Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented jointly by User:Asterion, User:ChrisO, User:Evv and User:Reinoutr

[edit]

Due to the relative complexity of this case we are presenting a joint statement of evidence. We hope that this will reduce the amount of duplication on this page and simplify the task of the Arbitration Committee.

This dispute has primarily concerned the article on Kosovo and the related Template:Kosovo and Template:Kosovo-InfoBox. It has also overspilled into Serbia. It primarily concerns the way in which Kosovo's political status is described in the article.

There are essentially three POVs on the question of "what Kosovo is", namely: a Serb nationalist one which says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia illegally occupied by NATO; a middle one which says that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under temporary UN administration prior to a final status agreement, which is currently under negotiation; and an Albanian nationalist one which says that Kosovo is an independent though unrecognised state.

For months there have been discussions and edit wars whether Kosovo should be called (in these or similar words, since many variations have been proposed and used) a province in southern Serbia [2] or an entity under interim international administration [3] or a territory located in the south-east Europe [4]. Related to that, there have been disputes over whether the main map displayed in the infobox of the article should display just Kosovo [5], or Kosovo as a part of Serbia [6].

A number of editors (principally User:Dardanv, User:Ferick, User:Hipi Zhdripi (who often edits without logging in), User:Ilir pz, User:Kushtrimxh, User:Tonycdp and User:Vezaso) wish the article to express a strong Albanian (nationalist) point of view despite this being contradicted by the overwhelming majority of sources (and unsupported by the one source they do cite). They apparently consider any position other than their own to be "pro-Serb."

In pursuing this line of argument, they have engaged in serious editorial misconduct, specifically: repeated personal attacks; the use of sockpuppets and fake identities; tag-team edit warring; repeated violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, involving aggressive POV-pushing across multiple articles; a consistent and at times aggressive lack of assuming good faith; disregard for consensus; repeated violations of WP:3RR, for which several users have been blocked at various times; repeated disruption; refusal to negotiate; and consistent failure to cite sources. This has caused chaos in the Kosovo article and the related templates. Several of the same users have exhibited the same behaviour in several other articles, notably Serbia, indicating a systemic problem which is not confined just to one article.

Evidence of specific areas of disagreement is provided below.

Violations of WP:V and WP:NOR

[edit]
  • Arbitration principles:
    1. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research.
    2. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.

WP:V and WP:NOR have repeatedly been violated by User:Dardanv, User:Ferick, User:Ilir pz, User:Kushtrimxh, User:Tonycdp and User:Vezaso, who have sought to impose their own original research on the status of Kosovo while ignoring the overwhelming majority of sources on the issue.

International governments, the governments of Kosovo and Serbia, the UN, EU and OSCE, the international media, all of the major English-language encyclopedias, and commercial geographers - in other words, the vast majority of reliable, verifiable sources - express the position that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under United Nations administration. A summary of the key sources is provided at Talk:Kosovo/Sources. It should be emphasized that these are a tiny fraction of literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of official, academic and media sources which say the same thing (see e.g. [7]).

Dardanv, Ferick, Ilir pz, Kushtrimxh and Vezaso (henceforce D/F/I/K/V) have repeatedly set out to ignore all of these sources in favour of a nationalist POV based on personal views and original research. They have done this in the full knowledge of the WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies, which have been explained at length on Talk:Kosovo. The consistent theme has been a minimisation or deletion of Serbia's relationship with Kosovo (i.e. not describing it as a province of Serbia).

  • Ferick has repeatedly sought to describe Kosovo as not a province of Serbia but "located in the south-east Europe" (sic). [8], [9], [10]
  • D/F/I/K/V have repeatedly sought to describe Kosovo as "an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes". [17], [18], [19], [20]

This latter version is a direct quotation from the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) Regulation 2001/9 on "Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government", Chapter 1, Basic Provisions ([21]). D/F/I/K/V interpret this to meant that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia (despite what all the other sources say). Indeed, this argument has already been made in the course of this arbitration ([22], [23], [24], [25]). Ilir pz and Tonycdp have explicitly said that they regard all the other sources as wrong ([26], [27], [28]) and have advocated using the quote from the Constitutional Framework instead. Dardanv has similarly stated his preference for using "what we know in actuality [it] is, an independent state waiting to be recognized by the international community." [29]

The Constitutional Framework is the only source that has been advanced in support of their position. However, it is a primary source; WP:RS states that "in general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." No reliable secondary source, including UNMIK itself, supports D/F/I/K/V's view that the Constitutional Framework states that Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia. D/F/I/K/V's interpretation is entirely a personal one and is not based on any secondary source. It is thus a classic example of inadmissable original research. Despite this being explained on numerous occasions in Talk:Kosovo, they have continued to add it to the article dozens of times, breaking 3RR in the process.

When confrontated with the Wikipedia WP:V and WP:RS guidelines, mainly Ilir pz and Ferick, have repeatedly expressed their disrespect for established Wikipedia guidelines and policies ([30], [31]). Tonycdp reacted in a similar way ([32]). Ferick also rejected the attempt at mediation to resolve the dispute ([33]). Tonycdp has accused other editors of "hid[ing] very well behind the Wikipedia rules", ([34]) apparently regarding attempts to apply the rules as being illegitimate.

Violations of WP:NPOV

[edit]
  • Arbitration principles:
    1. Editors with a national background 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.
    2. Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.
    3. All contributions should be written from the NPOV.
    4. Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem.

WP:NPOV has repeatedly been violated by Dardanv, Ferick, Ilir pz, Kushtrimxh, Tonycdp and Vezaso, who have have edited aggressively from a particular nationalist point of view. This has involved, inter alia, deleting references to Serbia; deleting Serbian names; deleting Serbian characters (e.g. š, ć) from indisputably Serbian names, including those of places and people outside Kosovo; adding strongly nationalist statements to articles; and removing templates that refer to Serbia. This has occurred on several articles. As well as violating NPOV, this may also be considered disruptive, as it has the effect of winding up the Serbian editors. In some cases, these editors have clearly expressed their unwillingness to reach a consensus or compromise in order to keep the article NPOV.

Repeated personal attacks

[edit]
  • Arbitration principles:
    1. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
    2. Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

There is a sustained and aggressive tendency by some of these editors to attack, call names and to smear neutral editors. In particular, any advocacy of a point of view other than the Albanian nationalist one is denounced as a "Serbian nationalist", "pro-Serb", pushing "Serbian propaganda", "pushing your nationalistic view", "hid[ing] very well behind the Wikipedia rules", accusing other users of being sockpuppets "of the serbian goverment and serbian church" and of lying, accusations of being an "illegitimate admin" (sic) etc. This campaign has driven away other good editors and has created an unpleasant and unnecessarily hostile environment for all contributors to the article.

Example diffs are provided below for each of the users in question:

Allegations of admin abuse

[edit]

Several of the involved users have claimed that ChrisO has abused his administrator rights. See #Personal statement by ChrisO below for a response to these claims.

Enhancing factors

[edit]

In several cases, provocative statements and edits on both article and user talk pages made by editors with a serbian POV clearly contributed to the heat of the debate:

Disruption

[edit]
  • Arbitration principles:
    Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Several users have engaged in repeated disruptive editing clearly intended to provoke the Serbian editors of the Kosovo-related articles, often using edit summaries to make ethnic attacks or slurs, or accusing them of being war criminals or working for the Serbian government or Serbian Orthodox Church. This trollish behaviour has, unfortunately, sometimes succeeded in inflaming tensions and has made the task of the neutral editors much harder. It has continued even during these arbitration proceedings.

Representative example diffs (a few of the many) are provided below.

Edit warring

[edit]
  • Arbitration principles:
    1. Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum.
    2. The three-revert rule prohibits editors from reverting an article more than three times in any 24-hour period, except in cases of simple vandalism.
    3. It is expected that editors, when reverting, will provide an explanation for doing so in the edit summary.

Violations of the 3 revert rule have occurred, as well as tag-team edit warring.

3RR violations

[edit]

Vezaso has engaged in particularly aggressive edit warring. His first edit to Kosovo on 27 August 2006 was followed by numerous reversions to his preferred version without any edit summaries and irrespective of appeals by other editors to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

He received a three revert rule warning on 29 August [93] but continued reverting, resulting in Heah blocking him for a 3RR violation. [94]

Ilir pz, Dardanv, and Kushtrimxh have followed Vezaso's lead in aggressively edit warring (see #Tag-team edit warring). They do not appear to have broken the 3RR in doing so, though it should be noticed that both Ilir pz, Dardanv have past histories of being blocked for 3RR violations (see #Block logs indicate continuing problems).

Tag-team edit warring

[edit]

Vezaso's edit warring triggered a tag-team edit war in which other nationalist editors piled on, apparently attempting to impose their imposed (OR, non-V, non-NPOV) version by sheer weight of numbers. This prompted a request for page protection on 30 August [95], followed by Reinoutr's request for arbitration the next day.[96] The problem could be contained while only one editor was reverting, but the tag-team reversions that followed caused the dispute to spiral out of control.

This sequence from the revision history for Kosovo shows clear evidence of tag-team edit warring. Vezaso begins the sequence by reverting to his preferred version, following which the other nationalist editors pile on (3 reverts each by Ilir pz and Dardanv, 2 by Kushtrimxh). As the edit summaries indicate, there were repeated but unheeded appeals to use the talk page rather than forcing the issue. It should be note that, to his credit, Tonycdp did not follow Vezaso's lead and urged the nationalist editors to use the talk page rather than edit-warring.

  • 10:23, 30 August 2006 Vezaso (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 10:34, 30 August 2006 Reinoutr (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to previous version)
  • 10:51, 30 August 2006 Kushtrimxh (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 11:01, 30 August 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by Kushtrimxh (talk) to last version by Reinoutr)
  • 11:29, 30 August 2006 Tonycdp (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 11:43, 30 August 2006 Dardanv (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to Kush)
  • 12:05, 30 August 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by Dardanv (talk) to last version by Tonycdp)
  • 12:28, 30 August 2006 Dardanv (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to neutral version (please improve))
  • 12:29, 30 August 2006 Reinoutr (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to last version by ChrisO)
  • 13:28, 30 August 2006 Kushtrimxh (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 13:57, 30 August 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by Kushtrimxh (talk) to last version by Reinoutr)
  • 14:05, 30 August 2006 Ilir pz (Talk | contribs | block) (this is a more balanced version. Refrain from nationalistic reverts, even if you are admins! Thank you!)
  • 14:12, 30 August 2006 Vezaso (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 14:12, 30 August 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs | block) m (JS: Reverted edits by Vezaso to last version by Ilir pz)
  • 14:15, 30 August 2006 Ilir pz (Talk | contribs | block) (turkish language is only official in Prizren, and small commune of Mamusha, nowhere else in Kosovo)
  • 14:29, 30 August 2006 Tonycdp (Talk | contribs | block) (I feel obliged to revert to the last agreed version. Please make your point on the discussion page before editing. Although I would prefer to see a map of Kosovo on its own too)
  • 14:36, 30 August 2006 Ilir pz (Talk | contribs | block) (→Ottoman rule - removed speculation)
  • 14:50, 30 August 2006 Lowg (Talk | contribs | block) (rv why are removing information with no discussion?)
  • 14:51, 30 August 2006 Ilir pz (Talk | contribs | block) (Turkis language is not official in Kosovo, again...)
  • 15:11, 30 August 2006 Tonycdp (Talk | contribs | block) (please use the talk page before editing.)
  • 15:23, 30 August 2006 Ilir pz (Talk | contribs | block) (rev to version by Xhakli. This is more balanced. I have discussed about this for months. regards,)
  • 16:10, 30 August 2006 Lowg (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to version by Tonycdp)
  • 17:25, 30 August 2006 Vezaso (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 17:39, 30 August 2006 Evv (Talk | contribs | block) m (restored Tonycdp's version (minus a "the"))
  • 01:00, 31 August 2006 Dardanv (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to unbiased, agreed previously)
  • 01:12, 31 August 2006 Evv (Talk | contribs | block) m (rv to Evv (myself) - Dardanv: please discuss in the talk page before reverting.)
  • 03:48, 31 August 2006 Mets501 (Talk | contribs | block) (edit war)
  • 03:49, 31 August 2006 Mets501 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Kosovo: severe edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Sockpuppeting and the use of fake identities

[edit]
  • Arbitration principles:
    1. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability – and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize – is strictly forbidden.
    2. Wikipedia users are welcome to edit anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create an account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.

Tonycdp has engaged in sockpuppeting and the use of several false identities while making contentious edits and personal attacks.

  • Tonycdp has edited a number of Kosovo-related articles and talk pages: [97]
  • Tonycdp has uploaded a number of images sourced from an external website: [98], 16:05, 30 June 2006
  • This website is apparently owned by Tonycdp and is registered in Britain, specifically London: (website contact e-mail address, whois information)
  • A post was made to Talk:Kosovo, signed Tonycdp but from anonymous IP address 87.86.8.3, which is registered to a British, specifically London, company: [99], 11:15, 8 August 2006
  • Shortly afterwards, the same IP address posted under the pseudonym "Coca Cola" on User talk:Ferick: [100], 11:38, 8 August 2006
  • Earlier, the same IP address posted to Talk:Kosovo under the pseudonym "Steven": [101], 13:28, 4 August 2006
  • The same user has made personal attacks against ChrisO, worded in a peculiar and distinctive way: "ChrisO ... is a pro-serb" (note that a native English speaker would probably not use "pro-Serb" as a noun): [103], 11:38, 8 August 2006
  • Identical wording has been used in anonymous edits from 81.132.186.22 and 172.214.0.245, which belong to British public ISPs: [104], 14:34, 4 August 2006, [105], 14:45, 4 August 2006

Block logs indicate continuing problems

[edit]

Several of the users involved in this arbitration have a history of being blocked for essentially the same, or similar, violations to those described above. This indicates a continuing pattern of problem editing which has not been resolved by these earlier, shorter blocks.

  • User:Ferick has been blocked twice, for 24 hours each, for 3RR violations. [109]
  • User:Hipi Zhdripi has been blocked on 3 occasions, for 24 hours, 1 month and indefinitely, for POV pushing, disruption of an RFA and 3RR violation (but is presently unblocked). [110]
  • User:Ilir pz has been blocked on 3 occasions, for 24 hours each, for 3RR violations. [111]
  • User:C-c-c-c has been blocked on numerous occasions and eventually indefinately, for incivility and trolling. [116] He has, however, admitted to be editing again as User:PerfectStorm despite the block on his earlier account apparently still being in force [117].

Personal statements

[edit]

Although presenting the evidence jointly, some of us want to make a small personal statement on how they have experienced the diverse problems surrounding the Kosovo related articles.

Personal statement by Reinoutr

[edit]

Although the evidence presented above clearly suggests a pattern of disruption of Kosovo related articles by some of the editors involved, I do believe that many of these editors have been acting in good faith. Their goal was not to disrupt Wikipedia or to misrepresent Kosovo in these articles, but I feel they truely wanted the articles on Kosovo to represent Kosovo as they see it. At several occasions, these editors have suggested that currently, the Kosovo related articles are not in line with the truth (e.g. [119]). As is also presented above, this truth is not substantiated by neutral sources and has a strong Albanian/Kosovar POV. Even though the resulting edit-warring, allegations and incivility are clearly not acceptable, I feel the Arbitration Commitee should take into account that most of the involved editors all edited in good faith. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:11, 4 September 2006

Personal statement by ChrisO

[edit]

I've been involved with this article for a long time and have seen it experiencing a number of edit wars involving both Serbs and Albanians, reflecting the sensitivity of the subject. I agree with Reinoutr's characterisation of the editors' motivations. However, an attempt to impose an unsourced, partisan "truth" is little more than an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and should be discouraged. This particular editing dispute has gone further than any previous edit war because of an unusual confluence of factors, specifically; the existence of an ongoing dispute; the recent arrival of several editors who have rejected any efforts at compromise, most notably Vesazo, whose edit warring from 27 August onwards sparked the latest dispute [120]; and the way in which nationalist editors have tag-teamed to edit war. The rejection by these editors of WP:V and WP:NOR means that there is essentially no common ground on which the article can be taken forward, as we can't exempt this article from Wikipedia's most basic principles.

In response to accusations of bias on my part, I note that in editing articles on the former Yugoslavia I've been called pro-Serbian by Croats and Albanians, pro-Albanian by Serbs, Macedonians and Greeks and pro-Croatian by Serbs. This merely reflect the fact that users with a strong POV regard their own POV as "the truth" and regard any other POV (even if it's the conventional one, as in this case) as "false" or "hostile". An editor with a partisan POV is likely to regard an expression of any other POV as also being partisan, even if in fact it isn't. -- ChrisO 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involved

[edit]

Because the list is not present in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, I want to add here again a list of articles to which we believe this Arbitration Request applies:

Editors involved after start of Arbitration

[edit]

This a list of editors and IPs getting somehow involved in editing/reverting the introduction of the article Kosovo, after the start of the arbitration and the associated unprotection (excluding admin edits related to the arbitration and minor edits and corrections of typos etc..):

15 September 2006

[edit]

18 September 2006

[edit]

19 September 2006

[edit]

25 September 2006

[edit]

26 September 2006

[edit]

27 September 2006

[edit]

28 September 2006

[edit]

29 September 2006

[edit]

1 October 2006

[edit]

2 October 2006

[edit]

3 October 2006

[edit]

4 October 2006

[edit]

7 October 2006

[edit]

