This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Possibly problematic edit

1) This possibly problematic (meaning it might heat up the discussion) edit, (although made in good faith it is my opinion) to Kosovo, was made today by one of the parties (Bormalagurski (talk · contribs)) involved in this dispute: [1]. Not sure what (if) anything should be done or should be said to the editor. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

He removed a link to a perceptive Economist opinion piece and replaced it with a link to an Armenian news collector with a rather ambiguous statement by Putin. Again it is a case of concentrating on the introduction where even a small change profoundly affects the tone of the article. Fred Bauder 15:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes it is clear what he did, but did not feel I was currently in the position (being part of this Arbitration) to change or revert his edit. Also, I consider it quite inappropriate of him to change the introduction, while this Arbitration is still in progress. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I apologize in advance if I don't fully understand the principals and guidelines that arbitrators must follow, but is it appropriate that arbitrators participate in changing content of articles that are subject of cases they are hearing? I wanted to point out the following edits made by Fred Bauder [2] [3] Laughing Man 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found these while googling for "Kosovo" and "ethnic cleansing". They seemed important enough that I included them as external links. If I had gone into the articles and done extensive editing I would certainly be involving myself in controversial editing. Fred Bauder 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection for Kosovo during the Arbitration

2) As I have asked before for keeping the article protected for the duration of this Arbitration, I now want to ask for semi-protection for the duration of this Arbitration, because of this edit of today: [4] by 82.114.95.33 (talk · contribs). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would much rather see it left unprotected so we can see who wants to do what. Fred Bauder 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There is certainly a problem with sockpuppettry. Anonymous edits can also be used by some people to bypass any injunction. This needs to be actioned too.--Asterion^talk 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Fred has a good point. Vesazo's continued edit warring and sockpuppetry during an arbitration is not only incredibly stupid, it's a perfect illustration of why this arbitration was needed in the first place. -- ChrisO 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This will allow people to call out editors and make a judgment about their edits (but I suspect the “real culprits” will lie low during this period).Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some diffs from editing by others you feel are problem editors. Fred Bauder 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Edit violating the temporary injunction?

3) This edit: [5] was just made by Dardanv (talk · contribs). Like I also stated above, edits like these by users involved in the arbitration are possibly disruptive and disrespectful at the least, in my opinion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Keep Kosovo protected

1) The article Kosovo and if necessary related articles should be kept protected for the duration of this arbitration.

Since this arbitration (hopefully) also deals with the problems surrounding Kosovo-related articles in general, rather than only user misconduct, a measure like this seems appropriate. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The arbitrators have already proposed an injunction - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed decision#Proposed temporary injunctions. Keeping Kosovo protected would only address the immediate problem regarding that article, while a broader injunction covering "Kosovo or related pages" would have a wider scope. On the whole, I think the broader injunction is the better temporary solution. -- ChrisO 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be an issue if the injunction only applies to "named parties". Therefore, I think it is necessary to extend this to any possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet. This has also been a long term problem in Kosovo and related pages. If possible, I would request a thorough checkuser to be considered at the arbitrators/enforcing admins' discretion. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point - sockpuppeteering is already documented in the evidence, so I agree that this is a real risk. -- ChrisO 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be a good idea to place a note on the relevant noticeboard for admins to see. There have been recent cases where people did not know whether it was appropriate to act on particular situations, in order not to interfere with the ongoing RfAr. This should *not* be understood as a blank cheque for editors to engage on constant edit wars. See example. Ideally, I would like the Arbitration Committee to rule clearly about this in the formulation of any pre-hearing injunction. I would personally extend its application to any Former Yugoslavia and Albania article too. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to keep the article protected only under the condition that it is politically neutral. Neither the Kosovar POV nor the Serb POV should 'win'. If the article is not neutral, it should not be protected.

I am sure that if you ban editors, that will only be a 'weapon' on the hands of one side in the conflict. Thus, one side will use Wikipedia rules to 'win' the propaganda war on Wikipedia. Thas I am absolutely against baning. Vezaso 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the Serbian team wants to take over the site by blocking editing it. I think the Kosovo point of view should be taken fully into consideration in the article, because it is Kosovars who live there. Serbia was once part of the Ottoman Empire, but is not so anymore. Stating that Kosovo has anything to do with Serbia is factually and morally incorrect. Serbia conducted ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide in Kosovo, that is why it lost Kosovo.Dardan 10:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo was very important in the history of Serbia. A good article will note and elaborate on this. Now the situation has completely changed. The role of Serbs in modern Kosovo is that of a small minority. A bitter pill. Fred Bauder 13:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is ChrisO allowed to edit Kosovo article, or he is also in the "injuction" group?I do not see anyone blocking him, but he is editing the article. Best regards, ilir_pz 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He can be blocked too, if he gets rambunctious. Fred Bauder 13:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he is, but if not he should be. If would be a joke to not include him as he is the real reason behind this mess.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction between him and the Kosovar editors is the reason, not him. He might be a bit too strict, but the Kosovars are overreaching by edit warring over the introduction. I think the following material properly belongs in the introduction: province of Serbia, historical heartland of Serbia, demographic change to Albanian preponderance, attempted ethnic cleansing, Kosovo war, UN administration, current negotiations. Some of those points are uncomfortable to one side or another, for example, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia. Simply deleting that is no good. An adequate explanation of why Serbia has lost control over Kosovo and is unlikely to ever regain it is what is required. But perhaps that cannot be eloquently expressed in the introduction. Fred Bauder 13:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Ferick

Ferick, what sources are you talking about in [6]? Fred Bauder 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ref "Unknown Albanian 'liberation army' claims attacks", Agence France Presse, February 17, 1996 ref.

We are supposed to take his word that Agency France Press said this. Perhaps he is not aware how to reference sources?Ferick 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are supposed to take his word. Just as we are supposed to take your word. Not all references are currently online. Fred Bauder 12:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a matter of being online or not. Sources have to be clearly labeled and this was not, yet he insisted in keeping it.Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick apparently also believes that "The Albanian Cartel: Filling the Crime Void," Jane's Intelligence Review, November 1995 and "Drugs Money Linked to the Kosovo Rebels," The Times, London, 24 March 1999, (also deleted in the above-referenced edit) are "phony sources" which he's implying I've invented. Plainly this is a rationalisation for his POV disagreement with what the sources say. There are plenty of other online sources referencing those stories, as 30 seconds' Googling shows, and there's nothing to stop him doing a Lexis-Nexis search to retrieve the articles' full text. As promised earlier, I'm adding this to the findings of fact as a charge against him. See #Removal of references from articles -- ChrisO 09:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my other point: Using outdated sources to push your POV. In addition to that KLA didn’t even exist in 1995, yet you cite Jane's Intelligence Review as evidence KLA had drug links. What’s even worst is the fact that you were categorical in keeping these sources (several reverts). Enough said on this topic.Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty to stop most of us from doing a Lexis-Nexis search. However, as above, unless a person has established a pattern of using phony sources, we are expected to honor the references provided. When you say that "Plainly this is a rationalisation for his POV disagreement with what the sources say" you venture into a violation of assume good faith yourself. A more likely hypothesis is that he does not understand our policy on references. Fred Bauder 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the onus is on the reader to verify the source?Ferick 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's entirely normal. If I might ask, why did you claim that the source was phony? Did you have any evidence or reason to believe that I might be faking sources and if so, what? -- ChrisO 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Unknown author and no information where the source was found (print, internet, media?)-you bet it's fishy. It’s like me saying: "Anonymous Doctor: I treated Bush for mental illness”, Agence France Presse, February 17, 2003. You go search the world and verify the source.In the meantime you can tell us where you found that article.

