Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

HolyRomanEmperor
Final (50/49/7) ended 02:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

– HolyRomanEmperor is a great editor with over 4,700 edits and counting. He recently failed in a nomination earlier due to lack of project edits. Now that's all changed now. He is a great editor, fixing up many articles. He's done an excellent job in articles relating to the Balkan region of Europe like the article of Ban Tvrtko I of Bosnia and Duklja. Those are just the 2 of the fine articles he's done. More articles can be found on his userpage. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept --HolyRomanEmperor 19:03, 22 April 2006 

Support


 * HolyRomanEmperor brings a beacon of neutrality to a very conflicted subject. He should have the power to intervene in difficult disputes. Ashibaka tock 02:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I am afraid my previous assessment was based on a rather limited knowledge of his behavior; after looking through the complaints for an hour or so I find a consistent pattern of making controversial edits to articles he's politically involved in. This really is a mess and although he's the most levelheaded editor in the Serbia realm, I'll have to withdraw my support vote right now. Ashibaka tock 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) per above, this user edits contrevirsial subjects and yet somehow manges to stay cool Benon 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) (edit conflicted out of Inaugural support) as I said, a level-headed user, from my analysis of his record. We need a level-headed Admin dedicated to the Slav-related articles. Redux 02:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good user, will make a good admin I agree with Benon also Jaranda wat's sup 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support for the same reasons as before, editor was very very civil in response to the sockpuppet votes, contribs look good too -- Tawker 02:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Tawker, and thanks Linuxbeak for restarting the RfA. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Experienced enough to be an admin. Thanks for the restart Linuxbeak. DarthVad e r 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support helpful contributor with a lot of experience and good, cool manner.   _-M     o     P-_     03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - it may seem like his previous RfA was controversial, but this was mainly due to votestacking and sockpuppetry. I've never seen this user lose his cool and I think he'd make a great admin. &mdash;Khoikhoi 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, I was close to abstaining, but that wouldn't have gotten this excellent contributor the priviledges he is mature enough to have. --ZsinjTalk 04:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I request that Linuxbeak amend rule 2a to better reflect whatever he's intending for it to mean. This candidate appears to be level-headed and makes constructive edits. - Richardcavell 04:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Though the user has been through some controversy, he's still a great editor who I doubt will abuse admin powers. -- T B  C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Has shown he can have a level head in a unlevel situation. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support --serbiana - talk  04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC), Very intelligent, hard-working Wikipedian, one of the best :-)
 * 14) Support: I don't see this user negatively using the admin tools. I predict him to be a good admin, and I hope that the other editors commenting on this RFA do not reflect negatively upon HRE for the actions undertaken by others. ⇒   SWAT  Jester    Ready   Aim   Fire!  05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. This user makes loads of good edits, and is a big help to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, I trust him and do not doubt that he'll use the admin tools fairly and wisely. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 06:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. The pre-restart situation of this RfA shows why we need level-headed admins who are interested in Slav-related articles. (^'-')^ Covington 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Like I said before, I'm supporting because, despite the constant abuse thrown his way, he manages to remain level-headed and as impartial as is humanly possible. Before this RfA was restarted, it was supported by both Serbs and Croats, and also opposed by both, so he's obviously doing something right. --estavisti 08:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support --Ter e nce Ong 09:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support A level-headed user and has made a good number of edits. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support While on IRC yesterday, was rather level-headed and shows a good understanding of policy  Will  ( E <sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@ )  T  11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong Support for his calmness and level-headedness when editing and discussing controversial topics, even on the face of personal attacks from many users; for his contribution to create and enhance a multitude of articles.--Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me [[Image:Andalucialibre_flag.jpg|25px]] 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per before. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support for his stand. I am sure he will not abuse admin tools if he gets into a conflict. --Ton e  14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, another editor I thought was an admin before this RfA. Always a good sign. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak support, seems pretty good, but I'm a bit concerned by what freakofnurture (NOT FREAKOFNATURE) said. -- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> <sub style="color:maroon;">(block)  17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Support, Nominator. -- [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]] CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 19:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, I worked with him on several articles. He is tolerant person and capable to make compromise. Besides this, he behave better than most of us from former Yugoslavia, thus I think he would be good administrator.  PANONIAN   (talk)  20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support like him, I often edit Balcanic articles, and have learned to appreciate his good sense and moderation in an ultra-hot area; for the good qualities displayed as an editor, I think he would be a good admin--Aldux 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. This place is boring sans controversial admins. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Without controversial admins?! And what have you to do with the Balkans? --VKokielov 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the more controversy arises, the slower articles are written. --VKokielov 16:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. User has shown that he can keep his cool, would be good in conflict resolution.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As I did before. M o e   ε  22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nomination and estavisti. HolyRomanEmperor specifically states his opposition to nationalism on his User page and has acted level-headedly in edit wars. I believe he will make a good admin. Хајдук Еру  (  Talk  ||  Contributions ) 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support It looks positive after some screening, but I hope he will keep an open mind and keep learning. I support the bureaucrat's imposition of voter qualifications - a good, if not thorough precaution. Rama's Arrow 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Very level-headed on very difficult topics. I can understand his focus on a small range of topics because, as I've also experienced, they can be very dominating. Once you start its hard to get out! I think it is very VERY sad to see people opposing because he might be controversial. Good admins are always controversial to POV-warriors, but voting him out is letting them win. His controversiality has nothing to do with the question whether he is suited for the job. Although I agree he might diversify a bit more, he definitely is suited for the job. The Minist  e  r of War  (Peace) 08:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I see no major problems. This candidate should be able to work well.--Jusjih 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. He is a good contributor and very open minded. Litany
 * 8) Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Hahnch e n 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Canderous 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I appreciate someone who's willing to take the plunge and fight for NPOV in tough situations, which it seems this user has done. I think, by and large, HolyRomanEmperor has earned adminship. I hope that s/he will not abuse the admin powers to control articles s/he has a vested interest in, but I do not see that happening. Grand  master  ka  19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support seems a good editor despite having come up against some unfair treatment └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support looks like he will be able to handle it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Good luck, HRE. --Shultz IV 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) I don't think that "too controversial" is itself a reason to oppose. I'll also say I understand why Linuxbeak is trying this novel process mod out, but have some reservations about it. Finally though, while I have some concerns, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here and I feel Support is the correct choice. + +Lar: t/c 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) "Get the hell out you stupid racists" Support. Werdna648T/C\@ 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) * Is this an persobal attack on all the people who have different opinion? If cna be undersant as such, I would like to see an apology. --Ante Perkovic 13:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) **No. This is a comment on the state of those who disrupted the RfA to the point where it needed to be restarted. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) ***"Racists" ? What the heck is this ? HRE is a Serb. Hence, a Caucasian/white, as are his Croatian/Bosniak/Albanian/partly Serb opponents. As for "disrupting the vote", I can only add: a) the vote needn't have been restarted b) actually, it needn't have been started for the 3rd time c) it needn't have been started at all, anywhere, anytime. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. But- I ain't. Mir Harven 23:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Computerjoe 's talk 16:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, though I suggest you stay away from blocking users for the first few months that cause you trouble in the Balkans articles. --<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk ) (Help Me Improve) 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Moral Support pretaining to the pressure/stress HRE's facing under this RfA. - Mailer Diablo 19:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support HRE was heavily involved into the Balkan issues and still kept cool head (judging for the lack of a single convincing diff provided by the opposers). We need such people as admins abakharev 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. I don't see any substantive justification to oppose, rather there are compelling reasons to support as mentioned numerous times above. --Dragon695 05:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


 * 1) A Sad Oppose too controversial, this RFA itself shows user attracts the wrong kind of attention. Regardless of users behaviour and editing skills, he will always be percieved to be edit warring. Wikipedia has enough problems with people not WP:AGFing. At this time I simply cannot support this user's RFA.  <font color="#FA8605">ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just note he has a neutral stance on Balkan topics, please :)  Will  ( <sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E <sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@ )  T  11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't call them either POV or neutral because I have not reviewed his edits on Balkan related articles... <font color="#FA8605">ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too controversial. I don't see how Bcrat's new voting rules are acceptable. -lethe talk [ +] 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats can do whatever they please to make an RfA easy to count, similar to admins' handling of AfD. Ashibaka tock 02:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bureacrats are our servants. It's just like adminship, they have an extra set of buttons and a certain level of community respect got them to their position, but they're in no way demi-Gods. I personally think it's a bit much to place an extra burden of proof on legitimate opposers (RFA regulars, admins, other well known and known to be neutral editors). All that said, I appreciate that the last RFA was a mess and I applaud Linuxbeak's attempts to rectify the problem, so long as it doesn't end in tears. Whether or not it does remains to be seen of course. --kingboyk 16:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the link that Alkivar posted? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What link are you talking about? The Assume Good Faith link or the first RfA? I didn't read either of them lately, no. What's your point? -lethe talk [ +] 03:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * THAT'S my point. If you had actually taken the time to read the previous RFA, you would realize why I put the rules there in the first place. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I watched the previous RfA as it was ongoing, and I read people's opinions on the talk page. I certainly understand your reasons for the strict rules. I just don't agree with them. -lethe talk [ +] 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, I question the appropriateness of aggressive, slightly sarcastic comments from a presiding b'crat. Xoloz 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as above, user is too controversial for adminship at this time. I am also uneasy over the adoption of new suffrage rules for this one RfA. Opposers who were obviously biased for ethic reasons might have been discounted at close, rather than having a restart with (unprecedented?) de facto rules. Xoloz 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Like Alivar, I am concerned that HRE has, fairly or unfairly, become identified as a champion of one point of view and enemy of another. I'm also concerned about his answers to #1: he says he wants to be an admin to join the counter-vandalism unit. But one does not have to be an admin to fight vandals--only the final step of blocking needs that. Indeed, he admits he has not done much vandal-fighting so far. All in all, not enough here to justify promotion. (Like Lethe, I'm concerned that the rules of voting here are overly strict and place an undue burden on those who would oppose.) <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Firmly oppose all edit warriors and article owners. H.R.E. has 4,734 edits, but has only touched 276 distinct articles and only 730 pages overall. In fact, he has 235 edits to the same article, Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and over 100 edits to Duklja (a locality in the same geographical region) as well. Comparatively, he has fewer edits than this to the entire project namespace. Also, he's been blocked twice for 3RR apparently for edit warring in both cases disruptive behavior. — Apr. 24, '06 <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[04:29] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * For the record - he approached me about a problem he was having with another user, I reviewed the situation, and then told him that if I was to get involved, I would have to block him as well, to be fair. He agreed with this, and allowed it. DS 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I just want to make a note that a large portion of the 235 edits to Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina was from him creating the article itself. See here to see what I'm talking about. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's kind of de trop, even tasteless to refer to one's own "contributions" to a discussion-but, this is exactly the thing I was writing about some time ago. Let me quote myself (hmmm....I begin to sound so Stalinesque):One could ask: why ? How can ethnic composition of a region in, say, 1300. be of any importance, especially having in mind that nationality in the 1300s was essentially a non-existent notion, even in Western Europe (and let alone in southern or eastern), submerged under more important loyalties of Church, monarchy or feudal polity ? Or- considering great migrations following the Ottoman conquest (1463.), it is ludicrous to speak of an ethnic continuity of modern nations (Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs) in contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not surprisingly, what we see now is a rather crude and dated propaganda effort aiming to counterbalance bad reputation Serbs got for their involvement in war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.... The message would, in all likelihood, be: how can we (Serbs) be blaimed for committing atrocities in the Bosnian war, since this is our ancestral land and we are the original inhabitants of it ? (Or-we cannot be aggressors in the dictionary meaning of the word, because we are 'the people over there.) ...the majority of people reading this don't know much -or anything- about such an obscure subject like medieval (say, 900.- 1450.) Bosnian history. Why should they ? Especially when the disputed contentions do not have anything to do with historical (archaeological, paleographic, architectural, historical linguistics,..) narrative one expects to find on the page treating the subject- but only obsessive attempts to delineate Bosnian medieval ethnic composition as "Serb"....The usual tally goes something like this: the mention of "Serbs and Vlachs" in some 5-10 legal and commercial charters (among more than 1000 such documents, preserved mainly in Dubrovnik archives). Serbian propaganda tried to impose identification of "Serbs" with inhabitants of Bosnia, and "Vlachs" with Ragusans. Both designations are shown to be wrong, since they refer to these paired ethnicities as foreigners who were intermediaries and employees of both signatories, Bosnian bans and Ragusans. This can be seen in "creative" interpretation of such Serbian historians as Ljubomir Stojanovic or Stanoje Stanojevic, who failed to notice that "Serbs and Vlachs" appear only in pair, that documents galore written before them never speak on Ragusans as "Vlachs" but only as Ragusans, and never before and after refer to the inhabitants of Bosnia in other terms than- Bosnians (Bošnjane, Bosnenses). This is noted in charters of ban Matej Ninoslav (and not in any charter preceding his-even this remains a copy's copy), and in a few documents of explicity Croatian nobles in Bosnia (Juraj Hrvatinic/"George Croatson", 15.th cent.) that mention "Serbs and Vlachs" again paired, again in the function of shepherding and commercial employees. Why address this arcane subject at all ? Because HRE's edit of the page you mentioned,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, is the crucial confirmation of the opinion I have stated earlier (and will, a bit modified, later): HRE's chief contribution has been, so far, in spreading Serbian national propaganda. This propaganda consists, in his case, in attempts to expand, beyond any rational discourse, imaginary boundaries of Serbdom in past, say, 10-12 centuries. His very edits attest to this- the page in the present condition is a product of Serbian uncritical historiography. In short-these are myths, and as such they had been exposed many times (one of more recent exposures has come from the Sarajevo Institute of History symposium-http://www.iis.unsa.ba/posebna/mitovi/index.html). So, the page you mentioned in a, say, "positive" context is exactly the opposite- HRE's edits are crammed with Serbs in medieval Bosnia from the 19th century Serbian history textbooks, "Orthodox Christians" in the central area- not