Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

The conflict of the ethnicity issues between the Croatian and Italian users in this debate started in the article, Zadar. After attempting to stop the edit warring on Zadar many times [1] [2] [3], I started an RfC regarding the article [4]. After the request for comment obtained no result and the edit warring on many other articles began, I started a mediation request regarding the articles involved. This can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/28#Zadar or at this deleted revision. After the mediation request was rejected, the edit warring reappeared in many articles (Mainly those that Isotope mentioned) Relevant discussions by the involved parties to my talk page are listed:

• User_talk:DarkFalls/Archive_July_2007#Giove circus
• User_talk:DarkFalls/Archive_July_2007#Massive disruption
• [[5]]
• User_talk:DarkFalls/Archive_July_2007#User:Zmaj
• User_talk:DarkFalls/Archive_July_2007#Direktor and his many forums
• User_talk:DarkFalls/Archive_June_2007#Edit warring - Zadar

Other articles also involved include:

• Istria
• Ante Starčević
• Neo-Nazism
• Marko Marulić
• Joannes Lucius
• Republic of Serbian Krajina

All of these articles have generated much heated discussions and edit warring over the ethnicity of the people and the historical and current ownership by Italians/Croatians. For Zadar, the main conflict was over POV differences, and the naming conventions of the article needs to be clarified (The name of Zadar in history and whether the current name (Zadar), or the historical name in time of Italian occupation (Zara).)

They were (and to some extent still are) also edit warring over Fourth Crusade (but strangely, not the Siege of Zara article). They have mostly stuck to the talk page since I threatened to block them all (very un-wiki-like, I know!).

Someone has asked me to make a statement. In my case I can only say that I have asked in the 19 July to protect some articles because User:DIREKTOR changed the text in a strange way. Some changes have been strongly POV (I could say also xenofobic), but the problem is not connected to a single paragraph; the changements involved paragraphs, single words, talk pages and a lot of articles. In this situation it is difficult to find a dialogue because we are not looking for different interpretations of a paragraph, but the problem is that persons risk to discuss on a single word, on adjectives and so on.

IMHO you must judge the User:DIREKTOR most of all reading the talk pages of any article (i.e. Talk:Foibe massacres). We have threats ("You will banned"), a lot of capital, and in any case a strong position not opened to have a dialogue. It's difficult. In this case I was completely afraid because an IP (in contrast with him) was not able to edit the article of Foibe and User:Direktor was able, simply because he asked to protect the page by anonymous edit. You understand that this was completely a treacherous position. If you read the talk page you can see that the article has name "Foibe" but the "Direktor" says:

Please note that since the fojbe are NOT on Italian territory they should be spelled "fojbe"! To spell them "foibe" is insulting and will not be tolerated.

You understand that a person who knows Italian but don't want to speak Italian, who attacks other persons for a "NON" error, has got a bad wikilove. You can see that after discussion, and discussion, and discussions the user has accepted that "foibe" is correct. Imagine you to make this in all words and in any article that he is written!!!!

In my case my request to block the article is started after that and Talk:Foibe_massacres#LEO, you will be banned if you continue at least to have the two users on the same position.

I am sysop in Italian Wikipedia and I have worked a lot in similar Italian articles as it:Dalmazia, it:Foibe, taking care about POV. I always solved asking the help of Slovenian or Croatian people when the article was more "Italian" and asking the help of Italian people when the articles was more "Slavic", but they are impartial persons, who discuss.

Personally I will not write on these English articles to don't flame. The position of user:DIREKTOR are unfortunately with not different point of views: it's static and fixed! You understand that it's easy to solve the problem with persons who write POV but aren't POV, it's not easy to discuss with persons who write POV because they are POV and they are "absolutely" sure to be in the right side. --Ilario 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly been involved with Foibe/Foibe massacres, Marco Polo and Italianization (as far as I can remember, I could've done some edits to other related articles but not on the same scale): as you can see I've been "criticized" by both Italian users for being a "communist" and Slav/Croatian users for "hiding the Italian crimes." I always tried to keep a neutral point of view and to balance the opposite opinions; obviously I had my bad moments as well but I hope that they were outnumbered by the times I managed to resolve the problems through negotiation and building consensus.

Unfortunately I've seen that there's a growing numbers of users who seems to use Wikipedia to boost their nationalist agendas; this is not a new phenomenon but it's been steadily increasing, and it's becoming pretty much unbearable in many Balkan-related articles (not just between "Italians" and "Croats", see the number of disruptive edits made by Albanians in Pyrrhus of Epirus). I don't know how to keep this problem under control; when a number of like-minded editors starts a "campaign" to modify a series of articles it quickly becomes impossible for others to try to propose an alternative opinion without being reverted always by a different user, no matter if they've been trying to reach a satisfying compromise: I can suppose that this could push someone over the edge. I've been seriously thinking about removing all those articles from my watchlist and be done with it once and for all.

