfuchs 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prelog
You can resize his imgage, so he don't have big head...--Wustenfuchs 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of resizing will shrink that tremendous noggin :). No seriously, sou just can't. His head takes-up his whole portrait, and the portrait has to be of the same proportions as other portraits. But its not so bad.. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 17:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the mediation talk page you recently made the following statement: "... this mediation has been mismanaged in numerous ways and beyond repair." My concern, at the moment is not whether the mediation was mismanaged (I've made many mistakes in my life and I'm not worried about admitting mistakes in a mediation - I make 'em all the time). Although, the judgement "mismanaged" seems harsh and overstated. My main concern is the "beyond repair" comment. If things are beyond repair, then we should just close it. But are they?
I know that we had a discussion back in November on this subject. Your last comment was the following: "To be clearer, imho we need to one 1) start an orderly, structured, impersonal debate on the main issue, and 2) we need you as the impartial, objective mediator to step in when you assess that this or that fact under discussion has been established in accordance with Wikipedia requirements and policy. That is basically all I'm saying." There are various reasons why we did not do that (i.e., have an orderly, structured, impersonal debate) back in November. Let me just summarize them by saying that IMO the main participants were not able to do that, then. However, I always did plan to get to that in the context of the "Legacy" section. Why the "Legacy" section? Because the discussion (dispute) that emerged on that topic was precisely the kind of discussion that would benefit from an orderly, structured debate. However, I judged that it was not possible at that moment to have that debate.
I made the call based on the circumstances at the time. I may have been mistaken in my judgement. While I doubt that, I do not see it as being detrimental to a resolution now. I'm saying that I think that the circumstances are different now and am offering to have that orderly, structured, impersonal debate (see mediation talk page). Would you be willing to participate in that discussion now? Sunray (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sunray, had I been in your shoes, the first thing I would have done almost a year ago would have been to ask the involved users to present their sources (quotations and/or page references). I would then have attempted to move the debate forward by helping the participants establish this or that relevant fact as a sourced fact (based entirely on WP:V). If sources contradict we would compare their strength on the basis (or bare existence) of any quoted primary sources, if they're arguably equal in strength - we would quote them both. Thus we would move forward. Once we've answered by this method the actual question that caused the conflict, only then would it possible to move on to an (inevitably brief) discussion on the exact wording we would use to represent the facts. And again, if an unlikely problem still arose there (in spite of having arrived at a conclusion concerning the main issue), I would advise the conflicted parties to follow the sources as closely as possible.
This is not my method or invention - this is essentially the "scientific" course of action. I may be still an undergraduate, but we do know how to address conflicting claims (though usually all we have to do is check out what Cochrane has to say :)). This is also how I formed my position on the issue in question.
What you are doing is simply telling us (and by "us" I mean good old Nuujin) to write away. Not only is this virtually impossible (with more people than Nuujin actually writing) because the main issue is not solved, but even if somehow this prolonged, gruelling business, where we debate each word separately instead of the issue itself, is brought to an end - we would still only have a superficial solution, after immense effort, with the underlying main conflict still alive and kicking. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I was proposing. But first, I will comment on the method you propose in your first paragraph. What you propose is fine as long as everyone realizes that sources must support text. Disputes often break out (in academia, in Wikipedia) over interpretations of text. Sometimes it is necessary to quote the text verbatim so that there is no misunderstanding. The art and science of collaborative editing is to find a way for editors to be able to discuss and when there is a dispute to be able to reach agreement. That would be the ultimate aim of a mediation. We came to a block in the mediation because we were not able to find a way to do that. Then.
