Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 September 2011/Skopje

Where is the dispute?
The WWII section in the article about Skopje.

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved:


 * User:Jingiby
 * User:Wisco2000

What is the dispute?
Here are the issues:

1. Plagiarizing and misrepresenting a reference: There was a section in the article that was incorrect (before my edits). The statement read: During the occupation, Bulgaria endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University.

This sounds like Bulgaria was generous to the people of Skopje. But, if you click on the reference, this is what you get: Bulgarian rule of Macedonia used every pressure to convince or coerce the inhabitants into thinking they were Bulgars and, for most Macedonians, the experience ended any with to be ruled from Sofia. Bulgaria opened as many as 800 schools in Yugoslav Macedonia and sent teachers and priests to ‘Bulgarise’ the people. Bulgaria also endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University. The general policy of the Bulgarian occupation authorities was to win over the inhabitants … with generous treatment… This evidently failed.

So, there are two problems here. First, this sentence (Entered by Jingiby) is copied verbatim from the reference (third sentence above), constituting clear plagiarism. Second, the spirit of the reference (when read in full) is that Bulgaria wasn't opening schools for the goodness of the Macedonians, but to 'Bulgarise' them, i.e. it was a repressive measure that backlashed. The way the sentence was in the Wiki article misses an important point, and I was adding that. Laveol reverted that.

4. The article went on to say: One month after the communists took power in September 1944 in Sofia, three Bulgarian armies reentered occupied Yugoslavia.[41] On November 13, units of First and Fourth Bulgarian Army, as well as, detachments of the Macedonian National Liberation Army seized Skopje.[42][43][44]

What do the references actually say: 41: On 8 October, the 1st and 4th Armies occupied Seb Macedonia with Partisan permission. 42: A Bulgarian reference (that actually doesn't say anything to back up the claims when you click on it) 43: By the late autm of 1944, however, the Germans could no longer hold their base in Macedonia and they had to evacuate Skopje on 13 November, bringing covert operations against ‘Old Bulgaria’ to a momentary halt. 44: Same as 44.

So, the first (#41) reference states the Bulgarians entered Macedonia *after* getting permission from the Partisans. The way the text reads, one would think the Bulgarians liberated Skopje and the Macedonians tagged along for the ride. The third (#43) reference doesn't say anything that backs up the statement in the article. And the other two references are bad scans of Bulgarian books (not really impartial, and not useful to most users).

Finally, it's irrelevant if the Bulgarians re-entered Skopje. The important thing is that it was liberated on Nov. 13 1944. The other stuff can go in the section on Bulgaria and WWII.

These edits were all put in by Jingiby: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skopje&diff=438570387&oldid=438568728 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skopje&diff=438573731&oldid=438570387 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skopje&diff=438579028&oldid=438573731

The way the article is written would make one believe that Skopje had a renaissance during the Bulgarian occupation. The text leaves important information out, and the references don't back up the text.

On the subject of Bulgarian troops entering Skopje to liberate it in November 1944, this is a minority view, at best. It is difficult to find reliable sources in English that back this idea. Another user Laveol admitted that already. I was not able to verify this view either. This is adding undue weight to a minority view where one can't find several reliable entries in English. According to Wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight), this view should not be included, and it can go elsewhere. That has been pointed out to the users already. To discuss Bulgarian "liberation" of Skopje in several sentences while having one sentence for the deportation of the Jews and no mention local anti-fascist activities is adding too much weight to an unrelated matter and minority opinion.

The case was presented on the talk page for Skopje. The response from Jingiby ranged from "you don't understand Bulgarian" to "maybe you should get glasses" ... User Jingiby has a tradition of adding bogus references that don't correlate with what he is saying. He also has an impressive track record of vandalizing entries related to Macedonia, picking fights with contributors and being repeatedly (15 times) blocked.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
The case was presented on the talk page for Skopje. The response from Jingiby ranged from "you don't understand Bulgarian" to "maybe you should get glasses" ... User Jingiby has a tradition of adding bogus references that don't correlate with what he is saying. He also has an impressive track record of vandalizing entries related to Macedonia, picking fights with contributors and being repeatedly (15 times) blocked.

I have made changes that: 1. Bulgaria's "opening of schools" was an act of Bulgarisation, as the reference states. 2. Add more color on the deportation of Skopje's Jews in 1943. 3. Finally, it's irrelevant if the Bulgarians withdres and then re-entered Skopje. The important thing is that it was liberated on Nov. 13 1944. The other stuff can go in the article on Bulgaria and WWII.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
Jingiby needs to be blocked, and this article needs to be protected from him. Something. This user is a repeat offender, reverting quickly to old practices.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Something needs to be done about user Jingiby, his work is destructive.