Agence France-Presse is a news agency. It publishes its stories directly via its website and news wires, and indirectly via subscribing publications (newspapers etc) which run them as agency copy. They appear in all media - print, internet and broadcast. I found that particular article on Lexis-Nexis, which has a full archive of AFP news wire stories. Several other news agencies carried the story about the KLA's first publicised attack, but the AFP one was the most comprehensive (presumably they had a reporter on the ground). Many news agencies including AFP have a policy of not naming their reporters, attributing the reports to the agency instead (see e.g. [7]). But all this is irrelevant anyway - I provided more than enough information for you to verify the article yourself. Plainly you didn't bother doing so and just assumed bad faith on my part, which is inexcusable. -- ChrisO 13:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the fact of the matter is that your source cannot be verified and such it’s not acceptable. It is disingenuous in your part to assume that I did not try to verify it. I too have access to major university libraries. Its fine if wikipedia allows sources that cannot be verified-that’s their policy. What is not fine is you having the only privilege in using such sources. Everybody should me made aware that such sources are acceptable (if that is indeed the case).Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is verifiable using Nexis, It is acceptable. So long as a person using such material is trusted we will accept his word. We try to made these matters plain, but we can't expect everyone to read all the fine print. I am sorry you don't have Nexis, but let's face it, if Nexis was free, who would bother with Wikipedia? Fred Bauder 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a rule in wikipedia that allows certain editors more latitude in using sources over others, but if there is such a rule I like to see it. You sound very confident when you say “the source is verifiable using Nexis". Did you verify it? I was not able to verify it with any source whatsoever. Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'm not assuming anything here - the reason for the deletion has been explicitly stated by Ferick and Iliz pz. The only sources that he and Ilir deleted were those three, all related to a particular point that they disputed (i.e. the KLA's links with organised crime outside Kosovo, which are well-documented by non-Serbian sources). Ilir pz said explicitly that he disagreed with the content of the sources: "Those sources are Serbian fabrications and speculations, that mislead the reader, and have no credibility whatsoever." [8] It's not a violation of assume good faith to point out that someone has acted in bad faith if they themselves have given a bad-faith reason. -- ChrisO 13:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Fred, I'd like to direct your attention towards the edit summaries in these diffs: [9], [10], [11], [12]. -- ChrisO 10:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These edit summaries have nothing to do with what was being discussed above. Just a distraction. Stick to the subject please.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Ferick has been acting in what he considers good faith but has failed to assume this towards other users. Ferick considers those allegations on the KLA to be untrue. This is the main problem, confusing verifiability with truth. On the other hand, it has to be said that he is the only Kosovar editor untarnished by abuse of sockpuppets and anonymous editing. Ferick genuinely believes that ChrisO's biased and that he has been victimised by him. I do not consider this to have been the case[13][14]. --Asterion^talk 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I suggest a slightly expanded version of this to reflect wording in WP:NPOV that is of particular relevance to this case, viz.: "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view advocates fair expression of all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." -- ChrisO 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That position on your part is part of the problem. Fred Bauder 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the emphasis in this case needs to be on "fair". It is quite clear that Serbia has lost Kosovo regardless of the number of reliable sources which identify it as a province. The question is how this situation can be fairly expressed within our policy. Fred Bauder 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Fred, that position is not "on my part", it's Wikipedia's stated policy - the wording is a straight quote from the first line of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. No source of any kind, reliable or otherwise, has been advanced that states the position held by the Kosovo nationalist editors. As for it being clear that Serbia has lost Kosovo, that isn't at all clear; the UN is proposing a solution that gives Kosovo greatly expanded autonomy within Serbia rather than full independence (see [15] for the latest). I have to say that your comment is rather inconsistent with the principle that you've proposed that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (with which I agree completely, btw). We aren't here to describe Kosovo as it might be but as it is right now. -- ChrisO 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way ChrisO,that source you are giving is talking about 1244 resolution,not about the latest news. Soon that resolution is to be a part of Kosovo's history. Should you wanna read the latest, check here. Sorry for the in-between-clarification. Greetings,ilir_pz 23:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Any decision on that sense would set up a bad precedent for wikipedia. We need to remind ourselves that wikipedia articles are generally the first result entry of any google search. It is for this reason that controversial articles attract people with various agendas to push forward. Misquoting Churchill, WP:NPOV is the least bad of all solutions in this case. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view (alternative formulation)

1b) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view advocates fair expression of all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A tendentious formulation. NPOV trumps other considerations. Fred Bauder 14:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed as an alternative form of words, in the light of the discussion above. The principle set out here is a straight quote from the first line of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- ChrisO 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, we need to present Kosovo what it is, but also mention what it was and what it will most likely be. Presently it is a UN governed territory in the full sense both legaly and practically. It was a Serb occupied territory between 1913-1999 (Serbs say: territory of Serbia) and it will most likely be independent by the end of the year. Again, Kosovo is a unique case and not a precedent. It is the only territory that will become independent by the end of the year (the 193rd state) and the door for more states is more or less closed. There are other territories worldwide that aspire independence but who will have it very hard to ever achieve it. Kosovo has achieved practical independence in 1999 and that will no doubt be legalized this year in a matter of two-three months. Of course this is frustrating for Serb nationalists, but there is nothing we can do about it. We need to be neutral. Neutrality means UN governance with mentioning the Albanian POV and the Serb POV. Dardan 09:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this alternative form. The nature of the dispute, centered on WP:V, calls for this more detailed wording. Evv 12:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a point of view that was rejected by the "neutral editors". Judge for yourself. They said this was a pro Albanian view:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is located in the south-east Europe, bordering Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Priština. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs and other ethnic groups. The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. Although by the UN Security Resolution 1244, it is de jure and regarded as a part of Former Yugoslavia (now Serbia), since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement from the Serbian government. Kosovo is governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service. Negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo [16]