supported by any historical evidence etc. In sum: the page is, still, albeit toned down, an example of politically misused dated historiography. If it testifies about anything at all- the testimony is virtually a case for "prosecution" against ole HRE.Mir Harven 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This editor has been working mostly on Balkans topics, an area of great sensitivity. His editing in many articles has been strongly POV, often presenting only Serbian nationalistic views and completely ignoring any others, while explicitly claiming his edits are non-nationalistic. He has frequently and uncritically used dubious and openly nationalistic sources, but at the same time discounted Encyclopedia Britannica as having "[fallen] under heavy Greater Croatian influence". He presented claims he knew were disputed (from having previously edit warred over them) as uncontested facts in other articles. He accused other editors of vandalism for what was clearly a content dispute, and misrepresented outcomes of disputes or other people's comments on Talk pages. And lastly, he admitted recently of allowing other people (his brothers) the use of his account. In short, has very little understanding of either WP:NPOV or WP:V and is very much unsuitable for adminship. On 7 April he created an article under the name "Serbian Lands" here (article has been renamed since) where he lumps half of the former Yugoslavia under a heading "This is the list of Serbian People's lands." Such a nationalist POV-izing is rarely seen. After having edit warred extensively on Ruđer Bošković over the question of that scientist's ethnicity and thus having been made aware that it is a controversial issue, HolyRomanEmperor puts Bošković's name on the list of Serbs in another article, without mentioning the controversy at all, _twice_: here and here. He does a similar thing with Ivo Andrić, again refusing to acknowledge that controversy even exists, here. --Elephantus 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Serbian Lands: Although I will not tread deeper into the fact that that article was AFAIK not created by me in person (since I cannot really prove it except by digging a litte irc Chat log, where I said that to User:PANONIAN several days ago), please note the nature of this dispute. So far, I have tried really to solve the issue on the problem over this article initiated and led by, among others, User:Elephantus. Please read Talk:Political_entities_inhabited_or_ruled_by_Serbs_during_the_history and notice my comments there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyRomanEmperor (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I'd like to encourage people to take a look at that Talk page too, and especially your comments such as the one about "Serbs having been broken for 1,000 years, unlike other nations which attained unity", or your dismissal of my concerns as "nonsence". --Elephantus 09:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rudjer Boskovic: Please note that I have been involved with the Edit War over the article, and also note that this was a long time ago. But I note that most caution has to be given to the following: I was the only Contributor of the article in question that had the decency to admit that no one's version is NPOV.'' Not even the one I rv to. Then, like can be seen here, I reverted to the last version, long before the Edit War of User:Elephantus and User:Nikola Smolenski, an action supported by an administrator: User:Splash and then invited the warring parties to stop the Edit War and come to discuss (like can be seen here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyRomanEmperor (talk • contribs)
 * No, please don't misrepresent actions and discussions again. You repeatedly reverted to Smolenski's version even after its sources were proven to be far from reputable and even containing glaring factual errors, to say nothing of complete irrelevance to the article. I'm sorry, HolyRomanEmperor, but time and time again I have found your behaviour to be deceitful, with your contributions to Talk pages and personal communication often being the complete opposite of what you're doing in Main space. I see now that I'm not alone in this mistrust. This is something rarely seen among editors of Balkans-related articles, even with all the fire and storm there. --Elephantus 09:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Elephantus' diffs seem convincing to me. Better safe than sorry. Borisblue 05:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: although I appreciate his general civility and level-headedness, I am not confident of his understanding of basic content and neutrality policies, nor confident that admin powers will not be used in content disputes. Though they were hardly crafted by the candidate, the support votes so far seem only to highlight that possibility. They note the need for an admin dedicated to the Slav-related articles; I think this candidate would be particularly unsuited to that role. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I do appreciate his enthusiasm, though I think he acts a bit too unilateral and deflects from reality. I would like to encourage him to put in more current views on the whole situation in the Balkans, to rethink certain events from a neutral point of view, instead of adding old views and patronizing Serb ideologies used during Yugoslavia. As I see, his knowledge of the region within a multicultural dimension is also not quite the best (Dalmazia not Dalmazzia). Therefore I think he would not really act neutral in certain disputes. I would not like to go as far as to say that he is only adding Serb views, but I see that he is mainly relativizing Croat views and I think HolyRomanEmperor has a fixed political ideology (in my opinion an old one that has lost contact with the current situation) and that he would not be able to abandon his own views for the sake of neutrality, particularly regarding sensitive issues of the Balkans region (here especially Ivo Andrić article). Would even say that he is rather evading really controversial topics, where he could contribute more for neutrality. Don't really see too many edits on his behalf. Thinks that is not enough for qualifying as an administrator. I would rather like to have someone with a clear and open mind and without even the slightest semblance of prejudice. --Neoneo13 10:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Nothing personal against the candidate, but having such a controversial editor might be a recipe for bad news. The first time he uses his powers in a way that slightly miffs one of his detractors, there is going to be a dramastorm. Lankiveil 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
 * 5) Oppose. It seems the most likely outcome of a successful RfA here is that HRE is able, as Ashibaka urges, to intervene in ethnic-related disputes. He'd probably feel compelled to before long. Since he is a part of many of those disputes, it seems that admin buttons would be a tinderbox waiting to burn. I also reject the uneven handling of support-vs-oppose imposed by Linuxbeak. I shan't present a diff because, obviously enough, there are none for my reaons. It is no less valid for it. It is probably questionable whether a successful RfA resulting from the disenfranchisement of some otherwise-legitimate editors is itself legitimate; it would seem better to handle sockpuppetry at the end, and then on the evidence. Bureaucrats control the outcome given the debate, not the debate itself. They should restrict themselves to that role. -Splash talk 12:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose I think HRE could be a fine admin if he kept away from the Balkan-"issues", I just don't see it happening. And this RfA is a farse. -- e ivindt@c 13:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) <S>Oppose, a stinking great shitstorm waiting to happen.  <font color="#007700">Proto  <font color="#555555">||   <font color="#007700">type   13:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)</S> Reworded at Linuxbeak's request: Oppose, a terribly bad and extremely large messy heap of trouble waiting to happen. No matter how neutral the guy tries to be, the fact that his editing practice is so concentrated in one hotly-disputed corner of Wikipedia will end up in accusations of bias, and I am concerned that the risk of HRE using his admin powers to settle content disputes is currently too great.   <font color="#007700">Proto  <font color="#555555">||   <font color="#007700">type   14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, don't be civil to the guy or anything. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It's true that HRE is calm and level-headed. But it's also true he has a strong POV agenda. He's spreading national propaganda, as Mir Harven and Elephantus have shown on this page and on the old voting page with strong arguments and links. The mere fact that HRE knows his WP:CIVIL, an admirable thing in itself, does not automatically make him suitable for an administrator. His civility is irrelevant when compared to the serious fallacies in his objectivity. He's also well-versed in history. That's why it's hard to spot his POVs, since they are interspersed with facts. --Zmaj 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Define propaganda. Propaganda is in itself a POV term... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, an example: [his change in the history of the island of Korčula]. He mixed useful data on later ages with tons of unwarranted and irrelevant medieval Serb-related info. His change includes whole irrelevant paragraphs about Serbian kings and kingdoms which seem to be included with the sole purpose of repeating the words "Serbs" and "Serbia" over and over again. It's heavy-handed POV. --Zmaj 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One's hatred towards a whole nation's history is also considered an act of Xenophobia and a showing of Anti-ethnic hatred, I must admit. If you think that writing about Serbian history and literature is plain bad, I've got loads of other literatures to write: Croatian (check out my contributions to articles Marin Držić and Marko Marulić), Bosnian, Greek, German... etc. They are all in interest to me; however, if you think it is wrong for an administrator to write on an Encyclopedia about one of those, you should've pointed it out before; that way it would be more descent.
