Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Case Opened on 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

A Request for Arbitration surrounding the long-ongoing edit wars on Kosovo and related articles.

Involved parties

[edit]

Statement by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

[edit]

Although instigated by disputes over article content, this dispute has developed into much more than just a content dispute, with lots of allegations of POV pushing, allegations of (extreme) nationalism and even allegations of admin abuse towards the only administrator (ChrisO) involved in this dispute.

In this summary I will not provide evidence towards specific users (and examples of edits I give are not to be taken as such), but rather explain the severe problems and disputes that have surrounded the Kosovo article (and some related articles) over the last months. Other users involved in this dispute will undoubtly present their views on this matter as well as evidence making their case.

The content dispute behind the problems is about the current political status of Kosovo. For months there have been discussions and edit wars whether Kosovo should be called (in these or similar words, since many variations have been proposed and used) a province in southern Serbia [3] or an entity under interim international administration [4] or a territory located in the south-east Europe [5]. Related to that, there have been disputes over whether the main map displayed in the infobox of the article should display just Kosovo [6], or Kosovo as a part of Serbia [7].

Even though in both disputes attempts at compromise have been made (e.g. adding the sentence While it is legally a part of Serbia it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War. [8] and suggesting a different map [9]), the revert wars and incivilty have continued between people supporting different opinions.

What makes this more than a simple content dispute between a few users is the large number of registered editors involved in the edit wars, who are divided over groups supporting different views on the matter. Some editors have admitted to have either an Albanian/Kosovar or a Serbian view, whereas others claim neutrality in the dispute. Back and forth people from all three groups accuse each other often of having a strong (nationalist) POV (a few recent examples: [10][11][12]) and several accusations of admin abuse have been made as well (one example:[13]).

Several people have been blocked in the past over these issues (e.g. [14][15][16]), but the edit-warring has continued, with the same editors, but also with new editors. The reason I am now applying for Abitration for this issue is that in my opinion the article should be put under Article probation, so that all editors making disruptive edits (with whatever POV they have) can be dealt with more swiftly. The article has been protected quite a few times (including a full protection that lasted almost a month [17]). The large number of editors involved, however, makes it very difficult to stabilize the article by restricting or blocking specific editors, especially given the fact that most editors are editing in good faith, since they all see their opinion as NPOV.

My request is that Kosovo be put under article probation and that this probation should be enforced by an appointed administrator who has not been involved in editing this article in the past. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dardan - Kosovo Is a UN Protectorate

[edit]

As some editors have pointed out, the present article presents Kosovo as if it were a pamphlet of the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article needs to present Kosovo impartially. The conflict has been between a Serb nationalist point of view and an impartial point of view.

There are four approaches in which Kosovo is seen: 1. As a province of Serbia 2. As a UN protectorate 3. As a state (albeit unrecognized yet) 4. As Albanian territory disputed with Serbia

In 1999, the UN issued the resolution 1244, which put Kosovo under UN protectorate. UN Mission in Kosovo, then issued the Consitutional Framework, which is the provisional constitution of Kosovo, which defines Kosovo as "an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes." Presently Kosovo is a UN Protectorate, both Serbs and Albanians have their claims (Serb want it to be part of their territory, Albanians want it to be an independent state). We need to mention both, but for as long as Kosovo is a UN protectorate, that is the most important attribute. I think approaches 1, 3 and 4 are biased. Kosovo sees itslef as independent, Serbia sees it as part of its territory, the world sees it as a UN protectorate whose status will be resolved by the end of the year. We all know that the status will be independence. Dardan 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kushtrimxh - Kosovo Is a State

[edit]

The Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo a state on 2 July 1990. The People of Kosovo in 1992 voted with 99,8% for independence in 1992. From 1992 until 1999 Kosovo lived under severe Serbian occupation. The consequences are some 15,000 killed, 120,000 burned down houses, 3,000 people still missing and instilling of intercommunal hatred. In 1999 Kosovo was put provisionally under UN protection. This is provisionally. The talks for the status of Kosovo have started and are anticipated to end in November with the recognision of Kosovo independence. The Kosovo independence exists! We are not inventing it. We need to put the Kosovo map, as an independet state, we need to put the Kosovo flag proposed by late President Rugova. The intro should state:

Kosovo is a state waiting to be internationally recognized, presently under UN protectorate. While Serbia disputes it, Kosovo will be independent by the end of the year.

In this way we recognise all sides, but of course we need to see things from the Kosovo point of view, because btw. those are the people that live there.kushtxh 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tonycdp

[edit]

There are three main issues with this Article, and unless seriously taken into account I don't see the wars ending.


1. The ChrisO effect - has been very damaging and I blame him for inflaming the situation by constantly abusing his admin powers to provoke a number of users (and admitting it) [18] into vandalism and then consequently initiating campaigns against them [19]

2. Kosovo map - This article is about Kosovo and not about Serbia. Why does info-box have to contain the map of Serbia? This is by far the most infuriating issue, and it has remained as such since its introduction. A lot of editors complained about it and were ignored when reaching a 'consensus' supported by the ChrisO's admin backbone. I had warned about it, but it fell onto deaf ears until thankfully Cpt. Morgan decided to do something about it, by this time it was too late.

Kosovo may still be legally a part of Serbia, and as such there is an argument that Kosovo-in-Serbia map would be more realistic since that model was also used for Catalonia-in-Spain entry for example [20]. However there's also an argument that Kosovo has not been under Serbia’s administration since 1999 and that the province is a UN-run protectorate; Which makes Kosovo a very special case indeed, worthy of some sort of recognition as a region in transition. Another valid example would be the Northern Ireland entry [21]. It has a map of its own. Why can't the Kosovo Info-box modelled on Northern Ireland's.

3. The Introduction: Province of Serbia??? - Technically still yes, BUT that's as far as it goes. This dead-in-the-water legal status is over-emphasised. Why is this a problem? Well it is because to an uninformed reader (the majority of whom rarely ever bother to read beyond the first paragraph) indicates that Kosovo is also governed by Serbia which is not true. Serbia has no say whatsoever in how Kosovo is run and it is widely expected that Kosovo will become independent by the end of this year. The valid arguments and suggestions on Introduction made by Envoy202(probably the best informed person on Kosovo) [22] were ignored or simply dismissed with superficial arguments. Tonycdp 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HRE

[edit]

I have been asked to make a statement regarding the current sitaution on the article of Kosovo. As you all might've noticed - I am one of the root editors of the article - particularely its History. I am a historian, and as such am very much familiar with the situation on Kosovo and its unique historical issue/problem. One thing must be understood - a region that lives through drastic demographic changes is bound to become an endless controversy - and even war to erupt. As such, it did. And since the "War for Kosovo" is practicly not finished yet, one can expect that there will be a lot of fighting at all fronts (including this one - an encyclopedia). It is because of this that I ask admins to take a very slow pace solving this issue, as it hurts, very, very deeply... Kosovo has been Serbia in the meaning of the words - and now the majority of its population are no longer Serbs, but ethnic Albanians. I'll try to remind people of the Bosnian War - which erupted just because of natality, as the Muslims replaced the Serbs as the majority of Bosnia... And those drastic changes really shake up things amongst the hard-core of the nationalist political leadership.

I want to speak in favor of ChrisO (although I don't like several of his actions, those which were already mentioned) - he has only been trying to defend Wikipedia's sole goal - to be an encyclopedia. However, regarding the fact that there are almost 2 million Albanians on Kosovo and considering the war that's going on over there - it's more than sufficient to understand the amount of anger that Albanian Kosovar users factually cannot accept the facts - regardless of them being facts or not. I am a victim of the Yugoslav wars, so I have walked the steps that they walk now. War can make even the brightest of mankind turn into nationalist Hitler-like warmongerors - percisely what I myself have been for several years because I lost my sister, home and a lot more. But, it takes time to learn that - and as grown people tend to learn slower, it's even more difficult with such people.

I don't understand why the map is of such an issue. My support of showing it a part of Serbia is only in the pursuit of parralleling the article with Vojvodina, or any other region of the world. However, a lot of wikipedians fail to notice this: Those that demand the map to show Kosovo seperated from Serbia are those same people deeply and emotianally addressed to the fact - as even if they finally do accept the fact that Kosovo is Serbia's southern province, they want to show it on the map seperately from Serbia, simply because they can't stand that. If that means so much to them; if it would factually appease any of the "demons" which I myself had long ago, the give it to them. There is no reason (really) not to give them - and their victory shall only better expose the true hides between the "patriotic fighters". Let it be. Over here is a saying: The smarter will always draw back.

