User:Orthogonal/Avala evidence

This is Snowspinner's "Evidence against Avala" as copied by orthogonal; I've interpolated my examination of the evidence as outdented, bolded paragraphs. -- orthogonal 04:48, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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),

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 MediaWiki 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].

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.

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].

It should be noted that Avala is right on the editorial issue. Honorific titles are not a part of persons name, are commonly used only in person's own country and may be considered POV by many people. Encyclopedias don't use them as parts of a persons name, some might list it later in the article, some ignore it.

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].

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].

Snowpinner's argument here seems to be that certain nominations for FAC made by Avala are so obviously unsuitable as to constitute some form of "trolling" -- and so lists them here as his "evidence" against Avala. Remember, Snowspinner intends to use this evidence to justify banning Avala -- such a strong sanction requires strong evidence of clear and obvious malice on Avala's part.

But the first "unsuitable nomination" that Snowspinner objects to is Plate tectonics as it appeared at the time of nomination; it's got a map and another image, and looks pretty good. Reaction to the nomination was to suggest some minor improvements to it, but nothing suggesting that it was in any way obviously unsuitable.

The second is Politics of Taiwan as it appeared at the time of the nomination. To this, Snowspinner's own objections are in the nature of minor cleanup: "Article needs to better explain the relationship between Taiwan and China. Article needs to be reordered somewhat [...]. Also, article needs a picture." Again, nothing that obviously disqualifies it, or makes its nomination a troll.

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].

The third is Russian humor as it appeared at the time of nomination. While admittedly a bit rough and, given its nature, discursive, it's immensely interesting. What makes it so interesting, is how it relates the jokes to various aspects of Russian (and Soviet) culture: the plight of Soviet Jews, relations with (Nazi) Germany, atttitudes to the KGB and religion. Indeed, it can be read as a primer on Russian national charcter as seen through the prism of humor. It is perhaps more telling about Snowspinner's attitudes than about the article that Snowspinner dismisses it as "little more than a list of Russian jokes"

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].

Defending an article's quality from objections is normal and in no way wrong.
Avala called L. Paul Bremer "more a stub than a featured article", not a "stub".
This is really petty.

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))

Other examples of personal attacks can be found at [77] (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)

[78], [79] contain abusive edit summaries.

Also possibly of interest is [80], 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 [81] GeneralPatton 13:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC))

A few things to note:

The term drveni advokat means somebody who speaks for other people without being called on to do that, and is not offensive.
The edit comment at [80] above means "Yes, yes, I am (for) Racan. Well done, how did you guess" and was made as a direct response to GeneralPatton's previous edit comment in Croatian "Look, look, Srbo (a disdainful word for "Serb") is worried about litte Ivica. You can tell who he is (for)", which continues in English: "returned photo, not as bad as he (presumably Račan) is".
Ivica Račan is the former prime minister of Croatia, and the short dispute was about a bad photo (image:racan.jpg) that avala removed and GeneralPatton returned. Avala consequently uploaded a far better picture, which is still in the article.
GeneralPatton is a far more offensive user than Avala, having used an abbreviation for a Croatian WWII fascist greeting on Nikola Smolenski's talk page. His bad treatment by any Serbian editor after that can be considered to be provoked.
Avala's language should probably be called Serbian, not Croatian. If Avala said that GeneralPatton's message to Nikola Smolenski was in Serbian, I am sure that GeneralPatton would have considered it insulting and objected vehemently.

