Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Ivan Kricancic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Contents

[edit] Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: Policy violation, personal attacks, incivility

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer: Well, so far I've tried talking to Emir Arven, and I've written a report on WP:AN/I, but so far nothing has come of it; in fact, my report on the admin's noticeboard (which has been on the noticeboard for days now) has not seen a single response from an administrator, even though there clearly is a heated situation.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: Hopefully Emir Arven will change his behaviour, stop using personal attacks against me, and stop harassing me. I also hope that all of the attack pages and individual personal attacks will be deleted from Wikipedia.

[edit] Summary:

Emir Arven just will not stop his personal attacks, incivility and false accusations against me. After lengthy discussions with him, he still does not seem to understand that what he is doing is wrong. His talk page (and one of it's archives) is basically an attack page against me - almost everything on it is a personal attack against me, incivility towards me, lies about me, false accusations against me, and just generally insulting towards me. The other pages above (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ivan Kricancic, User:Former Anon, User:124.177.92.88, User:124.185.36.177, and User:58.165.126.167) were created by Khoikhoi for no apparent reason. There is absolutely no proof/evidence/hints of any kind that those users were me, there was no investigation, and there was no checkuser; yet those pages were created, seemingly to provoke, insult and attack me, without any justification. I tried getting them deleted as attack pages, but some guy reverted my edits without even looking into the situation. Emir Arven has proven to be well outside the range of civility - he has been blocked seven times for rampant incivility, personal attacks, and heavy edit warring, but he still is under the impression that his actions and his falsifications are acceptable, which they are not. It can be seen here that I have tried to reason with him, but he has dismissed it, and even removed it from his talk page. Furthermore, you can see from his edits that he is a racist bigot, because he removes sourced information purely because it was written by a Serb, and he harbors great prejudice against Serbs and Croats. You can also see that he seem to hate Indian people from this, where he tries to get unblocked by claiming "two Indian administrators conspired against me".

Now I must say, creating sockpuppet pages with absolutely no proof or evidence is in very bad taste. These pages must be deleted until your unfounded accusations that came out of nowhere prove true - which won't happen because you are a perennial liar. This whole thing started because of a provocation by Emir, and now Emir just will not stop with the attacks, lies and falsifications. I am yet again asking that a good admin step in, and remove all the personal attacks/falsifications/provocations directed against me by User:Emir Arven. He cannot hide under the guise of doing good for Wikipedia with personal attacks like this - which translated means

Ustašoids in action

I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanaticism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also.

This is insulting and provocative beyond belief - yet this, and many more attacks like it, have not been removed, and he has not yet been warned or punished for posting the above message numerous times.

Also, notice his block log.

  • 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
  • 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
  • 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
  • 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
  • 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
  • 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
  • 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
  • 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
  • 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
  • 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Seven blocks for heavy edit warring, many personal attacks, and rampant incivility.

Now, let's examine some of his edits and edit summaries:

  • A page move which is provocative in many ways to people involved in the article (those who are not "on his side")
  • 2nd edit after his most recent block. Immediately jumps straight back into edit warring, and removes a huge section about a war crimes investigation on the man.
  • A regular victim of his warring. With this edit, he reverts a version that was a compromise version between warring parties, and shows that he is unwilling to compromise.
Also on the same article, this edit which he writes "this is ok", which it simply is not, because he has removed all references to the man being Serb - another example of his racism.
  • 7th Muslim brigade. Another article in which he removes sourced information and edit wars in, so he can try to paint a rosy picture of "his side".
  • This one! Imagine begin the anonymous user, and BAM, out of nowhere some guy just reverts your edits, then goes "Ivan, is that you?".
  • Here he says that Wikipedia's Serb editors are involved in genocide.
  • He also doesn't seem to understand the meaning of a discussion, as he keeps on repeating the same provocative bullshit lies everywhere he goes.

Now consider his editing patterns, his mannerisms and his block log, then take a look at my block log. I was blocked once for vandalizing a real life friend of mine's user page [1] (which was wrong, but in retaliation to this). And my other block was as a result of me making personal attacks against Emir Arven after he provoked, harassed and attacked me. Now make a judgment over which editor is more trustworthy. I will ask again, please delete/remove his personal attacks/provocations/insults, warn the user not to do it, and possibly block him - in my opinion (judging by the numerous blocks, edit wars, slander, personal attacks, insults, provocations, and racism from this user) an indefinite block would suffice, but one of you admins may be more tolerant than I am, so a one or two month block would do if an indef is not made. I cannot see how anyone would believe a block is not justified, but if there is to be no blocking of Emir Arven, I would at least settle for the attack pages and other personal attacks to be removed. I would also like for him to change his behaviour. Please read this, and do something about this vandalistic troll. Thank you. —KingIvan 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion:

[edit] Comment by Cquan

I am new to AMA, but in general I think there is some reluctance to take on this by members of AMA, the admins and the community because there seems to be a lot of mutual mean-spirited talk and activity going back and forth between the parties. Now, while one block log is certainly more impressive (not in a good sense), that doesn't mean that the other party is guilt-free. From the section on Dispute Resolution, I am assuming that you haven't gone through all the steps in the process. I understand that you are probably very frustrated with this and that frustration is prompting jumping to more drastic measures (requesting permanent bans, etc...), but there are some other things that you could probably try first.

  • First of all, being insulted or attacked does not mean that you should return the favor. Trying to be subtle about it doesn't really help either. Mean-spirited is mean-spirited. You may consider just taking a step back since this has been going on for a long time.
  • It may be adviseable for you to let others address the edits by Emir for a while. If what you are asserting is the case, then allowing the community to step in and help address it is a good step toward resolution. Otherwise, it looks like just a personal war between the two of you and not many people want to step into the middle of an already ongoing war.
  • Remember, in general you should be addressing content, not the contributor. I understand that it's hard given the case, but you should do your best to not stoop down to verbal brawling.
  • If sources are disputed, try other sources if you can. You could even just take a chance and present sources that conform to whatever requirements the other side has defined (eg. international observational sources not directly involved I believe was one such).
  • Try an olive branch. Just a thought, but you never know.

Keep this updated as things progress. Good luck and stay on track. -Cquan 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by PaxEquilibrium

I'm not going to practically spam this page with my gigantic comment, so I'll just put a link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Emir_Arven#Evidence_from_PaxEquilibrium. --PaxEquilibrium 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


[edit] AMA Information

Case Status: under investigation


Advocate Status: