User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive23

Bosniak comment

I apologize for the summary, I was actually pretty tired when I read it and falsely understood it as a death threat. I'm sorry, please forgive me. --Serb ^talk 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

help with problem user: Bormalagurski re: Srebrenica massacre article

Blnguyen,

This is Fairview360. I work on the Srebrenica Massacre article. We have a problem with repeated disruptions at the article by editors who do not, I believe, want to improve the article but rather have an agenda of denial and obfuscation.

Every now and then, there is relative peace and then editors who do not all agree but have a common goal of improving the article begin constructive discussion and edits. If you look at topics #47 through #54 on the discussion page, you will see that indeed we do get down to constructive discussions when it is peaceful.

Currently, we have a problem with Bormalagurski and two of his associates Svetislav Jovanović and KOCOBO who are deleting sections of the article without good reason. This has happened before. Then we descend into an edit war. And then it takes a week to repair the damage and get back to constructive discussion.

The article definitely needs help, but we can't improve it when all of our time is spent thwarting users whose actual purpose is denial and obfuscation.

Given Bormalagurski's track record well researched by user:Kseferovic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Just_so_you_know , would it be possible to block Bormalagurski editing the Srebrenica article? There is no place for his belligerence towards editors and outright denial of genocide. Nothing good will come from his being at the Srebrenica article.

Given the recent onslaught, my guess is that Bormalagurski, KOCOBO, Svetislav, and others of their ilk have decided to attack the article.

Can you help?

I welcome constructive disagreements but not false arguments that are only meant to distract people.

Thank you. Fairview360 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of Bormalagurski's track record and his political opinions. For example, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski and his highly flamboyant style of jousting with Croatian editors and probably also Bosnian and Albanian editors as well. Usually article-spefic bans tend only to be done by the WP:ARBCOM by WP:RFARB if requested. I could lock the page if necessary though. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, the Srebrenica massacre article is a very charged and politicized article. I feel that in its present form the article does not comply with NPOV (tone of voice, how arguements are presented, which facts are presented and how, etc.) and that either the article needs to be rewritten/adjusted or, at least, that a POV tag should be placed to state that there is a POV dispute. I would appreciate if you could take a look at the article and suggest next steps.Cheers Osli73 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs)

Blnguyen , thank you for protecting the Srebrenica Massacre article. It was very needed. I have a suggestion though it may be too late now that the article has been locked. If you look at topic #47, you'll see that we were very carefully proceeding with a step by step approach with the introduction. During today's edit firestorm that introduction had half deleted with no explanation thus rendering the topic #47 discussion useless. It appears the main thrust of those challenging the article is that it should have a POV. Here is my request/suggestion as a starting point. Could you restore the bottom half of the intro that was deleted while keeping the POV tag? That would be a good compromise starting position. And then the topic #47 discussion could continue and we would not lose the progress that we had made based on substantive constructive conversation. This is the first time I have been part of an article that has been protected so I am not familiar with what happens next. The worst thing would be a resumption of the edit wars. Again, thank you for the needed intervention. Fairview360 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Srebrenica massacre

User 128.253.56.172 reverted already 4 times [1]this article. And it seems it is puppet of previous anonymous user. Could you block anonymous users to this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Medule (talk • contribs)

He has been blocked for 24 hours. The other Ip and Osli have got 96 hours for about 10 reverts.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kseferovic...

...is stalking me, analyzing my moves. I believe he admitted it here. I'm pretty sure this is in violation of WP:STALK and would appreciate something to be done about this problem. Thank you. --Serb ^talk 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like stalking to me - everybody who edits has their contribs put on a list and will be held to account for their edits. Heaps of people are keeping an eye on me and I know that and there is nothing wrong, unless they follow me around excessively scrutinising my edits across all fields. Unless you can show he is targeting your edits, then there is no violation.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre

Hello Blnguyen

Thanks for stepping in and protecting the Srebrenica Massacre article. From your involvement with China articles I suspect that you're familiar with the sort of destructive activity going on there. I don't know how much background familiarity you have with the Bosnian War generally and Srebrenica in particular, but events at the article will have given you an idea of the propaganda war that accompanied the war on the ground. What is going on now at the article is part of the continuation of that propaganda war.

