User talk:Aeengath

I’m posting this for transparency, as I didn't have the chance to respond before the discussion was archived. This is not an attempt to reopen the case, only to clarify my position in good faith, for the record. For reference, here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1283463978#Source_misrepresentation_at_Talk:Vasojevi%C4%87i archived ANI thread].

To be absolutely clear: at no point did I intend to misrepresent any source. Every citation I used in the Vasojevići RfC was verifiable, drawn from published academic literature, and carefully attributed with inline quotes, page numbers, and, where relevant, translations. I welcome scrutiny of every line and source cited.

My only goal was to improve neutrality and verifiability in a highly contentious section, in line with core policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:DUE. The prior version overstated a single interpretation, relying on sources that mentioned the Vasojevići only in passing. My draft brought in fuller treatments from Montenegrin and Serbian scholars alongside American, Albanian and others, each cited proportionally based on their depth and relevance. I repeatedly revised the draft based on feedback, including an involved admin, and restructured it to avoid WP:SYNTH and reflect scholarly caution. All of this can be seen in the different versions in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aeengath/sandbox/Vasojevi%C4%87i my sandbox]. The current draft draws no conclusion, asserts no ethnic label, and attributes every claim with care. While I invited alternative wording or revisions, no counter-proposal was ever offered, only repeated opposition, often without engagement with the text itself.

The ANI complaint was initiated by an administrator, Rosguill, who had also been actively involved in the content dispute. While I respect their right to raise concerns, I found the tone of that complaint deeply troubling. Phrases like “appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension,” “superficially gracious and compliant,” and “kid-glove treatment” do not reflect the collegial standards expected in Wikipedia discussions. These were not policy-based critiques, but personal assessments of my intent and character, made in a highly public forum.

I fully acknowledge that editors, including the reporting admin, interpreted some sources differently. Disagreements over reading and emphasis, especially on Balkan topics, are inevitable. That’s precisely why I initiated an RfC: because this was a content dispute, not a conduct issue. The process worked as intended. Views were aired, sources debated, and no edit war occurred. What concerns me is that a good-faith editorial disagreement was reframed as “civil POV-pushing” and “engaging in WP:IDHT,” accompanied by language such as “double down at your own peril.” These remarks were not only inappropriate, but created an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere.

I did not retaliate, escalate, or edit war. I engaged constructively and followed every suggestion made in good faith. That I now stand accused of misconduct for citing well-attributed academic sources that others happen to disagree with is deeply discouraging.

This was never about "kid-glove treatment" or avoiding scrutiny. It’s about fairness. No evidence has been presented of misconduct beyond a single RfC. I have never received a discretionary sanctions or contentious topics warning. If anyone feels some of my phrasing underrepresents particular viewpoints, I am always open to collaboration. That’s how Wikipedia is meant to work. But framing this as misrepresentation sets a dangerous precedent: it discourages editors from even attempting to improve articles on complex, sensitive subjects.

I'm grateful to those who reviewed the discussion in good faith. I understand the ANI thread has now been closed without sanctions. I’m posting this here in good faith, simply to clarify the record. My intent was, and remains, to contribute neutrally, cite responsibly, and collaborate respectfully. I hope Wikipedia continues to make space for that kind of work. Aeengath (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)