What I've proposed is that we sort through the differences between you and Fkp - with reference to sources and text. I don't mean that one is going to win and the other lose. I mean win/win. That is not easy. But when I talk about looking at the Legacy section, I mean looking at any fundamental differences between the two of you that surfaced during the discussion of that section and finding the way to resolve them. I chose the Legacy section, it was during the review of that section that the dispute came to a head. Is that clear? Sunray (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is that people wouldn't "accept" sources? I.e. that they would not accept what sources have to say? Well if that problem is not solved, then the dispute can't be solved at all in the first place. I for one am confident, however, that if User:Sunray were to say "this is sourced" the acceptance would follow very shortly. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 11:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is almost always bias in sources. Editors have to write a balanced article. Still, if there are a preponderance of sources all saying one thing, the article must reflect that as the dominant point of view. Would you be willing to answer to my question on the mediation page now? Sunray (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. No, there isn't. There isn't any bias in the sources we used for this. The only reason you think there is "bias" in the relevant sources is that User:FpkCascias claims there is "bias" in sources. Which he does because they contradict him directly. Peer reviews say otherwise. And besides, statements can easily be verified by their support in primary sources.
For example:
"On November 20 1945 the Germans intercepted a radion message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with teh enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks (p. 329)
Notice the carefully listed primary source from the OKW archives. And here are the peer reviews:
"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states." -Ivo Banac, Yale University
"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources." -Choice Magazine
"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones." -History: Reviews of New Books
"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come." -American Historical Review
"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War." -Canadian Slavonic Papers
"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him." -Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..." -Eric Gordy, Clark University
"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work." -Eric Gordy, Clark University
"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945." -Slavic Review
But no, lets just assume the source is "biased" because Wikipedia User:FkpCascias claims that it is biased over and over and over again. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you assumed that I was referring to a particular source and suggesting it was biased. That was not my intent. I made a general statement that all sources have a bias. We are talking about different things. Your argument is essentially about the reliability of a particular source. In that regard, I believe that your arguments are correct. Bias and reliability are two very different things. Reliability is a policy requirement. Balance is another. Editors must weigh both in deciding which sources to include and their weight in the article. Can we move on to the question on the talk page, now?. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, I did not assume that. I was just demonstrating how there are unbiased sources, and that they CAN be used to solve this conflict quickly and to the point. The example source is
1) reliable - because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed publication by Stanford University (WP:SOURCES: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."), and it is very well referenced by primary sources.
2) unbiased. Because not only is there no peer review that even hints at any bias there, but there are many positive peer reviews that actually praise the objectivity of the work.
"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work." -Eric Gordy, Clark University
This source alone, an intercepted radio communication used as a primary source in a university publication, where Draža mihailović in his own words first orders his subordinate to collaborate, and then explaisn how he needs to keep his own hands clean, should be enough in any reasonable circumstances to end the "debate" right then and there. Especially in light of virtually NO contradicting sources presented by the other side. That however, is not what I think is going to happen over in the mediation.
This was just an example of what I mean when I say that sources should be used to end the main debate. I however, simply do not have the willpower to waste even MORE energy in nonsense debating with football fans that have no understanding of this war. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems evident that I was speaking in general terms and you were talking about a specific set of sources. We were talking about different things. When I realized that, I told you that I agreed with your point and said that I did not think it invalidated what I was saying.
Your response states that you are tired of debating with football fans. I'm unclear how that applies to the mediation. I've asked you if you would agree to a facilitated discussion between you and Fkp with reference to the "Legacy" section. (Note that it could be any other content agreed to by the participants, but there needs to be some content to discuss). I am requesting that you respond with a simple "yes" or "no." If you decide not to proceed with that, I will contact the other participants about how they would like to proceed in wrapping up the mediation (with reference to my note on "Completing mediation"}. So, one last time: Would you be willing to engage in a structured discussion with FkpCascais, facilitated by me? Sunray (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the same thing. As I pointed out several times ("For example"), this is only a specific example I use(d) in our general discussion. You made a general statement that "unfortunately there is almost always bias in sources". I stated I disagree, and listed a specifc example of a source relevant to our issue that is essentially unbiased, and at the same time very significant. Tertiary sources that stick to their secondary sources are not biased, and secondary sources that stick to their primary sources are not biased. There are such sources available to us.
