In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

I've protected the page against moves. The result of the discussion at Talk:Ferizaj was to move the article to Ferizaj. If you would like the article to be moved to something else, please start a new discussion at Talk:Ferizaj. If the result is to move it, then I will see it and unprotect the article so that it can be moved. Thanks for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Kazandibi
	I noticed your editing, including improvements of article on Šadrvan on sr wiki, and I appreciated them greatly. Keep up the good work!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. You are quite correct when you say thinks went south for hr.wiki since 2013. The admins were actually not better or worse than before, but past that point, due to outflux, there was no hope any more for the opposition. This is a very important point: what is happening right is not a "stumble" or a "bad patch", so indeed "only way forward is an intervention or to shut down the project", that's also the message I've been trying to get across.

Within a couple of days I'm going to start a new Meta-Wiki RfC on this topic, and I'd be grateful if you could join the discussion, particularly regarding the general circumstances which are not comparable to those on large wikis,[1] as well as potential solutions.

FWIW I've made a partial translation to Croatian, focusing only on the primary evidence. GregorB (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IVA, I understand the view that Greenwald's history means we should treat his current views/concerns/reports as RSs. Outside of the Wiki system that would make sense. The problem is, as an editor at Talk:RS correctly noted, Wikipedia generally sees sources as reliable, not authors. If I wrote an article for the NYT it would be viewed as reliable even though I have no journalism history. Conversely, if Walter Cronkite reported on something in a personal memo, we couldn't use it was it wasn't published via a RS. I do get that this can seem dumb in a case where we have journalist with a long, impressive history. However, much like Wikipedia's policies on original research, the sourcing policies exist because if they don't we are going to have endless fights about why this blogger or that Youtube commentator should actually be considered reliable. Depending on the topic I can point to several "non-journalist" who are better than most of main stream sources. But since I can't personally approve every blogger, self published source etc ( :D ) Wikipedia has to settle for a second best solution and use a rather rigid policy. It's far from perfect but it's better than trying to argue that some blogger at The Daily Kos is actually a good journalist. This wasn't really an issue when the RS policy was forming and perhaps in the future things will have to change since it seems some of the best reporters are realizing they can make more as independent, self published authors rather than working for more traditional publications. Anyway, even though some of the editors don't like Greenwald, that isn't what keeps him from being acceptable as a RS. The real limitation here is the very clear policy that Wikipedia tends to acknowledge publications as reliable vs reporters as such. Hope that helps. Springee (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the Greenwald issue is part of a larger issue of the media bias (liberal media like CNN, ABC and NBC refuse to give him a voice). Also I noticed the liberal media outlets are considered Reliable Sources and in the same time the Biden-unfriendly outlets are all considered not Reliable Sources at Wikipedia: Fox News, New York Post, Washington Times etc. I think this is a loophole that circumvents the very Neutrality principle of Wikipedia. How can Wikipedia be neutral when only the President-friendly media is considered Reliable Sources and the President-unfriendly media is all considered to be not Reliable Sources? Reminds of North Korea. That allows Wikipedia editors to shut down the Biden-unfriendly views - therefore Wikipedia is not neutral anymore. Community consensus gradually removed Neutrality and replaced it with plain Censorship. The whole society seems to be polarized and tribal (except maybe the people who don't care about politics at all), and panicked, including Wikipedia: "We have to do our best to prevent Trump to score points because he is the biggest threat to democracy, society, world, humanity!" Even Noam Chomsky seems to be part of the anti-Trump tribe today. The way you put it is really awesome: All ive seen is some provocating political editors thinking writing pov articles is going to stop history from going to the wrong direction and this moment is beeing seen as critical i guess. That seems to be the mood here. - I must say I cracked when I read that :D

I really wish to open two RfC about the liberal bias of the media and a liberal bias of Wikipedia - to get the community consensus about it because that removes ambiguities. I am not experienced, the one I tried to open was already closed. By the way, do you know other editors who have similar views with you? -- Barecode (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention I already started a debate at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_bias_of_the_liberal_media (it was closed already), maybe you find it interesting. -- Barecode (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barecode: I see u've got a theory why the US media landscape is going the direction it is, i've got mine as well, and can give u some links where u can listen to some in depth analysis of the high priests of social science of our time, who i believe to btw. But let's not overreach here. Our job here on this debate extends so far as wikipedia is concerned. I share with u the observation that under the cover of shaky rules en.wiki started to promote political bias in articles regarding current us politics. Let's not scatter all over the map. Lets stick to the Greenwald case. Because its so obvious how they, the majority of editorialship, discredited a top notch journalist just coz they don't like his political statements. If u're in about requesting a RfC on him where all this stuff, scattered on these talk pages and personal whisps, gets on official record, i'm also in. This can be the snowball starting the avalanche. --Ivan VA (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barecode: I dont know many of the editors from en.wiki. I know some folks who edit Balkans related stuff. There u can find some editors who sense bias with their nose when happening. But in general im in the blue just as u. I participated in some RfC on Meta b4, u can look it up in my contributions there. But when it comes to en.wiki vis a vis US politics and the ppl who write these topcis here, i have no clue how the opinions are distributed and how the stakeholdership looks like :// --Ivan VA (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, thanks! Can I have those links please? :D

