Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/REX/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Wikipedia:Civility

  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
  • Treat others as you would have them treat you.
  • Be polite, please!
  • Work toward agreement.
  • Be civil.
  • If you're arguing, take a break; if you're mediating, recommend a break.
  • Remember what Wikipedia is not.
  • Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia:No personal attacks

1) Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Neutral point of view

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly expressed in an article regarding a that subject. Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. When there is significant disagreement amongst commentators as to what is the "truth", neutral point of view requires that all reasonable perspectives be fairly presented, without any conclusion as to which is correct.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I've expanded this expression of the NPOV principle because this edit war is over two groups both of which wish the article to express "truth"; neither side is willing to admit that "truth" is disputed. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility by REX

1) REX has engaged in incivility and personal attacks [1], [2], [3] and [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. It is fair to criticize Greek nationalism but courteously Fred Bauder 14:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. Is it allowed to criticise Albanian nationalism without being courteous? [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also, what is this? If that is not a "direct" personal attack, I don't know what is. I have never said anything like that. Why is my just behavior being considered again? Is severe provocation a valid defence? Rex(talk) 18:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise it is fair to criticize Albanian nationalism, but courteously Fred Bauder 15:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] One thing leads to another

1.1) Following attacks by REX Matia.gr was also drawn into the negative pattern [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. No it is not OK to refer to another user as a "troll" Fred Bauder 15:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. I was drawn into the negative pattern as well. Theathenae made the first "personal attack." Also, why can Matia.gr call me a troll if it is not OK? Is he somehow "exempt" from that rule? I can't help feeling that I am being singled out and being scrutinised for something that everyone else is doing, I didn't even start this chain reaction (Theathenae did). Also, I should point out that I have never specifically called anyone a nationalist, nazi or extremist, I just referred to them abstractly, I could be referring to anyone (even someone in real life). Theathenae has specifically used such terms directed specifically at me (or someone else) in all my examples (ie he makes worse PA). Rex(talk) 17:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstract references count Fred Bauder 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but they are not as bad (or as hurtful) as direct unequivocal accusations of [12] narrow minded Albanian fanaticism and affiliations to the UÇK (terrorists). At least abstract ones cast some doubt over who is being referred to. What, are Albanians too low down the food-chain and one can make derogatory accusations against them, but Greeks are too holy to even imply something? I still don't get why I am being scrutinised here, while other users are making worse personal attacks. Rex(talk) 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I've noticed that you've refrained from commenting on the fact that Theathenae made the FIRST personal attack (and it was direct, unlike all of mine) and that it all started there. You are displaying it as if I started it all. Why? Rex(talk) 17:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this edit [13] is certainly uncalled for. Fred Bauder 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. Yes I have called REX a troll, and this is a mistake of mine. +MATIA ☎ 23:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. I am not (and I think I wouldn't want to be) Theathenae's advocate. But a) he had given explanations about Mr Sterbinski. One of the times he explained it was to User:FlavSavr link User:I_sterbinski asked me why I shot at his grandfather during the war. Considering the absurdity of the question, and the fact that no one here was alive then, it was the only appropriate answer. Still, it appears my viperous tongue was enough to earn me a place in an international human rights report as yet another example of those sub-Saharan savages/human rights abusers who call themselves Greeks but have nothing to do with the Hellenic culture. I am still laughing.--Theathenae 14:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (the "last" post of Mr Sterbinski mentioned that Theathenae will be included in their "secret - human's right watch organization" (sic) report. Dbachmann is one of the admins who is aware of those talks on macedonia related articles, and Mr Sterbinski's activities back then. At some point, probably before August, I had reported Mr Sterbinski (WP:ANI?) because he had said that he will edit WP anonymously and admins won't be able to block him because he has 1000 IPs (or something similar) Talk:Macedonia_(region)/archive#HLA_Genes_research link1, Talk:Macedonia_(region)#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29 link2, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive41#problem_report:_Macedonia link3 And b) User:Albanau had said at some points phrases that looked like he was pro-UCK, but later he (somewhat) rephrased/re-worded them (probably at Talk:Arvanites). +MATIA ☎ 16:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Matia, I know for sure that the person(s) that used that account for the most of the time are not going to make any further edits at Wikipedia. Therefore, it is really not fair to attack him/them because they will not deffend.
Anyway, if you do not remember, their final post included a part saying that they intentionaly sent some provocative edits. Also, I know for sure that they never made and never will make anonimous edits. So, I sugest you to stop inventing things just in order to deffend your position.
NOTE: If any of the administrators would like to ask me something concerning isterbinski account, he can do it privately and I will be glad to talk with them about all that I know about this case. But, I have to say that I do not know much.
Concerning User:Theathenae... hmm, what can I say. That is definitly not his only edit where he confirms his nationalistic views.
You say he sent an answer on that edit. I wonder... Why did he do that when he was accused of that and when the administrators were informed about that? Why he didn't appologise or explain what was he thinking at the time before he was accused?
Anyone can preach now that he didn't think bad, that he had a bad day, that he was provoked etc. But, in my oppinion that kind of edits should automaticaly draw life-time ban. The same User:Theathenae was already banned at the Swedish Wikipedia. I am sure that now he will explain us some tearful explanation that he tought nothing bad, but the fact stays: This is just one of many examples of the proven nationalism of this user. Macedonian(talk) 03:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Are all these a revenge for reporting I_sterbinski (talk · contribs) to WP:ANI? Where exactly on my previous comment I am attacking this/those user(s)? Should I provide (I'll need to search it) a list of other accounts related (along with diffs)? You say "that kind of edits should automaticaly draw life-time ban" - would you apply this to the PA I got from you (aka User:Macedonian)? I could understand that you are concerned about proper presentation of wikis related to your people and your country, but everyone (that includes me) should draw a line somewhere. +MATIA ☎ 10:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] REX violates NPOV

2) REX has violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by removing points of view he is in disagreement with [14] and [15].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The solution is to copyedit so that both points of view are fairly expressed. Fred Bauder 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. There are no sources to support the claim that it has evolved seperatly over the past five centuries. In fact, the Helsinki Report seems to indicate that it has been isolated from Albanian for only 200 years. Of course this is original research, but so is the five centuries, it has no verifiability (this is well explained on the talk page). REX 15:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    If I can find em so could you Fred Bauder 16:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    OK, to change the subject completely, Theathenae and Matia.gr removed the fact that the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece call themselves Shqiptarë and the number of Arvanitic speakers in Greece. These are facts from the Helsinki Report and Ethnologue. Is that not violating NPOV? Also, how am I supposed to interpret UNESCO, who says that Arvanitika is a diaspora dialect of Albanian. Are they wrong? Rex(talk) 17:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Matia.gr may also have erred Fred Bauder 19:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I shouldn't have changed the subject. I have searched Google.com with a tooth-comb many times and I found nothing that says that Arvanitica has evolved on its own for five centuries. Do tell me, what did you find? (that is assuming that you did find something) Rex(talk) 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Neither could I Fred Bauder 19:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
My point exactly! My edits are backed by sources (as per Wikipedia:Cite sources). Saying that it evolved on its own for 500 years is pure guesswork and according to Wikipedia:No original research they cannot be used (although it is possible that it has been evolving on its own for the past 200 years as the Arvanites have been isolated from the Albanians for that long after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, but without sources, I don't think that it should be in the article). According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. No reputable publisher has published what Matia.gr and Theathenae say. You can't say that I am being unreasonable, nor that I am violating WP:NPOV. That must be some kind of mistake. My edits are explained fully in my additional statement together with their sources. I haven't violated NPOV. If anyone is violating WP:NPOV, its Matia.gr and Theathenae. They are removing facts which are found in official publications and they have no sources to support what they are saying. Rex(talk) 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. NPOV is the ultimate policy and probably the most difficult to achieve in practice. As I've noted elsewhere before I'm trying to gather my personal notes on User:Matia.gr/Arvanites_sources. I do understand I'll have to prove that Arvanitika has developed seperatedly - but you may want to consider that both Arvanites and Arbëreshë were not in (full) contact with Albanians for many centuries, and they had long distance (in km) between them. I don't understand if REX disputes Biris, but we'll figure that out in the long run. The Arbëreshë wiki says they are ethnic Albanians, and I don't have any idea if that's correct or Albanian POV. I do know that Arvanites are not ethnic Albanians. If this is written clear on Arvanites then we can add Berisha's (Albanian prime minister or president - I don't remember exactly) claim that Arvanites are Albanians as minority view. I don't know any other source that supports that claim, and I remember Berisha because when he claimed so in an interview, we had protests by Arvanites in Greek mass media. I think it was early 90s but I haven't find an online source. There are some discussions on Talk:Arvanitic language that may also be considered. +MATIA ☎ 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide us with some kind of source? Anyway, even if you did, it would be irrelevant as everything you have said is irrelevant. I have NEVER called the Arvanites Albanians on that article. In fact, I have said that they identify as Greeks. I have said that that their language is a variety of Albanian. Is that not true according to every source we have? Name one Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO, the University of Ohio... You are wrong, I have never suggested that they are an Albanian minority like Sali Berisha said, I have always emphasised the fact that they identify as Greeks and in the southwest they even find being called Albanians offensive. Is that not true according to the Helsinki Report? I am stating the linguistic fact and you are misinterpreting it. By calling Arvanitika a dialect of Albanian, we are not calling the Arvanites Albanians. It is like the English language: we say that the Irish speak a dialect of English (Hiberno English), that doesn't mean that the Irish are being labeled English. Au contraire most Irish would utterly reject being called English. Rex(talk) 23:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

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

[edit] Helsinki report

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Incivility by REX

REX (talk · contribs) has used insulting tone and offensive language in communications with Matia.gr (talk · contribs), including strongly suggesting that Matia.gr is a "extreme right wing Greek" even after Matia.gr indicated that he found such language offensive. In one place REX declared that it was "time to get nasty". REX's interchanges with Matia.gr exhibit excessively incivil verbal jabs and insults. [16] [17] [18] In one edit summary [19] REX compared Matia.gr to a Nazi; in another talk page post [20] he compared both Matia.gr and Theathenae (talk · contribs) to Nazis. He has referred to Matia.gr's edits as "vandalism", Matia.gr's behavior as "anti-social", and Matia.gr as a "hypocrit". [21] He has also speculated in his edit summaries as to whether other editors may be "nationalists". [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. There seems to be a pattern of moderate incivility on the part of REX. This is not to say that there is not a similar pattern on the part of those whose edits he disagrees with. The Nazi references are especially disturbing and definitely qualify as personal attacks. Kelly Martin 01:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
  1. REX has apologised to me today, for associating me with far-right-extremists. +MATIA ☎ 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Over the top

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=prev&oldid=20711858

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Might be a problem here Fred Bauder 21:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. To be honest, I never read a worse comment on Wikipedia. If this pass without any sanctions, other users will automatically get a "pass ticket" for any similar comment. Macedonian(talk) 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. I would like to express my oppinion and I would ask the arbitrations seriously to consider it.
As far as I could understand, this arbitration was asked by User:Theathenae. And, as far as I can see, the same user never (or almost never) got involved in it. In the same time, he is contributing to other pages, therefore he is present at Wikipedia. But, not at this arbitration. Why?
On the other hand, User:REX spends a lot of time here. He have written more text than all other involved parties. In same time, his contributions to the other pages where he was involved (in most cases against several nationalistic claims) got on very low level with a simple reason: this arbitration takes the most of his time.
Now, my oppinion about this arbitration. I think that this arbitration was provoked with one reason only: to take User:REX away from the issues he was involved in. The exact users that supported this arbitration are the ones who could not find any sources that will deny User:REX's sources (which most often were from very reliable sources).
All the parties involved in the same discutions, including the users who asked for this arbitration were acting in exact same way as User:REX. And, in my oppinion, I think that this user, together with User:FlavrSavr were the most neutral of the parties involved (not taking into account the administrators). So, why only this user got an arbitration against him? In my oppinion: Only because he was offering srong sources, so his opponents could not deffend their POVs, so they decided to try to eliminate User:REX.
This is just my oppinion. I would ask all other users not to try to present this as Personal Attack. Expressing my oppinion can not be personal attack. Also, having bad impresion about someone can not be represented as Personal attack.
All I ask for is you to consider it as an option (no matter weak or strong option). Thanks. Macedonian(talk) 04:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually if you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/REX you'll see that REX filed that request, and I only joined this when I got too tired of his PA against me. +MATIA ☎ 10:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)