User:FkpCascais is a football (soccer) fan. And spends most of his time on Wiki doing quality edits in such articles. What little he knows about WWII Yugoslavia, however, is not founded on actual sources, but on the deep-rooted beliefs of the general public about their history. The pattern I have seen thus far is 1) Someone lists a source, 2) FkpCascias "denounces" it (he himself denounces a scholar, based on his own claim, outrageous!) with various nonsense claims of "bias" and "selective representation" (a line he picked up from JJG), and we go on "debating". As if the source does not even exist. I mean this kind of stuff is devastating. You don't just ignore it and move on. You accept that you were demonstrably dead wrong.
I found that the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais' simply "refuses" to accept sources, and simply "refuses" to admit he was wrong in his assertion. Over there, world-class scholars completely depend on the "approval" of a (likely teenage) football fan, because the mediation wants us to "agree". Well what if the man simply refuses to agree in perpetuity? Does that mean sources just aren't sources? Facts are not facts? I'm essentially advising you to step in when you see a source like the above, and move the discussion forward by advising the users that this is a reliable source which has succeeded in demonstrating a fact. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that the quotes you presented, supporting Tomasevich, are not peer reviews. In the publishing trade, they are known as "blurbs." But, I don't want to question the value of Tomasevich as a source.
My comment about bias has to do with the nature of historical narratives. In all of the social sciences there are questions about what and how the researcher choses to study and how that biases the outcome. Many books have been written on the subject and it is way outside the scope of our discussion about this mediation. We will only concern ourselves with policy issues such as verifiable and reliable sources and weight. The issue of acceptance of sources, on the other hand, would be most relevant to our discussion. You have not yet answered my question, so I will pose another: Would you be able to prepare a short (one-paragraph) statement of what you would like to get out of a structured conversation with Fkp and how you would like to proceed? Sunray (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm pretty sure I don't have to repeat this, but in your short statement, please stick to content, not the contributor :) Sunray (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing I want to get out of a conversation with Fkp. I don't even want to have a conversation with Fkp. Not because I dislike him (though there is that too), but because there is nothing I could possibly get out of a conversation with Fkp. I cannot change his position, noone can. He's here to defend his Chetniks, and that's what he will do regardless of the sources. That is essentiall the whole entire problem.
Let me repeat:
I found that the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais' simply "refuses" to accept sources, and simply "refuses" to admit he was wrong in his assertion. Sources have absoltely NO EFFECT on the course of the debate. This is why it is standing still - because sources are the only way to solve such disputtes. Over there, world-class scholars completely depend on the "approval" of a (teenage) football fan, because the mediation apparently wants us to "agree". How do you intend to rectify this problem? That is to say, can you rectify this problem in some conceivable way? I've essentially lost faith in such a possibilty in that mediation.
My next step will be to write a detailed, carefully sourced, high quality section on Draža Mihailović's dealings with the Axis. When Fkp removes it, I will post an RfC and will make such a noise so that people might finally notice: "What? He's removin' this? On what grounds? Its sourced.. ??". I am confident Wikipedians are not quite so stupid as to just take someone's word on the alleged bias of acclaimed scholarly publications.
In any case, it cannot be much worse than waiting for someone to say "What? He's opposing this? On what grounds? Its sourced.. ??" over at that mediation. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 00:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the mediation should be to settle what references will be used and how they will be presented. However, since you are unwilling to enter into a structured discussion, we shall move on. I will approach this another way, and poll the other participants about what they want to do. Sunray (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's all very intersting, however, "the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais simply 'refuses' to accept these same references you are talking about, and simply 'refuses' to admit he was wrong in his assertion(s)". That is exactly why the mediation lasted almost a year instead of two weeks. Whenever we discuss this, Sunray, you simply talk around the critical questions. How do you intend to address this?