I think that these two things - Glenn Greenwald and Wikipedia's political bias - are interconnected so strongly that it's quite hard to separate them. I think he is top notch too but I don't read Greenwald regularly. But I think that, whenever he says something relevant or important, the media will give him a voice - or they will quote him (except the anti-Trump media). Do you agree with that? If I am wrong, then the problem is probably bigger then what I imagined until now.

If those people who edit Balkans related stuff can join this debate I think it would be very useful for everyone. Can you notify them? Who knows, maybe they also will find that this thing is crucial and is worth their time and energy. If this is the snowball starting the avalanche, then this is the moment when Wikipedia needs such editors the most. While reading talk pages about Trump and Mueller report I found two users who might be able to help: Jack_Upland, Mandruss and SageRad but one didn't answer, the other is retired and the last one was blocked and didn't return since then.

Regarding stakeholdership I have no idea either, in general it's the most vocal people who prevail, even when they are a minority. I will take a look at your meta contributions.

I would rather wait a few days or a week before opening the RfC. I need help for opening it by the way! :)

If you help me to prepare it then it's a big advantage, we can prove that together we tried in good faith to open a reasonable debate and that can help against accusations that a single editor is trolling. -- Barecode (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts should all be in your own section, but they can include replies to specific editors. —PaleoNeonate – 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment but this time about this, since I don't think it's necessary to make it at AE. The report (and DS sanctions) are about behavioral issues. Content disputes are handled elsewhere (i.e. the relevant article talk page for article-focused discussion, WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS, etc). Even when it goes up to ArbCom, it's very rare that they will rule on content issues. —PaleoNeonate – 23:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: As i said in the comment, content issues are here disguised as behavioral. Its like putting a political prisoner on trial. Its not about behavior. Thats pretty much how i see it. The admin has to answer, coz hes obliged, as impartial, to explore all the motives. I want him on record. --Ivan VA (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So an attempt to frame it as a content dispute... Well the evidence was already posted by various editors in their statements. Uninvolved administrators simply have to look at it and determine if a sanction is required to prevent more disruption. If a topic ban or site ban result, there also are appeal processes, that if used reasonably with convincing statements (and evidence, showing that they now have more experience) may allow to legitimately edit in the area again.

Also, I'm not familiar with SR-wiki policies, but each project has theirs. Larger wikis also have more organization and oversight and some editors even consider that bureaucracy, but for instance, on en-Wiki it is clear that self-published material is not acceptable as sources except about themselves (there can be an exception for certain topics when a source is reputable and is on the relevant topic, to recall of a scientific consensus, WP:PARITY). If you read again the recent multiple threads arguing to promote Greenwald or others, policy was explained and linked repeatedly... I add this because you appear to still be arguing against policy in your recent comments (like here). —PaleoNeonate – 13:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: So an attempt to frame it as a content dispute... I cant see how u have come to this conclusion, given the evidence. en-Wiki it is clear that self-published material is not acceptable as sources.. the 5 pillar policy is quite clear, its same for all projects (or any encyclopedia in general), size and all the other stuff has nothing to do with it. He himself is a reputable source, no matter where he publishes. end of story. By omitting publishing reputable sources u are abolishing the 5 pillars principle. And this ceses to be an encyclopedia. And this has repercusions on the whole movement, since u pointed out the en and sr wiki difference. I dont think most other language wikis have the interest in going down this dark path a part of this en.wiki community has chosen to go. --Ivan VA (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific; you can't assume that waving "5 pillars" as some sort of trump card will work here. It won't because that's far too vague. You have to say which pillar and which specific policies.

The only way around SPS is for Greenwald to publish in RS or prove that he is a subject matter expert (and publishing in RS helps do that), and having political opinions on your personal Substack website does not bestow such expertise. Neither does his past record since he has changed a lot since 2016. I used to be a fan of his, and I think it's really sad what's happened to him. Even his own colleagues had to separate from him. The same thing happened to Matte and Taibbi. They used to be good.

If Greenwald were a proven expert at card tricks or he was a Nobel Prize winner, that would be different. He could be used for (only) those subjects. Even the Nobel Laureate status of Linus Pauling, a chemist, does not bestow subject matter expert status in alternative medicine on him. He was out of his depth and thus justly accused of quackery for promoting Vitamin C megadosage and Orthomolecular medicine. -- Valjean (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 16:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]