And as for stating Kosovo not a part of Serbia (mostly in the intro, where it's essentially) is very ridiculous. It is what all the other encyclopedias say (all of 'em) and anything otherwise would be Original Research or, more likely, the wishful thinking of those same sad pursuits that I was talking about long ago. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ilir_pz

[edit]

Unfortunately, thanks to some claiming to be neutral editors, and Serbian radical pushing, most of the articles related to Kosovo seeem as if they have been prepared by one of the sides in the dispute - Serbian side. I will lead you into some of such elements that make one suspect that. The infobox: the same as if the Govt. of Serbia's prepared it, the map included Kosovo as a part of Serbia, even if no such map is anywhere recognized in the world. The introduction: violates the way Kosovo is defined by its INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED Constitutional Framework which clearly states that "1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes" and nowhere predicts its status. History: It is filled with hatred, and making the Albanians seem as if they are not native in the land, but newcomers, as a result of the Ottoman Empire. The main problem here is that some of the editors REFUSE to comply with the internationally recognized documents and laws taking place in Kosovo, passed by the local government of Kosovo and the International Administration led by UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). They instead prefer to use some Serbian govt like statements, or descriptions which they prefer. It is unacceptable that the real situation is ignored, and the laws in power in Kosovo NOW are ignored like that, and instead this article on Kosovo, and the ones related to it, are used for propaganda purposes. There is no reason Albanians would need to do any propaganda, as the future of Kosovo (and Albanians comprise 90% of its population) is VERY CERTAIN, but the other side seems to want to dream still. We, most of the Albanian editors here, are only trying to give you the documents in power in Kosovo as the ONLY way Kosovo related articles can be written, and in no other way. We are not happy with most of these internationally imposed laws, but this is a compromise we are making until Kosovo becomes de jure independent.I remind you, that Wikipedia is not a place to spread the destructive propaganda á la Serbian Radical Party but instead state the facts. With kind regards, ilir_pz 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by ChrisO

[edit]

I endorse Reinoutr's summary above and second his request that the Kosovo article be placed under article probation. RFCs, polls, mediation, attempts to reach compromises and existing consensuses have all either failed, been rejected or been disregarded; arbitration is now the only option left.

I'll add some additional background here to supplement Reinoutr's summarry. There are essentially three POVs on the question of "what Kosovo is", namely: a Serb nationalist one which says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia illegally occupied by NATO; a middle one which says that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under temporary UN administration prior to a final status agreement, which is currently under negotiation; and an Albanian nationalist one which says that Kosovo is an independent though unrecognised state. The international community, the governments of Kosovo and Serbia, the international media, all of the major English-language encyclopedias, and commercial geographers - in other words, the vast majority of reliable, verifiable sources - express the middle position. The uninitiated may wish to have a look at the BBC's profile of Kosovo as a good primer on the political issues.

The core of the dispute is that a number of editors (principally User:Dardanv, User:Ferick, User:Ilir pz, User:Kushtrimxh, User:Tonycdp and User:Vezaso) wish the article to express the Albanian nationalist position despite this being contradicted by the overwhelming majority of sources (and unsupported by the one source they do cite). They apparently consider any position other than their own to be "pro-Serb."

Several neutral international editors, principally myself, User:Asterion, User:Litany, User:Osli73 and User:Reinoutr, have consistently insisted on the fundamental policies and guidelines WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V being followed in the article. Because the sources are nearly unanimous in expressing the middle position, we have advocated the view that the article and associated assets (such as the map) should reflect this. For the record, we have no ethnic or political affiliations with the region; we are respectively English, Spanish, Swedish, and Dutch. Some Serb editors are also involved, but the most active parties in this dispute are Albanian nationalists and neutral internationals.