If you've decided to actually institute some real changes in how things are done there, then I will return. These are not my "conditions", this is not a "threat", you have to understand I have no reason to think that after all that wasted energy I will not simply waste more. Even now I feel incrdibly stupid to have written all those pages, quoted all those sources, essentially with no effect anywhere.
The ancient mediation is at this stage a "ceasefire" at best and a joke at worst. As I said earlier, as things stand I have no intention at all of abiding by any conclusions drawn in the RfM, regardless of any (essentially unilateral) instant-mix "proclamations" that may be posted in an effort to make it seem a less pointless affair. I am not required to do so, nor could any objective observer possibly blame me, or doubt that a "mediation" that lasts 12 months instead of two weeks has some deep, deep flaws in the thinking behind it. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recent posts
DIREKTOR. As you know I have been endeavouring to assist in achieving a more collaborative environment on various Balkans pages. I have spoken to you before about your intemperate and personalising tone when debating issues with others. I had thought things had calmed down a little. I was therefore somewhat disconcerted at the tone and content of your recent posts on Yugoslav Front and Serbs of Croatia. You seem to be unable to leave any comment unanswered and to be almost unable to comment without grossly personalising the debate. Your behaviour on these talkpages chills discussion and probably discourages contributions from editors who are unprepared to put up with your constant aggressive and personal diatribes against anyone who disagrees with you. Your behaviour is in the region of WP:DISRUPT. This really must stop. Fainitesbarleyscribs 11:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be brief: I know, I apologize, and I shall stop. I'm just.. kind of frustrated on several fronts and I lost it when after almost 2 hours of careful image work that.. really nice man over at Talk:Croats decided I was "playing dumb". --DIREKTOR(TALK) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for intervening here, but this needs to stop. Nazification is a serios issue, and done this way is a profound desrespect and insult. This user has donne this purpously and continuosly despite knowing that a mediation on this is going on and that things are certainly not that way. We all make an effort to be civil and respectfull. My Serbian and Jewish roots give me special sensitivity on this, and I garantee you that if this was donne towards some other nationality this would be sanctioned inmediately. Having green light to nazify Serbian historical fugures is something that should not be tolerated. The user has been called for his attention for this several times, but purpously with bad-faith ignores this.and continues to do it. In the meantime another same POV user is edit waring on related articles, having fun by adding categories such as Category:Serbian Nazi collaboratorsSee here. A mediation is resuming on this issue now, this user should at least have some desency and respect to wait for the outcome. FkpCascais (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're terribly apalled and concerned. But as far as the sources are concerned, Momčilo Đujić is a notorious Axis collaborator. This is well known and completely obvious. What needs to stop is your annoying pro-Chetnik POV-pushing. Only a person completely unfamiliar with this person's activities, one who never really took the time to understand WWII Yugoslavia, could possibly state that this person did not collaborate with the Axis.
"A report of the [German] XCVIIth Army Corps notes that (...) In case of an Axis landing they would change sides, as would collaborating Serbian groups, that is, Ljotić's Serbian Volunteer Corps, and the Chetniks of Dobroslav Jevđević and Momčilo Đujić."
— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 127)
But in other cases, for example that of Revered Đujić's detachments in northern Dalmatia and Western Bosnia, the Italians used Chetnik Units almost...
— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 262)
"Some troops, notably those under Đujić and Jevđević, as well as a large part of the forces in eastern Bosnia, continued to collaborate with the Germans against the Partisans."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 428)
"On November 20 1945 the Germans intercepted a radion message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with teh enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 329)
Oh here's Ramet, she's a lot more superficial than a work that deals only and specifically with the Chetniks, but here we go:
"By mid-June 1942, the NDH authorities have established cooperation with the following Chetnik leaders: (...) Momčilo Đujić (Strmica)..."
— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, (p.129)
Đujić is the No.1 Chetnik leader ("vojvoda") who collaborated with the Axis, primarily with the Italians, but also with the Germans and the NDH since mid-1942, not only with Mihailović's full knowledge - but under his explicit instructions. As for Mihailović himself, Tomasevich essentially devotes the whole chapter "After the Italian collapse" to describing the complex collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and the Germans (that followed the Italian capitulation). He notes that these agreements (which detailed the areas in which Chetniks were to cooperate with the Germans) deliberately left a corridor between Mihsilović's "personal" area, which was under his direct command, and the "areas of collaboration" where the treasonous agreements apply. He also notes on pp. 328-329, that this was in accordance with Mihailović's policy of "keeping his own hands clean". A policy he himself admitted to in numerous intercepted communications with his subprdinates. All this is straight from the German records and is closely supported by said primary sources.
Now, Fainites, can you believe we're still discussing whether Miahilović collaborated with the Axis? In Serbia, of course, all this (and more!) is simply glossed-over by the general public. Hence Fkp with his pals that simply "refuse to accept" such sources and attack others in the manner you can see above. (Btw, I'm also a Croatian-nationalist communist for saying all this.) --DIREKTOR(TALK) 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also proposing to include Tito and his negotiators in the same way as a consequence of the Zagreb talks? Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Tito ordered his commanders to collaborate with the Germans? :) What Zagreb talks? I'm prepared to accept (unsuccessfuly) putting out "feelers" is inufficient grounds for labeling someone a "collaborator", as User:FkpCascais himself likes to repeat (because Mihailović negotiated with the Germans on five occasions). What I am refering to are successful collaboration agreements, that is to say widespread Chetnik collaboration, that took place with Mihailović's approval, not ot mention his direct orders to subordinates like Djujich to (quote) "cooperate with the Germans". This is just the tip of the iceberg, Fainites, only stuff related to Đujić, there's a LOT more. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read Walter E. Roberts, pps 106-112. I raise the question, not because there aren't plenty of sources about Dujic, but because it seems to me that there is often very little interest in actually working on the articles as opposed to point scoring. I thought you people were supposed to be taking part in an ongoing mediation about Chetnik/Mihailovich collaboration. What's happening with that?Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to score points. I am NOT a pro-Partisan POV-pusher. I am not a communist. The difference between a "POV-pusher" and a non-POV-pusher are the sources. The guy who merely bases his position on sources is neutral. The guy who opposes him with no sources, is a POV-pusher.
Example: if the sources agreed and stated that Josip Broz Tito is GOD incarnate, and if I were to support that position - I would be a neutral editor. Anyone who opposes that sourced position would be a biased POV-pusher (Serbian or Croatian nationalist, whatever).
Now, allow me to explain why I feel passionately (and its obvious that I do), about beating the living daylights out of the Chetnik-praising on Wikipedia. Simple reason: its Balkans nationalist fantasy overriding sources, and it has managed to do so (without sources!) for the past several years. Croatian Ustaše-praising is a lot easier to deal with because those guys were open Nazi fans. I find it absolutely enraging to find that these Serbian nationalist editors succeed in overriding numerous, high-quality sources over and over again because none of the admins gives a damn. It may sound like I'm whining and/or repeating myself - but that is the ONLY real problem here. Do you think I would have these sort of troubles over at Talk:World War II, where Wikipedia actually functions? Now I will sound arrogant, but I'm basically the only guy I've met on Wikipedia that understands the course of this complex little guerilla war.
As for the fact that there is little article editing as opposed to "debating", I believe I already tried to explain that you cannot really edit in the Balkans without blowing one of the debating sides clear out of the water one way or the other, since they will simply oppose and revert-war over 90% of anything you do (regardless of whom you support). Believe me, I tried. See for example the Serbo-Croatian article, where only after long conflict have the nationalists been sufficiently beaten down to allow "normal" people to do some actual editing. That is how much effort it takes. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just 2 things:
"The guy who merely bases his position on sources is neutral.", unfortunatelly, that is not you. What you do is selectively use sources that feet you to make a point. There is a great difference.
