:::::::It was not my intention to make you feel beratedindeed, I think you'll find that I said not a single thing about you as a person or an editorbut rather to keep discussion focused on actual policy and community consensus regarding verification and references, rather than idiosyncratic personal opinions about the sources which do not hold any relevance to our WP:V or WP:RS standards.  Please do not take it personally that, in this instance, I found your arguments to be invalid and not predicated on the policies which govern the question at hand in a Wikipedia content discussion.   

 :::::::Frankly, I am perplexed as to how you'd view Sentence hearings start for `Iron Lady of Balkans' (Chicago Tribune), Plavsic retracts war-crimes confession (Bosnian Institute), Leading Bosnian Serb war criminal released from Swedish prison (The Guardian), War criminal freed after six years' jail (Sydney Morning Herald), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/early-release-in-international-criminal-law Early Release in International Criminal Law] published in (Yale Law Journal), or indeed literally any of the above sources as "opinion pieces" since they are all either A) news items of major newspapers which are published outside of their editorial sections, or B) works of empirical research in international law review.   But honestly this bizarre manner of framing these sources is largely irrelevant, since the dichotomy you are suggesting, whereby opinion pieces would be prohibited as reliable sources, does not exist anywhere in Wikipedia policy.  Even if we all accepted your classification of the works involved here, it would still make no difference here, since the statements made are clearly not opinions, but statements: "She also was photographed stepping over the body of a Muslim to plant a kiss on the face of Serbian warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as Arkan."; "In a photograph presented as evidence at the Hague tribunal, she is seen stepping over a dead body to greet notorious Serbian warlord Zeljko 'Arkan' Raznatovic with a kiss."; Plavsic, an extreme Serbian nationalist who was notoriously photographed embracing the late warlord Arkan alongside dead Bosnian Muslims at the beginning of the war..."; "Few can forget the woman, who was once shown on local TV, stepping over a Bosniak corpse to kiss and congratulate the Serbian warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as, Arkan."  However much you doubt their veracity, these are statements of fact, not opinions. 

 :::::::In any event, I am not on sort of "holy crusade" here.  I arrived at this discussion via RfC, having no pre-existing opinions on the content or the involved editors. My comments have been entirely'' focused on the application of policy  to the content question at hand and the sources which inform it.  The topic matter is not particularly personal to me (beyond the degree that we are all concerned with human rights issues).  By comparison, I note that it appears that you have an extensive history of sanctions arising out of topics in the vein of national politics and war crimes. So I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish by making hyperbolic comments of that nature and needlessly personalizing a discussion that had been entirely predicated on the content up until that point, but what do you say that we keep discussion here firmly based on said content, the sources, and policy, rather than throwing about theories about bad-faith motives, which I will remind you, can constitute a WP:personal attack on this project.  To that end, I would appreciate it if, in responding to my posts, you would keep your comments constrained to substantive matters of content and policy and away from accusations involving unspoken motivations.  Thank you.