Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive4

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

The above entitled arbitration case is now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Szhaider, Unre4L, Siddiqui and Nadirali are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding El C and closure of Essjay AFD

So, how many times are high-profile debates going to be early closed out of nowhere? often creating turmoil in the process, as they are usually closed against consensus? This is getting really old. The DRV is a massive "overturn" pile-on. User talk:El C is not budging, so the opinions of dozens of Wikipedians is being swept aside at the whim of some admin. I care very little about Wikipedia and it's even bothering me. He's inviting dispute resolution; I for one am sick of seeing this happen over and over and over again, with the early closings - each one creates more chaos than the last. So the question is, is there a potential for a peaceful RFC, or will it just become a flame war like half of them do? And will I be called a "troll" for starting one? I'd like some thoughts, and am seeing if anyone is willing to certify the dispute or whatever. Milto LOL pia 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Forget it, he's said someone can unclose it. Looks like the sensible thing was done. Milto LOL pia 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, who's going to bite the bullet and actually reopen the AfD discussion? Does it count as wheel warring when the closing admin says it's OK to reverse the closure? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I strongly recommend a slow, measured, and considered approach, rather than yet more flip-flopping back and forth between AFD and Deletion Review. Do not take any unilateral action until the deletion review discussion has had time to for editors to discuss and to attempt to reach consensus. That includes allowing those editors who are not in the same timezone as you to fully participate in the discussion. Uncle G 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • While I feel the Essjay debates have got out of hand and should end, I also think it's very important to note that 'forcing the issue' by closing and protecting debate or speedily deleting an article has never had the desired effect of ending actual debate and encouraging people to move on. It simply adds another dimension to the ongoing dispute. Admins should think twice, three times and more about the actual effect of their actions, not just whether they are within policy, especially since WP:IAR is so controversial. Sam Blacketer 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• May I suggest that those in favor of keeping the article present their points, and those in favor of deleting it also present their points, and then have a (gasp) discussion for at least a few days, BEFORE you all start "voting"? I think that might be a good idea. It's my experience when we see the urge for people on both sides of a discussion to "WP:SNOW" the discussion in both directions, there's some very strongly held feelings that somebody needs to get out and the usual AFD/DRV discussion formats aren't very useful for this. In a normal parliamentary environment, I would suggest moving to recess for a fixed time to allow the members on each side of the question to go into their respective caucuses, select champions, and marshal their arguments, then return to a discussion of the question at hand (possibly in committee of the whole) with the champions presenting the respective cases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's format doesn't allow for a "recess", nor does it readily permit the election of champions in caucus. Perhaps a three-day deferral of any attempts to delete, during which any interested party may write their own summary (or, alternatively, endorse someone else's summary) of the arguments for and against deleting (based on the opinions expressed in the prior AFD and DRV), followed by a discussion and, if consensus can be reached, then and only then a deletion (if warranted)? The regular deletion discussion format breaks down (in my opinion) on contentious issues, and I think the RFC approach method of summaries and endorsements is likely better in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Kelly is onto a good idea here. Rather than immediately skip to the "voting" of actions in bold-face, how about hold a discussion for a couple of days first? That should help deal with these kinds of cases. --Cyde Weys 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a new idea. It's a long-standing maxim at AFD that It's Not About The Votes. There are several editors who reject the idea that every contribution to an AFD discussion should be prefixed with a boldfaced word, and do not do so themselves. If you think likewise, you are welcome to set an example by doing the same. An AFD discussion is a discussion, and is intended to be a discussion. Saying that a discussion between editors in order to consider alternatives and to achieve consensus, with editors presenting arguments and discussing those arguments with one another, isn't "the usual AFD discussion format" is to be misled by the current overuse of such boldfacing at AFD. In fact, such a discussion to achieve consensus is the ideal AFD discussion to which editors should aspire. Many of the best AFD discussions over the years have taken exactly this form. Uncle G 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think, however, it is safe to say that this is NOT what we are seeing in the discussions being spoken about above, and why I suggested that perhaps a more formal, constrained approach to "discussion" might yield benefit in this context. I certainly do not believe that every discussion deletion should be conducted in the more formal "summary and endorsement" format of RFC -- doing so is extra effort to no benefit in most cases. Contrariwise, I think the use of that format, or some other format which helps to provide structure to the discussion, is critical to the development of true community consensus. And that's why I so strongly urge it in the context of this particularly divisive situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, this was proposed as a replacement system for RfA awhile back, but was rejected. I thought it was a pretty fantastic idea :/ —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I've been wondering if I might see the day that someone decides to be bold and ignore all rules in order to do something like set up a workshop page for determining what's best for an article, rather than directly deleting, protecting, or replacing it. Bitnine 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As you all probably know by now, Essjay has made ABC News ^[1] Link was on ABCNews.com about 8pm tonight. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Early closure of high profile controversial articles

(edit conflicted with the previous thread, attempting more neutral and general framing)

Per discussion at WP:AN#These_IAR_moves_have_GOT_to_stop, let's see if we can reach consensus about high profile controversial WP:AFD discussions: what general principles should apply when an administrator contemplates early closure? Consider this in broad terms so that the ideas could apply to a range of future situations.

Some points to consider:

• When should WP:SNOW and WP:IAR come into play, if at all?
• Should the civility level in the debate be a factor?
• Should requests to let the debate run its full course be factored?
• How much does WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT affect these discussions?

Durova^Charge! 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My input:

1. WP:SNOW should probably not come into play at all on these big, high-profile AFDs. There's no harm in leaving something open for a short time to make sure, I don't know, things don't develop into a New York Times story.

   When it does come into play, it should be when there is a clear consensus, not for iffy closings. That's just missing the point of snowballing in the first place, although that seems to be the fad lately.

2. Civility? That seems like a more personal issue between the editors and should be dealt with appropriately, like it would be anywhere else. Closing a discussion early because two+ editors can't get along is not the way to go.
3. Requests to let it not be early closed should be factored, as they show clear community acknowledgment of controversy. WHen there are six requests, it should definitely not be SNOWed.
4. "I like it/don't like it" shouldn't have any factor in the discussion, but they always will until people grow up and stop "voting" that way. Milto LOL pia 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were kidding about the NYT article, but this has been on the front of the Technology section for most of today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html Adam 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since WP:IAR is about ignoring rules that "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", I see a few relevant sub-questions there. One, does holding a complete discussion prevent improving Wikipedia, or only delay it? Two, does a speedy close actually improve the encyclopedia, given the damage such closes do to the community that creates the encyclopedia? Three, is any improvement worth the cost of the meta-discussion about whether the speedy close was correct?

In our recent contentious speedy closes, the answer to the first is pretty much straight forward - letting the process runs only delays improvement, not prevents it. So WP:IAR was violated by the speedy closes, not implemented by them.

The answers to the other two are less certain to me. For my number two, I think the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no, but I can't articulate when it is a yes. For number three, I believe that the answer is clear that in a case contentious among Wikipedians, the answer is is almost always that the improvement isn't worth it. An exception here was the speedy close of the Brian Peppers DRV, where most of the contention was not among Wikipedians but instead between Wikipedians and other internet communities. The cutting off of negative contributions by those other communities was of more value than some damage to the Wikipedia community, even though that damage was aggrevated by the Brandt and Essjay incidents.

Additionally, on the original questions - requests not to snow it should always be factored. They are essentially pre-announcements that people disagree with a snowball close. Snowball closes should only be done when there is an obvious consensus. If people are saying they don't see one, there isn't an obvious consensus. GRBerry 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's the heart of the problem, the resulting arguments from SNOW closes. I mean, this one will inevitably result in the Essjay article being undeleted and relisted for deletion, starting the whole thing over again. We're just sitting around waiting for someone to do it. What a waste of time this appplication of WP:SNOW is. Milto LOL pia 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably post a little more on this later, but I think that - beyond the question of overriding community concepts - IAR closings pose something a unique danger of wheel warring. Let us say there are X admins, X-1 who want a discussion to occur, and another who wants the mess to be done with. A couple of X post messages requesting the discussion stay open. The other one closes the discussion early without previous discussion. Well, given that nondeletion is a nonaction (and not a use of administrative tools), the second hasn't wheel warred in a sense, yet at the same time the action carries many of the problematic aspects of such. And in general, when discussion is not used and early IAR deletion allowed, deletion will be systemically favored. It only takes one administrator to find the discussion disfavorable, and the early closure is the first "action," with any subsequent objections classified as "reverting" the decision. Would it help conceptually if there were a "Please don't SNOW/IAR close this" template to apply to the top of some discussions? It very well might, if it gave IAR-protection the legitimacy of a technical 'action'. Bitnine 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The SNOW/IAR actions that are going on, especially with controversial subjects, are particularly repugnant to we editors who limit our activity here. Aside from myself, I know several similar editors RL, some of whom have asked me to watch "their" articles because they don't plan to return here. We don't spend hours a day on Wikipedia (not to criticize those who do), and tend to limit our participation to a few subjects, while generally keeping an eye on the overall climate of the place. It's probably coincidental that these two recent completely out-of-process events have been in subjects I'd been watching if not actively participating in. However, it has really repulsed me to see the behaviour of administrators who are clearly not being objective or community-oriented whatsoever. They are not bad people, and I believe they are acting out of some belief that this is a good thing, but their tunnel vision is extremely unhelpful to the project and dissuades less active editors from expanding their efforts. SNOW should only be used if there is a minimum 90% consensus after a discussion has run a minimum of 48 hours, and has a minimum of 20 participants. IAR is never a reason for closing an AfD or DRV. If people feel five days is too long, then shorten the time to four days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC). (wow, that was fast, sorry forgot to sign) Risker 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW should not apply whatsoever to such cases, it says so itself:

If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause.

