User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Avala regularly escalates conflicts through excessively animated and argumentative phrasing and tone on talk pages. Although his points are not always unreasonable (And I say this as someone who has been on the opposite side of them with great frequency),
Contents |
[edit] Non-aligned movement
One such edit war can be found regarding Template:NAM. When it was suggested that the box was overly large, and it was suggested that NAM might not be a good subject for an ASB, the following posts ensued: [1] [2] [3]. When the box was subsequently listed on VfD, Avala’s responses were of similar tone – the archived VfD discussion can be found at Template talk:NAM.
When faced with this criticism of the box, Avala also responded by deleting the comparable NATO box from a bunch of articles and replacing it with a box that simply said the country was a part of NATO. This can be seen at [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and [9].
[edit] Serbia and Montenegro
This was followed with a discussion regarding Template:Serbia and Montenegro, the following edits were made: [10] (Note here what might be taken as a personal attack) [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These edits, made in response to the concern that the box didn’t have enough information to be worth making an ASB about, demonstrate hostility, refusal to negotiate or seek consensus, and general unhelpfulness in favor of being excessively provocative.
[edit] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Another edit war occured on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, where Avala sought to remove the honorific "Her Majesty." Avala violated the three revert rule on this article as shown here: [16]. [17], [18], [19], and [20]. In discussing this edit, Avala adopted a hostile and beligerant tone, frequently responding with large amounts of capital letters and exclamation points, giving his posts an exceedingly aggressive tone, and generally refusing to accept widespread opposition as a reason to stop reverting. See [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].
[edit] Kucan and Drnovsek
Avala’s most problematic conduct in an edit war, however, comes from Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek. (Note that this matter was previously turned down for arbitration). Avala sought to add a note that both Kucan and Drnovsek were being accused of war crimes. More or less everyone who was not Avala objected to this on the grounds that it did not appear to be a serious charge, mentioned only marginally in one paper. I will not list every reversion and edit made to these articles – only those with relatively abusive edit summaries. For Drnovsek: [28] [29] [30] [31] and [32]. For Kucan: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. In discussing these reversions, the following posts were made: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Note later that he listed several of those who were opposing him in this on Vandalism in Progress. Note also the violation of the three revert rule at [46], [47], [48], and [49].
[edit] etc
Some of this tendency towards edit warring may be explained by the attitude expressed at [50], in which Avala suggests that an edit war can be justified if the user “knew much more than other users” – an attitude which goes against the Wikipedian drive towards consensus.
Avala also regularly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, policy, making spurious listings or votes on ViP, RFA, and FAC. When called on these listings, he responds with the hostility described above.
Examples of this include his opposition to User:Snowspinner’s nomination on RFA, which was on the grounds that User:GeneralPatton had supported the nomination. This can be found at [51] with further explanation and comments at [52] and [53]. Obviously, the vote itself is not actionable - one can vote however they want. My concern is the larger issue of not seeming to work within the context of Wikipedia conventions and engaging with the community - particularly when combined with his nomination of User:Nikola Smolenski, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of what people look for in an administrator. When users pointed to edit wars Nikola had engaged in, he maintained that this should be ignored in the face of Nikola’s edits and promotion of Wikipedia. Although, certainly, these things should be weighed, the seeming disregard for concerns as towards Nikola’s judgment seems further symptomatic the described lack of awareness of normal Wikipedia conventions and procedures. Evidence of this can be found at [54], as well as [55] (Which was linked to above). Again, nominating a user and supporting him is not itself actionable - what concerns me is that not wanting to be on the same list as another user is considered a good reason to oppose a user, but concern about edit wars and misconduct are not. And, more broadly, what conerns me is that these things, combined, seem to indicate willful disengagement with Wikipedia as a community, and to constitute deliberate provocativeness so as to disrupt Wikipedia's function.
On FAC, he has made a number of unsuitable nominations, and been obstinate about objections. Furthermore, he has shown a disregard for the request that each nominator only submit one article. Some of his many nominations can be found at [56], [57], [58], and [59].
The latter two are particularly telling. Russian humor at the time of its nomination was little more than a list of Russian jokes, as you can see (It hasn’t changed), and Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro was a mess – poor grammar and formatting, and over half the article consisted of source text. Its original form can be found at [60].
When people raised the natural objections, a typical flurry of snippisness and refusal to change anything ensued. Note particularly the refusal to summarize source text. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] and [69]. The last is particularly noteworthy, with its insinuation and near-personal attack of Snowspinner, saying “We all know why you are doing this, Snowsppiner [sic]. It is sad but I shall not comment it in here.”
Another display of unhelpfulness on FAC can be found when someone objected to the placement of an ASB on Nikola Tesla and complained that the see also section was gratuitously long, his response was [70], indicating an unwillingness too His activities at FAC extends into Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, where he listed L. Paul Bremer saying that it was a “stub” at [71]. Later, he denied calling the article a stub, as shown at [72]. The article, of course, was not a stub – here is how it stood when Avala listed it – [73].
On VIP, Avala listed User:Romanm and User:GeneralPatton who were clearly not committing vandalism, but who were merely disagreeing with him on the matters of Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek (Note that the exchange between GeneralPatton and Avala that resulted in the personal attacks happened after this point). I’m still working on finding the actual edits – it appears that ViP was affected by Wik’s vandalbot attacks, and that the edit history is lost somewhere. I’m not entirely certain where. As soon as I find those, I’ll post them.
Smaller instances include the questionable practice of voting for one’s self on RFA, as shown at [74]. Although its unclear whether this is an actual violation of the rules, it is, again, certainly a disregard for convention. There is also the voting in a long-ended poll at [75].