While Reinoutr has intentionally not gone into much detail on editor conduct issues, I believe that this issue does need to be addressed. The ongoing dispute over this article has been exacerbated by serious editorial misconduct, specifically: repeated personal attacks; the use of sockpuppets and fake identities; tag-team edit warring; repeated violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, involving aggressive POV-pushing across multiple articles; editing while indefinitely blocked; a consistent and at times aggressive lack of assuming good faith; disregard for consensus; repeated violations of WP:3RR, for which several users have been blocked at various times; repeated disruption; refusal to negotiate; and consistent failure to cite sources. These violations are not confined solely to the Albanian nationalist editors.

Similar issues have also arisen in several other Kosovo-related articles that are being edited by some of the same users. The conflict described above shows every sign of spreading more widely (and already has, to some extent). I strongly recommend that the Arbitration Committee review this matter with a view to addressing the serious and ongoing editorial misconduct described above, as well as placing the Kosovo article under long-term article probation. -- ChrisO 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asterion

[edit]

My statement will be short, both ChrisO and Reinoutr have already said all I could say myself. I gave up on the article after some editors decided to boycott the consensus decision. I had previously done so for similar reasons but came back in order to express my views and obtain a permanent settlement for the more controversial part (i.e. Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal). As far as I see it, the main problems with the article are: Not respecting consensus by some editors (Ilir pz, Dardan V, Hipi Zhdripi, etc), petty edit-warring (mainly for the sake of it, over trivial things such as removing alternative spellings in order to provoke the other side, but also over more important issues such as maps and infoboxes), sockpuppetry (sometimes linked to trollish behaviour). The thing is that while someone is only concerned about getting the article to be the "right version", no progress is possible. In this sense, I applaud ChrisO for showing up and being bold, while most other admins had shied away for too long. I proposed in the administrators noticeboard the possibility of a code of conduct for controversial issues like this some time ago[23]. Nevertheless, the will needs to exist to abide to it and, at the moment, this is *not* the case. Instead, there is an absence of respect for verifiable references by a few editors (already mentioned above) if these happen to go against their particular point of view. There is also a tendence by some of these editors to attack, call names and to smear neutral editors which I find incredibly unpleasant and unnecessary to say the least. This campaign has driven away many other good editors and kept other admins away from the subject too (I cannot help but to share their sense of despairness sometimes). Personally, I cannot see a way forward but would like to see how the RfA works out.

Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evv

[edit]

I'm Argentinian (of Spanish and Italian ancestry). My opinion on the article: at bottom.

I also endorse Reinoutr's summary above and second his request that the Kosovo article be placed under article probation. I agree in general with the statements of both ChrisO and Asterion.

My take on the issue is simple: some editors have disrupted articles related to Kosovo by consistently disregarding WP:NOR and WP:V (thus, also WP:NPOV). A clear example "here".

I noticed the article only in late july 2006. Since then, I've witnessed constant attempts to present an Albanian nationalist POV, contrary to what all reliable sources these & [24] state, based only on unreliable sources [25] and original research on primary sources [26] & after the list. This was done principally by User:Ferick, User:Ilir pz [27], User:Dardanv [28], User:Vezaso [29] and User:Kushtrimxh [30]. All attempts to uphold WP:V, including those by User:ChrisO, have been considered "Serb nationalism" by the previously mentioned users.

As I see it, the bottom line is whether Wikipedia should allow edits by people who consistently refuse to follow WP:NOR & WP:V. - Regards. Evv 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bormalagurski (Serbiana)

[edit]

After reviewing all statements made so far, I have to say that the Albanians are actually helping to show how ridiculous their propaganda is. What the Albanians are doing is a universal behaviour, Basques will not say they are from Spain, Chechens will not say they are from Russia, Tibetans will not say they are from China... The list goes on. Even though I understand the motive, I do not approve of it, and very much resent the fact that such a behaviour which lead to a war is being transferred to this encyclopedia.

The CIA states that Kosovo is a Serbian province [31] This is enough for me. The Constitutional Framework of Kosovo that Ilir is mentioning all the time is a political document made by one of the sides in the conflict - the side that was against the Serbs. Of course, according to the UN Resolution 1244, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [32] are guaranteed, which basically means that no territory can be taken from FRY (today Serbia) not then, not ever. And Albanians are still claiming that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia? How about looking at any map of Serbia on the internet ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57],...)

