Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala

Case Closed on 17 Nov 2004

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint

Avala has been a difficult user for some time now, prone to personal attacks, belicosity on talk pages, and prone to either disregard or inability to comprehend Wikipedia policy and convention. He has a tendency towards abusive edit summaries, frivolous nominations on RFA and FAC, and edit warring. Detailed evidence can be found at User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence.

I'd like to stress in this case that I do not think Avala is a bad user, or even editing in bad faith. I think Avala is a difficult user and a problem user. I'm hoping for the outcome of this to be something that helps the message that Avala is being disruptive to sink in - something an RfC and numerous users confronting Avala about his behavior have not achieved. My personal hope for an outcome would be something akin to the standing order being proposed for the case regarding Anthony. Snowspinner 22:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all Snowspinner has said. Ambivalenthysteria 04:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As do I. Cribcage 21:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. Nikola 23:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would like to request postponing arbitration for one week, because I will be on vacation. I informed Wikipedia about this earlier before on my talk page. I shall write complete answer to what is found in User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence. It is located at User:Avala/Answer. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 11:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about trying mediation? Fred Bauder 13:58, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that would be fruitful, particularly after reading Avala's answer. Avala seems to be completely unaware of the issues that personal attacks, edit warring, and hostile posts on talk pages all cause. These issues have been pointed out to him in the past, and he refuses to see them as problems, always defending that his edit was right, that the people opposing him were POV warriors, that he was just discussing. I think it's telling that he notes that "Many times I said I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION" without seeming to note that the very tone of saying that in all caps negates the peacefulness of the solution. (Though I find Avala's whole response very telling - it displays almost every one of the issues I have with Avala's editing style) I don't feel that Avala has any investment in change nor any recognition that there is an issue, and suspect that Avala would not take the matter with enough seriousness or interest in reaching a conflict-free resolution for it to be an effective solution. I think that what is needed is for civility and compromise to no longer be optional for Avala. I hope that with some sanctions, Avala will finally recognize that this is a real issue. Snowspinner 15:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

I can see that your only dream is to ban me because we dissagre in many subjects. I don`t think it is very democratic. Evidences you provided are mostly out of subject(80 "evidences"), because you posted every minor edit of mine for an example on discussion about templates nato/natom. "Many times I said I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION"- You seem not to read anything but just point to caps lock. The reason I wrote it like that in first place was to stop fighting in one article and to point to my compromise proposal (in my answer I just copy/pasted). You also said " that the people opposing him were POV warriors" . You again said it yourself. I never said such a thing and please don`t post lies anymore! I said that is normal that everyone in here have some POV, but that it is really bad if you don`t respects other peoples POV(POV is nothing bad, it means Point of View, and everyone should have it unless they are invertebrate), and call for banning them. But I am not he one who said I like to poke Avala and soemthing like all edits by Avala are bad and POV. I think you should think a bit and see that this request for arbitration brought you 6 opposing votes. And differently from you I admit making mistakes, but I was also a good contributor many times and again many times proposed compromise solution. You never tried to rich compromise. Your favourite key seams to be "the revert key". I hope that you don`t expect my answer to be something like :sorry Snowspinner for voting against you on RfA, because I don`t think I am sorry at all after your last comment.

I wish you the best and hope that you will stop being agressive to me, that you will listen to the people because we don`t have anything against you [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 16:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I urge the committee not to send this to mediation. It is one such case where there is absolutely nothing mediation could achieve. It is not a dispute between two users, nor is it a dispute of the content of an article. Passing the buck to the Mediation Committee (as was tried last time Avala was put on here), will just delay the inevitable, annoy a lot of people, and perhaps lessen the opportunity to constructively encourage Avala to change his behaviour. Ambivalenthysteria 03:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "delay the inevitable" ? What inevitable outcome are you expecting here ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

I was referring to arbitration. In my opinion, the issue wasn't going to go away, and needed to be heard by the AC if a positive outcome was to occur. I felt that if, as last time, it was sent back to the MC (due to a dispute that wasn't necessarily mediate-able, and the wide number of parties that have had issues with this user), then it would simply be delaying arbitration proceedings, rather than preventing them. Ambi 10:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

1. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. Fred Bauder 12:00, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. Gutza 15:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. The last time Avala was on RfA, he was making a request, over a single edit, and rejecting it was absolutely correct - I'm not going to accept every ill thought out arbitration request just on the offchance that the person making the request will themselves be the subject of an arbitration request some months later. On this new request, I'm undecided at present. Martin 00:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Accept. mav 09:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Final decision

Same numbering as used at /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)

Principles

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

2) The English language Wikipedia site is an international site which welcomes and expects participation by editors from all countries.

3) Editors with a national background, in this case, Serbian, are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

4) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

5) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Findings of Fact

1) User Avala created a template, Template:NAM, which because of the large number of countries involves was quite large and would reasonably, if accepted by the Wikipedia community, be added to about 100 articles. Avala's initiative was contested by User Snowspinner who first blanked the template [1] and then listed it as a candidate for deletion [2]. See [3] where although the page was severely criticized there was failure to achieve a consensus to delete the page.

2) It is probable that to User Avala, who has a Serbian background, the Non-Aligned Movement which was founded by Tito has more significance than is usually accorded it by Wikipedia editors.

3) User Avala, in his attempts to find a solution to this problem created the templates, Template:NAMm and Template:NATOm.

4) The templates, Template:NAMm and Template:NATOm were not considered an acceptable solution to the "large template problem" and were deleted. User Avala tried out Template:NATOm in a few articles, see [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and [9]. These were promptly deleted and Avala did not pursue the matter.

5) Considering the matter of User Avala's actions concerning Template:NAM raised by User Snowspinner as a whole: Avala proposed an initiative which he attempted to defend when it was challenged but did not engage in behavior which violated Wikipedia policy, See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

6) User Avala created Template:Serbia and Montenegro, which is now Template:Serbia and Montenegro. This was criticized by Snowspinner and others as being "too small", see MediaWiki talk:Serbia and Montenegro and its page history. Avala's response to this criticism can fairly be criticized as defensive and insistent. The template remains in use, see Serbia and Montenegro.

8) In the face of general opposition from other editors, who felt that evidence of the charges was not sufficient, User Avala inserted into Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek notes that both men were being accused of war crimes. In pursuit of this objective Avala engaged in an edit war, see, For Drnovsek: [10] [11] [12] [13] and [14]. For Kucan: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. In discussing these reversions, the following posts were made: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. including these 4 insertions which occured in a period of 4 hours: [28], [29], [30], and [31] . Again Avala was defensive, insistant and abusive.

Remedies

1) The above findings of fact show that Avala has often worked against consensus and majority opinion. We therefore rule that Avala must follow the majority opinion of the users involved concerning any controversial edits that Avala makes. One specific consequence is that violations of the three revert rule are not permitted. This probation period will last for one month.

2) For a period of 3 months, should a serious dispute arise between Avala and other users with respect to editing of an article Avala is required to cite substantial authority supporting the position he is taking and either enter the dispute resolution process regarding the matter or drop the matter. A serious dispute is defined as one in which any party to the dispute has reverted the other 3 times or more. After Avala makes his third revert he shall cease editing the article with respect to the disputed matter until completion of the dispute resolution process. Resolution of the dispute in his favor shall require verification that the authority cited adequately supports the information he advocates including in the article. With respect to matters of taste such as size of templates he is required to defer to majority opinion.

3) Given the fact that Avala is now editing at a low rate, we reserve the right to revisit the conduct issue of this user once/if Avala starts to edit at an increased rate again and other users complain about Avala's conduct. This probation would last one year.

Enforcement

1) Violation of the three revert rule will enable admins to ban Avala for 24 hours.