Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Nikola Smolenski

Case Filed On: 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



vs



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

A number, but mostly:

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: Content dispute and personal attacks.

'''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: None.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Help in this particular case and better understanding of DR in general.

Summary:
Tar-Elenion and 58.165 (I believe that it is one and the same person) apparently has as his goal to present a number of people who have Serbian origin as if they have Croatian origin, or to remove any trace of dispute about their origin. In the article about Roger Joseph Boscovich he was removing the S word from the sentence Also the nationality of the father Nikola is disputed, and he is classified as Croat[5][6], Serb[7] Dalmatian[8] and Orthodox Slav.[9]; in the article on Daniel Majstorovic he was changing Category:Serbian Swedes to Category:Croatian-Swedish people; in the article on Slavica Ecclestone he was simply chaning "Serbian" to "Croatian". Logically, he is also removing these people from the list of Serbs. He doesn't enter into serious discussion on talk pages regarding these issues.

Now, things are getting nasty. Tar-Elenion made a misleading report about Paulcicero to Tariqabjotu (see User talk:Tariqabjotu) which resulted in Paulcicero being blocked by Tariqabjotu. 58.165 tagged list of scientific journals in Serbia I recently made for speedy deletion, and did the same with Daniel Majstorovic. (Reason for deletion of Daniel Majstorovic article might be technically valid, but as there are articles about him on three other Wikipedias, obviously the article should stay; reason for deletion of the list is not valid.)

Discussion:
With Tar- being banned as a sockpuppet, I suppose that the case could be closed. Nikola 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry that we were unable to get an advocate to you - I'll close the case now. If you need any further assistance, please feel free to open the case again by reverting my next change. Mart inp23  20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.