How can we make them happy? Anybody? Show us the way!Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick, please confine your comments to the proposals being advanced here. This isn't the place for a general discussion of the wording of the article. -- ChrisO 10:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again: You do not own this article. And yes, my comment is relevant as we are talking about having a neutral introduction..Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'm very puzzled by your assertion that it's a "tendentious formulation". It's a direct quote from the first line of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If you consider the principle to be tendentious, do you propose to remove it from WP:NPOV? Second, since the principle cited above has been in the policy for nearly a year, why do you now consider it to be tendentious? Third, this principle was (and still is) in force at the time of the disputed Kosovo-related edits. Do you believe it should not have been followed, even though WP:NPOV is "considered a standard that all users should follow" (another direct quote from the policy)? I'd appreciate a clarification, as it seems an extraordinary statement on your part. -- ChrisO 15:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a waste of time. We have two sides that don't agree with each other: one that says 'Kosovo is a state to be' and the other that says 'Kosovo is a province of Serbia'. The situation is changing: Kosovo was part of Serbia, is now a UN governed territory and will soon be a state. You have two sides who push for their positon, and one side who is working for it (I assume although I cannot prove it, paid by the Serb government). I don't need to assume anything, I know what Serb nationalists want: they want Kosovo as part of Serbia and the even more nationalist want Kosovo without Albanians. I think the reason why ChrisO has put this here is to create confusion and to waste our time. Policitical! Dardan 09:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is a good example of violation of assume good faith. It is quite a stretch to imagine the Serb government is paying people to edit these articles when there is no shortage of volunteers. The arbitrators invite users to propose principles like this. Fred Bauder 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dardanv's comment shows why the statement is needed. Evv 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second that, the above statement by Dardan shows indeed perfectly one of the main problems we are dealing with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always assume good faith unless evidence warrants caution. If you know someone that has robbed you in the past, you cannot assume good faith and leave the door open. Same applies to editors.Ferick 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith always applies here. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Both viewpoints are entitled to fair expression. Fred Bauder 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes both views are entitled to fair expression. Who said otherwise? Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Use of reliable sources

3) Information based on reliable published sources is acceptable. An editor's personal disagreement with the consensus view of reliable sources is not a basis for the removal of well-sourced information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While Kosovo's status as a province of Serbia is not in doubt, it is only a minor point in the light of current events, deserving mention, but only in the context of ethnic cleansing, the Kosovo war, UN administration, and current negotiations on the status of the territory. Fred Bauder 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is a unique case. As stated by most western governments. Using the Wikipedia rules to serve the overly 'legalistic' point of view, in this case is ethically abusing those rules because those rules. We should be lucky that Turkey doesn't push for a past legalistic point of view as then the article on Serbia should state that: 'Serbia is an Ottoman territory.' Dardan 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. The applicability or not of WP:V is the core of the dispute. Evv 12:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support.Although the statement should say: All sources should be reliable and dated. Oudated sources are for histroy section only.Also a regurgitated government pamphlet that is reported in the media is not necessarily a reliable source. It’s a point of view .Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up your comments, Fred, I'm afraid this is a mistaken assertion; Kosovo's status is seen by all sides as a crucial issue (which is of course why the editing over this article has become so heated). -- ChrisO 08:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second ChrisO: it's the issue of Kosovo's status what triggers most disputes in many Kosovo-related articles (like today in it's capital ^[17]). - Evv 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other editor seem to have very similar thoughts (you seconding all of his sentences), is there a possibility that you two are twins? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferick (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 September 2006

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In articles that attract editors with strong views, stricter rules on behaviour will save lots of time and improve the quality of discussion. Evv 13:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably user ChrisO should be the first to set the example to leave the site. His disruptiv editing and abuse of admin priviledges by pushing the Serb POV, is an example not to be followed. Dardan 09:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The above mentioned editor is the crux of the problem.

Anything that he doesn’t agree with personally (notwithstanding facts) he will revert. On top of that he threatens other editors not to change his edits creating an atmosphere of fear and anger.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

5) Personal attacks are unacceptable; see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Evv 13:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Support." This does not mean we cannot challenge the work of the editors.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. This will protect me (and others) from User:Hipi Zhdripi's and User:Vezaso's insultive remarks. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Especially relevant for this dispute centered on unsourced claims and POV-pushing of a political nature. Evv 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Support." Cannot allow agenda driven(based on track record) people to push their personal views. Those people can open their websites where they can publish their views.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. - User:Bormalagurski, User:Hipi Zhdripi and User:Ferick need most definately this rule. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Edit warring considered harmful

7) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in conjunction with 4 (Disruptive editing). Evv 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the type done by so-called admins, who clearly take sides. ilir_pz 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.It’s especially unethical when administrators engage in such behavior.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support both sides have been edit warring - and they need to understand this correctly (especially User:Vezaso and his sockpuppets). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editors required to follow fundamental policies

8) All editors are required to follow the three fundamental policies that define article standards - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability - whatever the subject of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. The applicability or not of Wikipedia policies is the core of the dispute. Evv 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a common sense rule. The problem is when it comes to the interpretation of those rules, and especially when some editors claim supremacy in this area.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No original research

9) Wikipedia:No original research disallows novel interpretations of a published source to advance a position at odds with the consensus of reliable sources. The precise argument must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. The applicability or not of WP:NOR is at the core of the dispute: revert wars centered arround a version reflecting ALL reliable sources ^sources and another based on original research on a primary source ^{Kosovo Constitutional Framework}. Evv 13:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem right. The Constitutional Framework is more than just a report of an event. Surely it can be used as a source for describing UN administration. However, I agree that whatever it says about Serbian sovereignty is irrelevant. Fred Bauder 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that should be the case.Constitutional Framework is a UN approved document.Elaborate please.Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Fred, that the Constitutional Framework says nothing whatsoever about sovereignty (nor could it - that's an issue for the current final status talks). However, it's being used by Ferick et al to support their claims about sovereignty. This is an example of what WP:NOR calls "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" - interpreting a primary source to advance an argument that has not itself been published by a primary source, i.e. that the Constitutional Framework addresses the question of Kosovo's sovereignty. WP:NOR states clearly that this constitutes original research. -- ChrisO 09:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used Constitutional Framework to justify my claim about sovereignty? Baloney! Evidence please! And I am glad you brought this one up: “Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position”. You are as guilty as anybody else about this.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for an answer......Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<resetting tab> I may be wrong in considering the Kos.Const.Frame. as a primary source, but at least parts of it should be treated as such: this is a legal document that, especially on the issue of Kosovo's current status, requires training to be used correctly (if it can be used at all), for it only mentions it's accordance with UNSCR 1244(1999). Wikipedia articles should depend on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of such legal material, and not only in editor's interpretations of it (as is the case in this dispute). - Evv 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Include only verifiable, reliable information

10) Wikipedia:Verifiability requires Wikipedia articles to be based on verifiable, reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". Content that does not meet this standard should be removed unless it can be sourced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are at least three viewpoints which need expression: the Serbian viewpoint, the Kosovar viewpoint, and the US, NATO viewpoint. A verifiable source is one which authentically expresses one of those viewpoints, or some other such as the UN or Russian view. Fred Bauder 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. The applicability or not of WP:V is the core of the dispute, with some editors regarding most reliable sources ^sources as outdated and/or simple repetition of Serbian propaganda, and thus pushing for their own interpretations of primary sources. Evv 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.The "verifiable and reliable information" part eliminates a lot of media that some editors here like to cite. Tabloid media should be avoided in most cases.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick, for the sake of clarity I would appreciate if you could give examples of which unreliable media "some editors here like to cite". Thanks already. - Evv 10:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

11) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree completely. -- ChrisO 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Evv 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this relates to the staus of Kosovo, then Kosovo is clearly an exeptional circumstance. We cannot say for example that Kurdistan is going to be independent, but we can say that as it has been clear at least since the begining of the year that the international community (represented by the Contact Group) is in favor of what has become known as 'some sort of independence' or 'conditional independence'. Dardan 11:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, the question is how to express that in terms of its near absolute probability rather than in terms of flat certainty. Fred Bauder 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Do not remove references from articles

12) Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 14:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 10:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evv 14:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sources that bring verifiable and reliable information should not be moved no matter what the dispute may be.We need these sources.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Good faith acceptance of references

13) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. - Evv 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and information that cannot be verified independently should not be used.Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fred's proposal. Actually, this principle is already in WP:RS (see WP:RS#Online sources vs. offline sources). In the case of the articles disputed by Ferick, all of them are available from online sources and academic libraries. They are capable of being verified independently, even by Ferick. We should not confuse inability to verify them with a user's unwillingness to verify them, which is what is being exhibited here. -- ChrisO 08:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very disingenuous on your part in assuming that I did not try to verify the source in question. I too have access to a major university library [www.unkc.edu], [www.rockhurst.edu] and Library of Congress [18] but was unable to verify your source whatsoever.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify them. I certainly don't have thousands of dollars for Nexis and my local library, Adams State College, has very limited material. However, Ferick is dead wrong. Fred Bauder 12:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wrong about what? Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong when you say the source cannot be verified. It apparently can be using Nexis. Fred Bauder 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“Apparently” is not a good word of assurance. "Any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source".Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I'm in a better position than most, since I have access to two major academic libaries (namely the British Library and Bodleian Library) as well as several smaller specialist libraries. I would assume that the same resources are available at major US academic libraries, as L-N is widely used in academia. As a general point of principle, we should be encouraging editors with good access to libraries to make use of that in order to improve the qualify of references in Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Competence

14) A user must be able to understand and apply Wikipedia's basic policies. A user who consistently fails to do so may be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, this is common sense. In this case, though, I wonder if there is a lack of willingness to apply basic policies, rather than (or in addition to) a lack of understanding. There has certainly been extensive discussion of basic policies on Talk:Kosovo (see also Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10), but several of the parties to this arbitration have consistently rejected these. See e.g. this exchange, in which I cited Wikipedia's basic policies only to be accused by Tonycdp of "hid[ing] very well behind the Wikipedia rules". [19] -- ChrisO 13:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clear lack of good faith on your part in assuming all editors understand wikipedia rules but are unwilling to follow them.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not assuming anything. I am suggesting that you consider whether the interactions that have occurred on the talk page indicate a lack of willingness as opposed to a lack of understanding. If you don't believe they do, fair enough. -- ChrisO 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just as an example, the Spoekie Discussion of WP:V with Ferick can be seen in "Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10#Real World". - Evv 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Optimum leadership

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Absolutely agree. I have sought at several points to explain the scope and application of Wikipedia's policies (see e.g. Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10#Basic rules of engagement, [[20]]). Although they are not admins, I'd like to commend Evv and Reinoutr for making many patient attempts to do the same (e.g. [21], [22]). Regrettably, this has been met with a hostile response.[23] Evv, Reinoutr and I were unable to make much progress in explaining the applicable policies because of the bizarre assumption that we are all "paid by the Serbian government", ergo we are all inherently untrustworthy. [24] -- ChrisO 15:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and thanks :-) But, as ChrisO points out, since late july I have seen that from the very moment that an editor with strong feelings on the subject finds out that someone considers that Kosovo should be defined as "a Serbian province", any attempt of possitive discussion is hindered by animosity, distrust and a general lack of good faith. - Evv 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

An administrator has to be impartial in implementing the rules. The current one is highly impartial and only objects to ideas that weaken his POV. In this case [25] you removed all links that weakened your POV due to “copyright violations” yet failed to remove www.kosovo.net with the same violations. When I asked you about it, you asked for proof. But how come you were proactive only in investigating links that weakened your POV?A coincidence? Maybe.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new leadership that can build a common purpose between all the sensible editors.Just for the record, the current “leadership” has bullied more then it has lead.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic content

16) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. The editors I have had issue with in the past insist on giving precedence to older sources. This is a dynamic situation and the article should reflect that. I would say this is one of the main points of contention between the different parties.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some "pro-Albanian" editors claim that most reliable sources ^sources are simply outdated; but the only "up-to-date" source they have come up with so far is the Kosovo Constitutional Framework ^[26]. - Evv 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the date tells whether the source is outdated or not.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick, (almost, for good-faith mistakes may have taken place) all sources provided in reference to Kosovo's current status are post-1999. Evv 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reconciliation

17) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. We need a leader who can healp in building that common purpose.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in conjunction with 2 (Assume good faith). Although I don't recall any episode of conflicting policies in this dispute. Evv 11:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with the proposed version. If amended it should not include Serbia but also Kosovo people the international community and the UN. So, 'The locus of the dispute is Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and closely related articles, chifly regarding the characterization of its constitutional relationship to Serbia, UN governance and Kosovar independence declared in 1990." I think it is more appropriate to accept the proposal by Fred Bauder. Dardan 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo passed declaration of independence in 1991, not 1990 - and that was abolished in 1999. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second ChrisO's comment. The words "and closely related articles" would cover all articles (cities, districts, etc); the words "and relationship to Serbia" would puntualize the main dispute: whether Kosovo is a Serbian province or not. - Evv 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kosovar viewpoint

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 [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] [32] and [33].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Generally agree, though I would suggest "and plays down or eliminates mention of" in place of "rather than" at the end of the statement above. A large part of the problem here is the attempt to replace an overwhelming majority position with a small minority POV, effectively turning WP:NPOV#Undue weight on its head. -- ChrisO 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree. A Kosovar point of view would be Kosovo is an independent state. I personally think the article should ideally portray Kosovo as Kosovars see it. But I agree to maintain a neutral point of view until the final status is resolved. So it should state that "There is a number of ediotros who edit Kosovo from a Kosovar viewpint, including (users). This perspective typically emphesisises United Nations administration and settlement talks currently in progress rather than past Serbian sovereignty."Dardan 09:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose to change the title to "Kosovar Vievpoint"Dardan 09:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Dardan on his statement above.Besides, the title Kosovo nationalism is inappropriate and wrong. There is a Kosovo Albanian side of the story, and not necessarily be labelled as nationalism. Regards,ilir_pz 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second ChrisO's comment. Today's reverts ^[34] and its rationale ^[35] exemplify this issue. - Evv 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would agree that the name should be "Albanian POV", however all who were listed have expressed heavy tendencies of (Albanian/Kosovar) nationalism; more or less. Thus, I agree. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tension regarding sources

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

That is a faulty conclusion, Fred. If the overwhelming majority of sources say one thing (see Talk:Kosovo/Sources for a representative sample) and isolated statements of opinion from others say something different, you have a classic example of the sort of situation that is addressed by WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is also "obvious to some observers" (many more than in the case of Kosovo's status, actually) that evolution doesn't happen, global warming is bogus and the Holocaust never happened. However, these viewpoints, which are representative of only a tiny minority of relevant experts, don't dominate Wikipedia's articles on the respective subjects. -- ChrisO 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is reliable authority regarding the likely outcome. Fred Bauder 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome and the current situation are two different things. There's a wide range of views on the possible outcome (there's no "likely" one, given the complexity of the issues and the lack of any precedents). However, there's a very wide consensus on what the current status of Kosovo is - that's the locus of the dispute, not the outcome of the talks. -- ChrisO 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor disputes the fact that the majority of sources is of the opinion that Kosovo will become Independent, and yet proclaims (in other writings above) that he reports only what the majority of sources say. A contradiction?!Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second ChrisO's comment: there always is a tension between what WP:RS will permit and the opinion of those who viscerally dislike the current consensus expressed by those sources. - Evv 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus among reliable sources

4) There is a broad consensus among reliable expert sources (media, governments, international organisations and reference works) about the current constitutional status of Kosovo; a representative sample is at Talk:Kosovo/Sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A content question. In any event, there is always a broad consensus among reliable expert sources regarding any matter. That fact does not trump NPOV. Fred Bauder 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please!!!! There is no such a consensus as there are at least four viewpoints on the issue. (part of serbia, UN protectorate, unrecognized state, Albanian territory captured by Serbia) and different media, organizations, governments, academic sources use different attributes. The only attribute that is neutral to all is 'a UN governed territory in Central Balkans.' Ideally, the 'unrecognized yet state'comes closest to reality. Dardan 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't trump NPOV, but it is indicative for determining what constitutes undue weight on the issue. -- ChrisO 09:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personal attack by Tonycdp

5) Tonycdp has made personal attacks [36] [37], [38] and [39]; these are in Spanish. Another one during the ongoing arbitration [40]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith by Vezaso

6) Vezaso fails to assume good faith on the part of other editors, seeing Serbian nationalism behind disagreement with his edits [41].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith by Dardanv

7) Dardanv fails to assume good faith on the part of others participating in this arbitration [42]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith by Ferick

8) Ferick has made personal attacks and failed to assume good faith [43], see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick.

14) Ferick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ilir pz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have repeatedly deleted multiple references to reliable sources relating to the Kosovo Liberation Army in the assumption that they are "phony" and "Serbian fabrications and speculations" and were "lies" on the contributor's part. ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62])

Comment by Arbitrators:

He seems to have misunderstood what could be used as a reference. Fred Bauder 16:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 09:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a source cannot be confirmed, it is not to be considered a legitimate source.Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick and Ilir have disputed only those sources relating to one particular issue, only those sources which I contributed and (in the case of Ilir) has explicitly rejected the sources on the POV grounds that they are "Serbian propaganda". This goes well beyond "misunderstanding what could be used as a reference" - it is not only an argument from bad faith, as you've already acknowledged, but is also clearly based on a POV disagreement with the content of the articles. Further, as already explained, offline sources can be confirmed if sufficient reference detail is given. It is simply not practical to limit all references to online sources. -- ChrisO 09:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if I disputed only those sources relating to one particular issue? If a source cannot be verified and is not reliable, it is my right to dispute it and/or ask for a confirmation from another source.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the source can be verified and is as reliable as any other press report. Never hurts to have additional sources though. Fred Bauder 18:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

History of disputes about Kosovo

15) There is a long history of disputes regarding the content of Wikipedia articles relating to Kosovo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Previous blocks for related matters

16) 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) and Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been blocked on multiple occasions for POV pushing, 3RR violations, sockpuppetry and disruption on articles relating to Kosovo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked legitimately only one time for a 3RR rule (it was actually 2 edits). Other blocks and accusation have been confirmed to be mistakes and/or false accusation. So I don’t appreciate you leveling those other accusations against me (Although I should not be surprised as you did accuse me of being a suckpuppet of User:NooKdog baselessly until evidence conclusively proved otherwise[63]).Ferick 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evading an indefinite block

17) C-c-c-c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to edit as PerfectStorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite an indefinite block still being in force. [64]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 10:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Three revert rule

18) Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated the three revert rule on two separate occasions, using his own account and a sockpuppet. (#1, 29-30 August 2006: [65], [66], [67], [68]; #2, 15 September 2006: [69], [70], [71], [72])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 10:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original research

19) Dardanv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ferick (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) and Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have repeatedly engaged in original research by using a document which makes no mention of sovereignty, the Kosovo Constitutional Framework (KCF), to support an unpublished argument about the sovereignty of Kosovo. ([73], [74], [75], [76]) The same argument has also been made in the course of this arbitration. ([77], [78], [79], [80]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The KCF is a primary source which sets out the framework for self-government in Kosovo. It does not address sovereignty in any way (the word isn't even mentioned), but nonetheless it has repeatedly been used to present Kosovo as being no longer a part of Serbia. This constitutes a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", i.e. the claim that Kosovo is already independent plus the wording of the KCF to advance the unpublished argument that the KCF defines the nature of Kosovo's sovereignty. This sort of synthesizing is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and the Arbitration Committee has already ruled on the principle that WP:NPOV "does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues" -- ChrisO 09:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep making un-substantiated accusation against me, I would appreciate if, from now on, provide evidence for your claims. None of the links above show anything to prove your accusation against me.Ferick 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Regarding Ferick, I have no recollection of him ever providing any substantial source in the Kosovo talk page. He refused to cite any when I asked him to do so ^{[81] [82] [83]}. He did mention his highly unorthodox personal interpretations of an editorial piece ^[84] and an interview ^[85] (for whole context see "Real World"). - Evv 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interpretations? Hmmm, Everybody click on the link and check it for yourself.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Ferick (and others) have made severe violations. --PaxEquilibrium 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChrisO

20) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

From what I've seen since late july, ChrisO's interpretation of WP:RS is a sound one. His attempts to enforce WP:RS, WP:V & WP:NOR, which resulted in the necessary removal of unsourced claims, were resented by editors who profoundly dislike the current consensus on Kosovo and regard as hostile anyone who disagrees with them.

Given the nature of the situation, the lack of good will to discuss the issues, the blind nationalism, the animosity and consistent harassment he endured, I must admit that I am surprised at the calm, patience and constant good will exhibited by ChrisO during these two months. He should be rewarded somehow. Evv 02:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people who're all criticizing ChrisO should be reviewed as well - they're mostly mastersockpuppeteers, vandals, internet trolls, imposters, nationalist POV pushers & such - there is no exception (no one not belonging to this group criticized ChrisO). --PaxEquilibrium 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am new editor in wikipedia and I do not know policy for administrator but I am surprised ChrisO have power of administrator and he can use his power in articles where he have strong personal opinion and he is so close to situation and other editors that he is not objective. I look at many things today and I see that ChrisO is very close to people who are strong Serb nationalists and that ChrisO say that some editors are neutral but they are not -- like Osli73. ChrisO say that Osli73 is neutral. ChrisO say that he object to tag team editing where nationalists pile on and push one PO V and change article, but ChrisO support editors who tag team on other articles. Look at Srebrenica article history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&action=history . You see people ChrisO support are tag team editors who just revert article and not discuss nothing. Osli73 tag team with Srbijankovic. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BosnianSerb you see what Srbijankovic say to User BosnianSerb: BROTHER REPUBLIKA SRPSKA IS OURS! How can ChrisO say that these editors are neutral? How can he say that Osli73 is neutral and how can I believe that ChrisO is neutral? How do I know that ChrisO will not use his power now to stop me from editing articles? ChrisO say he object against tag team editing but then he support nationalist tag team editors. I do not know where it is best to say this in arbitation case but ChrisO should not have power of administrator on articles about former Jugoslavia because he is not objective. Bosna 04:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is stranger is that he claims to have taken positions that are in line with the Kosovar POV without providing any evidence whatsoever.Ferick 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO has extreme POVs which he presents both in his capacity as an editor and as an administrator. I believe his engagement in articles related to Kosovo has been highly disruptive. Dardan 08:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch ChrisO answer to this and we see that Fred Bauder is correct in his finding of facts.

ChrisO, be very clear. Is this your argument? First you define sovereignty as not supreme authority over a territory but the "exlusive right to exercise supreme authority over a territory". Correct? Then you say that Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo because the international community recognize Serbia's exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo. Is that correct? Be very clear. Is that your argument? I agree that your argument is more precise than saying Kosovo is legally in Serbia. Your argument is logical and coherent. Let us see if we agree on some facts. Who right now has supreme authority in Kosovo? Can you answer that question in clear way? Who decides what can and can not happen? Who decides what future will be? Is there any doubt? The answer is the UN Security Council. Yes? Do we agree? Please answer. Then question is does international community right now recognize Serbia as having the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo? What is answer to that question? For you to be right, you must answer that the international community today recognizes that Serbia have exlusive right to supreme authority to Kosovo. Who today say this? Solana? Kofi Annan? US State Department? International Crisis Group? They do not say that. You say so, but what leader from intenational community today say that Serbia have today exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo? Today? Who? No one. Am I right? Answer my question. If you ignore my question or give half answer and continue to force your interpretation, then administrator Fred Bauder is right that you only tolerate your interpretation of things. If international community does not today recognize Serbia's exclusive right to supreme authority over Kosovo, then your interpretation is precise, logical, coherent, and wrong. I will change article to "legally in Serbia". You try to ignore that 1244 was intentionally vague and then try to enforce your interpretation as only legitimate one. But truth is that international community make 1244 vague on purpose. You do not know that??? Bosna 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on Talk:Kosovo. -- ChrisO 08:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by Asterion

21) User Asterion has engaged in edit warring in and around article Kosovo

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Dardan 08:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User Holy Roman Emperor (HRE) has engaged in edit warring

22) User Holy Roman Emperor (HRE) has engaged in edit warring

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Dardan 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? Where? --PaxEquilibrium 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Edit warring by PANONIAN

23) user PANONIAN has engaged in edit warring

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Dardan 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]; Well, User:Dardanv should use "Compare selected versions" button sometimes. If he ever used this, he would see that my edits in Kosovo article were mainly trivial (like adding pictures, list of main cities, etc.) and were accepted by all users. I do not remember that I participated in any revert war there. PANONIAN (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Any diffs? This seems untrue... --PaxEquilibrium 22: 15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

USER evv

24) {User evv has engaged in edit warring and has violated the 3RR during and has conducted POV editng during arbitration}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Dardan 09:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruptive anonymous editing

25) Dardanv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used anonymous IP addresses and possibly sockpuppets to make disruptive edits. At some stage he made a call for other Albanian editors at Talk:Serbia and Talk:Kosovo to "help [him] improve entries on Serbia".[86][87] This followed on a self-declared campaign of disruptive edit wars on the same article in late April[88][89], which he has recently restarted [90] All of his IP address edits originate from the same source. A partial list is avalaible here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Asterion^talk 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Dardanv violation of temporary injuction

26) Dardanv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated the temporary injuction on Kosovo and related articles (i.e. Serbia, see above entry for more details) using multiple sockpuppets as well as his own account. [91] [92] [93]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Asterion^talk 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A CheckUser run by Kelly Martin has shown that Dardanv is the puppetmaster of the Palmucha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Semarforikuq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accounts. I've slightly modified this proposal in view of this discovery (hope this is OK, Asterion?). -- ChrisO 07:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's OK.--Asterion^talk 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems correct. --PaxEquilibrium 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Vezaso violation of temporary injunction

27) Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated the temporary injunction using sockpuppets Semaforikuq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Palmucha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. CheckUser evidence from Centrx is at [94] and [95]. It is possible that other sockpuppets have been used, but these are the two that have been definitively confirmed. At this point in time, Vezaso has been blocked for two weeks by Centrx (his second block for violating the injunction). -- ChrisO 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been overtaken by new evidence from Kelly Martin via CheckUser that Vezaso is in fact a sockpuppet of Dardanv. [96]. Consequently I have stricken the above proposal, as it's redundant with Asterion's at #26. -- ChrisO 00:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hipi Zhdripi is disruptive

28) Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used anonymous IP addresses to make disruptive edits during the arbitration process[97][98][99][100][101]. He has admitted using them here [102].

A partial list of anonymous IP addresses and sockpuppets previously used by him is avalaible here.

This user has previously tag-teamed with Dardanv in late April (as explained on Dardanv's entry)[103][104][105], which led to the semi-protection of the Serbia article at the time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Asterion^talk 06:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Edit contributions for Hipi's IP address show that he's been engaging in the systematic deletion of the Serbian versions of Kosovo placenames, as well as systematically deleting categories which refer to Serbia - without discussion, needless to say. -- ChrisO 07:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to believe that Serbian editors have been disrupting the Albanian language version of Wikipedia, where he is an administrator. This appears to be some sort of disruptive payback as it could be deduced from his comments here and here. To be noted too is that neither myself nor Tony Sidaway are Serbian, nor have we ever made any edits to sq.wikipedia! --Asterion^talk 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... and support, of course. --PaxEquilibrium 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Man edit wars