With regard to the object of this request for arbitration, until now I've always been able, in the end, to arrive to a satisfying "middle-ground" with user:DIREKTOR; however there are other users involved in this arbitration who've been prone to revert without even trying to evaluate the other's position; when someone reverts many times the same typo (a very visible "-" before a paragraph), then I think that it's impossible to discuss with them (I'm referring to User:Kubura in Italianization): they don't even read, they just look at the editor and revert to their POV. -- GhePeU 14:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree total Giovanni Giove and Brunodam. DIREKTOR made only disruption and communist propaganda against Italians in many articles. DIREKTOR is known flamer banned in some forum and blog of internet. DIREKTOR supports denial of ethnic cleansing planned by Tito against Italians and always ruins involved articles with POV and biased words. DIREKTOR is suspect sockpuppet of banned user. Kubura is a known Croat nationalist and problematic user in Italian version of wikipedia. No. 13 does not know Dalmatian history. LEO, 30 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.90.194 (talk) 17:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Note:Comment by an unregistered user. Similar IP-address as user:PIO's IP-adresses, 151.33.x.x.. (Same user? WP:SOCK?) Special:Contributions/151.33.90.194. "Semi-involved", but only one contribution (in this almost a year old problem), and that's this statement above?? Also, no such user as user:LEO or user:Leo, but this "LEO" allows himself to make such heavy discreditation attempts. Shall we allow to any troll who passes by to use RfARB as wall for his graffiti? Kubura 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this change, by user signed as "Leo". [6]. Kubura 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am user:PIO unlogged for technical problem and I think that problem for many articles is not Italian POV versus Croatian POV but correct users against trolls. I think that DIREKTOR, Kubura, No. 13 and Zenanarh are trolls because it's impossible to discuss with them. PIO, 10 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.89.84 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A note by User:Michaelbusch, sent on 11 Sep 2007, 16:28, [7] and in 16:29 [8] to PIO's talkpage. See section User_talk:PIO#Your_3RR_report. Michaelbusch warned user:PIO that he violated WP:3RR and WP:SOCK.

In the edit from same day, 11 Sep 2007, 16:21, Michaelbusch gave data about suspicious IP-adresses, that user:PIO used (as unregistered) in edit-warring [9].

For more info, please contact user:Michaelbusch, he followed PIO's behaviour on the articles. Kubura 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And yes, if checkuser can prove (or maybe is already proven that edits from 151.33.x.x were from user:PIO, than here's the material for the WP:ANI. In this edit [10] from 30 Aug 2007, 10:35, user:151.33.94.142, non-digitally signed as "PIO", not written in English, but in Italian, used expressions like "enorme testa di cazzo di Stipe Mesic" ("big cockhead Stipe Mesić"), "criminale schizoide di Tito" (criminal shisoide Tito)...and more. Wikipedia is not a place to write such accusations and insults, especially using pejorative terms.

Honorable arbitrators, please have this above in mind, when considerating this "semi-involved" user.

Sorry for going off topic (RfA and topic Dalmatia), but I needed to give you the information about the user that accuses someone for such heavy thing as trolling.

Sincerely yours, Kubura 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Kubura you are totally off topic here!!!! Arbitrators you can see that Kubura provoke me again but I ignore his lies because I am not brawling person. PIO, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.92.128 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Material about user:PIO [11] (regarding breaking of WP:3RR and WP:SOCK rules) for that might be of interest for WP:ANI. Thanks to user:Michaelbusch for providing this info. Kubura 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing the article Republic of Ragusa in February of 2007, because of my frustration with the counterfactual Croat nationalist pov-pushing of User:Kubura, User:Tar-elenion, and others. User:Kubura was utterly unwilling to actually discuss anything - he merely restated that he was right, and that anyone else was wrong, and reverted any edit which did not agree with his extreme-nationalist POV. I rapidly tired of dealing with Kubura, and stopped editing the Republic of Ragusa article.

My experience was that while User:Giovanni Giove held an Italian-nationalist pov, he was amenable to reasonable discussion, as was User:The wanderer, who held a pro-Croat pov. I do not know the more recent pov-warriors involved in these articles, but anyone who states that Giovanni Giove is the sole source of the problem ought to take a long hard look into the reflective surface of a ban-hammer.

My discussions with Kubura and others which took place on my talk pages are archived at User talk:Argyriou/Archive3. The rest are on Talk:Republic of Ragusa.

Argyriou (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Harsh. While I don't support the (in my oppinion) rather extreme views of User:Kubura, You should be aware that User:Giovanni Giove, I dare say, more often than not refused discussion and edited regardless of any protest. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I request that the Committee enact a motion expanding the enforceable remedies in the Dalmatia case. While Giovanni Giove has continued to edit aggressively, he is not alone. Raguseo (talk · contribs) and Aradic-en (talk · contribs) are both relatively new accounts that edit solely on this topic and advance the same Croatian Nationalist POV. In addition, Raguseo has been abusing sockpuppets. Ghepeu (talk · contribs) (Italian side) and Kubura (talk · contribs) (Croatian side), while more experienced editors, have also participated in aggressive biased editing, although to a lesser degree that Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR. DIREKTOR communicates extensively with Kubura and to a lesser degree with these other editors, frequently in Croatian [12] [13] [14] [15].

I request these additional remedies, patterned on RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

1. Any editor who edits articles related to Dalmatia (broadly construed to include ethnic and nationalist disputes between Italy and Croatia) in an aggressive biased manner may be placed on Supervised Editing and Revert Limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Editors under revert limitation are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reversions on the talk page. Editors on supervised editing may be banned from any or all articles relating to Dalmatia (as above) for aggressive biased editing or incivility. Violations may be enforced by blocks as described. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Thatcher131 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hold off acting on this for a bit; the current Macedonia case may wind up resulting in restrictions of some sort imposed over the entirety of Balkan topics, which would supersede anything imposed here. Kirill 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you'll patrol WP:AE for me, right? Dalmatia topics are going to get messy if Ragueso, Aradic-en, Kubura and Ghepeu are left unencumbered. Thatcher131 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Further note, Ragueso and Aradic-en 's first edits are just days before the Dalmatia case was accepted, so they missed the case by being too new at the time it was filed. Thatcher131 03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, Direktor's information has been right. I provided Giove with a link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and he continued in his POV pushing. Only Giove needs to be punished in this matter, I think.--Gp75motorsports (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)