 * Thinking that something is POV, just because of it's mere existence, is POV itself. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. When I point out an example of your unwarranted and irrelevant edits, you accuse me of "hatred towards a whole nation's history". Such an inappropriate reaction is far below the level of a potential admin. --Zmaj 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. In my humble opinion, Holy is a great manipulator ready not to speak truth in order to achive his goals. This is what Holy said to one of administrators about myself in order to block me. He said that I edited some articles which I haver visited. That is not a good behaviour, it is called manipulation. Administrators should be fair.--Emir Arven 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * NB: I'm tempted to not see this vote not count. Emir Arven is strickly POV pushing on the Serbian/Croatian debate. Emir Arven in his edit summary says "opposing great manipulator". Emir just seems to be upset that he was blocked based on facts complied by HRE M o e   ε  20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the sake of the heavens and the Earth, many of these people speak English with difficulty. Don't catch them on words. Or do you think those dirty little tricks that a native speaker of a language can pull, and they can't, are invisible to us? --VKokielov 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I say this based upon rule #3 set by Linuxbeak that says I will immediately strike out any votes that are ethnic-related. M o e   ε  21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're definitely not saying this based upon rule #3, because Emir Arven doesn't mention anything ethnic-related in his vote. --Zmaj 07:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He was blocked after being in an ethnic dispute with HRE. M o e   ε  20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention that HRE was blocked on the same occasion. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Emir Arven's vote. Rule #3 mentions ethnic-related votes, not ethnic-related past disputes. You're trying to cancel his vote by pointing out his past actions in other topics, which constitutes an ad hominem attack against Emir Arven. If I was him, I'd demand an apology. --Zmaj 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you mind WP:CIVIL. I didn't realize that HRE was blocked on the same occasion. Maybe Emir Arven should have mentioned that in his vote. And these "past disputes" are rather recent. I'm positive that ethnic-related votes are based upon ethnic-related past disputes. I added a note to Linuxbeak (or whoevers closing this RFA) to take into consideration to what I said. I don't make ad hominem attacks against anyone. And demanding things on Wikipedia doesn't get you very far. M o e   ε  20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moe Epsilon says: Maybe Emir Arven should have mentioned that in his vote. What does it mean? That "Oppose" voters are guilty until proven innocent? That we have to justify ourselves in advance, guessing the "notes" that will be posted against our character? Moe Epsilon says: And these "past disputes" are rather recent. It was 52 days ago. How old do these disputes need to be to make us "clean" in your eyes, Moe Epsilon? --Zmaj 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I say Maybe Emir Arven should have mentioned that in his vote because if he really wanted provide that HRE was not worthy of adminship, he should have at least mentioned his block. He didn't say one thing about HRE's block or his contributions. All he mentioned was he was blocked in a dispute with HRE. He didn't mention how HRE's contributions were incorrect or how they were in bad-faith. I don't think anyone is gulity of anything. I was stating that the opposer didn't provide the nessecary information to be accounted for an oppose vote (stating his block as a reason). 52 days is hardly old. I don't really see this dispute over so it really isn't 52 days old as it is still ongoing. As to how long until it is "clean in my eyes" I should say more than 52 days. M o e   ε  21:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now. I've seen him in action in Balkans-related Talk pages, AfDs, etc., and while he can be more level-headed than many in that area, I think that he needs more experience and a better knowledge of and feel for Wikipedia policies (and a wider range of editing interests). In another month or two, perhaps. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose at this time. 172 project space edits doesn't suggest a deep community involvement. I'm also concerned about a narrow focus. I need to be sure that the editor in question will use the tools wisely but I can't say for sure at this stage that he would and given the controversy around him I'm not willing to take a chance this time. I think it would be beneficial if he showed his face more around project space, including at the admins noticeboards. If I saw him there eminating good sense on a regular basis I would feel obliged to support. --kingboyk 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose HRE is polite and I think he sincerely believes he is working for the neutral and objective betterment of wikipedia, but the facts of the matter speak for themselves. His edits clearly show that he is an editor with an agenda - one that is very controversial and biased. His approach to wikipedia seems to me to first and foremost seek to spread that agenda, and then twist wikipedia policies and practices in order to reinforce this. What I mean is that he tries to make the facts fit his point of view, instead of the other way around - and I don't believe someone like that is fit to be administrator. I and many others simply would not feel comfortable if HRE had administrative privileges. He has already, when arguements have failed him, tried to resort to trickery and manipulation of wikipedia to achieve his goals (i.e. lying about user contributions in order to have them blocked). Because of this, I believe that giving him administrative powers would merely make it easier for him to abuse wikipedia to spread his agenda (and, like I said and users above have demonstrated, he DOES have an agenda). That is my reasoning. The only other thing I have to say is that I feel the stance some non-Balkan wikipedians are taking is absurd.. resorting to such ammended rules all with the goal of pushing his nomination forward. He is not some noble exception being bogged down by the nationalist votes of us "savages".. he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and if you'd get off your high chair for a moment you'd see that our "ethnic votes" have some valid concerns about his objectivity and neutrality that you so highly praise. Asim Led 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you just say he was trying to work towards a neutral encyclopaedia, then say he had an agenda? That doesn't really make sense. Can you provide some proof of this? -- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> <sub style="color:maroon;">(block) 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll drop in (anyway, I've read Asim's text as well, and got similar opinion): HRE, IMO, sincerely believes in an antiquated Serbian historical romanticism he's trying to spread. Maybe the wording "neutral" is not the best; I'd say "sincere" would fit better. In short: a believer in luminiferous ether is probably completely sincere in his rejection of the Theory of relativity. And to promote an "etherist" to an admin position with regard to the relativity pages would not be unlike the proposal to award HRE with admin insignia.Mir Harven 09:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose The user has switched article Tourism in Croatia to the version that he likes, and then proposed its protection, which was done in a couple of minutes by an admin. He has made no attempts to discuss the change, and indeed, the version which he reverted had, at the time, unanswered arguments on the talk page, that have remained unanswered for some time, and the other side (the one HRE has supported) has made no attempts to discuss it, just kept reverting and engaged in Serbo-Croatian edit war. It is my strong belief that, had he been given editorial powers, HRE would revert pages and protect them to suit his own version. It is also likely that he would ban users out of due procedure, as he does seem to judge situation in hasty ways. Once an admin power is given, it is very hard to revoke it, and this user's behaviour suggests that he might be a very serious problem. He pushes his own opionion, and is ready to protect pages in edit wars that he is involved in, he might abuse the (not so strict) rules for banning. Mostssa 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentHi Mostssa, this is a complete fallacy. You and Medule (who you have been accused of being a sockpuppet of) are the only two people interested in edit-warring, trying to push a hidden Serbian nationalist agenda, distorting many articles about Croatia. Well, this should be an example of what User:The Minister of War was talking about. I hope this makes people reconsider their position indeed. --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are a lot of people who are involved in edit wars at Wikipedia. I got involved in one about Tourism in Croatia, but I tried to discuss the issues, which other side has, with lot of insults, refused. They responded by revert war. Given that HRE was involved in edit warring himself, and given his actions, I feel that he might abuse his power against the opposing sides. His refusal to enter the discussion is not an exemplary behaviour worthy of an admin. As a side who might be abused by his admin powers, I feel entitled to a voice. As for your accusations that I am a sockpuppet of Medule, it is exactly that such hasty conclusions are typical