Avala also engages in personal attacks with some frequency. When called on these personal attacks, whether in IRC or Wikipedia, he frequently refers to an incident in which User:GeneralPatton called him a ‘cunt” in a foreign language, seeming to believe that because he was a victim of a personal attack at one point, he somehow has eternal amnesty from the personal attacks policy. One instance of this fixation on this instance can be found at [76], which is arguably a personal attack as well.
(note: I've never told him he's a "cunt". He's distorting that. -- GeneralPatton 01:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC))
I have managed to found the edits in question, they are visible at [77]:
(cur) (last) 23:28, 18 May 2004 GeneralPatton (serem ti sliku kralja petra.) (cur) (last) 11:16, 18 May 2004 Avala (you have real problems in your head. go to your mother and tell her that she is "pickica" not me) (cur) (last) 21:36, 17 May 2004 GeneralPatton (Reverted serb pickica vandalism) (cur) (last) 10:37, 17 May 2004 Avala (daću ti ja čobana!!!) (cur) (last) 23:54, 16 May 2004 GeneralPatton (reverted choban nationalist serb user.)
The first one, "choban", does mean "shepherd" and is used as insult which strongly implies that the person in question is stupid, i.e. not capable of any more complex job.
The second one, "pickica", does mean "little cunt" and is very insultive swearword. It could also mean "coward" (similar to English "chicken") but that use is apparently inapplicable here.
The third one, "serem ti sliku kralja petra", does mean "I shit on picture of King Peter". Why would he wanted to do so is unclear, but it is quite insultive.
I'd also like to point out that, in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."
Nikola 06:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] About Nikola
User:Nikola Smolenski is known a major POV warrior, he’s famous for inserting information considered by most users as being Serb nationalist, suspicious and biased and also cleansing up the Wikipedia of information he considers opposing to his cause. He concentrates mainly on the Balkans and has engaged (and still is) in numerous edit wars with Croat, Albanian, Bosniak and also outside users. For just a small sample of some of his recent questionable editorial conflicts you can see articles about Sarajevo, Srebrenica Massacre, Ilidza and their subsequent talk pages. For instance, just in the last few weeks alone he’s been replacing references to Bosniak’s with Muslims by nationality [78], [79]. This is highly offensive to the Bosniaks as can be seen here [80], [81]. I’d like to point out as the arbitration committee has established in the Lyndon LaRouche arbitration case [[82]], that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". Therefore also as in the LaRouche case, it is fair to say that User:Nikola Smolenski has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Serb nationalist and radical political movement. Especially when you consider the high ratio of his politically inclined and controversial edits.
For much more detailed look at his questionable behavior, and other users opinions about him, I invite the esteemed arbitrators to refer to his recent and unsuccessful Request for Adminship, [83], it should be noted that Avala was his nominator. For his typical method of work, in which he mostly ignores talk and any compromise or a different viewpoint, you can refer to the history of the Greater Serbia and Bokeljs articles [[84]] [[85]]. This is just one of many such examples.
Nikola is also a native Serb speaker and not a native Croat speaker like me so it’s understandable he’s mistranslated most of my remarks, this is especially evident on the last one that he absurdly translated into “I shit on picture of King Peter” which even he acknowledges makes absolutely no sense, in fact it’s meaning is “oh, I’m so scared your highness”. Same can be said about “pickica” that is more like “little birdie” or “little one” similar to the English “rosebud”. This was supposed to be witty, cynical and teasing, but not derogatory. Now, are these derogatory mistranslation malicious or just ignorance, I won’t speculate. At User:Orthogonal/Avala_evidence I have expanded on some points I've presented here and also responded to some further allegations.
To quote what I have said there and that also applies here “Let’s not forget, there was a major armed conflict between Serbia and Croatia less then a decade ago, the dead are still warm, and we live with many painful memories. So I understand why Avala and his friends have their attitude. It’s understandable there is not a lot of friendship and trust between us. Honestly, I wish it was different, I hope one day they won’t misunderstand and misinterpret my good intentions.” GeneralPatton 00:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Other examples of personal attacks can be found at [86] (The term roughly translates to “petty lawyer” as far as my skill with a Croatian dictionary goes).
The term literally translates to "wooden lawyer" and means "person who defends others who don't need defence" (perhaps with an undertone that they are often causing more harm than good) Nikola 22:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I confess skepticism as to this translation - it does not make sense in context, since Avala was criticizing me for making objections, not to defending things.Snowspinner 16:51, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
-
- "Drveni Advokat" as phrased here could in the worst-case mildly be implying a male sexual organ, so it could be like “dickhead” in English than a more general translation as a "wooden lawyer". Of course, I'm not a native Serb speaker, so I can be wrong about this. GeneralPatton 23:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- Makes perfect sense - you were answering to his question to Morwen. Nikola 19:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[87], [88] contain abusive edit summaries.
Also possibly of interest is [89], in which he responds to GeneralPatton, who, as noted previously, he has a bad history with, clearly yelling, though it is not clear what he is saying, since he’s responding in Croatian.
(note: Avala’s been on few “yelling” sprees on my talk page as well [90] GeneralPatton 13:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC))
He's saying "YES, YES, I AM RACAN'S. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR DISCOVERY!" in response to GP's "look, look, [insultive term for Serb] cares about little Ivica, you can see whose he is..." Nikola 22:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avala.
[edit] Defense
On Avala's behalf, I would like to note that I have been obscenely harrassed by both Snowspinner and GeneralPatton -- I am inclined to believe that it is they who should be banned, not Avala. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I of course invite Lir to, if he believes I have violated any rules or that there is some case to be made for my banning, submit evidence or a complaint to the arbitration committee instead of making vague and purposeless allegations. Snowspinner 16:55, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
See user:Avala/Answer. Martin
