Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
has repeatedly edited Kosovo-related articles in a way that violates multiple Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:CON and WP:NOR, as well as persistently engaging in edit wars.

Description
This matter principally involves a content dispute over the status of Kosovo in which Ferick has repeatedly edit-warred, refused to cite sources and rejected the consensus of the other editors. However, the same conduct has been manifested on other articles, most notably Kosovo Liberation Army. Ferick edits from a strongly Albanian-nationalist point of view and has often deleted or ignored sources that do not match his preconceived POV. He has consistently declined to provide sources for his claims, preferring his personal original research to any cited sources with which he disagrees.

The dispute over Kosovo has centred on whether the article's introduction should describe Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia and whether the other Serbian province of Vojvodina should be mentioned. Reliable, verifiable sources unanimously describe it as a province of Serbia. The consensus among the article's editors is that the article should reflect the sources' description of Kosovo. However, Ferick has consistently edited the article to imply that Kosovo is already independent of Serbia, despite the fact that talks on independence are still ongoing and have not yet been completed. He has repeatedly reverted the article, often blindly, restoring not only his preferred version but broken interwiki links, spelling mistakes etc. which other editors had fixed in the meantime.

The dispute has seen Ferick repeatedly reverting to his preferred version against the consensus of the other editors. This has caused the page to be protected for an extended period. However, Ferick has resumed edit warring within a few hours of unprotection.

There has been an extensive discussion on the article's talk page in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute. However, a successful conclusion has been made impossible by Ferick's refusal to recognise the consensus of the other editors, to compromise, to participate in a straw poll (which he rejected as illegitimate), to cite sources or to acknowledge the key principle of WP:V ( i.e. "verifiability, not truth"). His position is essentially that all the verifiable, reliable sources are wrong and do not match what he regards as the reality on the ground. In short, this is a textbook case of a user attempting to force his POV-driven original research into articles and remove any content (even when cited) when it does not fit his POV.

The same misconduct has been replicated on the Kosovo Liberation Army article, where Ferick has repeatedly deleted referenced content on the grounds that it is "malicious and unverifiable info", "Malicious, unverifiable and propaganda oriented info", etc. (The content in question is referenced to Agence France-Presse, the Times of London and Jane's Intelligence Review - plainly reliable sources.) He has engaged in tag-team edit warring with User:Ilir pz, who has similarly strong Albanian-nationalist views but is not quite as relentless in pushing them as Ferick has been.

In addition, Ferick has also made inappropriate personal attacks on a number of other editors.

Evidence of disputed behaviour

 * 1) Repeatedly deleting cited content for POV reasons:, ,
 * 2) Repeatedly ignoring consensus to impose his own version:, , , , , ,
 * 3) Making personal attacks on other users:, , , , , ,
 * 4) Rejecting consensus as invalid:
 * 5) Rejecting to refer to Wikipedia's policy:

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * 1) WP:NOR
 * 2) WP:NPOV
 * 3) WP:V
 * 4) WP:CITE
 * 5) WP:CON
 * 6) WP:3RR
 * 7) WP:NPA
 * 8) WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Extensive discussion on Talk:Kosovo, in particular under:


 * 1) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10
 * 2) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10
 * 3) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10
 * 4) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10
 * 5) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10
 * 6) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10
 * 7) Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10

Mediation request rejected by Ferick:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * 1) ChrisO
 * 2) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
 * 3) TSO1D
 * 4) Asterion
 * 5) Osli73
 * 6) Evv
 * 7) HRE

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1)  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, but protecting pages that you are involved in editing is indeed bad, as Ferick suggests. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC) But protecting pages that you are involved in editing should only be done in response to extreme vandalism, that cannot be resolved any other way, and could not be resolved by listing the page on WP:RFPP and waiting it out. Stifle (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Marko M 07:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) TheronJ 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

Outside views
''These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by Kieran T

 * I wasn't sure if I could write here in "outside view" because I've edited on Talk:Kosovo – but I've not directly conversed with Ferick, and so it's been suggested I can go ahead and contribute here. So here are my thoughts on his behaviour (largely copied from the discussion page for this RfC):
 * I agree with most of what's been said, and that Ferick has clearly broken some of the guidelines / rules, as documented, and isn't carefully considering the views of other people. But I stop short of signing the endorsement because I think it should be noted that more than once he has been antagonised by people with equally partisan views against his, and also, frankly, by less than sympathetic rebuttals from otherwise fair and civil editors. I feel it's also important to remember that we're writing about a place which was part of a war in very recent memory. I don't know Ferick and sure, he may just be trolling. But it's also possible that he lost people in the fighting, and is extremely emotionally affected by it. This doesn't give him carte blanche to mess up Wikipedia, but I do think the possibility should remain in the minds of people making any sort of disciplinary decision against him. – Kieran T  ( talk  11:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
 * 2) Osli73
 * 3) Asterion
 * 4) ChrisO Endorsed, with reservations; we have plenty of editors with strong views on subjects who don't behave in the same way as Ferick. It's worth noting that in all the time that he's been editing the Kosovo-related articles, Ferick hasn't given any indication that he's acting for personal emotional reasons rather than out of simple partisanship.
 * 5) Tonycdp I fully agree with Kieran T. Ferick is clearly on the wrong side here, but blocking him is contraproductive, because there's nothing stoping him coming back and making these edits under a different user name.
 * 6) TheronJ 21:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC).  I don't think an RFC can impose discipline - AFAIK, it's just a chance to get community input in behavior.  I would encourage Ferick to (1) give mediation a good faith try; (2) assume good faith; and (3) continue trying to negotiate with the other editors.  I would encourage the other editors to AGF re: Ferick if he does agree to mediation, which I assume they will do.
 * 7) Most totally agree. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Noah30

 * I find Ferick very objective, and I think it is very stupid to block someone who has contributed with so much. Ferick`s knowledge is necessary for the English Wikipedia. He is one of few here that can speak Albanian and English fluently.


 * After reading some user pages, I concluded that Fericks what you call "bad behaviour"(i do not agree) was provoked by ChrisO and others here. e.g. in KOCOBO`s userpage from ChrisO: "Don't worry - I'm simply giving Ferick enough rope to hang himself... -- ChrisO 07:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)".


 * I hope English Wikipedia does not become a Serbian propaganda channel, where people who present "Serbian not liked" facts are blocked. Ferick should defently be unblocked --Noah30 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) Tonycdp I think it is quite evident that ChrisO is not neutral. He's very quick to revert pro-albanian and neutral changes, however when there is a clear attempt by pro-serb editors to push their propaganda it is usually other admins that revert a couple of hours later. Unfortunately there's nothing anyone can do about it. Ferick may have been provoked but he shouldn't have continued with wild reverts.
 * 2) ilir_pz I endorse this summary, and I strongly condemn the actions taken by the user ChrisO who is obviously positioned on the side of Serbian propaganda. Action should be taken against this illegitimate admin. Regards,ilir_pz 13:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by K OCOBO

 * First of all, I'm not surprised that Noah30, an Albanian, thinks that Ferick, an Albanian nationalist, is objective. I myself have come in close contact with Ferick, who has had a hostile approach to me as soon as he read that my username was the word "Kosovo" in Serbian cyrillic. This user not only hates everything Serbian, but is also ready to violate the rules to express his hate on this encyclopedia. I know that a lot of articles on this wikipedia are not NPOV, but users like Ferick and Ilir do not help to fix this, but rather aim for the status quo. Do we need Ferick? Has he made a single edit that has not been disputed by someone? Wikipedia doesn't need another POV warrior. --K OCOBO  20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) -- serbiana -  talk  20:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Svetislav Jovanović 02:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Bormalagurski

 * Ferick is an Albanian nationalist, extremist and a very aggressive, mean and quite uncompromising Wikipedia editor. He has brought nothing but problems to this Wikipedia, and is well known for breaking all the rules, trying to weasel out of punishment and calling everyone "Serb nationalists" who doesn't share his point of view, to be more precise, the Albanian nationalist point of view. There is nothing that can control him, no threat is too big for him, whenever he is told to stop what he is doing, he creates the atmosphere that he feels no remorse for his actions, and that he will indeed continue what he is doing, no matter what. When he is asked nicely to read the rules and follow them, he replys with "No,thank you very much!" and clearly states that he has no intentions of improving - he doesn't even admit that theres something wrong with his behaiviour - he is 1005 sure that the Albanian POV is the right one and he rejects to consider any other POV. Down with Ferick, before he brings down wiki. -- serbiana  -  talk  20:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
 * 1) --K OCOBO  23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Svetislav Jovanović 02:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Hipi Zhdripi
I dont know who is Ferick, only I know thate this is a user accont like more here. Before two months ther was some of them clearle with serbian nationalist point of view. Now in August 2006, in this dirty game supportit from ChrisO we finde hier some serbian nationalists and there supporters. They user the same way, some of them are traing to make a "Wikipedia user" image of themself, some of theme traing to make neutral "serbian point of view" and the rest a extrem "serbian nationais" and so wie have a democratie in Serbia transportied to en:Wikipedia. Please calle somebody from burocrats to check administrators of the Kosovo articles. --Hipi Zhdripi 03:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Upss!!! No one of this users is Albaner exept Ilir and hi is pasive. The albanian users dont wont nothing to do with articles about Kosovo in this Project till Kosovo is not acceptied als in Rez. 1244 Protectoriat. Everything else like Province in Serbia is a same thing like Kosovo is a Province in Albania. Kosovo is protected from Serbia and Albania. If we have a nationalist albaners then we have to do with the term "Kosovo is part of Albania". Everybody from you cane chacke used notions from you ex: "NATIONALIST" --Hipi Zhdripi 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Translation, please refer to this link)-- E   Asterion  u talking to me? 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

Outside view by ilir_pz
The only wrongdoing Ferick is making is that he is not complying to the requests of Serbian nationalists to shut up, and let them take over. I think this attempt by ChrisO is just another way of trying to discourage Albanian editors to explain the truth to the readers on the topics related to Kosovo. ChrisO is abusing with his admin rights. Stop this harrassment! Greetings to the rest, ilir_pz 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.