Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-19/Template:Kosovo-note

Where is the dispute?
Template talk:Kosovo-note, from this section onwards.

Who is involved?

 * User:Bazonka
 * IP User 84.203.72.8
 * Numerous others

What is the dispute?
Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans, claimed by Serbia. Kosovo-related articles can be very contentious unless worded very carefully. Template:Kosovo-note is intended as a common NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles.

An IP user raised an objection to the content of the note, though the majority of commenters (from both sides of the Kosovo/Serbia debate + neutrals) seemed to disagree with him/her. However, the IP continued to argue his/her point.

I (User:Bazonka) then started a vote in order to settle the matter. Responses to the vote largely showed disagreement with the IP's position. After a few days it was, to me, clear what the outcome of the vote was going to be, so I changed the template in line with the outcome.

The IP user accused me of ending the vote too early, and stated that the questions I had used were biased - he/she then proposed a new set of questions. I fully accept that I announced the vote's outcome too soon, however I strongly disagree that there was any bias in my questions, which were based on the contentious points raised in the preceding discussion. I felt that the IP's alternative questions were too vague and made the decision-making more confused.

So I raised an RFC requesting comment on whether the vote was biased, and whether a second vote was necessary. Despite further accusations of bias by the IP user, no other commenters thought that there was bias.

The RFC is still ongoing, however the IP user (who I suspect was unhappy with the way the RFC was going) started further threads arguing his/her case, and accusing others of bias. Arguments have also continued within the RFC thread itself. These discussions have had the effect of obfuscating and taking the focus off the RFC, and maintaining the IP's argument seemingly endlessly.

What would you like to change about this?
The debate needs to reach a conclusion. It is getting beyond a joke - currently there is no sign of it ending. I think that this impasse can only be sensibly resolved with a new vote, whose outcome is respected by all. However, there is currently no way of holding a vote in the face of the IP user's (disruptive IMHO) contributions.

Waiting a week or two until the RFC has had plenty of time will probably not help. I feel that the IP User has already spoilt it.

How do you think we can help?
I am not expecting anyone here to contribute to the debate, but to advise as to how it should be carried out so that a definitive conclusion can be reached.

Perhaps this means locking or blocking, but if so then should this request for help be taken elsewhere? Could you advise please?

Thanks in advance.

Mediator notes
Sounds like a simple case of tendentious editing. Have you tried AN/I? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend asking the IP user what bias was there. If he just is complaining, warn him. Sir Stupidity (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Old case, administrative action was taken against the IP user, appears since that happened the issue has gone away. Closing this out. --Wgfinley (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)