"beating the living daylights out of the Chetnik-praising on Wikipedia", now saying this is quite ironical. I would rather say that it´s the other way round, you are pushing all anti-Chetnik propaganda the most brutal way, perhaps to compensate a bit your ocasional fighting with your own Croatian nationalists, since you both agree on this. You are basically bringing back the 3-side Yugoslav front into wp. You don´t archive results in fighting hateriot with more hateriot, but seems you´ll never understand fully the meaning of it. FkpCascais (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Selectively"? Yes. I "select" sources. You do not. You just talk. You see, Fkp, if people were just allowed to simply ignore sources just by talking and saying nonsense like "selective" or "biased" - we could ignore any source. Any source at all. The way how this works is that, when someone provides proof positive of a fact, you are required to provide proof negative disproving it - or stop talking. Or you should at least find some negative peer review, or a contradicting source, or something, anything.
You are lying to win the argument. You have been lying continuously for more than a year.
The sources are NOT biased. Show me a negative peer review if they are. If you cannot find someone who says the source is biased - it is not biased. And you should probably stop talking.
The sources are NOT chosen selectively. Show me a contradicting source if they are. If you cannot find a source that disagrees - the sources are not chosen selectively. And you should probably stop talking.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.Fainitesbarleyscribs 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites, are you serious? You'll block me? My edits are being WP:STALKED and I am being provoked here. That is a fact. User:Timbouctou can "deny" it all he wants, but its perfectly obvious from his edits. Not that since the discussion on Talk:Croats was successfully concluded, he has followed my contribs to Talk:Yugoslav Front, Talk:Ante Pavelić, and Talk:Serbs of Croatia, strangely opposing everything I support. A simoultaneous involvement in articles where the discussion was either concluded or was going on for days already. In all instances he has continued to insult me at every opportnity "bullshit", "arrogant", "troll", "psychiatry patient", I mean just look at his posts. This is the very definition of WP:STALK.
I am also asking you to please read through his early posts on Talk:Croats. You will notice I had to put up with his insults and abrsasive behavior from the start.
In his very first recent post there ("Josip Broz Tito" section) he says I'm "blabbering something" in a very abrasive tone [1]. I had not spoken a word to the guy.
I was frankly very much surprised at such a hostile attitude out of the clear blue sky. The tone of the discussion was civil, there was absolutely no bad blood. This is an excerpt from his second post:
"Btw I love the fact how DIREKTOR thinks that his reasoning somehow trumps the consensus gauged by a poll in which 15 editors voted and commented. I love it how he thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"
In his third post [2], again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
Fourth post: "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning." [3]
This stuff goes on and on.. I invite you to have a quick read and compare personal comments, e.g. "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" [5] followed by my post:
"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"
Even when I got blocked because of his uncompromising, hostile attitude, I still remained calm for the most part and was good sprited. And then after I agreed to all his proposed changes and implemented them myself, he accused me of "playing dumb" with his Brlić-Mažuranić photo, and the he "expects" to see it included. I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. I should have simply reported his behavior as soon as it started. Now you are about to treat us "equally".. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Croats infobox
By wich order you added photos? Is it by year of birth? Because if so, then Ivo Andrić and Vladimir Prelog should change places.--Wustenfuchs 12:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes date of birth was the idea, but I did not really check. So I got all but one right? Not bad :). As far as I'm concerned, feel free to tumble them around. Just be careful not to touch the space for the non-existent Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić photo or else thou couldst invoke the wrath of User:Timbouctou. :) --DIREKTOR(TALK) 13:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really scared :) , well, it seams Tito is also older then Andrić, but I fixed it all. Now it's all right.--Wustenfuchs 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you should be scared. :) The man has succeeded where many have failed: he managed to insult my pants off, stalk me all over the project, and then get me essentially blocked for one month for getting upset because of it. [6] --DIREKTOR(TALK) 21:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