29) Laughing Man (talk · contribs), previously known as Lowg (talk · contribs), has engaged in edit warring [106], for which he has been blocked twice. [107]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed by Dmcdevit·t 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Why am I listed in the probations? I do not have a signicant number of edits and I have just attempted to enforce to what I understood to be the consensus amoung the other editors. There has been nothing discussed in the workshop when this was added, or presented in /evidence only the proposed finding of fact that is inaccurate -- I have not been banned for any edits relating to Kosovo. I believe there has been a honest mistake made and I would like it if my name was removed from the proposed decisions. Thank you. // Laughing Man 16:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been active for months and have almost 2000 edits, so there is no concern about newness. There is nothing inaccurate about the finding. You have edit warred on Kosovo, whether you were blocked or not. And you have edit warred elsewhere, for which you have certainly been blocked. Dmcdevit·t 08:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "edit warred elsewhere" have to with Kosovo? Is not the scope of this arbitration. Besides, what do you consider edit warring that I have done in Kosovo anyway? A link to history of the all edits is not very helpful, as the only edits I have done to Kosovo are minor improvements, and reverting the consensus version. Your statement is so vague and misleading and frankly unfair that you did not list it anywhere first before putting it up as a "fact"/proposed decision. // Laughing Man 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making original proposals in the proposed is the most common method; you won't get far arguing against that. You might be interested ina prior arbitration principle: "Regardless of the content of a request for arbitration, the resulting arbitration may consider the behavior of the parties which is at issue." It isn't misleading. In any case, [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114], etc. are examples of Kosovo-related edit warring, aside from the others. Dmcdevit·t 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hipi Zhdripi vandalises

30) Hipi Zhdripi, editing anonymously from multiple IP addresses beginning 172.*, has repeatedly vandalised Serbia by blanking the article. ([115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, vandalism's evident. --PaxEquilibrium 20:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Kosovo related articles on Article probation

1) All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Evv 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Politically neutral map

2) The map in the article should only show the shape of Kosovo, without the regional background, so, not to indicate any political leaning (independent practically or part of Serbia legally). The map should be on a light blue colour, the colour of the UN, who is administering Kosovo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The reason is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think Kosovo should be shown in a regional context as an indipendent state, what it really is. I think if a tourist wants to pass through Kosovo, they need to see the map showing where it is located. At the same time, if the map shows Kosovo as part of Serbia, they may be mislead to think that to go to Kosovo they need to get a visa from a Serbian embassy, which is not the case. Serbia has absolutely no control whatsoever over Kosovo, on the ground or internationally. Kosovo should be put as a state, in the regional context. Why do we need to satisfy the Serb nationalists? I can't think of any reason. Dardan 08:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The further reasons are that (a) subnational entities are normally shown as parts of their parent countries and (b) Kosovo is conventionally depicted on maps as part of Serbia [122],[123],[124]. However, this is a content issue and thus is out of scope of this arbitration. -- ChrisO 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise solution, I agree to depict Kosovo provisionally (until the end of the year) without the regional context, just a territorial shape on light blue color (the UN color) as proposed by several other users. Again, Kosovo is a unique case. Serbia is not a mother-country for Kosovo, both because Albanians don't accept it and because Serbia has absolutely no control over the territory, but also because Kosovo is legally and factically under UN administration and the international community does not want Kosovo to go under the sovereignty of Serbia again. (It is the position of the Contact Group countries). Dardan 11:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we depict anything without context? Fred Bauder 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your "compromise" between map A [125] and map B [126] is choosing map A? That is a peculiar definition of "compromise", I am sorry to say. The map we have now [127] is a compromise between map A and map B. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral Introduction

3) The introduction of the article should be neutral to the status issue and should state the following: "Kosovo is a landlocked territory in Central Balkans under United Nations administration. While still legaly part of Serbia, talks on the future status of Kosovo are ongoing with the most likely outcome to be some sort of independence."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good content, but we don't do content. I think the introduction should mention that Kosovo was once the heartland of Serbia, but is no more, now being a majority Albanian area. Also that it is part of Serbia, but under trusteeship of the United Nations with negotiations in progress regarding its future status. Predictions as to the future are inappropriate. Fred Bauder 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Ideally the introduction should state the situation on the ground. "Kosovo is a state to-be in Central Balkans. Formerily part of Yugoslavia/Serbia, Kosovo is now under UN administration." Dardan 08:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of the article should reflect the consensus of reliable, verifiable sources. WP:NPOV works in conjunction with WP:V and WP:NOR, not on its own. -- ChrisO 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of the article should reflect Kosovo's internationally accepted Constitutional Framework, and only the definition clearly stated there, and not any interpretation of news agencies, carefully selected by individuals here. regards, ilir_pz 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. We already agreed on this arbitration that there will be no prediction. This would be self-contradicting. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administration ChrisO not to be allowed to use his administrative rights on the Kosovo article

4) From the point of view of numerous editors, administrator ChrisO has been clearly leaning towards the Serbian POV. He should therefore be asked not to interfere, or at least not to use is administrative rights on the Kosovo article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think there is a problem with him not showing the way for all viewpoints to be fairly represented. He has mostly provided negative feedback rather than searching for a way to satisfy the Kosovars who feel their viewpoint is not being adequately expressed. His negative input may have conformed to a strict interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but the result remains unsatisfactory. Fred Bauder 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I cannot agree more! His actions have crossed every limit. Dardan 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of being pro-Serbian by Albanians and Croatians, pro-Croatian and pro-Albanian by Serbs, pro-Albanian by Macedonians, pro-Macedonian by Greeks... this simply illustrates that if you regard your POV as "the truth" then you will most likely regard any other POV as false, even if it's a NPOV supported by the consensus of sources. A few editors have claimed that I'm "leaning towards the Serbian POV" only because they consider the Serbian POV to be anything that contradicts their own POV, even if it doesn't actually come from a Serbian source. That's a completely fallacious argument, of course. By the way, just to correct a couple of mistaken assertions here: (a) I've never used my administrative privileges to block or otherwise obstruct any of the parties in this arbitration; and (b) I've never acted as a mediator, nor presented myself as one. -- ChrisO 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. From my experience since late july, ChrisO's attemps to uphold WP:V are percieved as "pro-Serbian" only by those editors trying to present an unsourced Albanian nationalist POV; the same editors who regard all reliable sources ^sources as outdated and/or simple repetition of Serbian propaganda.

ChrisO's "edit warring" reverts have not been in the context of a content dispute, but the simple necessity of removing an unsourced version that contradicted ALL reliable sources. (If at least one single reliable source had been presented to back the alternative version, then the issue could have been characterized as a content dispute).

As already stated by ChrisO & HREmperor, any editor trying to uphold WP:V will be considered as biased by those who viscerally dislike the way in which reliable sources describe an issue. Punishing ChrisO's actions would reward sistematic harassment and deter administrators from getting involved in controversial subjects. - Evv 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as this is the main reason we are here.In addition to that, his statement above is false. He is just trying to cover his rear by making a general statement how he is been accused by all parties. Haven’t seen any evidence yet where he has taken a position that would be supported by someone from Kosovo. This is in keeping with his meticulous attempts to appear neutral. He is anything but.... Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. He keeps reverting Kosovar edits whenever he thinks they amount to vandalism. Rarely bothers to do so when Serb edits (that are considered inflammatory) take place. Usually others pick up on these and revert them. I've given this example of where he clearly collaborates with the Serb editors to provoke the Kosovar editor [128] and then initiating a campaign to block him [129], whilst consistently trying to appear neutral. He has been accused on numerous instances of having a pro-Serb bias in other talk pages related to the former Yugoslavia by the other nationalities. He claims he has been accused by serbs of being pro-Albanian: This claim is grossly misleading as there are many more accusations of him being pro-Serb that the other way around.