Now, unless all of those sites are pro-Serbian, and unless CIA is pro-Serbian, and unless the entire world is pro-Serbian when concerning Kosovo, Kosovo is a part of Serbia. No, Kosovo is the heart of Serbia. --serbiana - talk 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KOCOBO

[edit]

I do not think that the article should be controlled by an "neutral" administrator, someone who "hasn't been involved in the conflict". Doesn't this sound too much like what's happening to Kosovo in real life? I mean.. the UN, the "neutral" force, came to Kosovo in 1999., and to this day solved - nothing. The tension is as higher than ever. Just forbid all of the involved parties to edit on that article, including me. That'll do it :) --KOCOBO 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vezaso

[edit]

I got interested in the article when I had to write a paper on Kosovo. The article on Kosovo was not helpful, it was also misleading. That is why I decided to work on improveing. Kosovo is a very particular case, the only state in the forseable future. It is very interesting from an academic point of view. Presenting it as any other 'region' or 'province' is one, false and two, misleading. Although that was the case some years ago (before 1999), Kosovo is now more a state then a province of Serbia and above both those, is OFFICIALLAY A TERRITORY UNDER UN PROTECTORATE. As such, we need an article that represents Kosovo in what really is right now, a UN Protectorate. Comparing Kosovo with Vojvodina is simply wrong. Vojvodina is and will remain a part of Serbia, while Kosovo is not. Kosovo was a province, but is now a UN territory and will soon be a state. We also need to put the UN flag (not the Serb nor the Albanian) and the Logo of the PISG, as the only legitimate symbols of Kosovo. The map should show Kosovo without the region and it should be on blue, the UN color. The map of Serbia is missleading, and although it may satisfy Serb nationalists and their supportrs is missleading to the readers. Vezaso 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferick

[edit]

We definitely need an unbiased administrator because the only one that is involved right now is engaging in unethical behavior. He is very abusive in addition to being a liar. [58]. I have caught him many times laying and then making threats based on those lies. He even admitted that wikipedia needs ROUGE ADMINISTRATORS such as himself when I insisted otherwise. In many cases (see Kosovo talk pages) he has changed the Kosovo related pages to his preferred version and then blocked them from editing- highly UNETHICAL behavior from an administrator. In several cases when he was caught in this kind of behavior he offered lame excuses for his action.

The main problem in the Kosovo related pages is not necessarily the heavy involvement from many editors. The problem is the heavy involvement of an abusive administrator. It is highly discouraged in wikipedia for an administrator that is heavily involved in editing the page (and POV pushing) to make administrative decision about that page. This administrator does not believe in this principle. This is the crux of the problem here.

There are several solutions to this problem:

1. This administrator should be striped of his administrative rights.

2. Or if his ROUGE behavior manifests itself only in he Kosovo related pages, he should be told not to make administrative decisions in Kosovo related pages (I don’t know if he engages in this kind of behavior in other pages).

3. If the above solutions are not possible, I would encourage every editor that disagrees with his pro Serbian views to cease their involvement in the Kosovo related pages (as I have done after six months of involvement). Otherwise, you would be wasting your time. If you write something that he does not agree with personally (not withstanding facts) he or his buddies will revert it. If it does not please him, it is wrong!

Note: In addition to the above, he has very scant knowledge about the Kosovo related pages. He may appear that he knows a lot, but my exchanges with him lead me to believe otherwise. Not that this disqualifies him from editing, but it should be considered by the Arbitrators since we are talking about contend dispute here. His use of unreliable sources should also be examined. We can find a source for every view in the world, but that does not mean they all are reliable or should be given the same weight. (To support his claims he prefers outdated sources and tabloid press).

This administrator is very meticulous in appearing balanced (if you haven’t had long exchange with him, he will appear balanced: be aware of the trap. He is anything but…... In this example [59] he removed all the links that were to his disliking because they “violated copyrights”, yet he didn’t even touch one pro-Serbian link with the same violations. Coincidence? Not so much! When I asked him why, he said he needed evidence to remove those sites. Evidence? He found the evidence for the other sits, but not the pro Serbia ones. I hope the Arbitrators will examine the record of this administrator for wikipedias sake. I sincerely believe he is the CRUX OF THE PROBLEM. Every page has people pushing their POV, but here we have and administrator doing so. He has been a huge disruption.