DIREKTOR - I have made a proposal about you at you ANI complaint about Timbouctou. I have come to the conclusion that your WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT tendancies have reached unmanageable proportions. It can't go on like this. I am proposing a one month topic ban. Sorry. The topic ban will relate to all yuogoslav/balkan articles, broadly construed. I am entering it on the record at the Arbcom page.Fainitesbarleyscribs 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, could you be so kind as to point me to where I can contest this? I assume I shall have to go to ARBCOM? I'm sorry, but the fact that the first posts by User:Timbouctou are, as has been demonstrated, incredibly aggressive and riddled with a plethora of provocations and personal attacks (as opposed to my own) is hard evidence of my having been provoked. His simoultaneous activities on other talkpages are also the very definition of WP:HOUNDING. These facts will not be glossed-over, certainly not if I am to be topic-banned. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific place for the review request? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 18:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are. You have a choice. As for ANI, you can continue with you complaint against Timbouctou if you wish. However, as I was about to take this step in any event it seemed appropriate to raise it there. In any event, all complaints by Balkan editors against each other are frequently pretty much ignored. Fainitesbarleyscribs 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see. If this report is ignored I will post it again and try personally contacting a few people I know. One does not "bullshit" others and get away with it. But, on the whole, I do not think it is necessary for you to explain various aspects of Balkans-related Wikipedia editing to me. In fact, I will go as far as to say you should probably topic-ban the vast majority of Balkans editors under these criteria. I just seem to have been rather unfortunate to have met your acquaintance.
With your above post in mind, and considering the fact that the ANI thread in question is about the behavior of another editor and not myself, could you explain why exactly you posted my topic-ban and its elaboration over there? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I did think about it. My proposed topic ban of you seemed to me to be germaine to the issue. Whilst i would agree that Timbouctou has been pretty blunt, it has been in no way the one sided affair you portray there. As I have said before - I do not know whether you really don't understand quite how offensive you are being or whether this is a front. In the circumstances it seemed appropriate to complete the picture. ANI is not a court of law. It is usual for admins to look into the whole picture and WP:BOOMERANG is a not infrequent result. I am not suggesting that policy applies in your case. I did not make my decision as a consequence of your complaint there. But I did think that admins ought to be aware of the larger picture. Fainitesbarleyscribs 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello yourself. A comment on the larger picture (as you see it) has a place there, but that is not what I'm talking about. As for my being "offensive", what I fear you do not quite comprehend is that (in the words of another admin) the Balkans are of Wikipedia is a "rather rough, unfriendly place," and (whatever you may think) more aggressive debating is commonplace. By your standards that you applies to me you might as well block or topic ban FkpCascais right now (not that I would want him blocked), certainly User:Timbouctou (the "bullshit", "idiot", "bitch"-man), to list the few you do know, and just about half of all editors that edit Balkans articles. In this context, I fully reject what I consider your own personal, rash view on my behavior.
I will add that I have been an editor, and a very productive editor, for the past four and a half years. I've had the plesure of making your acquaintance less than a month ago (if I recall correctly). You have displayed an ability to draw very rash judgement, not only about myself, whom you dismissed as "avoiding sources discussion" based on one talkpage encounter at Stepinac, but also about the entire nature of editing in ex-Yugoslavia articles. I frankly found it strange that you would label the entire topic of Wiki, with hundreds of editors, as unporductive by your personal standards, but I can see it fits the general picture very well.
In short, you have not been around the Balkans long enough to gain a good feel of the place. This is not to say I should be excused for behaving inappropriately, but 1) the fact that I was provoked and goaded should be taken into consideration, 2) I was stalked and harrassed, and 3) unlike other users, I do not consider myself to have overtly insulted anyone. In spite of your unexplained denial, I have clearly demonstrated, with diffs, that User:Timbouctou was the one who incited the conflict with overt, unprovoked insults for which he hopes to esape sanction.