of HRE as well. He might ban people that he dislikes, saying they are sockpupets, without due procedure, and without much concern for the truth. I was involved in edit war (not my choice though), but so was HRE. But HRE is applying for adminship. I think this application is very dangerous, and that this user is certainly going to abuse his power in Balkan related articles. As someone (and not the only one) who had to deal with him, and have an experience of his (vieled) incivility, and lack of good faith, I rise my voice, as a voice of potentially unjustly opressed. Mostssa 14:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostssa, 1RR hardly amounts to edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Croatia&action=history. That page is now protected on request from HRE himself, awaiting dialogue from the parts in conflict, you included. I suggest you to take this content issue to the respective talk page. --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He was involved in other edit wars. Anyway, I'd like to see him promise that he wouldnt abuse his administration powers, and equally important, I would like to see his meditation abilities in this case. If he can demonstrate in this case if he can contribute constructively and impartially to resolve the conflict (he got involved himself as someone who alledgedly wants to stop the revert war), that would make me reconsider my vote and suspicions in his sincerity. Since many of those who support him support him as someone who knows Balkan issues and is "impartial", and since he promisses (at least in words) not to use admin powers in such cases, then the only way this Balkan background can benefit wikipedia is in his helping to resolve heated situations by sheer respect of other contributors. If he can't, or even WON'T do that, than what is the point of promoting him, from the point of view of those who make this "voice of reason" argument. Let him DEMONSTRATE how he handles situation, that he explicitly said he wants resolved. Otherwise, if he refuses what I believe is a fair proposal, I, and probably anyone else who cares to notice, will have much reasons to suspect his supposed value as an admin. Mostssa 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as in the previous attempt. I voted in the first RfA, and my position hasn't changed. --VKokielov 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:VKokielov, your last vote made reference to the previous two nominations before last as a reason. However you did not vote on those RfA. Hence I would appreciate if you could substantiate your reasons for opposing the candidate, as for the rules set up by Linuxbreak. Regards, --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it seems there's this vote. --Elephantus 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it. In all cases, I do not think that "You already know what I think" is a proper argument. It is up to the bureaucrat to follow this up. Regards, --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how my position qualifies me. I'm a newcomer to the Balkans. I've been absorbing this information, from both Wikipedia and reliable sources. I can't say anything more, but I can promise you that, if HRE becomes admin here, you will lose the Croatian Wikipedia heads; you will lose some of the Serbs; and God knows if you won't lose the Yugoslav administrators you already have, User:Joy and User:Dijxtra -- because who wants to be in the same boat with an anvil? Please keep this in mind as you vote. --VKokielov 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi VKokielov, thanks for explaining your vote. Regarding your concerns, HRE has already said he would not use his admin privileges to police items regarding Former Yugoslavia. I cannot see how he could make wikipedia lose anyone. Regards, --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Enough, please. Discuss HRE's RfA here, not your issues with each other. ⇒  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Ready   Aim   Fire!  16:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; contentious. Support restarting the process, though. John Reid 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Opposed. Now, I must admit I have an almost-against-my-will affection for HRE. Also, he's contibuted to the wiki a lot-this can hardly be disputed. But, he is, unfortunately, engaged in the Serbian propaganda on the English wikipedia at the level far beyond what could be considered acceptable on this medium. No one can be perfectly detached, sure, but HRE's elaborations of the pages like Duklja, Dubrovnik, History of Bosnia and Herzegovina,...are examples of uncritical national romanticism that tries to sell as history fictions based mainly on 19th and early 20th century dated authors: probably Stanoje Stanojević, Vladimir Ćorović (he's not dated in many matters, but, still..), Vladislav Skarić etc. What's my point ? HRE wants to present the early and late medieval history of what is contemporary Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Croatia like Dalmatia and Dubrovnik as ethnically Serb, with, IMO, very visible contemporary political implications. This is not a presentation of some variants of historical discourse, but a national propaganda. Now-HRE is not completely one-sided in his approach, nor does he, according to the wiki record, see all things as black-and-white. He's a person one can talk to. He's someone I cannot help but feel an affection for. But: 1. to "enthrone" HRE as an administrator would lead to endeless bickering & edit wars, especially over controversial pages . I think that virtually all Croatian and Bosniak wikipedians would be rather firm in not accepting his position, mainly because he's got a reputation of a denier of vital parts of Bosniak, Montenegrin and Croatian identity and history. The talk pages of a zillion articles would fill to overflowing. 2. all HRE's "positive" and "neutral" contributions are overshadowed by his, IMO, very partial & one-sided approach to sensitive issues that have been mentioned in others's comments. Sorry-no.Mir Harven 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is copy-paste from previous vote. Now, I have two more concerns: a) this bureaucrat's decision on the "eligibility" of the "oppose-voters" is an example of ...well, Kafkaesque bureaucracy. Stong words ? Thery should have been stronger. Why are "support voters", especially Serbian ones, not required to argue their support-meticululously, in nano-details ? Why are "other", "non-Balkans" voters not required to show any knowledge on the way whither HRE's edits lead ? Do they actually know what the fuss is all about ? b) the very idea that a politically-nationally controversial user should be "promoted" to adminship is, frankly-laughable. Pure Monty Python. How come anyone has come with such a hilarious idea ? Geez...Mir Harven 09:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose The user has been involved in ethnic revert wars with Croats and Albanians and thus is absolutely biased. I'm sure he will make Wikipedia a Serb propaganda tool. User:Vezaso 12:13, 25 April 2006 (CET)
 * User's fifth edit. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose HRE is a very active wikipedian and makes a lot of edits. I oppose this RFA based on the contents of some of these edits. I have on my own come to the same conclusion as many of the above. Many have correctly pointed out that HRE’s edits are usually based on a narrow politicised subset of ex-Yugoslav subjects. Administrators active in this tricky area of Balkan politics need to demonstrate a higher degree of neutrality, something I personally don’t believe user HRE will ever possess. I don’t think he will always correctly identify or separate vandalism from criticism of fallacies, some of which he adds. Not being an Admin should not stop him being a valuable contributor to wikipedia however. I question his motives, his perceived level headedness and civility - I base this on my dealings with him in the past on the edits of article Lastovo which prompted me to join Wikipedia and re-write this article, which has just been granted featured article status on the 22/4/06. Here [] is an earlier version of this article after HRE’s edits to the history section. It clearly pushes a Serbian agenda to anyone well versed and familiar with history of this area. Compare the history sections and you will see that an entirely different and significant story is projected based on some original research and poor sources. Furthermore, he admitted to using a ‘questionable’ source, which either represents poor scholarship or pushing a particular POV. Upon correction HRE then failed to propagate these new facts in further edits in other related articles. Months after I made initial corrections, these inaccuracies remained in articles he subsequently edited, but failed to update with this new information contradicting his POV (see Republic of Ragusa). I made the correction today when I discovered the old information existed, something which he originally added there as well. I also tracked his contributions and examples of this insertion of POV pieces can be seen on articles Korcula, Mljet and others. HRE has usually been very civil in his dealings with me, so I have nothing personal, just my honest observations Uvouvo 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * NB: Statistics for: Uvouvo. Main: 37. Talk: 39. Possibly in breach of minimum number of edits. Using Flcelloguy's Tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterion (talk • contribs)
 * I have created 4 new articles, and edited one to FA status. Most of my edit have been concentrated into one large change rather than many little edits. I have earnt my vote. I am relatively new to wiki, but i find this particular notion that opposers are held to a different standard, and required to prove every detail in many ways flaws the voting process.