First of all, "Srbo" isn't a disdainful word for "Serb", it's Croatian slang, it's like calling an American a "Yankee". That whole thing about Racan was just meant to be a witty and a cynical little comment; I reverted since I felt that the picture should not have been removed as it left the article without one. And for claiming that "For Homeland" is a fascist greeting is like claiming that "Gutten Tag" is a nazi greeting. It was branded "fascist" by Ex-Yugoslav communist government since it represented Croatian nationalism which they where trying to suppress. Even a prominent regional left-wing newspaper like Oslobodjenje[82] acknowledges this as you can see in this article [83], similar difference of oppinion, this time about Serb symbols can be seen here [84]. Of course the Serb nationalists have a different view, so from this Croat-Serb conflict also come most of our own misunderstandings. Let’s not forget, there was a major armed conflict between us 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 21:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Patton lies as usual. "Srbo" is used as a disdainful word for "Serb", "Za dom - spremni" (For homeland - ready) is a fascist greeting in the same way that "Sieg - Heil" (Hail victory) is, and the article in question actually looks negatively at the fact that "this greeting is today called - homeloving, sometimes, during partisans, it was - Ustashian". Nikola 19:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, well, that your Serb nationalist view and you're quite free to have it, but why did you remove this entry about fascist like connotations of Republika Srpska’s insignia [85] a view which is certainly shared by many Croats and Bosniaks? Do you also want to say that ethnic cleansing didn’t happen in Republika Srpska, then why Banja Luka that had about 50% Serb population before the war now has 96% Serb population? GeneralPatton 20:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You claim that there was no ethnic cleansing in Croatia even though it is now 95% Croats populated? [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 21:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's up to the ICTY to decide. Unlike Republika Srpska and its military force led by Ratko Mladić, no charge or indictment of ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Croat forces in Croatia has been proven in court. I guess some other users can say more about this. GeneralPatton 23:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dont see much to discus here (actually, it's rather boring). Anyway:

"Srbo"-yes, it does contain a reverberation of contempt. But not nearly so as constant Serbian drumming lies galore about Bosniams Muslims and Croats and the obssesive ustasha bumper-sticker (a part of Serbian ideological pathology). Be as it may, the "Srbo", although slightly derogatory, cannot be put into the same category as "Srbenda", "Srbonja", "Gedza",..all of them exuding a sense of inflated serbdom for Serbs and contempt for non-Serbs. It's a matter of style.

Za dom spremni (Ready for Homeland) was a greeting in NDH not only in ustasha formations, but also in regular army (domobrani-home defence), as well as in colloquial speech. It's been, after decades of Communist oppresion, allowed in contemporary Croatia and is sometimes used as a greeting, half-jokingly. Only sickos equate it to the ustashas or atrocities they did commit or have been later falsely ascribed to them.

as for "ethnic cleansing"-there are now 89% Croats in Croatia and 4,5% Serbs (Serbs constituted ca. 12% before the war). Well- they cleansed themselves, as the evacuation document issued by Milan martc show-as well as the demographic records of short lived "Krajina" with constant emigration from 1991 to 1995. There were ca. 1 M French in Algeria before the liberation war, and now ca. 30 k. The similar situation is with other colonial minorities (Russian in Baltic republics, Portuguese in Mozambique) who, as a rule (with or without war), go back to the home country after their priviledged life ends with the country's independence.

I dont see much sense in debating these rather trivial points. Mir Harven 08:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Heil Hitler" and "Sieg-Heil" weren't used just by SS, but also by Wehrmacht and ordinary people in Nazi Germany. That makes them no more acceptable on Wikipedia. Even if "Za dom spremni" is becoming relativized in modern Croatia (and there are plenty of voices in Croatia vehemently oposing that), GeneralPatton had to know and in fact did know that using it in a conversation with a Serbian editor is higly offensive and grossly out of line with the collegial spirit of Wikipedia editors. This has nothing to do with Serbs and Croats directly - any nationalist taunting is counterproductive, but using Nazi collaborator greetings to offend people is totally unacceptable. Zocky 00:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zocky, the ones "opposing" are completely on the social margin, mostly left-wing radicals and unreformed communists. Even president Mesic sang "Jure and Boban", and I sure haven’t done that here. This is not at all like "Heil Hitler", "Za Dom" is an old 19th century greeting, if not earlier, there is nothing racist or insulting about it and it’s not some kind of an expression of fascist leader worship. Just, "For Homeland". GeneralPatton 22:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)