The same applies to WP:IAR. If one chooses to ignore a rule, it should be in an obvious case. If the case is contentious and not obvious, every member of the community who wishes to do so should be given a chance to weigh in. Early closing is not helpful in such cases, it is harmful, as it just leads to the matter staying under debate longer. It is the contentious, controversial cases in which we should be most scrupulous about following standard procedures. Failure to do so in these cases inevitably causes more strife and difficulty, not less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think SNOW should be used only in cases where the !voter base is large, and the ratio is 10-1 or higher. I think IAR should be used to close an xFD only when it is abundantly clear (preferably to more than one person via discussion on AN or elsewhere) that keeping the discussion open is only giving editors more rope to hang themselves with (more specifically, where conflict is so hot that every passing minute is increasing the likelihood that only admins with blocky bats could deal with the fallout, or where conflict is spilling out into the larger community). In other words, when the continued existence of an open xFD is generating more nastiness than consensus, particularly when the vitriol is sufficient that blockable actions are being taken. If closing the venue prevents the fights that would result in jail time (blocks), then do so. Anchoress 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is likely to cause a lengthy meta-discussion on the closure should not be SNOW'd. If the point of early closure is to save editors' time by avoiding unnecessary extra discussion on an issue, then it's completely counter-productive: yet more time is wasted by discussing the closure rather than the issue, and sometimes even the original discussion has to start over. Are there any other reasons to make an early close? Trebor 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a preface to my comments, I do think it is a mistake to close early with a delete when there are substantial and contentious counter-views. To offer my own take on SNOW, however: I think that comments have been focusing on a single aspect of the clause -- in an AfD, to take action that is either keep or delete. As has been shown from the voluminous amount of discussion in the four days this particular AfD was open, no clear consensus developed (or could possibly develop). The sensible thing is to realise that the issue will go nowhere-- and close as non-consensus. More comments will not clarify or provide consensus, but will only serve to fan the flames of controversy. The discussion can then move to the article's talk page, as a more appropriate venue. It's time to put the hose to this wildfire, and move on already to actually writing articles, or deciding what policy changes need to be made in light of the controversy -- rather than playing tug-of-war over an article that will, in a short while, inevitably go away. --Leflyman^Talk 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an assumption to say that no clear consensus could develop. We leave discussions open the full time in the hope that it will (sometimes we even extend them for this purpose). If we truly want to get on with the rest of the encyclopaedia (as you say), we need to stop creating cause for meta-discussions which get further and further away from anything relevant (the discussion of the closure of the MfD on the RfC for Essjay was one of the most ridiculous I've seen). Trebor 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Statistically improbable. Unless those who have already made comments went back to reverse themselves, there won't be consensus, no matter how long it remains open. I'd lay any wager you like on that outcome.--Leflyman^Talk 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well-reasoned arguments that are presented late in a given debate have the opportunity to sway the consensus in major ways. Just look at the Brandt DRV - what originally began as a DRV dominated by delete votes ended up dominated by keep votes. I say that WP:SNOW should never be applied to controversial debates, period. - Merzbow 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some additional thought, and I do think that two suggestions/modifications would probably serve this issue well:

• Gain at least a rough consensus before applying WP:IAR in cases beyond the transparently trivial. And consider it good form if you allow another party to actually apply the action.
• Allow WP:SNOW to sit for a day before action and be revertable. With the request of anyone reverting it adding something substantive to the discussion.

While this might certainly see a large reduction in the (successful) applications of SNOW and IAR, that may be a very good thing. After all, if you feel that you can't gain even a rough consensus for an IAR action or that a SNOW closing would be mercilessly reverted, that might be a good sign not to pursue that particular action. Bitnine 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What? A controversial decision cannot be SNOWed period, and asserting otherwise is an over-extention of WP:SNOW, which only applies when a consensus is clear (i.e. relatively uncontroversial). And WP:IAR should never apply to admin tools. That is, unless wheel wars are now ok. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are limited circumstances where IAR is ok with admin tools but doesn't involve wheel warring. For example, I recently became convinced that an IP editor was unaware of that he had a talk page so I gave him a short block with the request to go there (with a wikilink to the talk page in the blocking message). Within blocking policy? No. Acceptable under IAR? Probably. Involving wheel warring? No. JoshuaZ 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I spoke to broadly. In any case, I think the emphasis is "noncontroversial." If an application of IAR is controversial enough that another admin would undo it, it probably ought not be done. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The sooner we depreciate IAR, the better. I don't care if it has a long history, I don't care if it has Jimbo's approcal - it's being abused, it's controversial, and it's no longer a useful part of the project. The last few weeks have more than proven this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I always considered IAR just another way of applying the famous Latin dictum, Rem tenere, uerbis sequentur -- "Hold on to the idea, and the words [or in this case, the policy] will follow." Follow the spirit of the rule or guideline, not the literal meaning of what it says, especially because someone might just change the language on you! -- llywrch 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The obvious problem with this is that people don't apply it to WP:IAR itself - they read the single line of text on the page and apply it as WP:Do what thou wilt. —Cryptic 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it clearly ironic that I quoted a saying attributed to Saint Augustine, and you one attributed to Aleister Crowley. I don't know what it signifies, but it is ironic. -- llywrch 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom and the Essjay business

One of the things that has bugged me most about the whole Essjay saga is the way in which Jimbo appointed Essjay onto the ArbCom, when he didn't ever run in the last election, after he knew about Essjay's liberties with the truth: nor, apparently, did Jimbo check Essjay's contribs for using those fake credentials to win content disputes, which we now know he did. Fair enough, Jimbo's a very busy chap, and all his actions after the initial mistake have been of the most wise and statesmanlike nature.

Now, my point is that that one bad decision - not that Jimbo makes very many of those - would not have got past us had it been put to community scrutiny, and an awful lot of bad publicity would not have occurred. Collectively, we have the time to check Essjay's contribs for dubious behaviour based on false credentials, which is what we eventually did at the RFC. The further bad publicity incurred by Jimbo's initials response to the New Yorker would not have occurred had the whole matter been put to community scrutiny earlier when Dmcdevit resigned and we needed replacements for the ArbCom.

Anyway, my point is that we, as a community, need more direct control over the final stage of our dispute resolution process, the ArbCom. It is our wiki. I have not been able to understand why Jimbo exercises so much control over the ArbCom, not only at election time but also when replacements during terms are needed. (BTW, the ArbCom terms are ludicrously long and make insufficient allowance for the high rate of admin and arbitrator burnout. But that is a side point). I cannot understand why we turn our brains off when it comes to ArbCom and delegate our responsibilities to Jimbo. As a community we control virtually every other aspect of Wikipedia: why not ArbCom? Why the abdication of responsibility? We need to take control of the process: ArbCom is important and deserves maximum scrutiny. So, any ideas how? Best, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of running potential arbitrators by the community would be useful. Jimbo ran them by the arbitrators, and I feel somewhat guilty that I did not catch his use of his supposed degree and position in content disputes. I'm sure the community, with its many eyes would have found that problem. Fred Bauder 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fifth of the m:Foundation issues will be useful. HowIBecameCivil 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, aware that the ArbCom is a delegation of Jimbo's authority over the community, and acts on his personal authority as "god-king" rather than on any authority delegate to the ArbCom by the community. The ArbCom is not responsible to the community, and the community has no authority over it, except insofar as Jimbo chooses to allow. The ArbCom need only consider the community's interests to the extent that brazenly disregarding the community will cause the community to fail to respect it and render it practically unable to do anything useful. However, be very clear that you are delegating nothing to Jimbo when you "allow" Jimbo to select Arbitrators. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As Kelly points out above, Arbom is distinct from the community. Arbcom only exists because the community has failed to handle its own problems. I am always surprised by how quickly various cases are pushed onto Arbcom. Each case sent there is really the community saying "please step in we cannot handle this one". I would think the community would try harder to deal with these incidents themselves rather than abdicate responsibilty so easily. I think Moreschi is asking the wrong question. Don't ask why the abdication of responsibility in choosing arbitrators, but why the abdication of responsibility in relying on the "god-king" and his court of last resort to step in and settle so many disputes.--BirgitteSB 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have often said that the purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to make decisions for the community in those situations where a decision is needed but the community is unable to make it. I've heard other Arbitrators say the same thing, so there must be some merit to the claim. Unfortunately, far too often the community abrogates its obligation to attempt to make decisions to the Arbitration Committee; conversely, (especially lately) the Arbitration Committee has occasionally seized the authority to make decisions from the community prematurely. When I was an Arbitrator, I often moved to reject cases where I felt that the community could manage to deal with the matter on its own, or where I felt that letting the community find a solution was likely to cause less damage than the Arbitration Committee taking the matter on. I fear that the sense that the Arbitration Committee should not take on matters in such a posture has been lost with the current Arbitration Committee; this is likely a reflection of the fact that the community has forgotten my oft-repeated admonishment: "The Arbitration Committee is not your mother." It is the community's obligation to police itself, not the Arbitration Committee's. The invocation of the authority of the Arbitration Committee represents a failure on the part of the community, and if the community were healthy would be an infrequent thing.