 * Uvouvo doesn't technically breach the rules. He has more edits than what is required for this RFA. To Uvouvo: The opposers are held to a differant standard because of sockpuppetry used on RFA's. It betters the voting process because it actually provides "evidence" of a users flaws than just saying "this person is a bad editor". This vote should be valid. M o e   ε  00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moe. I wasnt aware of all facets. But doesnt this make it easier to gather support votes? Thats the flaw I was referring to. Cheers Uvouvo 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it make it easier to gather support votes? There are many aspects of a user that is reviewed on an RFA. User conduct, specific contributions, time on Wikipedia, project involvment, user communication, the less than popular votes on edit count and much more is accounted for on a users RFA than just his religious views. In fact religious views and beliefs should not in any way affect the stature of an RFA. If a user lacks in an area voters, in particular myself, are going to quickly catch a problem. This is why evidence and reasons behind votes should always be accuratly explained. In other words, this "flaw" so to speack can quickly be found and fixed. You on the other hand did a fine job in providing an explaination. M o e   ε  20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something, but supporters could be sockpuppets, or simply vote based on popularity or religion or other grounds. Supportes dont supply diffs or examples of admin qualities displayed. This is a general observtion not related to this particular RFA. Anyway I guess voting by its nature is imperfect on the anonymous WWW. I agree this probably is the best way Uvouvo 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that the voters could be sockpuppets also and I will check for it and will add comments where nessecary (if I see any). I think people on this RFA have to realize I am so heavily involved in this so a more NPOV is accomplished and sockpuppetry usage is minimized. Sockpuppetry is the reason half my RFA's were disasters and I'm not about to let someone else who go through this. M o e   ε  20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose seems to generate a lot of controversy.  Grue   13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, if for no other reason, then the reason that the amount of controversy generated by RfA here is likely to erupt with his practice of adminship subsequently, and hence render it impossible to fulfil. I suggest the best thing is for HRE to conduct editing for a period of, say, 2 months in such a way that he is beyond reproach in that area, and then reapply.Tyrenius 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, I have nothing personal against HRE, but I believe he is a tad too controversial for admin rights. --demicx 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, Controversial. Why? Because it will contibute to even more conflicts, more controversial articles, more talk fight etc. I don't know, maybe he has many edits, but what's worth? He will again and again change and revert articles that are controvesial, and even dare to use lies. I personaly didn't like that kind of administrator, and if he becomes, you will see what I mean. --HarisM 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As for RfA rules. 62 main edits only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterion (talk • contribs)
 * I count 92 total edits, maybe a quarter of which are on Balkan topics. I suggest we leave leave it up to the closing B'crat to decide whether this vote should be discounted or not. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  01:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose unfortunately. This is not personal, but more practical. If he were to be admited as an admin, he would definitely not be able to preserve neutrality in the articles related to Albanians, i.e. articles I am most involved in. He is prone to taking sides, which is not the main characteristic an admin should have. Ilir pz 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * NB:This user has voted twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterion (talk • contribs)
 * I will strike the first vote because this is thier latest decision regarding this RFA. M o e   ε  00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per HarisM A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the nature of edits and the resulting edit wars which HolyRomanEmperor was engaged in especially around the topics HolyRomanEmperor takes too much to heart - Balkans, does not make a good choice of editors. HolyRomanEmperor highly partisan, non-factual approach, and emotional approach to some of the edits (un supported, or dubiously supported edits) is not a quality an adimistrator should have. Also, this is HolyRomanEmperor third candidacy, and looking back at the other comments, it is certain that making this user a admin will only make Wikipedia Balkan articles slanted to HolyRomanEmperor view of this part of the world in which he has a vested and biased interest. The voting criteria for this user has also been changed in such a way that is locks out particular users from voting which is wrong, what I have been using en wikipedia for years and contributed edits under an IP address and now I have registered myself. I think anyone who votes needs to look at the contributions of HolyRomanEmperor and weigh up the 4500 odd edits and make an informed decision, if that is properly assessed, and i have done this the answer is going to be and should be: Oppose. FrontLine 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am striking this vote per the rules set up by Linuxbeak at the beginning of this RFA. Rule 1 and 2a. M o e   ε  23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- Sasa  Stefa  novic  • 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs or an explanation to why you are opposing Thanks! M o e   ε  01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I add comments on previous vote. I agree with VKokielov here. -- Sasa  Stefa  novic  • 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This user may seam benelolent but he fails on NPOV when it comes to controversial topics. He pushes POV as far as it can go until someone checks him after which he usually retreats. He has placed himself politically in the middle but giving him the responsibility of a admin will certainly backfire. He has already abused his tactics of lobbying to get an unfair blocking of one of the users that he confronted. I am sincerely concerned that he will be pushing particular nationalist agenda that he tries to hide in order to get the admin position.--Dado 01:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Regretfully opposing I am not opposing because the user lacks good personal qualities or has a questionable edit history; I don't know enough about that to judge. I'm opposing because admins should be a force for consensus within Wikipedia, and I don't feel that this candidate has been such a force. It may be because a horrible ethnic conflict has consumed the region, touching everyone's lives; it may be because something about the user attracts controversy outside of ethnic issues. For me, in this case, it doesn't matter. I really feel it would be a mistake for an editor involved in a long-running, intense dispute to be granted administrator powers; to do so would only further factionalize the community, whether by unintentional misuse of power or by attracting a cabal of otherwise useful editors out for the admin's head. As Vkoliev stated in his response to Mackensen, the more controversy there is, the less energy we have to apply to the articles.Captainktainer 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per HarisM and MirHarven - he has quite a good nervs to control his manner (especialy lately, looks like he was preparing for this nomination), but makes a lot of sneaky POV changes. He is a way to involved in promoting the serbian propaganda that led to Balkan wars. --Ante Perkovic 13:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose A lot of unfriendly content regarding this RFA by the looks of things, which is why it was restarted. I believe a month cooling period will do much good. If an user becomes an admin at their peak of unpopularity it will surely cause a lot of problems for them. I hope you understand what I mean. I suggest the user re-apply for adminship in at least a month when everything has settled down.--Andeee 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I have not seen any proof of HRE being incivil towards voters. The bickering at the previous RFA that is mentioned at the beginning of this RFA is due to abusive sockpuppets pushing religious POV against HRE, thats why Linuxbeak restarted it. Although I will agree he is highly unpopular amongst users of differant beliefs than himself. M o e   ε  20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But if the user has had trouble with users they may still be in a state of mind not fit for admin. Unless the negative content was only the result of two people, then move my vote to neutral.--Andeee 12:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * HRE wasn't really in the conflicts at the other RFA, it was mostly other Croatian and Serbian editors. M o e   ε  20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I agree with Elephantus and Mir Harven. I don't think I have to repeat their reasons once again. I don't think HRE has bad intentions but he is too far from NPOV for administrator. However, I think his POV is acceptable for editor without special permissions. Jakiša Tomić 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose as per Elephantus. Ukrained 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to process problems. While I understand the purpose of the restrictions, it is not appropriate to require that oppose votes cite specific violations while support votes have no restrictions. In addition, with the current WP:SOCK, blocking all sock puppets is not appropriate, as sock puppets can be legitimate. If these issues are addressed, I will remove this vote or change my vote to support. --Philosophus 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The process problems really didn't have anything to due with HRE. Linuxbeak is the one who soley established these rules. In referance to WP:SOCK, sockpuppets shouldn't be blocked immediatly because they are sockpuupets, but using a another account to sway voting on the RFA process is against policy and is a legitimate reason for blocking them. I suggest not voting support or oppose due to the process of RFA, but on the candidate. M o e   ε  20:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually to clarify, I mean using multiple sockpuppets on a single RFA is a legitamate reason. M o e   ε  20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The process is, unfortunately, inextricably linked to the RfA. A more specific illustration with the problems here is that under the restrictions Linuxbeak is using, ALKIVAR's legitimate oppose vote would be discounted as well as several similar, since it didn't cite any specific diffs or examples, while other oppose votes that do not seem legitimate would be counted, as those editors fit their votes to the restrictions. That restriction needs to be changed to address this issue, since it is only making things worse right now by discounting the votes of admins. In addition, with the current wording on the sock puppet restriction, I believe that I could be blocked for making this vote (see my user page). The restriction should to be changed to abusing sock puppets instead of using. I imagine this was was Linuxbeak meant, but want to make sure that he is aware of this point. --Philosophus 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the restrictions. If rewording