I'm from the UK and a complete outsider, except that I have done translations for a German human rights organisation that has done a lot of work in relation to Bosnia and Kosovo/a and am a supporter of an aid agency that was heavily involved in relief work in both places.

I try to be objective, but I don't have a neutral attitude. My overall view is obviously shaped by information received through the media, other channels and contact with individuals who had direct experience of the war and associated events. However I find my personal impressions confimed by the findings of authorities such as Cherif Bassiouni, who was responsible for the United Nations Security Council's Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations in the Former Yugoslavia (1992-1994).

Bassiouni found that all of the parties in the wars in the Former Yugoslavia had committed grave breaches and all had been victims, but nevertheless there was no factual basis for arguing that there was a 'moral equivalence' between the warring factions. As media coverage had suggested Serbs had been responsible for the mass of breaches of international humanitarian law and the victims had been predominantly Muslims.

The Bassiouni Commission report predated the massacre at Srebrenica but Srebrenica is part of the pattern established very early in the war, of atrocities conducted as part of a strategic programme of territorial control that was given the name of ethnic cleansing and has been found by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia sitting at The Hague to involve the perpetration of crimes of genocide.

During the Yugoslav wars and subsequently the Serbian government side, the Bosnian Serb government and many Serbs abroad have sought to influence international public opinion by initially denying that crimes or atrocities took place and then when substantive evidence emerged by challenging the details. This has been time and energy consuming and extremely distressing to those who have had to fight the establish the reality of terrible events which they may have experienced either at first hand or through the involvement of relatives and friends.

I apologise if I've gone over ground with which you're already familiar but I think it's important to place the dispute over the article in its context so that you can understand the tone of anger and desperation that colours the arguments going on here. I am fortunate to be able to be rather cooler in my use of language as I have not had the face to face experience of the realities that other less temperate voices, tested beyond patience, have.

Obviously Wikipaedia has to have rules of conduct which have to be applied dispassionately. But is essential that any moderator dealing with issues that involve the wars of Former Yugoslavia does not mistake even-handedness for objectivity. This really is not a situation of moral equivalence.

I understand why you felt you had to suspend Bosniak. My disagreement with that decision was based partly on my understanding of what underlies the impatience and anger with which he expresses himself. More importantly, though, his suspension left the article vulnerable and placed even more of a burden on Fairview360 to defend what is, no bones about it, the truth that people are trying to deny and distort. It's important to remember that "fairness" can nevertheless be unfair in its results.

Anyway I'm grateful that you've now protected the article for the time being. It's a very important article - all the more so in the light of this week's developments in relation to the situation in Darfur - and Bosniak and Fairview360 and others need to be able to work on it in an atmosphere in which issues and details can be discussed calmly.

--Opbeith 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

requesting a starting point for Srebrenica Massacre

Blnguyen , I have been reading the wiki policy on protected pages. I understand that after protecting an article you need to be quite cautious about reverting the article and I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I do not know if this is a reasonable request or not:

In the policy it says that you as the administrator may revert the article to a previous form before an edit war if it is clear when the edit war started. From Aug 20 to Sept 1, the Srebrenica Massacre article had only 1 to 3 reverts per day and mostly part of the constructive give and take of editors acting in good faith. On Sept 2, disputes began and clearly, on Sept 3 the revert war ignited spawning over 50 reverts in a 24 hour period which lead to a critical context-providing portion of the introduction deleted from the article without a reason being provided nor discussion.

The wiki protection policy states that an editor may revert the protected article under certain circumstances. Reverting is allowed if "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy."

If the Srebrenica Massacre article were reverted to this pre-revert war Sept 3 version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73629738 , it would give both sides of the dispute acknowledgement. It would acknowledge the current dispute with the tag which one side was pushing for and preserve the pre-revert war text thereby providing a starting point for further discussion. It would preserve the progress we had made during the stretch of relative peace.

Would that be possible?

Again, I am not aware of common wiki practice nor the nuances of being an administrator so I do not know if this is a reasonable request or not.

Again, thank you for your intervention. I hope this leads to constructive discussion.

Best Regards, Fairview360 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a look. These are sticky.