People, please try to be adults and work your problems out on your own. Don't rely on the ArbCom to do it for you. And remember, if policy gets in the way of doing this, feel free to ignore it (c.f. my above suggestion regarding controversial deletions). Kelly Martin (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But I would say that invocation of the Arbitration Committee's authority is an infrequent thing. We have 1.6 million articles, tens of thousands of active users, over 1000 administrators, and at present, exactly 10 open arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ten? That's high, compared to when I was an Arbitrator (except for that brief period when I was first appointed, and that's because there was a backlog caused by a shortage of Arbitrators). And more informative is not the number of open cases, but the number of cases filed (whether or not accepted). Each case filed represents a situation where the community failed to sufficiently resolve the dispute in question. And I'm quite certain that that number is increasing. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the community and the number of pages whereon conflict can arise is also larger than when you served as an arbitrator. As for rejected cases, typically when the arbitrators decline to hear a case, they advise the editor who filed it to pursue a more community-based solution to the issue. I would guesstimate that there are maybe about three rejected cases filed every week—still not a lot given our current size and scope. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not useful metric. How many non-content disputes are sent to RfC without ending up at ArbCom after three months? Is the percentage up or down from a year ago? It seem to me an awful lot of disputes eventually end up on Arbcom. Especially if the dispute involves established editors on both sides (which you would think would be the ones where Arbcom is not needed to lay down the law). And there are many disputes that are just left simmering, sometimes even after Arbcom. There is not alot of dispute resolution happening within this community. It seems that the community as whole simply avoids getting involved with settling disputes as a neutral party, but jumps to get involved as an advocate (of either a position or a person). I really do see it as abdicating responsibility. I like this project and all but I am not so invested in it as to take on such these things. The problem is many people who are so invested choose to aviod the disputes as well. Things would improve greatly around here if the main players here made it a priority to resolve disputes before they get to Arbcom. As Machiavelli said "A battle delayed is a battle deferred to your disadvantage." "A battle deferred is a battle delayed to your disadvantage."--BirgitteSB 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Jimbo consulted community leaders about the appointment of Essjay and ones that had reservations have apologiged for not speaking up when they should have according to Jimbo's talk page. It's not all jimbo's fault. Whether he should appoint people in the future is being rightly questioned, but it was what worked in the past,
2. The community does indeed control arbcom any time it has the will to do so. Their decisions care moral weight only. If need be the community can fork the project. The community will not do so without a really good reason.
3. Our current setup has elements of monarchy/president (jimbo), democracy/anarchy (editors), and aristocracy (guess who). Theorists from ancient times to the founding of america have considered a balance of these forces to be useful in the governing of an institution. WAS 4.250 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are alternatives besides Requests for Comment and Arbitration. The Mediation Committee is not backlogged any more, and there is always the Mediation Cabal.  : ) Of course, mediators cannot actually enforce anything, so mediation probably would not work for the types of disputes you are talking about right now. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to the use of :) next to the MedCabal! It's highly productive, and is a welcome break from the intense attitude of DR processes higher up the chain. anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Arbitration isn't just a matter of the community abrogating its responsibilities. At the outset of Wikipedia only Jimbo could ban editors personally. In early 2004 when that load got too large for one person ArbCom was created. Community banning didn't become an established concept until last year and community topic banning is a developing issue - the recently closed discussion at the top of this board appears to be only the second time the community has applied a topic ban, and the previous one got appealed as far as RFAR (the Committee rejected the appeal). Wikipedia.en is far larger today than it was three years ago, yet there's still only one ArbCom. So it stands to reason that enough precedents have been created for the community to peel away the more routine and straightforward cases and let the arbitrators crack the tough nuts. To the extent that I can, I've helped with that in coauthoring the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and spearheading the Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation proposal. I hope the latter gets more attention when the Essjay affair dies down. I've got six volunteer community mediator trainees and am pretty much set to give the thing a trial run. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In practice, how is Arbcom different from, say, something that worked exactly like Arbcom but was instead formed by the community? I would argue "not at all". If the present Arbcom election process was deterministic (the top n in terms of percentage, with a percentage floor of x%, become arbitrators) rather than treated like an elaborate advisement-of-Jimbo process, nothing would change except perhaps who became arbitrators. (An elaborate "arbitration cabal", selected exactly this way and operating alongside Arbcom, with the wide administrator and user support of Arbcom, would replace Arbcom entirely. It might not get this degree of admin and user support because Arbcom already exists and we have no need to recreate it, but that only illustrates how Arbcom is already accepted within the community.) So I don't think it's an issue of the community failing to solve problems and referring them to Arbcom—it's an issue of Arbcom simply being the community's way of solving certain problems. On a similar note, Arbcom has nothing to do with dispute resolution and arbitration—it's more of a formal disciplinary process much of the time, much as User RFC is a means to collect opinions about users who we feel have done wrong, and Article RFC and Mediation are about actually resolving disputes. Treating them as all the same system is about as myopic as pretending Arbcom is something totally separate from the community. (Wikipedia's greatest problem: the names and legal and organizational fictions we employ differ so much from the reality that we have to continually play an Orwellian translation game to stay on top.) Philwelch 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you describe the current situation as Orwellian in a statement that appears to propose a doppelganger arbitration committee. One of the defining characteristics of a totalitarian society - as originally articulated by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism is that different branches of government maintain departments that compete with each other to serve essentially the same function. The outcome of that structure is that contradictory precedents and interpretations emerge, which results in a fearful society in which no one is certain of being on the right side of the law. Obviously Wikipedia won't generate a Gulag, but serious change proposals must be thought out thoroughly: I don't see the need to replace ArbCom, although there are certainly reasons to augment it. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By "Orwellian" I refer to the fact that we call things by names that vastly contradict reality. For instance, we vote on deletions, adminships, etc., but aren't allowed to call them votes because "voting is evil". We have an arbitration committee which doesn't really arbitrate in the usual sense of the term. "Orwellian" does not necessarily mean "totalitarian"—playing language games in order to, for instance, reconcile the dogma that "voting is evil" with the fact that voting is an essential tool to reconcile opposing views in a community is the classic sort of thing George Orwell wrote about. Competing government agencies are Arendt's idea, not Orwell's. My "arbitration cabal" wasn't a proposal of anything so much as it was a thought experiment to illustrate my primary thesis—that Arbcom is no different from something that worked exactly like Arbcom but was instead formed by the community. My point in illustrating this thesis is to illustrate, first that the theory of Arbitration Committee being an extension of Jimbo's authority instead of the community's is rather meaningless in practice, and secondly, that Arbcom isn't something external from the community that we go to in order to solve problems we can't. In essence, if we had to, we would solve those problems ourselves…by forming an arbitration committee. Philwelch 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So I don't think it's an issue of the community failing to solve problems and referring them to Arbcom—it's an issue of Arbcom simply being the community's way of solving certain problems. On a similar note, Arbcom has nothing to do with dispute resolution and arbitration—it's more of a formal disciplinary process much of the time, much as User RFC is a means to collect opinions about users who we feel have done wrong, and Article RFC and Mediation are about actually resolving disputes I don't want to be misunderstood here that I have problem with Arbcom; I think it has been very useful. But I still see it is a symptom of the community's failure. There is no reason for a successfull community to allow the collateral damage that has to occur for a dispute to reach the level of Arbcom as simply it's way of solving certain problems. Arbcom is the community's way of giving up on certain problems. If Arbcom leans towards being disciplinary, it is only because the community failed to hold the editors to the most basic standards for months if not years before they stood before Arbcom. User RFC has scant participation, but I have seen policies completely misinterpreted there. I think it works much better as a place to reinforce specific policy interpretations than as a place to collect comments on a user as whole. But it is hard to really reinforce much with six people responding. I haven't participated on Article RFC in long time. Once I discovered the gem of an article that is the nation directly north of Greece that way. I hope it is actually resolving disputes these days, my long past experience was not that favorable. Mediation is seriously the best chance of resolving a dispute. Every dispute where the participants can agree that a resolution to the dispute is actually a priority should be resolved that way. The problems are the disputes where one or more parties would rather have continuing turmoil than to make concessions. Those are the cases where the community has to make it clear turmoil is not an option. However turmoil often seems to be a valid option here.

But I want to repeat that I support Arbcom. They are doing their best with an often floundering and a sometimes failing community. When we talk about the community being in control of dispute resolution (read the intial post in this thread again), we should not be talking about how to choose the handful of people who pick up the pieces when we fail, so much as we should be talking about how to prevent so many issues from falling to pieces in the first place.--BirgitteSB 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect both of your viewpoints. Here's a rephrasing of mine: on a practical level ArbCom can't be expected to keep up with the site's growth. If we assume user conflicts increase proportionate to total articles and site membership, the committee would get swamped. Somehow the community needs to shoulder a greater share of that burden. I think we all agree that more community involvement is a good idea. I've been working on some ideas that would work on a practical level without rethinking ArbCom from the ground up. One of them is at the proposal stage (linked in my earlier edit). I'd appreciate it if you gave the idea a look. Regards, Durova^Charge! 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed—it's not Arbcom's fault that we need them. But it's a little misguided to say that we're failing as a community if we do need them. Any community has courts, judges, systems to settle grievances. Perhaps it's true that if you need a judge to settle your grievance you're failed in some way, but given a community of more than a handful of people, it's gonna happen. Inevitably. The only places you *don't* see these things are highly authoritarian places—companies don't have pseudocourts to settle grievances that arise between coworkers over their work because companies are hierarchical, and there's always a boss who can say "this is what's gonna happen, and you're fired". Unless we want to elevate administrators to some higher level of discretionary power and let them say "this is what's going to happen, you're fired for being a net negative contributor, you should leave because you're a fanboy and this isn't a good place for you, you're a deranged nut, you're a valuable contributor and I trust you more than Anonymous Coward…", we're gonna need Arbcom. That's the price of a free society. Philwelch 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think very differently from what you say above. I do think you are taking my comments too generally. Every case sent to Arbcom is a case where the community failed. There will always some cases where the community fails; it does not follow that the comunity is Failure. I don't think we should aim to get rid of Arbcom. But we should aim to minmize the number of cases that reach Arbcom. It does seem to me that lately many disputes are treated as if an Arbcom case is a forgone conclusion. My point is that community has been giving up on resolving disputes too easily. That they are too quick to pass the buck to Arbcom. This damaging for all that happens as an individual dispute progresses to the level of Arbcom and also because it spreads the idea that anything short of warranting an Arbcom case must be tolerated. It is also an indirect problen because it is not uncommon for people facing an Arbcom case to leave or at least plan on it. This then fuels other disputes by showing the example that if a dispute can escalate all the way to Arbcom there is a chance the other guy will just quit. This undermines the entire dispute resolution process because why would someone resolve a dispute when they can possibly WIN by forfiet. The more Arbcom is relied on the worse the general atmosphere around here will get. It is just a viscious cycle that will continue until the community stops tolerating misbehaivor. Arbcom should be a BIG DEAL.--BirgitteSB 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Maybe a few things so I can get my thoughts together.

• Technically, is Jimbo really the absolute authority? I've always thought that if Jimbo indefblocked me in his capacity as project leader - not just as ordinary admin - I could appeal that decision with the Board, if not anywhere else.
• I rather like Fred Bauder's idea of the community having a preview of arbitrators appointed in the manner that Essjay/Mackensen were when Dmcdevit resigned.
• The phrase "community leaders" really, really sucks. Up to a fortnight ago Essjay would have been considered a "community leader", if we actually had any. We have no community leaders here, with the exception of Jimbo. That's rather the point of Wikipedia. In the absence of "community leaders", the community should be consulted.
• A few people above seem to have missed the point. I'm not talking about the existence of ArbCom being us turning our brains off: it's the way in which we elect our arbitrators which, in my opinion, is us turning our brains off: with, as we have seen this week, catastrophic results.
• In practice, whatever power ArbCom has comes from the community, insofar as it would lose credibility if we all started ignoring its rulings. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect a greater element of control in the way in which we elect our arbitrators. I agree with Philwelch's point that an ArbCom that took its power from the community, rather than Jimbo, would be no different at all to the current ArbCom, which in practice already does, if not in theory. IMO it's time the practice became the theory.
• An awful lot of pages - WP:DR, WP:AC - describe ArbCom as the last stage in dispute resolution, a last stage that can issues binding rulings. And it is a dispute resolution process that exists to serve the community.

Any thoughts? Best, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This website is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation; Jimbo "owns" Wikipedia. Don't like that? The door is that way. This message was brought to you by the harsh reality department. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Strictly speaking, the Wikipedia Foundation owns the servers and supplies the bandwidth, but each individual contribution is "owned" by the editor who creates it. You might say that Jimbo ownes the servers but "we" own the contents. These editors ("we") have, however, irrevocably licensed their contribution in a way that allows the Wikipedia Foundation (or anyone else, for that matter) to continue distributing it. It's that sentence below the edit box that says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". The effect of Guy's statement is correct: if you don't like Jimbo controlling things, get a copy of the database and start a new Wiki-encyclopedia. - EMET-MET 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Forking is easier said than done. The last image dump was, IIRC, in November 2005. Deleted content is not included in the dumps. --Random832 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We could ask Jimbo nicely that next time he wants to appoint arbitrators without an elective process, that there be a comment period so the community could vet the candidate. Thatcher131 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved from WP:AN) [context was Moreschi's comment: "In the wake of the Essjay shebang, I've kicked off a discussion at CN on the lack of - as I perceive it - community influence over the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to tell me I'm being stupid.] You're not being stupid, but you are mistaken about a key issue. Jimbo's authority is written into our policies. If you disagree with him, fine--he's actually generally open to constructive criticism if it's phrased politely and doesn't come (as at present) in the middle of a bombardment. Admins are admins because Jimbo created the position and appointed the first ones; arbcom is arbcom because Jimbo created and appointed the original tranches, and has overseen and had final authority over every subsequent election. So yes, there is a lack of community influence over arbcom--that's the idea. Chick Bowen 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Moreschi, you've put your finger on soemthing that is very troubling. Jimbo's relationship to the English Wikipedia -- let alone any one of the Wikimedia projects -- is undefined. Since he resigned from the Wikimedia Board, he has no official relationship to any of the projects; & that resignation suggests that he wants to limit his interaction with these projects. All of us here on en.wikipedia tacitly accept him as the final say over any dispute here; I'm not clear on what the communities involved at the other projects think. (I suspect Jimbo isn't interested in finding out either in the case of, say, the Arabic or Georgian language Wikipedias, where not only would he need a trustworthy interpreter but perhaps even need to introduce himself to them.) Because of that lack of a official relationship, it is entirely possible that a group of unhappy Admins could conspire to ban him from Wikipedia -- & convince a large number of the rest of the community to uphold their act.

This radical act is not something I am in favor of doing. So far, his worst decision has been to appoint Essjay to the ArbCom without an open discussion, so I'm willing to continue editting under the current ill-defined arrangement. But if someone as slow & unimaginative as I can conceive of doing this, I suspect that this occasion -- which I do not want to see happen -- may come to pass. -- llywrch 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh>. . . Once again, that's simply not the case. Not accepting Jimbo's authority is not an option: it wouldn't be legal or financially possible. The Foundation still answers to Jimbo and the Foundation owns the server, the domain name wikipedia.org, etc. etc. So enough of this, please. Chick Bowen 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Enough of this"? I'm just describing a serious point of failure here -- & it disturbs me. Right now, all that connects Jimmy Wales to this project is a lot of trust & unofficial connections -- nothing official. A group of (insert your choice from the following: Admins, Developers, Trustees, etc.) could decide one day to tell him to take a hike & ... he'd have to do it. I don't want to see that -- which is why I'm pointing this out, before someone decides to try that stunt. Since this is falling on deaf ears, I'll end this subject here, but I reserve the right to say "told ya so" if this happens a few years down the road. -- llywrch 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Foundation does not answer to jimbo alone. Foundation answer to the board. Jimbo is only one memeber. Now we have got the constitional stuff out of the way it is important to remeber that it isn't practicle to hold more than one set of arbcom elections per year so some kind of mechanism is needed for fill in apointments.Geni 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my gruff tone, but I still don't see this as a serious problem. Our foundation principles still preserve Jimbo's role, and far as your (addressing Llywrch here) hypothetical scenario goes, only trustees have that power even on a legal level. Admins and developers don't. Chick Bowen 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

jimbo's formal ranks is on the same level as any other board memeber.Geni 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by age - my UCFD solution

Please take a look at how I decided to close the Wikipedians born in YEAR UCFD. Before I implement it, I want to see if it's okay. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A very fair and measured closure that took finesse, is my opinion. Xiner (talk, email) 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise. It's important to remember that while WP:ENC, it's not harmful to have community-based aspects as well, and this solution cuts down on overcategorization of users while maintaining a definitive age-based structure for those who like that sort of thing. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have modified User:Ian Moody/User age auto to reflect this (and added equivalent code to other templates which did not formerly categorize, i assume due to this mess). Anyone know what we're doing about the 18-19 set? (and, did we ever reach a consensus on whether identifying users who are (say) 16 or 17 in a "15-19" group is acceptable or not? --Random832 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have categories for Wikipedians born "in the 90s", "in the 80s", etc? This would avoid specific ages while dealing with the issue of older teenagers (including 18-19). —Dark•Shikari^[T] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians born in the 90s are under 18, and my closure of the debate specifies that children categories are to be gone. Same applies for a small part of the 1980s. Maybe we could have Category:Wikipedians aged 18 or 19, then Category:Wikipedians in their 20s, etc. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Wikipedians aged 18 and 19 covered adequately by Category:Teenage Wikipedians? WjBscribe 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose... —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how having categories dividing users up by age or year of birth helps us to write an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some people want to encourage age discrimination? Durova^Charge! 14:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's a potential for trying to consider generational gap POV issues/systemic bias, though I am personally doubtful that the categories will end up being used as such. So long as no one attempts to create Category: Unsupervised Underage At-Risk Wikipedians. Because there's a point where even the more generous applications of AGF peter out. Bitnine 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why it might be useful to know someone's age; in that case, they can just say it on their userpage. I still don't see what categories are necessary. I can't ever think of a situation that would come up where I would be thinking, "Hrmm, I need to talk with a 24-26-year-old Wikipedian ... better go check those categories." --Cyde Weys 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain from giving specific usernames on this example, but about two months ago one of our younger sysops implemented a perfectly normal block. A disruptive editor promptly joined the blocked user's talk page to lodge an ad hominem complaint based on the acting administrator's age. I happened to be active while this unfolded and promptly voiced my support of the block itself and of the good judgement of that particular administrator, whom I've seen operate well under tough field conditions. I dislike the idea of categories that facilitate this type of disruption. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

External peer review triggered by Essjay scandal

I am not sure that I am posting in the right area, but the whole Essjay scandal triggered an external peer review found at http://www.shoutwire.com/default.aspx?p=comments&id=56188. Should I post this in Wikipedia:External peer review or not, considering the source is Shoutwire and not a traditional medium? This review looks like it has some valid points. Jesse Viviano 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to post it. It seems to be balanced and offer useful, actionable, criticism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted it at Wikipedia:External peer review/Shoutwire March 2007 and have transcluded it onto Wikipedia:External peer review. Jesse Viviano 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, looks OK. This comment by one responder was hilarious, though: "Why would anybody lie about having a PhD in Theology? That'd be like claiming to have a nasty case of herpes when you don't. Weird." Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above. We should be encouraging this kind of stuff - outside readers providing us with some article assessment is a good thing. --`/aksha 07:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a productive response from the media instead of gossip. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not bad grades for a work in progress. I would like to see what grades we get in 2015. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_banning

I started a thread a few days ago to discuss updating the policy language in light of recent precedents. The folks who frequent that talk page don't appear to have been active on this board. The ongoing WP:RFAR of the BabyDweezil community ban raises additional points. To outline the major things:

• The Arbitration Committee has affirmed the community's right to topic ban (per Miracleimpulse's denied appeal).
• WP:BAN does not link to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, which provides a detailed model for community bans. Since WP:DE has been at the guideline level for six months it's probably time for the policy to link there.
• BabyDweezil's request for arbitration raises two interesting points that were not anticipated when WP:DE was in the draft proposal phase - specific notification to the editor under discussion when a community ban proposal opens and a mechanism for letting that user present a defense (if blocked from editing while the discussion is underway). These are reasonable points for the community to discuss, and probably to incorporate at either the guideline or the policy.

Durova^Charge! 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:AI

Interesting discussions going on at both these places as to how our notability rules should work. Posting here because I think some more input is needed from a wider base of people. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here, I forgot this is a good place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ads to benefit Wikipedia

Closing this. I do not approve of it at all and it seems unlikely anyone else will. This was absolutely not the purpose of my work – Qxz 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Anthony cfc

Good evening, my fellow Wikipedians. After careful reflection, I've decided I would like to "start a fresh", in a way. Although I've never vandalised, and I'm most certainly not a "bad user", I've acted quite "power hungry" over my one-year career. In short, I've applied for several positions out of my reach.

My NHS G.P. (that's a doctor, for you non-Brits :) has spoken with me, and I've been prescribed a course of anti-depressants. Around Saturday, these took effect, and I've got a positive new outlook in life - and Wikipedia.

I would therefore like the community to suggest methods I could employ to "start a fresh"; my particular focus is on DR work, as well as XfD. However, I believe there are still those out there who are bitter over my past actions. If they can find it in their heart to forgive me, I shall be eternally grateful.

In the meanwhile, I ask the community to rather than forget what I have done, to remain impartial and mindful of my new actions, and judge me on the present, rather than dwindle on the deep, dark past.

With the greatest anticipation,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Meds do wonders don't they? :) Things get forgotten (most of time) and will be dwindle away once you start expressing this positive attitude elsewhere (in your article writing and your dispute resolution with others in particular). — Moe 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to steer well clear of xFD and do some Wikignoming. Special:Random is good - keep going till you see something interesting that wants work, it rarely takes more than a few clicks. Oh, and if it's Dosulepin, don't try doing tricky detail things after taking the meds :-) Guy (Help!) 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have a standing offer to people who get sanctioned at arbitration that I'll give them the Barnstar of Resilience if they create a new article that makes the Did you know? section at Wikipedia's main page. Check out User:Durova/Did you know? for tips on how to get there. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input guys! To Durova - I've not even came close to being in front of the ArbCom! anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but since I offer the barnstar to people who misstep that badly I can certainly offer it to you. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• WikiGnoming isn't a bad idea actually. I think you have a lot to contribute and I've seen you contribute very positively in areas I've been involved with, and you have a good attitude to this. I think Essjay's little graphic is always a good policy to follow when in doubt. Orderinchaos78 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven (proposed ban or indef block)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No evidence of Dispute resolution attempts. Recommend mentorship, WP:CEM, or WP:RFC before suggesting ban.

---

Emir Arven (talk · contribs) is a fanatical nationalist, who regularly misquotes other users, and seems to only edit Wikipedia to promote his own agenda, rather than improve the overall quality of the project. He repeatedly uses personal attacks, and has been blocked numerous times for doing so. All the user does is preach hatred against Serbs and Croats, and tries to re-write history. No wait, that's not all he does - he also provokes other users, and, either does not understand English, or, is too unintelligent to understand what people are trying to say to him. Below is important information and evidence about his disgusting behaviour on Wikipedia. After reading over the evidence, make up your own mind whether to trust him or not, and whether he deserves to be banned or not.

Diffs of his behaviour

This section has specific diffs of Emir Arven's contributions to Wikipedia since he first joined. Please note, that this is incomplete, as it does not take into account the many sockpuppets he has most certainly used; and also, I deliberately did not include many of his edit warring pages and uncivil edit summaries, as the list would have been far bigger than it already is. If you wish to examine them yourself, feel free to visit his contributions and conduct your own investigation. This diff list will undoubtedly grow larger as time goes on, as Emir does not seem to realise that his behaviour is unacceptable.

• 2nd ever edit. Emir here claims Bosnian Language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet; however in the future, he claims anyone who says Bosnian uses Cyrillic "hates Bosniaks".
• Here he starts using POV language and weasel words to portray the whole Serb nation guilty of genocide.
• Without providing any sources, Emir claims that Naser Oric did not kill civilians, but "soldiers", in order to lessen the crimes of this horrible man.
• Edit summarry that implies all of Serbia denies genocide. Also of note, here and almost everywhere else, Emir does not use capital "S" and capital "C" for Croat/ia/n and Serb/ia/n - another example of his racism and lack of respect for Serbs and Croats.
• Provokes an anonymous user, and says the anon is "condemned" for questioning the "facts" of Srebenica.
• Here, here, and here Emir re-inserts POV, weasel words, falsifications and propaganda without any sources at all.
• Provokes another anonymous user. Compares the anon to Nazis.
• Another anon provoked and called a Nazi.
• Inserts unsourced POV, and calls it "reverting vandalism".
• Calls u user a "liar" and "pathetic" and yet again compares him to the Nazis.
• Here claiming (without any evidence) that 10 000 were killed at Srebenica, when all serious sources estimate anywhere from 7000 to 8000.
• Another anon provoked.
• Says "it is ridiculous to discuss with Serbs."
• Avoids the question and instead provokes the editor.
• Tries again to whitewash Naser Oric's crimes.
• Tries to re-write history ("Bosniaks" were known as "Muslims" before/during the war, so the term is correct.)
• Re-writes history and claims a writer is "Bosniak" and removes any reference to other groups.
• Emir hates Croats so removes the category.
• Emir hates Serbs so removes the category.
• Incivility. Emir provokes a user and says he should be ashamed, just over a content dispute.
• Hates Serbs so removes category.
• Another example of his Anti-Serb and Anti-Croat sentiment.
• Removes POV tag without removing the POV.
• Removed a POV tag, and then added some more POV.
• Accuses an editor he has a disagreement with over the Bosnian language of being responsible for genocide.
• Here he signs a signature as another user - deceives people into thinking he was just attacked, when he was the one who impersonated another user and posted an attack against himself.
• POV from Emir Arven? You must be joking.
• Intimidates a user and compares him to Milosevic and Mladic.
• Lies about Nikola Smolenski and accuses him of nationalism.
• Edit summary that accuses the Serb editors of "Bosnians" of being guilty of genocide.
• Labels Serb editors as "lunatics".
• Hates Serbs so he removes the section about war crimes committed against them.
• Tells Serb editors to "shut up!".
• Removes POV tag and does not justify it (but he does make some nonsensical remarks on the talk page though).
• Here and here, Emir acknowledges that the other parties involved cannot edit an AMA Request for Assistance, but here he goes ahead and edits a request I made; directly contradicting himself, and breaking the rules.
• No mate, that is definitely not neutral.
• Removes section about atrocities committed against Serbs. Further more, he provokes and insults Nikola Smolenski and calls him a nationalist.
• Wow. More POV.
• Reverted to his POV version. Again threatens Nikola Smolenski.
• Tries to hide crimes committed against Serbs.
• Claims that a Serb writer was actually a "Bosniak".
• After a polite discussion with HRE (now PaxE) he immediately starts provoking him and labels him a nationalist just for discussing with him.
• re-writes history again, with even more POV.
• More POV.
• Deletes other users talk page comments.
• Without justification, removes POV tag.
• Lies (again) about Nikola Smolenski.
• Claims this "warning" is according to Wikipedia policy - it is not. Furthermore, it is a highly rude/uncivil tone.
• Re-writes history.
• Even more tag vandalism.
• re-writes history to suite his POV.
• Claims Kosovo is independent but not recognized in 1990.
• Adds to the article a "warning" for people not to edit this article.
• POV edit warring.
• Hates Serbs so he removes references to the man being a Serb.
• Labels a discussion as "vandalism".
• Another example of prejudice towards Serbs.
• Re-writes history.
• Claims he sourced his POV when in fact he didn't.
• Creates a whole "archive" in order to attack another user.
• Rejects newspapers as a source.
• Content dispute is not vandalism, mate.
• After just beign warned about personal attacks, he denies they were attacks, stands by his attacks, and lies about another user.
• Oh, I see you love getting rid of those tags, but when you disagree, they MUST stay.
• Attacks HRE again.
• Edit summary lies. That's way more than one sentence.
• That is not an anachronism.
• Considering that Emir cannot understand English, he should not claim to be an expert on English.
• Tag vandalism.
• THAT is anachronism.
• Tag vandalism
• Shows his racist colors by hiding the crimes committed against Serbs.
• More offensive edit summaries and trying to re-write history.
• he certainly loves to re-write history, doesn't he.
• Actually, you can't.
• Tag vandalism.
• unsourced inflation of numbers.
• Hypocritical action with tags.
• Re-writes history.
• Tag vandalism.
• Attacks the Serbs article because he hates them.
• Does it again, but this time with an addition of an extreme POV section.
• Tag vandalism.
• Tag vandalism.
• Re-writing history.
• As above.
• Implies that HRE is guilty of genocide.
• He wants Serbophobia deleted, but it is apparent that he suffers from it.
• Choke on your lies!
• Hates HRE, Serbs, and everyone who disagrees with him.
• Canvassing for votes in a language other than English.
• Croat hater.
• History re-written
• This is a strange one. Edit warring with another Bosniak nationalist vandal - I would have thought they'd be best of friends.
• History re-written.
• Yet even more historical revisionism.
• Vote canvassing, and accusing Serb editors of being guilty of genocide.
• Here he provokes an anon by using a tactic he would later use to provoke me - accusing an unrelated anon of being someone else without any justification.
• POV revisionism.
• More lies and attacks aimed at HRE.
• Hates Serbs so he removes references to them.
• Calls Serb editors "war criminals".
• Liar.
• False history.
• Tag vandalism.
• Example of Serbophobia.
• Re-writing history.
• But everyone else thinks so.
• No. "Terrorist" is correct.
• More revisionism and offensive edit summary.
• he always uses Noel Malcolm as a "source". Malcolm is one of the most ignorant fools and con artist the world has ever seen.
• Serb hatred.
• Actually Emir, you are the one stealing history.
• Re-writing history.
• More lies.
• Emir hates Croats.
• More lies.
• But... you never use sources yourself Emir.
• "Nationalistic crap"? I've seen that before.
• More personal attacks and lies.
• Trying to defend a personal attack.
• Well, why don't we all invent history.
• [2] [3] Lies and personal attacks.
• That was not vandalism. Furthermore, Emir Arven insists on doing the exact same thing to people - tagging pages as sockpuppets without any justification at all or any investigation.
• More nationalism by Emir.
• Another example of his hatred of Serbs and Croats.
• It's true. Also Americans are largely descendant of Angels who came to Earth thousands of years ago.
• More lies and attacks against HRE.
• Wow. He just warned someone about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and in the same paragraph, violated those policies.
• Serbophobia.
• Are you?
• Actually they are needed.
• Offensive edit summary.
• Accuses Serb editors of being involved in genocide. He then tries to justify his attack, and says the blockign admin should be ashamed for blocking him.
• Provocation and harassment without proof.
• Personal attack.
• My very first encounter with Emir Arven. he immediately assumes bad faith, and calls my edit vandalism, when in fact, I reverted vandalism from a known sockpuppet of banned user Hahahihihoho.
• He then provokes me, and tries to say that he sourced the above edit, when he in fact did not.
• He then went to some person's talk page and lied about what had just happened - he says that i am a potential nationalist who removed a huge section of sourced information, when in fact, I reverted unsourced vandalism, that was in a tiny section of the article.
• I read it, he didn't source it.
• More provocations. Quite possibly the beginning of his vendetta against me.
• Doesn't answer; only provokes more.
• That's true. Anyone can see what happened. I was completely write, and Emir just used profanity - instigating a huge dispute.
• More lies and attacks.
• More personal attacks.
• No Emir, you provoked him.
• Personal attacks - called someone stupid.
• Again tries to justify personal attack on an anon.
• Called someone a "stupid child"
• reverted a legitimate speedy nom.
• Provoked me by saying the edit was done by me.
• More provocation. He clearly reverted an anonymous user, but chose to accuse the anon of being me.]
• [4], [5], [6] Huge personal attacks against me. He still has not been punished or warned over these three. Translated they mean:

Ustašoids in action I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Personal attack.
• [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] More provocations, personal attacks, false accusations, and general incivility and ignorance. Even after I explained that the anon could not have been me, he just ignored it, then used the link I GAVE HIM to try and "prove" his claims - which is odd as the link proves that they were not me.
• Provocation.
• This is one showing that he did not read my comments proving that it was not me.
• I actually answered his stupid question a long time before this.
• Unjustified revert and provocation.
• Personal attack and huge provocation.
• As above.
• After getting pissed off about his block, he decided to provoke and attack me some more.
• After an admin removed Emir's personal attacks against me, Emir just put them straight back in.
• [15] [16] Racism. He hates Indians, and says they "conspired against him".
• Threatens an administrator.
• More provocations and attacks.
• [17] [18] Provocations that restarted the whole situation.
• No it's not ok. You hate Serbs and removed all references to him being Serb.
• Provocations again.
• Didn't provide source for his removal of vital info.
• Racist colors fly again. Claims a source is false because a Serb wrote it.
• Repeating his bullshit. because of his childish actions on this noticeboard, not one admin looked into the situation.
• Trying to paint a rosy picture of these radical Islamic terrorists.
• Not only is he removing sourced important information, but he also used the exact same edit summary I once used - he doesn't have very good command of English, so he copies my words.
• Threatens me, attacks me, provokes me, repeats same craziness as elsewhere, etc.
• Removes sourced information.
• Lies. Revisionism. And provocation.
• No Emir, you know that you are not allowed to edit that page.
• More provocation.
• More lies, attacks and provocations.
• As above.
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ivan Kricancic - Emir created this page to try and "prove" his claims. In the end, it proved him wrong, and his accusations of sockpuppetry are unfounded, as usual.
• Not it wasn't a private message. It was a personal attack against me, and no, you have not been warned or punished over it yet. Choke on your lies!
• Lies, provocations, insults.
• Repeating (again) the same old bullshit that has been proved false. More lies, accusations, personal attacks etc.

Attack pages

User talk:Emir Arven and the bottom half of User talk:Emir Arven/Archives 4 are basically attack pages against me.

Block log

Let's now have a look at Emir's block log

• 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
• 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
• 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
• 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
• 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
• 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
• 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
• 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
• 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
• 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Emir has been blocked eight (8) times for heavy edit warring, personal attacks, and rampant incivility. These blocks span his entire Wikipedia career, so it is clear that he will not learn from his mistakes, and he will continue his disgusting behaviour into the future unless something is done.

Conclusion

At this stage it has become clear that Emir Arven is nothing more than a vandalistic, nationalist troll. He certainly is not here to edit constructively, but he is here to spread lies, propaganda, racism, and get on everyone's nerves. In all honesty, I believe that any administrator who has good foresight will punish this "editor" as soon as possible with an indefinite block or a ban, with no chance of him ever coming back to the English Wikipedia. —KingIvan 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: thread moved from WP:ANI. MER-C 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of this request

I scanned over this quickly, however, I did not see where the user had been educated on the way we do things. Are there diffs for WP:DR before ban is explored? My opinion remains Neutral. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, when I saw what he's been saying about me, I went and talked to him, but he immediately supported his attacks, made more attacks and ridiculous claims and just would not listen ever since. We've both been talking to different admins about the situation, and we've has reports on WP:AN/I, but all of those were fruitless. The user has been told many times not to use personal attacks, and he has been told not to make sock puppetry allegations without evidence, yet he continues to do both. To be honest, I would settle for an apology from Emir, and for a change in his behaviour, that is, he stops making personal attacks, and stops making false accusations. But judging from his behaviour, I think both of those simple requests will not happen. The diffs provided show his unacceptable behaviour, and provides very good grounds for a ban, as his unacceptable behaviour has remained ever since he joined Wikipedia. —KingIvan 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 08:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. I agree the user blocks are extensive. Yet have user conduct WP:RFC or mediation been attempted? Has this editor ever been given a link to mentorship? Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, community banning is something to pursue after other reasonable attempts have failed. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven's reply

I have to say that the above report is based on lies which I am going to prove. Emir Arven 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cause

First let me explain the cause of this situation. Ivan's second account Rts_freak was blocked indefinitely and he was strongly warned by AnonEMouse. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet. Ivan had second account which he created in order to nominate Bosniak-related pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors. He is an ethnic Croat, so he created the second account presenting himself to be an ethnic Bosniak who doesn't speak Bosnian, because he is from Australia. According to his user page (original user page) he hates Bosniaks, and makes funny of them. So his "ethnic Bosniak" account was blocked and he was warned. I noticed similar behaviour from the above IP addresses on Bosniak-related topics. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit 58.165.126.17 in his original user page.

• 58.165.126.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 58.165.115.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

OK, about his Bosniak-image obsession, here are some examples when he was logged in:

• [19]
• [20]

(It should be noted that he first nominated those pictures for deletion)

And here is an example how he put false information when he was not logged in, about the Bosniak-related picture in order to nominate it for deletion:

• [21]

And here is an example when he promoted his ideas using his second blocked account, Rts_freak:

• [22]

The worst thing is that he wrote lies about other users who donated pictures to Wikipedia. He said:

This image was unlikely to have been taken by Asim Led. He has a history of providing dubious sources, and lying about source info. Impropper licence. Since the image is probably unfree, it is also missing a fair use rationale.

Now, I want to show you few edits, just about Bosniaks and Bosnian language, he really hates them, when he was not logged in:

• [23]
• [24]

and when he was logged in:

• [25].

When I noticed that he damaged Wikipedia nominating good pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors he started to write lies about my contribution, which I am going to explain. Emir Arven 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Insults

He started to provoke:

• Emir Arven is a fanatical nationalist, who regularly misquotes other users, and seems to only edit Wikipedia to promote his own agenda, rather than improve...
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 1: it's so fucking hard to edit with stupid fools like Emir Arven
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 2: You truly are stupid.
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 3 (pfft. fuck off loser)
• Ivan Kricancic - insult 4: you shouldn't direct anyone there dickhead —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emir Arven (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Lies about my contribution

Here is what he said above:

• 2nd ever edit. Emir here claims Bosnian Language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet; however in the future, he claims anyone who says Bosnian uses Cyrillic "hates Bosniaks".

I never claimed: "anyone who says Bosnian uses Cyrillic "hates Bosniaks"". There is no proof for that. Emir Arven 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here he starts using POV language and weasel words to portray the whole Serb nation guilty of genocide.

As you can see looking at the edit, this is another Ivan's lie. I never said the whole Serb nation is guilty of genocide. I wrote what was established by the world's highest courtes, ICJ and ICTY: Serb army committed genocide in Srebrenica. Nothing about the guilt. Emir Arven 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Without providing any sources, Emir claims that Naser Oric did not kill civilians, but "soldiers", in order to lessen the crimes of this horrible man.

Another lie by Ivan. I also wrote what was established by the courte. Here is the quote from ICTY report: As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovici, Bjelovac, Fakovici and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Muslim forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, they even used the warplanes.[26] Emir Arven 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Edit summarry that implies all of Serbia denies genocide. Also of note, here and almost everywhere else, Emir does not use capital "S" and capital "C" for Croat/ia/n and Serb/ia/n - another example of his racism and lack of respect for Serbs and Croats.

Those are Ivan's insults based on lies. Just check the source and my edit. And this saying about the use of capital "S" and "C" as an "example of racism" is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Grammar has nothing to do with racism, maybe in Ivan's user page. Emir Arven 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Provokes another anonymous user. Compares the anon to Nazis.

This is another lie. As you can see here: [27] there were so many anons who removed the sources, one of them being the list of people killed in genocide, adding this comment: The Supposed Srebrenica Execution Video is a Lie. I saw so many nationalists who just used to remove sources, as Ivan did with the pictures also in the Srebrenica Massacre article. So I warned him not to do that, but I never tell anyone that he or she is nazi. Emir Arven 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here are some of his other funny conclusions, which shouldn't be explained, because it is enough to use common sense to understand what is serious and what isn't. He said:

Emir hates Croats so removes the category.

Emir hates Serbs so removes the category.

Emir does not use capital "S" and capital "C" for Croat/ia/n and Serb/ia/n - another example of his racism and lack of respect for Serbs and Croats.

He always uses Noel Malcolm as a "source". Malcolm is one of the most ignorant fools and con artist the world has ever seen.

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ivan Kricancic - Emir created this page to try and "prove" his claims. In the end, it proved him wrong, and his accusations of sockpuppetry are unfounded, as usual.

This is another lie. My evidence were solid, and they are not unfounded as he said. The conclusion was: The privacy policy does not permit us to disclose IPs. The Uninvited. but my evidence is still very strong. Emir Arven 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The rest is irrelevant, which everyone can see. Emir Arven 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Dispute Resolution

I'm still looking for DIFFS that WP:DR has been attempted. For example, has an RFC been attempted? Perhaps I missed it. Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Having wasted twenty minutes of my valuable time looking at this..

I recommend - strongly - that this one go to either ArbCom, or if User:Durova is OK with this, then perhaps community enforced mediation. There are two sides to every story, and I don't think we're getting the full picture. Looks like a content dispute has escalated, and certainly Emir Arven has said some highly disagreeable things; perhaps KingIvan has reacted badly to provocation, it's hard to tell. But this sort of mess is what the Arbitration Committee is there to sort out. I recommend that they be used; or, at the very least, a WP:RFC be started over this...business. WP:CEM is another alternative. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrium on Emir Arven

Here (Regarding genocide, Serbia is the only country in the world with the certificate by ICJ which says Serbia violated the Genocide Convention. And Serbs or their Army is the only Army which commited genocide, dolus specialis, in the modern world. It is also rude to talk about WWII, because chetnics were fascists who commited terrible crimes in Easter Bosnia against Bosniak population. My cousines were killed in Foča during WWII by chetnics.) and here (Just the truth, which is terrible. My people didn't commit genocide, but Serb Army did. Saying that truth, established by world's highest courte, is not hate speech, but history fact. Emir Arven 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)) the user connected the Bosnian Genocide from the Bosnian war with a Bosnian Muslim writer that identified himself as a Serb (Meša Selimović).

He wrote this (As you are aware nothing good was produces by them. The strongest party in Serbia now is Serb Radical Party (neo-fascists). Serbs started wars with all other nations, Albanians, Croats, Bosniaks, at the beginning with Slovenia also. And they always do the same thing. Discuss about Bosniaks or Croats who are allegedly Serbs. Discuss about the Balkans as Serb land. Always about the history and land etc. Aren't you tired of all that? I am just saying that Serbia will lose Kosovo because of Serb intellectuals...Emir Arven 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)) and this after I inclined that no one is perfect, and that so can neither he be; he responded with a weird nationalist comment about this ethnic group.

The House of Kotromanić article is an article on a Medieval South Slavic Bosnian family. Here the user removed the mention "..Serbian" and noted in the Edit summary as "..correcting the link.." The reason of the removal was likely just because of the factual word (Serbian). Here he reverted the edit and wrote in the edit summary (well, you linked Serbia to Bosnia implying that Bosnia was a part of Serbia?!) If he even read the actual sentence, he would've noticed that it implied that Serbia was a part of Bosnia, rather. The dispute was ridiculous, over a dull wikilink, and I am seriously worried if the user creates problems of this magnitude due to the word "Serbian" over a plain wiki-link, who knows how far he'd go. Here and here he edited to a proposed compromise (putting the Serbian crown at the end, marginalizing it as possibly incorrect) and put "source needed" for the argument (and sources have been given to him over the whole year's time in numerous previous arguments). The user in question notes all the time that his knowledge of Medieval Bosnian history is high, much more than the that of the Serbs, but everyone who knows a little about King Tvrtko knows that the crown he took was a double crown (Serbo-Croat: Sugubi vijenac).

After I proposed on his talk page not to use double standards (he insisted that in the article Mehmed-paša Sokolović, all mentions of his Serbian origin be removed and just put "Bosnian", so I asked him to remove "Bosniak" from Husein Gradaščević and replace it with "Bosnian"). He refused and kept refusing in a slightly uncivil comment, writing that I first have to put "Bosnian" on the Ivo Andrić article, who is not at all a somewhat controversial person like the other two.

He made a major edit on the 7th Muslim Brigade and the revert-war he was/is leading there is highly controversial.

Here on User talk:Bosniak's talk page he wrote: "Ustashoids [pejorative for an ethnic group] in action.

I would like to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his korisničku page in his mad fanaticism he goes from picture to picture regarding Bosnia and nominates them for deletion. He often does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard with dumb-asses, but the generate is sick and in that way he deleted many articles on srebrenica. Emir Arven 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here on a Serbian-Bosnian medieval King, he replaced the "History of the Serbs" category with "Bosniak history" and before "History of Serbia" with "History of Bosniaks". I believe that (as I will prove in the next following lines) that the sole reason of this edit was because it stood "Serbian". Here on the same article (Stjepan Ostoja) he removed every Serbian category, and replaced that he was a Serbian ruler with him "ruling over Serbian territories" and also removed the Cyrillic version of the title just because the Serbian language uses Cyrillic (and yet that very King's native name was in none other than Cyrillic). On Talk:Stjepan_Ostoja he placed a highly uncivil and insulting comment regarding my alleged "forgery" of sources which will be discussed below - note: I explained the situation numerous times but the user chose to ignore, primarily because he believed that I am of Serb ethnicity. An almost identical type of incivility was repeated on the talk page of the Prijezda I article and on Talk:Prijezda_II as well.

On another article about a Medieval Bosnian ruler (Stephen I of Bosnia) he replaced all categories related to Croats and Serbs, replacing them with the "Bosniak history" category. He wrote a highly uncivil comment in the Edit summary: Serb user is trying to deny Bosniak history! Again! Bosniak history is history related to Bosnia! HolyRomanEmperor should be warned! even though I asked him for precisely (I counted) 37 times not to call me that way. Then again the very same thing later (Serb user continues to deny Bosniak history, first he put false sources, second he removed cathegory. This shows his motive.) and one new thingy (still this Serb user spread false or unproven information). It is to my belief that the user thinks (that) he will easily discredit me pointing out that I am "of Serb ethnicity", thinking (or as it seems being convinced) that the administrators all share his stereotype. On the talk page of this article, he wrote: "..Serb sources are mostly based on mythology and nationalism. That is just a pure fact..., among other highly uncivil and to an extent racist comments on Serbs; in general the user proudly expresses that things written by ethnic Serbs are not reliable. In all of these edit wars, Emir refused to discuss at the talk page(s) like I asked him, and constantly resorted to pushing his version.