will be done, it will be done by Linuxbeak. I have no offical, so to speak, power to change the wording by Linuxbeak. I would send him a message on his talk page for clarification. M o e   ε  21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose we have RFA process rules for a reason. Attempting to unilaterally circumvent them is not on. Cynical 07:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Err.. that was Linuxbeak that restarted the RFA and established the rules, not HRE. M o e   ε  21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but in my opinion an RFA which involves such a gross violation of process is essentially invalid, and should not result in adminship. Having said that, from what I've read I would probably have opposed this nomination even without the process problem. Cynical 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sole purpose of all his edits is trying to present vital parts of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Albanian history as being essentially serb. --EmirA 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting against him because he is serbian doesn't really qualify as a valid reason for opposing him. M o e   ε  21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * EmirA wasn't voting against HRE because he's Serbian, the vote was against (what EmirA sees as, not being familiar with the articles I cannot verify this claim one way or the other) replacement of historical facts with Serb nationalist POV. For example, if someone objects to me editing the article on Newcastle to say that Newcastle was actually part of Scotland in the 19th century, that doesn't mean they hate me just because I'm Scottish, it means they object to factually incorrect POV edits. Cynical 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose He or she has not been neutral, in the contrary. He or she has been pushing a radical nationalist agenda. I think he needs to convice us more in the next 6 months that he has changed his behaviour before we vote for him. Dardanv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanv (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Oppose As a new user of Wikipedia I was interested in this voting and I have read many pages that this user has edited and I think they are very bias particularly the ones about Albanians (but not just those) where we can see how he hasn't used any bias sources. I think that is very dangerous for such an important source as wikipedia to have such an admin. Lenberisha 13:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Closing b'crat: note that this is a new user with only two edits.) <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg ✐ 14:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In one word (or article rather) see the Mehmed-paša Sokolović article which the candidate specifically mentions as good work. The title shows disregard for prescriptive policies like WP:V and WP:RS (as well as disdain for normative things like the MoS and WP:UE, but those I could live with) in pursuit of an agenda. Axe grinding + Adminship == Very Bad Thing. As for voting to accept, simply because sock-puppets voted oppose, well that would be rather a strange thing to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Very Weak Oppose I cannot support an editor who has been blocked more than once for 3RR. He is a good editor, though.Jonathan235 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose. I believe the controversial approach has been diminishing. Perhaps with a little time, people will see this editor differently as for POV edits. I think the two 3RR issue mentioned above should also be looked at in context. Kukin i 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Firmly Oppose. I'm against giving the administrator status to user HolyRomanEmperor (in further text:HRE). First of all, we don't push our luck with "although his controversial, we hope won't abuse his admin powers". We are talking about administrator powers, not about ordinary user's powers. The argument about numerous edits tells nothing. Numerous edit could also be treated as edit-spamming. There were... three of requests for adminship for user HolyRomanEmperor. Why is somebody persistently pushing his adminship? What somebody wants to do here? To make requests for HRE as administrator till he finally "passes the voting" (till opposers go on vacation?)? There was a voting for his adminship a week ago. The request was refused. The next day, a new voting started. Why is someone exhausting the opposers here with these votings? He's been turned down, live with that. There are other users who can be administrators. Not a person which inserts partial information, filtered from he doesn't want to be seen. He's obvious person who'll abuse his powers. Excellent contributor? What did he tell correct? Abundance of data with inserted expansionistic lies, data and sources that were later proved to be wrong and unsufficient. What does the non-ex-Yugoslav users know about HRE's edits? See this edit [Political entities inhabited or ruled by Serbs]. The article starts with This is the list of Serbian People's lands. 1)Proclaiming some areas and medieval states as Serbs', just like that. Something doesn't necessarily belong to someone if someone said it's his. 2)"De Administrando Imperio" is a source, but many things from that source were later proved to be wrong, incorrect, uncompetent etc. Ask any serious historian. 3)Putting an internationally unrecognized entity (so-called SAO Krajina) here is a kind of support for those who wanted to dismember Croatia. His edit in the article about royal house of Kotromanić (they were Bosnian rulers) []. Is this neutral? I intentionally didn't want to put there the theories speak about Croat origin of this royal house; I've left the "nationality" line empty, just to avoid edit war. I've put English versions of names of kings from house of Kotromanić. He turned it into Serb version. His contributions to "Dalmatia" article are on the line of greater serbianist unfullfilled wishes. Claiming southern Croatia, Dalmatia, for Greater Serbia. First, he treats Duklja as Serb entity (see [] . Many of Montenegrin independists'll be against him here. Second, in this edit [Dalmatia] this line ". After the fall of Serbia in the second half of the 10th century, Duklja took over the leadership in the region creating a large Dalmatian Kingdom since 1077." Since when those areas are Dalmatia? Some of those areas were called Dalmatia, but last time that was the case was in ancient Rome. Third, persistent denying of early medieval Croat state in area of todays Croatia. That duchy was called in historical books as "Coastal Croatia", "White Croatia". User HRE stubbornly returns it to "Principality of Dalmatia". See []. That's denying of Croats' existence in Dalmatia in early Middle Ages. in [] HRE turns the title "Arrival of Croats" into "Arrival of Slavs". Can he live with the fact that people that live there are Croats? And that they were there much before Serbs? It would take a lot of lines to explain to all non-ex-Yugoslav contributors what kind of propaganda has HRE written in the articles. You're asking us, opposers, to tell you in detail all history of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, S Hungary, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria etc. in few explanation-lines of our vote against him. In few lines of what we've learned in school for 6 years. Dear admins, users, maybe this doesn't mean anything for you, but have in mind, that Croats, Bosniacs, Albanians 'll be against him as administrator. Montenegrin independists (not pro-Serb party of Montenegrins), Macedonians and Bulgarians'll also have something to say, if not now, than later you'll have their protest against him. HRE's edits were so many times re-edited by so many other users. There was a good reason for that. Experience as user is not enought for an argument for support. Many of oppose-voters are also experienced users "with many edits". If somebody is with a "cool manner", that doesn't mean that that person is neutral in his articles. He calmly pushes his propaganda here. He maybe declared himself against nationalism, but one thing is what he wrote there, and the other thing is what he wrote in his articles. At least, are you going to visit Croatia, maybe talk with Croats, have business with them, and then tell them all this garbage he wrote about their country? I can put you more of examples, but time is running out. Kubura 23:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Opose He is too anti-Albanian Leshkuq 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The following votes were added after the RFA ended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master of Puppets (talk • contribs).
 * I think that's up to the closing crat to decide. It's not over til the fat lady sings, as far as I'm aware. --kingboyk 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have no probs with him, but the reasons presented above does make him a controversial nomination. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral


 * 1) No opinion about the candidate but I support the RFA restart. The previous try was just insane. Phr 03:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per concerns raised and the nature of the previous RfA. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. - Mailer Diablo 19:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned how would HRE improve the situation in the disputed Balkans articles he is active in. I would like to know that before I vote. At least in articles related to Kosovo he is not very neutral to be an admin to help ease tensions between sides. Ilir pz 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some examples of this? As far as I see it, he simply warned you about wikipedia rules on Personal Attacks, which you decided to ignore. I am afraid this "neutral" comment is a clever attempt tolead the vote. --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 13:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now people need to justify their being neutral. And this from a guy who already made a false statement on this page (see the "Oppose" vote No. 20). --Zmaj 13:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attack? Where? --VKokielov 14:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate people calling me a liar. I have no patience for Ad Hominems either. Beside, this is not but a diversion from the RfA.--Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Striking vote; Ilir pz changed to oppose. M o e   ε  00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As Asterion correctly pointed out to me, my reply under this heading was an Ad Hominem attack against him. I apologise to him. --Zmaj 11:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zmaj. --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 12:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral with moral support - There is a lot to be taken on board here, and I would like to see more opposers give a glimmer of hope for the future, conditional upon behaviour and conduct. However, I share many of the above concerns (and also support the right of a 'crat to impose conditions to make an RfA as fair as possible) but don't want to go digging for a negative diff without having previously had any contact with the ed in question, I think that's one step too far. If "oppose" votes of experienced editors not previously involved in the ethnic disputes outlined are discounted because there is no diff attached or their reasons are not regarded as "specific" enough, that would be unfair. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose restarting, oppose arbitrary rules which do not apply to every other RfA. Neutral on the subject of this person himself. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) As before. I don't particularly doubt his good faith; I do doubt his experience and temperament. Rob Church (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Though I'm pretty sure I support you as a a user, this imbroglio of comments is making me not so sure. Of course, when unsure, either don't vote at all or vote neutral. I'm choosing to vote neutral. Jared W 11:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I need time to consider arguments made by both opposers and supporters. The situation is complicated and I prefer not to rush into a vote. Joelito 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * See HolyRomanEmperor's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