Statement by Hipi Zhdripi

[edit]

I dont know wery god english. I dont know wat is going one here, only I can check-it what up. My wish is thate Kosovo is a state and frie. But I am not here in Wiki to pesante my wish like many user are doing.

Kosovo is Protectoriat under the UN-power and futurer state. Before 2-3 years it was Kosovo is Protectoriat under the UN-power. Before 3-6 Protectoriat under the UN-power and ex-Jugoslawin Provice.

This is not a static butt dinamic Enciklopedy and preasent the hisory, presant and the future. The Wikipedians must select clear whats belong too history, preasent and futur.

The serbian propaganda has preasente not the histor, not a presante even futer but mytoogy. I think we need a project for the serbian Mytologie.

Thanks! from Prishtina

Upss!! How it was this wort "dissputed" if you use this wort in the futer use it correct Disputed Statte (is not correct terrytory, they have they representivs everywehr from the president to the WC mann more thane Serbia) betwen Kosovo albanians and serbs. The albanians whont thate this state to be only a albanian state, serb say if this must be than we wont autonomy in this state. In year 2006 this is disputet not to bee or not a state. Please let the goverment propagander down they have so much money investing for this raesans.

Statement by Litany

[edit]

This statement could be short since ChrisO, Asterion and Reinoutr have stated the very factual truth. As long as they continue their good (and neutral) work I will support them. I also think ChrisO has done his best to keep it neutral and been a good administrator.

The biggest problem over the last nine months has been the Albanian nationalism through the article, although several Serbian nationlistic statements have appeared .

About the intro section the current statment is that "Kosovo is a province in southern Serbia. While it is legally a part of Serbia it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War." I think this is the best formulated version for the article since it is based on neutral sources.

I will continue to contribute with the history section but will not hesitate to contribute over the whole article to keep it neutral.

Statement by Noah30

[edit]

First I want to mention the user with anti-Albanian bias or pro-Serbian bias: ChrisO, Litany, HRE(not so much), Bormalugurski, Asterion (blaming others for being nationalists, while he has received barnstars from Serbian wiki-user banned for his nationalistic views).

And now the liberal Bormalugurski shows that he is as much nationalists as most Serbian wikis. This sentence by Bormalugurski “which basically means that no territory can be taken from FRY (today Serbia) not then, not ever.” is 100 % Serbian nationalism.

ChrisO and other you do not own the Kosovo articles. I think he as an editor should respect the most basic rule here: no one owns the articles.

I won’t be so active at Wikipedia, especially not in the Kosovo article( too many nationalists), but wish those of you who are objective good luck, and always write only the truth.


Statement by Bosna -- ChrisO engaged in edit warring and making false statements again

[edit]

Please take following in consideration. ChrisO make repeat edit to Kosovo article claiming that all international community believe Kosovo is "under Serbian sovereign power". But UN, International Crisis Committee, US all say that Serbia have no right to claim sovereign power over Kosovo, that will be decided this year by UN.

ChrisO make claim that Kosovo is under Serbian sovereign power because all international community believe it, but that is not true.

Please see this:


+ In EUObserver.com article today title is: "EU and US quash Serbia constitution Kosovo claim" EU Solana, French Foreign Ministar, US State Department all say that Serbia have no right to claim sovereignty that UN decide. International Crisis Group say: "Serbian politicians know perfectly well that the status of Kosovo is being resolved through the UN." http://euobserver.com/9/22554


+ In Serbianna.com today: International Crisis Group position is "Serbia lost the right to rule over Kosovo because of historical events" http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=10&dd=03&nav_category=92&nav_id=37107


+ In UN Resolution 1244, it says that Yugoslavia now Serbia will have its Sovereignty respected, but 1244 never explicitly say that Kosovo is under Serbia sovereignty, just that Serbia sovereignty be respected but not say exactly what sovereignty is. That was for reason. Resolution was intentionally vague so that negotiation and decision by UN can decide Kosovo future. ChrisO say 1244 explicitly say that Serbia have sovereignty over Kosovo, but that is not true. He add reference to wiki article that use reference that actually contradict what ChrisO say. He play games with reference.