Fails to understand the genuine concerns about the article [[130]]. Choses to ignore the inputs from people who have had first hand experience on the issue, and who I would consider experts in the field because of direct diplomatic involvement(such as User Envoy202). And instead leans towards the versions supported by Serbian Historians such as HolyRomanEmperor. Never once tried to make a compromise, unlike some other users such as Cpt Morgan.

He bullies other editors into retirement [131]. Insists on putting the map of Serbia on the Kosovo article, despite the sensitivities. When challenged with the argument that Northern Ireland article does not contain the map of UK, he ignores it. Even when a serbian editor notes the sensitivity of the map [[132]] and when there was hope of some sort of compromise, ChrisO proceeded with the map of Serbia without obtaining consent from the other editors. This is where he abused his admin rights and enforced the controversial map. This poll was used as a basis [[133]] for the controversial change.

I will quote User KieranT here to make my point:

The biggest problem with this kind of poll, as opposed to those on AfD discussions and the like, is that the attention of the community is not drawn to them. Many editors with opinions, knowledge, and most relevantly, with reference material appropriate to the article, will not know the poll is happening. It's a consensus amongst an incredibly unscientific minority of people; most of whom – and I mean no offence to anyone in particular here, this just seems blatantly obvious – are likely to be those who regularly bat the article back and forth for partisan or other reasons, and are somewhat incautious in their editing approach. There must be a better way! Perhaps some sort of peer review, which could be "advertised". KieranT Tonycdp 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. I doubt it. ChrisO has been acused by Albanians that he's pro-Serbian; by Serbs that he's pro-Croat and pro-Albanian (just as he himself stated so). What we have here is a typical element "Support the enemy - expect to get scratched". However, if there is a lack of faith in him - then someone should replace him as a mediator - however he can only xpect to be judged the same as ChrisO. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Today, ChrisO show why he should not have admin power on Kosovo article

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, even though he know that Serbia does not have power of sovereignty, serbia have no power, no authority in Kosovo, only UN Security Council have it. He give as reason that all international community say that Serbia have sovereign power over Kosovo, but international community say just opposite.

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! There must be person who has willingness to be admin person to protect Kosovo article from nationalist bullies no matter if they are Serbian or Albanian. Why wiki need have ChrisO when it is so clear that he is not objektiv. I now know why Albanians get so angry with ChrisO. He pretend to be fair but he is not. Albanian nationalists are not fair. They break rules and have no respect but that is no reason for wiki to have ChrisO with admin power over Kosovo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosna (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because all those keep violating the injunction of this Arbitration. --PaxEquilibrium 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing by nationalistic editors

5) Editors of Kosovo and related articles who repeatedly engage in tendentious nationalist editing which violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Hmpf, I am reluctant to aprove this; mainly because of the "indefinately" block part. --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

ChrisO

6) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The record shows that I have already sought to do this (see [134]). However, nobody can be expected to succeed in this sort of effort if good faith is not being assumed. So far in this episode, I have been accused of being biased, of being a liar [135], of being a paid agent of the Serbian government [136] or the Serbian Orthodox Church [137] and of being a fabricator of sources.[138] Many of the same accusations have been made against Evv and Reinoutr (who have additionally been accused of being sockpuppets [139]). I've been editing former Yugoslavia-related articles for three years now (indeed, my success in editing Kosovo-related articles was cited in my original nomination for adminship). In the time that I've been editing Wikipedia, I've never encountered such a barrage of hostility and bad faith as I've seen from Dardanv, Ferick, Ilir pz and Vezaso. It's simply impossible to work constructively with editors who behave in such a way. Assisting users is a two-way process - they have to be willing to be assisted in the first place. There is no evidence of any such willingness on the part of Dardanv, Ferick, Ilir pz and Vezaso, only a constant line of bad-faith comments, claims and assumptions. -- ChrisO 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, of course. --PaxEquilibrium 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle any such encouragment is good to anyone :-)

However, in the context of this arbitration, I fully agree with ChrisO: "assistance is a two-way process", which requires a willingness to reason by both parts. Editors like Ferick, Dardanv and Hipi Zhdripi either don't care for Wikipedia policies at all, or are so blinded by their strong opinions/feelings as to be totally unable to understand and apply those policies. Either way, they simply refuse to "play by the rules", and regard any attempt to explain or upheld those rules as an act of hostility performed by the enemy.

Under such circumstances, anyone's best efforts were doomed to failure. If anything, ChrisO should be encouraged to be less patient and deal more swiftly with editors who consistently and willingly refuse to follow Wikipedia policies, thus saving everybody lots of time. - Evv 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Dardanv banned

7) Dardanv to be banned from wikipedia for disruption, edit warring and abusive sockupuppetry. All edits under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user and would subsequently be permenently blocked too, if confirmed by the usual procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Banning of disruptive editors

1) Any editor who makes disruptive (controversial and undiscussed) edits to Kosovo related articles may be banned on sight for 24 hours by any administrator who has not edited Kosovo related articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

How would someone who does not edit the articles be able to tell what is disruptive? Fred Bauder 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

How would the problem of sockpuppetry be dealt with? Asterion^talk 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "banned" mean "banned from Kosovo-related articles" or "blocked from the whole of Wikipedia"? -- ChrisO 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred: That is indeed difficult, perhaps an administrator can be appointed to monitor the article (more or less a "mentor", but then for the article rather than an editor)?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Which articles are covered by this temporary injuction. Is there a list available somewhere? It seems that Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added this injuction notice on articles not related to the Kosovo case: [145][146][147]Laughing Man 18:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have made a clarification of the placing of the ban notices. I was instructed by DmcDevit, in my role as a clerk, to post the notice on any article listed as in the dispute on the evidence page of this arbitration, and three or four others that were unprotected on 14th September by Dmcdevit. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not see the list on the evidence page, but I do recall seeing a list in the proposal that now I can not find. I do think it's obvious that the articles I listed above are unrelated to the Kosovo case, and this injuction should not apply to them. Laughing Man 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Croatian War of Independence has nothing to do with this. Fred Bauder 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the notice was also posted to Srebrenica massacre and Markale massacres, which likewise are unrelated to the Kosovo case. Tony, it's probably best to remove the notice from these three articles. -- ChrisO 09:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Croatian War of Indepedence, the Markale Massacres, and the Srebrenica Massacre articles are related to the Kosovo article. All four articles have been subjected to edit warring by several editors named in this case including apparent sock puppets. All four articles provide insight into the behavior of some of the editors named in this case. All four articles are related to the nationalist arguments involving the break-up of Yugoslavia. All four articles have benefitted from administrators intervening and warning those who have engaged in edit warring. Please keep these notices. In addition to being relevant to this case, they are contributing to stabilizing the articles and detering edit warring. Thank you. Fairview360 21:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]