Reagrdless of all that, in all objectivity you have quite obviously topic-banned the less offensive of the two conflicting parties. This much can easily be demonstrated with diffs to any impartial observer. Since you have involved yourself in the conflict by sanctioning me, I must ask what you intend to do about the other party? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wil note that I have not banned or blocked anybody for breach of WP:CIV orWP:NPA. One could indeed block large numbers of Balkan editors under these heads but I am fully aware that editing these pages is not for the sensitive or faint-hearted. I have not blocked people for losing their tempers and using naughty words, nor for accusing each other of various POVs. I have been around since early January 2011. What concerns me is the overall disruptive effect of your editing style and your ownership tendancies. I think your past success in seeing off nationalist vandalism has given you a false understanding of how things work. You may think you have not overtly insulted anyone but in fact virtually the whole tone of your discourse is dismissive, sneering, bullying and owning. If you really cannot see this I suggest you spend some time re-reading the last few months talkpage discussions. You may rest assured however, that I shall also deal with editors who think they can take advantage of your absence to do anything similar.Fainitesbarleyscribs 12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So.. you don't sanction people who in addition to an aggressive tone also use overt insults and slander (who provoked conflict), but you do sanction editors because of their aggressive tone (who were provoked into conflict)? And yes, I feel I have shown that it was not me who "started it", as it were. Seems to me almost like I should have been insulting Tim as well. Here's this guy who is not a nationalist, but arrives on Talk:Croats breaching WP:NPA left and right calling me a blabbermouth, my posts idiotic, etc, etc. (you saw the diffs) and yet according to you I'm being overly confrontational because I'm a nationalist vandal "war veteran" getting flashbacks? And why was I insulted? Why the slander? The man had a vote, nothing at all came of it for months, and all I did was dare to fix-up "his" infobox - so I'm the one with the WP:OWN issues?
I know exactly how things work. I didn't arrive yesterday. Admins have noted in the past that I should have been an admin myself by now if I wasn't the guy who "polices the slums", as it were. Like I said, these are the Balkans, and I just had the misfortune of having an admin basically follow me around for a month or so and scrutinizing my editing style in his head. Had half the editors here had such an "honor", they would be sanctioned by you even faster - because you would/could form the same opinion. "Wow, this guy fights whenever he discusses, could this be because these are the Balkans? No, it must be him, because I've been following him and the others I'm not so sure about. And after all, are not three or so discussions sufficient to form an opinion about anyone's editing style?"
You also seem to think that nationalist vandalism is a thing of the past? Not to exaggerate my "importance" or anything, but there'll be quite the party once its known I'm taking a vacation. As User:FkpCascais noted, there is a "We Hate DIREKTOR" Club of folks who would like to push their edits into articles in contradiction with actual facts and sources. Right now, FkpCascias and old Timmy-"Bull***t" are patting each-other on the back for succeding in provoking my famous temper and getting rid of me. And if you think somone can possibly edit here with those kind of people with the kind of kid-gloves you would be satisfied with, you still have not gotten the feel of the place. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 14:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this exchange is becoming unproductive. Fainitesbarleyscribs 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi direktor, listen, honestly I think this is working just fine. This way you do what you most like (policing and patrolling articles) with admins filtering your actions. You say what you want and admins check if they are right or not, and only do the right ones. Hey, this way you seem like some mafioso or something, working behind the scenes... You still need to learn not to directly insult other editors on your talk page, good mafiosos have others doing that instead, and with more charm. You still can edit every other issues around wiki. I have football for exemple, it´s nice to refresh one itself from time to time. Oh, but I forgot, you hate football... Try womans synchronised swimming or Greco-Roman wrestling, oh, the last one better not, you´ll actually find polemics between Grecos and Romans, better stay with syncho. Well, if you came until here, you should know that is time to delete my comment, just remember, don´t be mad at me, after all I didn´t do anything to put you in this situation. Nice synch! FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
