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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

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]

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

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 [1] 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]

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:

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.

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]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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]

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.

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]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:48, 14 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:

Comment by parties:

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

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:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:50, 14 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 18:56, 14 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]

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:

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:

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:

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:

Comment by others:

Kosovo nationalism

2) There are a number of editors who edit Kosovo from a Kosovo nationalist 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 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7] and [8].

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. -- ChrisO 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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]

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]

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:

Comment by parties:

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.

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]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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 [9],[10],[11]. However, this is a content issue and thus is out of scope of this arbitration. -- ChrisO 19:41, 14 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."

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]

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:

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]

Comment by others:

Administration ChrisO not to be allowed to use his administrative rirghts 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.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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]

Comment by others:

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]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

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]

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Keep Kosovo protected

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

Neutral point of view

Assume good faith

Use of reliable sources

Disruptive editing

No personal attacks

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Edit warring considered harmful

Editors required to follow fundamental policies

No original research

Include only verifiable, reliable information

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Locus of dispute

Kosovo nationalism

Tension regarding sources

Consensus among reliable sources

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Kosovo related articles on Article probation

Politically neutral map

Neutral Introduction

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

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Banning of disruptive editors

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion