Revision as of 21:06, 16 September 2006

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: . Not sure what (if) anything should be done or should be said to the editor. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Laughing Man 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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: by 82.114.95.33 (talk · contribs). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The arbitrators have already proposed an injunction - see Misplaced Pages: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)

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 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages rules to 'win' the propaganda war on Misplaced Pages. Thas I am absolutely against baning. Vezaso 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Ferick

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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." 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)

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

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) Misplaced Pages: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)

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.: "Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)

With respect, Fred, that position is not "on my part", it's Misplaced Pages'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 for the latest). I have to say that your comment is rather inconsistent with the principle that you've proposed that "Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

1b) Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

2) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Comment by parties:

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

Kosovo is a unique case. As stated by most western governments. Using the Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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)

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)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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)

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.04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

"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)

Comment by others:

Strong Support. - User:Bormalagurski, User:Hipi Zhdripi and User:Ferick need most definately this rule.

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)

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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)

Editors required to follow fundamental policies

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Strong support. The applicability or not of Misplaced Pages policies is the core of the dispute. Evv 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

No original research

9) Misplaced Pages: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)

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 and another based on original research on a primary source . Evv 13:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

Include only verifiable, reliable information

10) Misplaced Pages:Verifiability requires Misplaced Pages articles to be based on verifiable, reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by parties:

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

Strong support. The applicability or not of WP:V is the core of the dispute, with some editors regarding most reliable 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)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball

11) Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

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

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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)

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

1) The locus of the dispute is Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), chiefly the introductory characterization regarding its status. Other articles affected include Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 2004 unrest in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Demographic history of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kosova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (whether or not to redirect to Kosovo), Kosovo Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Priština (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Template:Kosovo-InfoBox (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Template:Kosovo (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

For the sake of clarity and accuracy, I suggest amending this slightly to read: "The locus of the dispute is Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and closely related articles, chiefly regarding the characterization of its constitutional status and relationship to Serbia." -- ChrisO 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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 , , , , and .

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Tension regarding sources

3) There is tension between what Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages's articles on the respective subjects. -- ChrisO 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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. Come to your own conclusion what this means!Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

Comment by others:

Personal attack by Tonycdp

5) Tonycdp has made personal attacks , and ; these are in Spanish.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 .

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 , see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ferick.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Enough evidence to support my conclusions . Not a matter of personal opinion.Ferick 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith by Hipi Zhdripi

9) Hipi Zhdripi has failed to assume good faith on the part of other users , and .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith by Ilir pz

10) Ilir pz fails to assume good faith by other users , , , , , and .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure to assume good faith by Noah30

11) Noah30 fails to assume good faith by other users .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Point of view editing during arbitration

12) Palmucha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 82.114.95.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who share an ip address with Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are continuing to edit aggressively from a Kosovar point of view during arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruptive sockpuppeting and anonymous editing

13) 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) have used anonymous IP addresses, multiple identities and sockpuppets to make disruptive edits. ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- ChrisO 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Removal of references from articles

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. (, , , , , )

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

History of disputes about Kosovo

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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: , , , ; #2, 15 September 2006: , , , )

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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:

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 ,,. However, this is a content issue and thus is out of scope of this arbitration. -- ChrisO 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages policies, but the result remains unsatisfactory. Fred Bauder 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by parties:

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

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

@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)?

@Dardanv: It certainly is not meant to enforce one side, the 3RR rule has not worked in the past for this article and will not do so in the future. This measure would be directed against any disruptive edit, by any side in the dispute.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is an attempt by one side on the dispute to use Misplaced Pages as a means to enforce their positon. I am fully against it. Adhering to the 3RR would be sufficient (of course, ChrisO should not be allowed to impose it, but some other admin). Dardan 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

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: Laughing Man 18:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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