+ In reference that ChrisO use to say that Serbia have sovereign power over Kosovo. http://www.pcr.uu.se/publications/other_pub/International_assistance_Kossovo_Johnsson_05_05_06.pdf It say just opposite: "Kosovo where the international community has overridden state sovereignty to impose its own authority as the final arbiter"


+ In other reference ChrisO use to say that Serbia have sovereign power over Kosovo. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=September&x=200609211620061CJsamohT0.4919855 "Kosovo Status Talks at Crucial Stage, Contact Group Says" It say nothing about Serbia have power of Kosovo. It say nothing. Just smoke screen for ChrisO to make show that he have argument when he does not support for his false claim that international community believe Serbia have full sovereignty over Kosovo. Only thing 1244 say and international community say is that Kosovo is in Serbia.


+ In all statements, international community say that the ultimate power over Kosovo that come with sovereignty is with UN not Serbia.


+ ChrisO refer intro to wiki definition of sovereignty: "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself." But then by this definition, Serbia does not have sovereign power over Kosovo. When ChrisO have challenge because his wiki reference not help him, 195.93.21.65 delete definition of sovereignty in wiki article. Is 195.93.21.65 ChrisO's puppet?


+ Then ChrisO say that Serbia have sovereign power over Kosovo because that is what international community say but as you can see that is not true.


So why does wiki give ChrisO admin power to block and edit Kosovo article when he use his power to make false claim and intimidate people? Am I now be blocked? All editors who disagree with ChrisO are now blocked.

What will arbitation committee do about this?

Why do I have spend so much time showing that ChrisO abuse his power? That he edit war again? Why after all time of arbitation, ChrisO still have power to block all people who disagree with him? Why not have truly objektive observer have admin power with Kosovo article? Now only one side have power and article now say things that are not true!Bosna 21:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

[edit]

Temporary injunction

[edit]

1) For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.

Passed 5 to 0 at 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

[edit]

Edit warring considered harmful

[edit]

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

[edit]

2) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

[edit]

3) Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

[edit]

4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

[edit]

5) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

[edit]

6) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

[edit]

7) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball discourages inclusion of information regarding outcomes, or other future events. Speculation by reliable experts may be included only in limited circumstances.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good faith acceptance of references

[edit]

8) References may be used which are not available online. It is sufficient that that they may be found and verified using the facilities of an academic library or a service such as Lexis-Nexis. In the absence of demonstrated failure, a user is presumed to be able to adequately cite such references.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Optimum leadership

[edit]

9) The role of a Wikipedia administrator extends beyond enforcement of rules to active support of other users in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic content

[edit]

10) Actively edited Wikipedia articles which concern current events are dynamic, that is, they reflect developing situations as they unfold. Optimal reporting includes adequate treatment of new or prospective developments.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

[edit]

11) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) The locus of the dispute is Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and closely related articles, chiefly regarding the characterization of its constitutional status and relationship to Serbia.

Pass at 6-0 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovar viewpoint

[edit]

2) There are a number of editors who edit Kosovo from a Kosovar viewpoint, including Dardanv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ferick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hipi_Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ilir_pz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kushtrimxh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tonycdp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This perspective typically emphasizes United Nations administration and settlement talks currently in progress rather than Serbian sovereignty [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] [65] and [66].

Pass at 6-0 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tension regarding sources

[edit]

3) There is tension between what Wikipedia:Reliable sources will permit and what is obvious to some observers, see Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10#Real World.

Pass at 6-0 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PerfectStorm edit wars

[edit]

4) PerfectStorm (talk · contribs), particularly under his previous username, C-c-c-c (talk · contribs), has an extensive history of edit warring. [67]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PerfectStorm previously banned

[edit]

5) PerfectStorm, as C-c-c-c, was previously banned by the community for personal attacks and disruption, in addition to the edit warring. He returned as PerfectStorm. As PerfectStorm, he has continued his disruptive behavior, even equating other editors with Hitler and the Nazis. [68] [69]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski edit wars

[edit]

6) Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) has an extensive history of edit warring relating to Balkans issues. He has been blocked several times for edit warring. [70] He has also continued to make reverts to the articles related to this case during the arbitration, and after the passage of an injunction.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski is uncivil

