Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Users
First off, I have to make a note here - I have no hard feelings, and have no bad intentions of insulting anyone - but some of the people who have made statements are highly questionable - and thus their statements alone are highly questionable.

For example, Tonycdp has expressed a high lack of knowledge regarding the subject and overall shares a stand-alone stereotypics, without deeper knowledge of what percisely is Kosovo and its unique problem (refer to User_talk:Tonycdp)

Ilir_pz is now a brilliant user - but has expressed rather bad habits in the past (read: in the past) regarding the Kosovo article and the simmiliar subjects which led to banning, regardless of continous and severe edit-warring.

User:Asterion is a great user - but all in all, many can notice that despite that, in all of his firm neutrality, he is leaning towards the Serbian view (however, this doesn't mean that it's not that way because the Serbian view is correct).

Bormalagurski has changed - and although there is no doubt in there (I support him), he himself arguements that he has been behaving badly in the past. He was blocked eternally at the Serbian Wikipedia (where he was an administrator), and has repeatedly made severa Serb-POV on this wikipedia. I reckon to question this and mean no offense to the user in question - completly supporting his current aims.

User:Hipi Zhdripi - I would dismiss anything whatsoever this user states. He has been blocked indefinately many times - and then unblocked (upon my request, at times). I have given him the chance to repair - but he in truth never did that. Aside from highly racistic remarks of Serbs and Roma (people) (which include the statements that the Serb people should be exerminated), he threatened to kill my parents and uset the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisatin's assistence to bomb my house. He has been vandalising many an article, and was (if not is) a clear example of an internet troll. I have tried a lot to influence him - but anything was backfired by personal attacks, him getting blocked, and then reappering under numerous sockpuppets (such as User:Hevnenon, or similiar) and "revenging".

Litany? Well, see under Asterion.

Me? I am neutral - as I have no intention to dispute the main subject of this issue (at least not anymore), but as I am the writer of all of the History of Kosovo, I could freely be classified under pro-Serbian - because of most of Kosovo's history is actually Serbian history (for this I have even been criticized by Hipi Zhdripi and some others like him).

Ferick has made some heavy remarks in the likehood of Hipi Zhdripi and has openly refused Wikipedia's policies and dismissed them. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NOt a sockpuppet
I have been attacked being a sockpuppet of dardanv. I am not! I don't have anything to do with him. Semarforikuq 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet you have been identified by CheckUser as his sockpuppet and indef-blocked. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Appeal
I wish to lodge an appeal to the Arbitration Committee's decision. The decision brought a ban to Vezaso - regardless of the fact that User:Vezaso is indefinately banned as one of the many sockpuppets of User:Dardanv. --PaxEquilibrium 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the one year ban from editing Kosovo related articles, that probably should be Dardanv instead of Vezaso. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I recently found out that I've been accused of being a possible sockpuppet of User:Bormalagurski. Why haven't I been contacted earlier about this, and who is accusing me and why? I'm not a sockpuppet. --  G OD OF  J USTICE 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Osli73
(Removed from WP:RFAR as stale. Essjay   ( Talk )  22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)) On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one year's probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy. Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles in the judgement given.
 * it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
 * is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?


 * I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved that the two remedies applied to Osli73 be revoked. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * When we look at a case, we certainly may take into account a party's total behavior if it is relevant in coming to a conclusion. In some cases ignoring a wider problem because of concerns about scope is harmful; it's a judgment call. Since the case, Osli has been blocked for violation of his remedies, and using a sockpuppet to evade detection. And I note that Osli has repeatedly been edit warring at Srebrenica massacre for months now; in fact, 30 seconds perusing shows that he violated his revert parole yesterday:, . Lessening the restrictions at this point seems counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo
On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy. Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
 * it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
 * is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?


 * I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are: Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
 * 2) I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion  already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
 * 3) It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.


 * Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples ). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo
Initiated by  AGK  [&bull; ] at 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * The other parties to the case might be considered to be involved, but the case is rather old and this clarification concerns general remedies, rather than ones about specific users.

Statement by AGK
Further to the confusion generated in this request for arbitration enforcement, I request that the Committee clarify which of the contradictory enforcement provisions of Requests for arbitration/Kosovo should be used. Is enforcement 1) or enforcement 2) the one that the community can enforce? AGK [&bull; ] 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Xeno: In order to ensure that all authoratitive Committee decision pages are kept updated, could we strike the enforcement provisions of Kosovo and place a note underneath noting that they are, as a practical matter, superseded by the other case decision? AGK  [&bull; ] 09:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion
In any case, Newyorkbrad suggested that the more recent WP:ARBMAC decision be leveraged instead, and it appears this was done. – xeno talk  15:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... On a plain reading, those remedies seem to apply only to "parties of [the Kosovo] case"; and unless Alinor edited under a different username in 2006, s/he was not a party to that case.
 * @AGK: The enforcement provisions still affect parties to the case, though it seems there is only one remedy that is still in effect (and that user has seemingly not edited since 2008). Though it would probably be a good idea to tuck a pointer to the ARBMAC decision in there somewhere - Kosovo is already noted as superseded by Macedonia at General sanctions. – xeno talk  14:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Xeno, including his (and AGK's) suggestion of a cross-reference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I too concur with Xeno and his (and AGK's) suggestino of a cross-reference. Risker (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too.. um.. three.. ur.. four (oh never mind!)... or in long, I agree with Xeno and his/AGK's Suggestion of a cross-reference.. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me five-ish? The cross-ref idea seems a good one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pile ON!!!1! &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)