Blnguyen, I understand. I see that the edit warring spread to the Markale massacre also. Question: what is the next step? When or how does an article become unprotected? Fairview360 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

Blnguyen,

I see that you suggest lifting the protection on the Srebrenica massacre page as you see some evidence of fruitful discussion. Although I realize that protecting pages is not a long-term solution I would suggest maintaining the protection for some time longer. Here are my reasons:

• There has yet to be any kind of compromise or agreement on a common view with regards to how the article should be written
• The protection is the only reason there are some attempts at fruitful discussion. Without it the Bosniak editors would simply refuse ANY edits not to their liking (and I believe their liking is POV).

I would suggest keeping the protection and seeing if other external editors can become involved. Regards Osli73 11:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Denial of genocide

Please look here [2]. As you can see you protected the article after Serb nationalists and vandals removed the main information, which is about the character of massacre (genocide) which is proven by international courte in Den Haag and sourced. So you helped them to destroy all this effort in the past year to source this article by neutral documents. I would like to ask you to return this sourced parts. Tnx. --Emir Arven 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you protected the article after nationalists removed the picture of a Bosniak girl hanged herself after Serb soldiers raped her and her 12-year-old cousin (Photo: AP). I think this is really, but really not human. So you should return this parts because they are valuable information, they are sourced, they are proven and just deniars are removing it.--Emir Arven 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better for the admin to not tweak the article before locking it unless there is obvious vandalism, else it leads to claims of impropriety. In any case, why is it possible that the Serbia article describes the KLA as "terrorist". that is not NPOV. The Osama bin Laden article only refers to him as militant. I will unlock the page in a day or so. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Language used in the Srebrenica massacre talk page

Blnguyen, since you appear to have taken an interest in the Srebrenica article I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at the sometimes very aggressive language used on the Talk page.

The most recent example is that by User:Emir Arven, calling a number of editors "Serb nationalists" (see here) - including myself. I'm not sure whether this constitutes a personal attack (I'm neither Serb nor a nationalist) it was certainly meant as one. Likewise calling persons who don't agree with one's own POV "genocide deniers" does not contribute to an open and good discussion.

If that article is to progress I feel that a first step needs to be a more civil language on the Talk pages. Are you willing to try to enforce this?

Regards Osli73 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a civil and human behaviour is to respect the dead people killed in genocide and not to hide the truth. So I ask you to see how this user is removing sourced part of some articles in order "to be a civil": [3]. By the way, Osli, this is really pathetic. --Emir Arven 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking. I'm away on weekends. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Emir Arven breaking 3RR and personal attacks

Hi, Emir Arven has broken the 3RR (see below) and become quite aggressive in tone (see Personal attack below) and I think some type of corrective action is necessary. I realize blocks and other actions are not meant to be punitive, but in this case I feel that some kind of corrective action is necessary to get this editor to adjust his behavior.

3RR (Naser Oric article):

• [4]
• [5]
• [[6]]

Personal attack (Srebrenica massacre article Talk):

• "Serb nationalists: (let's call them the right names, because they are trying to deny genocide proven by international tribunal) KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski, are doing what they know the best. Continuing the genocide." [7]

Regards Osli73 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR check my edits again. Regards. --Emir Arven 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli has only reported three diffs, but I may look again. Referring to other users as being involved in genocide is a massive personal attack. Looking into it.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen

In reference to your message @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:142.179.66.89&redirect=no , what personal attacks are you refering to? I only stated that Srebrenica Genocide article is about Srebrenica Genocide, not other genocides that were not legally proven in court.

I've referred to your page, it was about your comment onn Bormalagurski on Talk:Markale massacre. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of Srebrenica Massacre article

Blnguyen, Dmcdevit recently unblocked the Srebrenica Massacre article (along with other articles, apparently). When you asked earlier this week on the Srebrenica massacre talk page wether or not the article should be unprotected, I was one of the editors which supported keepnig the protection. I felt the protection was constructive in creating a dialogue about what the article should look like. With the protection lifted I fear that there will be no progress in improving what I perceive to be a NPOV (and in some cases just poorly written) article. I would appreciate if you could take a look at the decision to unprotect the article. Regards Osli73 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)