10 October 2006

[edit]

Personal statement by HRE

[edit]

I've noticed the tragedy which occured over the article of Kosovo. That's why I'll be brief - block, protect and watch. Nothing more have I got to say. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Vezaso

[edit]

This article is a Serb propaganda pamphlet

[edit]

The reason why this article is disputed now is because the status talks are ongoing and anticipated to end in November this year, so different warring sides want to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. I am new in Wikipedia and I do not know how to make the links to the evidence in the article, I appologize for this. This article presents Kosovo as a 'Serb province,' which has not been the case since 1999, when Kosovo was put under international administration, which is the most important attribute both legaly and practically. There are four POVs in relation to Kosovo: 1. Kosovo is a Serb province, 2. Kosovo is a UN protectorate, 3. Kosovo is an unrecognised yet state, 4. Kosovo is Albanian territory taken over by Serbia in 1912. Although the first POV was valid until 1999, and was used until last year, in the last stage of status talks that is not the case anymore. Kosovo, in reality is a UN governed territory to be independent in the near future. Kosovo is a unique case in the world. It is not similar to any other conflict in the world as it is only Kosovo expected to be a state in the foreseable future, despite the Serbian nationalist strive to prevent it. The fact that they want to turn the Kosovo article into a Serb nationalistic pamphlet can be seen by their continuous zeal to: 1. Keep Serb spelling (although with UN regulation, place names shuold be in Albanian for all places where Albanians make the majority), 2. State that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, similar to Vojvodina (although this is not the case, Kosovo is a UN governed territory since 1999, going to be independent in the near future), 3. Show Kosovo as a Serb territory in the map, 4. Keeping a long Serb history section (several times longer then the history section in the Serbia article). Vezaso 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Serb or pro-serb editors work as a team

[edit]

Serb editors or pro-Serb editors have been working as a team in disrupting the article and presenting it as a Serb pamphlet. They have used 'legality' as their means, as noted in their joint statement above and abused admin priviledges to their end. ChrisO has notably continususly pushed that it is not really important what it is, but what you can prove. He has worked with an impresive zeal to prove his POV through finding facts. THis has not been the case with Albanian editors, who do not seem to be as skilled as he and the other Serb editors in using/abusing wikipedia. They have been very organized in revert warring so that they do not violate the 3RR, by keeping the Serbian POV up for most of the time in the past two months or so. With the exception of HipiZhdripi and sometimes Ferrick, the other side has been quite civil by not pushing for an Albanian POV, which would hint to Kosovo declared independence in 1990 and the de-facto independence since 1999, but to the legal and factual neutral POV, which states that Kosovo is a UN governed territory. Vezaso 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Kelly Martin

[edit]

Bormalagurski is using multiple accounts

[edit]

Checkuser evidence clearly indicates that KOCOBO (talk · contribs) and Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) are the same person. In my opinion, it is quite likely that this same person is also Srbijanković (talk · contribs) and Svetislav Jovanović (talk · contribs), and may also be Bože pravde (talk · contribs), although there is a remote chance that some of these people are meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vezaso is using multiple accounts

[edit]

Checkuser evidence leaves no doubt that Palmucha (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Vezaso (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional checkuser evidence indicates that Dardanv (talk · contribs) is also one of Vezaso's sockpuppets. (Technically, Dardanv is the senior account, so Vezaso is nominally the sockpuppet.) Kelly Martin (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (amended 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Evidence presented by Duja

[edit]

As a reply to evidence presented by Kelly:

As a long-standing editor (and hopefully neutral) of articles concerning former Yugoslavia, I'm quite surprised that Bože pravde (talk · contribs) is accused as Bormalagurski (talk · contribs)'s sockpuppet. I don't have a slightest doubt that it's a legitimate user, and his POVs, clearly expressed in his user and talk page, hardly match Bormalagurski's. See for example these statements on his talk page.

As for Srbijanković (talk · contribs) and Svetislav Jovanović (talk · contribs), I doubt they're sockpuppets of Bormalagurski, but they certainly do engage in meatpuppeting and votecasting. See S.J's votecasting of Serbian users for RM at Croatian war of independence. Duja 10:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

Please see this:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

What will arbitation committee do about this?

Why do I have spend so much time showing that ChrisO abuse his power? That he edit war again? Why after all time of arbitation, ChrisO still have power to block all people who disagree with him? Why not have truly objektive observer have admin power with Kosovo article? Now only one side have power and article now say things that are not true!Bosna 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence&oldid=1138654021"