 * NB: Please note Interiot's tool is no longer updating for English wikipedia article count. Refer to contribution summary further down, as for Flcelloguy's external tool (on 26th April 2006) --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

*Note on the rules and their coming implementation. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the b-crat's rules that were imposed on this RfA are slightly problematic. Be that as it may, it seems to me that in that these rules exist, they should be adhered to. A couple points: :*The rules require both supporters and opposers to give reasons for their support or opposition. Support nos. 18, 38, and 39 give no reasons (oppose no. 30 may fail on this, too). :*The rules forbid active campaigning on either side. There has been at least some campaigning on the support said (here (deleted here), here, here, and here); HRE seems to allude to some campaigning against in a comment above. :*May the closing b-crat have the wisdom of Solomon; he'll need it. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Concerning some of the opposition presented (but no one particular user): I find it very peculiar to oppose this user due to him being "controversial". Looking at the first RfA, HRE got some opposition, just like everyone does, but the "controversy" was being caused by the havoc wreaked by sockpuppets and other less-than-reliable accounts. If we oppose because of this perceived controversy, we'd be giving breath to that old paranoia about one not being able to go through any kind of community review due to having made "enemies"; and that those "enemies" will be able to disturb the process to the point where it becomes unworkable. As I see it, HRE works in a "minefield" which is the Slav-related articles (less than perfect adjective, but as general as I could come up with at the drop of a hat). If the "controversy" of sockpuppets and vandals that have been ticked off by the user starts being taken as a factor by the legitimate members of the community... well, remember RickK &mdash; and this is a general comparison, not meant as a perfect parallel, so no need to go through the precise details about RickK's situation. Redux 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know this user well enough to have an opinion on his RfA, but I agree with the action taken by Linuxbeak. jaco ♫ plane  04:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be frank: this entire affair has turned into embarrassment. Apart from ordinary bureaucratic reverence for the procedure, I don't see that this voting process has any meaning whatsoever. The nomination has only witnessed strong polarization between ex-Yu wikipedians, enhanced inter-ethnic tensions & disputes and put HRE in the position of undefendable defendant. I think the entire issue should be dropped, because otherwise it will lead only to further humiliation, name calling, opposition, distrust and alienation. And more: there is no time, in this 4+ dimensional universe, when HRE will have been fit for the admin position. He's a polarizing user, almost to the degree I am- and I would be the last person to nominate myself for the wiki admin position, even if it was technically possible. Mir Harven 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between HRE and Mir Harven: HRE is always very, very polite. It almost seems that many "Support" people above think it impolite to scrutinize the actual content of his edits, since he's such a cool level-headed guy, a guy you'd like to have as a friend. Well, Mir Harven and some of us others have not come to this page to make new friends, but to establish the truth. And the truth usually doesn't sound nice. I just hope that Wikipedia still values truth more than good manners. --Zmaj 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been attempts to get people with no contacts whatsoever with the candidate to vote against him, trying to depict him as an ethnic hater. This is completely outrageous but I know that if the RfA gets restarted, things will not get any better. I would like to see this running for the reasons expressed by User:The Minister of War in his vote. --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish note here (although it is unlikely that this nomination will succeed) that I should not be judged based on controversies that were initiated by those who judge me. I would advise the new voters to search through the contributions of those who oppose me before voting based on what can be found here. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to comments that the voting restrictions, though perhaps necessary seem a little too "Jim Crow" to me. Whether or not i support this adminship is another story. --Shawn 23:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Heheh, I just discovered that the vast number of this domestic voters have been invited. Surely the RfA will fail because of them, but this has to be noted - because it is a no-no. ;) --HolyRomanEmperor 11:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you imply that an "unprincipled" anti-Serbian coalition has been formed, among ex-Yu voters (the majority of Serbs excluded) to undermine your vote ? If so-prove. If you're wrong-nothing to discuss. If you're right- it's, I guess, a sort of confirmation of your opposers's contentions. They claim that you're a Serbian POV pusher. You claim that they're just anti-Serb bigots. How can we tell who's right ? Maybe by RfA for a Serbian user who's not considered to be a political propagandist ? Mir Harven 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters now but I wish to point out (given the fact I am being quoted here), that I did never call on anyone "to vote one way or another because of ethnicity". Just for the record, I am neither Serb nor Croat nor even fom the Balkans and my invites were addressed to a Bosnian, a Norwegian, an American and a Yugoslav. I would also like to call for the RfA to be restarted, given its sheer unfairness. Regards, --Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Could someone please verify there isn't opposition votestacking going on here, I find the number of oppose somewhat odd. --Dragon695 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial RFA, and controversial RFAs attract many participants who would otherwise not do so (for example, if you see an RFA which is at 46/0/0 then there is no point in taking part, but if it's 25/25/3 then there is most definitely a point in taking part, that is why this RFA has so many votes). Just because there are large numbers of participants doesn't mean that there is votestacking going on. By your logic, why don't we verify that there is no support votestacking going on, since there are more support votes than oppose. Cynical 12:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Contributions Counts:
 * Username HolyRomanEmperor
 * Total edits 5193
 * Minor edits: 560
 * Distinct pages edited 822
 * Average edits/page 6.187
 * First edit 2005-08-24 16:49:03
 * (main) 2008
 * Talk 867
 * User 105
 * User talk 1951
 * Image 23
 * Template 31
 * Template talk 4
 * Category 7
 * Wikipedia 175
 * Wikipedia talk 17
 * Portal: 3
 * Portal talk: 2

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A:
 * 3RR violations, Intervention against vandalism, deleting NC images
 * I have always wanted to assist the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I believe that wikipedia is overwflown by vandalism, and that always an extra hand is neaded. However, my reversion of vandalism by now is minimal at best; and I think that adminship would greatly assist me in this. Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions that someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react. This is all understandable, naturally; regarding the unproportionally small number of admins towards (other) users. It is here that I would like to lend assistence by reacting as fast as possible to any violation and/or admin-required assistence.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:
 * I have a ton of edits and numerious articles written. One of my largest articles are Duklja – a South Slavic Early Medieval state on the Balkan peninsular and one of the first rulers of modern Montenegro as well as a prominent writer: Petar II Petrović Njegoš. There's also Tvrtko, a medieval Bosnian ruler. Other good articles (on my opinion) are on Medieval Bosnian Bans Stephen II Kotromanić, Kotroman and Matej Ninoslav or Mehmed-pasha Sokolović. History and Litteracy are my main subjects, so I am glad that I can contribute to wikipedia by adding these very little – but rich subjects that unseen pass the eyes of the world. I believe in the Historia magistra vitae est. saying. Other contributions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the history sections of the articles Croats and Skadar, while I am currently rewriting the History of Slovenia.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A:
 * Unfortunately I have to admit: long ago, I was involved in several disputes. In the conflicts, regardless of the fact if that I turned out correct in most cases, I have acted a little too harsh on several occasions, particularely towards fellow-wikipedians that lead the arguement with me. However, that was a long times ago and I have worked hard to undo the previous over-extensions of my person. I wouldn't say that some users have caused me stress. Surely, some annons that unadvertable push their agenda without any explaination and/or conduct vandalism can be annoying, but I practise self-control. The farthest reach of my stress, I believe, was on the talk page of the Mehmed-pasha Sokolović article, when I said ...this getting a little frustrating... and I am a little ashamed of that. However, one must read up the discussion before judging this (note: I am not attempting to justify that which I said). In the future, I am poised to deal with these kinds of issues the same way I dealt with them like before – through compromise. Occasions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where I inserted both alternitives of a Bosnian Medieval King's title's translation. I am currently orchestrating a compromise on the already-mentioned Mehmed-pasha Sokolović article.


 * 4. Do you intend to impose bans and protect pages that you are personally interested in, in particular, articles related to Balkans, Italy? Are you at all aware that administrators should not do this?
 * A:
 * Yes, I am entirely familiar with that. Like I already said, it would be like mixing buisiness life with personal. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from SWATJester
 * 1. In one of the Opposes, it's mentioned that you've admitted to letting a family member use your account. Do you see any dangers in that? Would you continue to do this as an administrator, and if not, what safeguards would you put in place to ensure security?
 * A:
 * Answered on User_talk:SWATJester. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Q: Could you explain in more detail how you did not create the article Serbian lands? This seems like a pretty significant piece of "evidence." Christopher Parham (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered on User_talk:Christopher Parham. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.