[edit]

7) Bormalagurski has a long history of making uncivil comments. [71] Three of his blocks have been regarding incivility of or personal attacks. [72]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi edit wars

[edit]

8) Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs), who frequently edits from dynamic IP addresses beginning with 172, has engaged in edit warring. [73]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi is uncivil

[edit]

9) Hipi Zhdripi has made uncivil comments. [74] [75]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso edit wars

[edit]

10) Vezaso (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring (evidence). He has been blocked once for edit warring.[76]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dardanv edit wars

[edit]

11) Dardanv (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring (e.g, [77]), for which he has received two blocks. [78]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ferick edit wars

[edit]

12) Ferick (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring, for which he has been blocked twice. [79] He has also indicated an unwillingness to engage in good faith negotiation. [80]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ferick is uncivil

[edit]

13) Ferick has made uncivil comments. [81] [82]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ilir pz edit wars

[edit]

14) Ilir pz (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring related to Kosovo (e.g, [83]), for which he has been blocked three times.[84]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ilir pz is uncivil

[edit]

15) Ilir pz has made uncivil comments. [85] [86]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Laughing Man edit wars

[edit]

16) Laughing Man (talk · contribs), previously known as Lowg (talk · contribs), has engaged in edit warring [87], for which he has been blocked twice. [88]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Osli73 edit wars

[edit]

17) Osli73 (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring related to Srebrenica massacre ([89]), for which he has been blocked once. [90]

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO edit wars

[edit]

18) While to a lesser extent, ChrisO (talk · contribs) has also engaged in edit warring, as well as inappropriate use of the administrative rollback button in content disputes. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]

Pass 5-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp is disruptive

[edit]

19) Tonycdp (talk · contribs)'s actions constitute disruption. He has been uncivil [96], [97] [98], edit warred on Kosovo [99], including using an anonymous IP, confirmed by CheckUser, to make reverts [100] and assume a false persona to lend support to his point of view [101] [102].

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski has used abusive sockpuppets

[edit]

20) CheckUser shows that KOCOBO (talk · contribs) is an abusive sockpuppet of Bormalagurski, used to engage in further edit warring. Srbijanković (talk · contribs) and Svetislav Jovanović (talk · contribs) are likely sockpuppets, and Bože pravde (talk · contribs) is a possible sockpuppet. (evidence)

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso has used an abusive sockpuppet

[edit]

21) CheckUser confirms that Palmucha (talk · contribs) is an abusive sockpuppet of Vezaso, used to edit war and evade 3RR violation, during the course of the temporary injunction on Kosovo. [103] (evidence)

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO

[edit]

22) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has played a major role in the editing of Kosovo and related articles. His main thrust has been insistence on other editors following his interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This often results in removal of the point of view they are trying to express and produces the impression that he is opposed to that point of view.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dardanv and Vezaso

[edit]

23) CheckUser evidence indicates that Dardanv and Vezaso, both parties to this case who have offered statements, are the same person. Semarforikuq was also created by the same user to circumvent the current injunction.

Pass 4-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c banned

[edit]

1) For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski banned

[edit]

2) For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi limited to one account

[edit]

3) Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit]

4) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO warned

[edit]

5) ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes.

Pass 5-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Probations

[edit]

6) Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert paroles

[edit]

7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo related articles on Article probation

[edit]
Superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision as of 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

8) All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption.

Pass 5-0-1 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified

[edit]

9.1) Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO

[edit]

11) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dardanv banned

[edit]

12) For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

[edit]

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

2006

[edit]
  • 14:08, 21 October 2006 FloNight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Dardanv (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Per remedy in RFAr/Kosovo case)
  • 06:53, 21 October 2006 FloNight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Bormalagurski (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Per RFAr/Kosovo remedy)
  • 06:48, 21 October 2006 FloNight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "PerfectStorm (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 months (Per RFAR/Kosovo case remedy)

2007

[edit]
  • Blocked Noah30 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR violation at Illyrians, personal attacks in edit summaries). Enforced by Khoikhoi 02:33, April 11, 2007

2008

[edit]

2009

[edit]

2011

[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo&oldid=1237354218"