Stephen II of Bosnia

Emir Arven started a similar war over this medieval bosnian ruler. The ruler in question [ converted] from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. As Emir did not believe in this, I gave him a book (written by one of the best Yugoslavian historians, on purpose a Serbian historian, to see the user's reaction) and chose not to supply him with the precise page. As I feared, and as can be seen here, Emir Arven confirmed my fears and wrote this: Sern nationalist Vladimir Corovic, and his history of Serb people. That book is nationalistic crap. and continued to deny that he's a qualified historian. Although Vladimir Ćorović indeed mentions this, he does not mention it in this book - my plan (trap), unjust as it may seem, worked perfectly, as Emir Arven perfectly revealed (note: not violating WP:CIVIL and WP:POV right now) that he hates Serbs extremely. After Emir discovered this - he even sourced his own claims from that book subsequently. :)

---

He expressed a similar POV on Tvrtko I of Bosnia. Here he replaced all Serb-related sources (of which two were first-class and two low-rated) with a single Bosniac nationalist source.

Mehmed-paša Sokolović

This is a huge subject, so it demands its own sub-page. If the talk page of this article is carefully inspected, a wide array of uncivil comments can be seen. It has been expressed over and over and over again at the talk page; and supported by most international sources, but Emir Arven kept on insisting that Mehmed was a Bosniak, rather than a Serb.

This is his first edit, where he replaced "Serbian" with "Christian" and removed the notice that AFAIK Mehmed's brother rejuvenated the Serbian Church. Here is his second edit, where he indeed did give a source - but at the same time wrote: ..he renewed the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Peć Patriarchate with allegedly his brother Makarije Sokolović as the Patriarch in 1557. On the other hand Bosniak historians consider that above thesis is never proven. They think it is another Serb myth mixed with nationalism and anachronism.. Here and at numerous other places, Emir Arven showed that sources composed by ethnic Bosniacs are far more reliable than sources composed by ethnic Serbs (which are, according to him, as expressed before, ALL LIES). Although a lengthy discussion already started, Emir Arven chose to ignore it and continued an edit war pushing this (his) version: here, here and most notably here; leaving a special notice "..According to Serb authors." and a footnote to the bottom (with the text that I already posted to the above), but definitely insinuating that the claims shouldn't be trusted because ethnic Serbs wrote that and because ethnic Bosniaks deny that it's true. He also wrote in the edit summary: ..rv, dont delete the book that I provided as a source as it is very relevant unlike Serb mythological sources; now it is obvious that Serb users spread lies for instance regarding his name and familiy..

At the talk page, a whole world of sources was presented (varying across different western, northern, souther and eastern experts on the subject; including the very Turkish government [successor of the Ottoman Empire, the article deals about an Ottoman official]), Emir Arven abandoned his pursuit to present Mehmed as a "Bosniak" and ever since then he acts as a neutralist, claiming that his origin ..cannot be known.. and insists (up to this very day) that an ambiguous "Bosnian" should be put. Such an example is this edit of his. I suppose that this is Plan B; after it was proven that his claims were incorrect, let us just make him not Serb. The fact that Mehmed-pasa might've been a Serb seems to him so tragic that he sacrifices the whole article just to revert to his stub, old version (destroying a bunch of the article - and this is not the first place, as shown above. In the edit summary, he wrote: ..rv, fairy tale.. After warned by an administrator, he does it again.

Here he reverts again - but shockingly, changes his ..according to Serb sources.. (note: that is not just according to sources "written by ethnic Serbs", as seen on the articles talk page, that is according to "sources written by ethnic Englishmen, Irish, Americans, Poles, Turks, Armenians, Montenegrins, Greeks, etc. as well"). Now this is the thing that shocked all of us: he changed it to ..According to Serb myth or fairy tale.. and/or and that there's no proof for claims of his noble origin and appoint them to later Serb myth. He then reverts again to his version (previously reverted by yet another administrator) and writes "..no way he was serbian, being serbian means that you are from serbia and he was from bosnia.." (totally false, 100% known by him as a mad-up thing). here he repeated the thing, returning the ol' uncivil how he wow, even put what the Serbs say (which according to him is of course, Serb mythology and totally false, because it was written by ethnic Serbs).

After he retreated from the War, he edited again, putting numerous "sources needed" (at every single place where it could connect him to anything Serbian, or even less just Orthodox Christian), although this is the very same argument that's bean cleared at the talk page for precisely 7 times in huge discussions by now. He persists on it, and again decides to return his demands that "Bosniak" be returned, but agrees to leave "Serb" together with it in the article (Plan C). I think that he still didn't like that it says "Serb", so he all of a sudden returned to Plan B (just "Bosnian") and reverted to it here. After constantly ignoring the talk page and abandoning all discussions, he reverted again only recently, after a long time.

And not for the talk page (so huge that it deserves a special status).

• After I tried to present him Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV and wrote: "..Emir Arven added according to Serb authers and On the other hand Bosniak historians consider that above thesis is never proven. They think it is another Serb myth mixed with nationalism and anachronism. Both of these statements brake wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Especially is interesting another Serb myth which brakes wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy to the highest point. It presents superiority of Bosniak historians to the inferior Serbian sources (by the way - sources that state his Serbdom are not even Serbian; see below..", Emir responded with "..That is your POV. Serb myths are well known for all people in the Balkans. Even for Serb hard-core nationalists like Kilibarda.--Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC).." (evidently aiming that Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia's policy is just my personal Point of View). Then he commits a personal attack after I dispute his single source (sources against Emir's argument are 100 more numerous, as can be seen at the talk page), Emir attacks me with "..Who says? You? The one always ready for making things up? --Emir Arven 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC).."

• After I presented to Emir a Bosnian source (hoping that he'll acknowledge things written by ethnic Bosniaks) which also claims that Mahmut/Bajica was a Serb convert, Emir responded with "..irrelevant.." and further down explain my behavior through this comment: This Vojislav Šešelj radical and nationalistic behaviour becomes really pathetic. In Serb political tradition, propaganda and lies are very common mean for achiving political goals according to Novak Kilibarda, former Serb nationalist.--Emir Arven 14:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then he wrote: "..Here is a quote in Bosnian which explains how Serb sources and other indirect sources have many contrapositions. On the other hand Turkish sources dont support Serb thesis that Makarije was his brother. They talk about his two brothers, and any of them was not Makarije.."

Note that Turkish historians do support this "Serb myth", as has been noted to Emir even before he posted this post. This further down sentence, denying all the hundreds of sources and links which I gave him, sounds like this: As I said Serb historians as well as Serb politicians were capable of making things up. It is not strange. We have all heard/seen in Milosevic trial where number of Serb experts came to explain Serb history and "Serb historical rights". Serb mythology is very important part of it. It is not "Bosnika thesis", it is Serb thesis. Novak Kilibarda, one of Serb nationalists/ideologist talked about it many many times. Wow, six "Serb [negative thing]" in just a couple of sentences. It is to my opinion that this speaks a lot about my claim that this user is obsessed with hatred towards the ethnic group in question.

• Interestingly further, Emir Arven quotes a Turkish version of a book written by a Serbian historian (this one). "Bosnian" in Turkish is translated to "Bosniak". Very interestingly enough, this book (the very source presented by Emir Arven) claims that Mehmed-pasa Sokolovic was a Serbian patriot. After I mention this, Emir becomes quit regarding this source.

• After I posed numerous new sources of encyclopedic renown (although including a Serbian school textbook), Emir Arven wrote: "..Other sources that you provided are nationalistic and radical sources. And you mentioned Serbian government source? Hello? The government that still protects war criminals? Ten years after the war. Are you serious?.." He argumented that all sources, no matter who/when/why wrote them, are simply blinded by Serbian nationalism simply because they support the "Serb mythology". (Then below, even though I gave him Turkish sources, he repeated "..And yes, Turkish historians do not support Serb myth.."

• There is a source (far before the 1990s, Emir Arven said that no source from the 1990s written by ethnic Serbs should not be used because that was the time when Serbs committed Bosnian genocide on Bosniaks in BH) from 1906 written by a Serbian historian in full detail, quoting numerous Venetian, Turkish, German, Greek and other sources. This is how Emir Arven responded to it, again attaching connotations to war crimes from the Bosnian war (without reading the source in detail):

"The source that was included in the article, and that was provied by HolyRomanEmperor "Famous Serb Muslims" [10] by Milenko Vukičević is not even myth. It is more a fairy tale, written in 1906. I have just read nonsenses in that "book". It claimes that Bosniaks are Serbs and that Husein Gradaščević was a Serb. (Interestingly the same thing did HolyRomanEmepror). This source was written during Serb nationalistic sentiment. It is based on anachronism, nationalism and fairy tales. The same claimes has Serb Radical Rarty which president Vojislav Šešelj is war criminal, now in ICTY. (He also claimes that Bosniaks and Croats are Serb Muslims, and Serb Catholics.) Juts the title of the book is a joke. Now it is obvious that Rastko Center is place for nationalistic papers based on myths. So, HolyRomanEmperor, your articles should be reviewed because your main source is nationalistic crap.--Emir Arven 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"

• Subsequently a user from Turkey that AFAIK claimed that "..Serbs lack neutrality and a sense of reality.." by the user-name of Adkagansu, wrote that Mehmed indeed was a Serb. Emir Arven denied that & said: "..Mehmed pasha identified himself with Bosnia not Serbia. His Christian origin was used by Serb historians to present him as a Serb which was anachronism. Some other sources took that fact interpreted by Serbs, but there is not one serious research that will support this thesis. [totally false and an intentionally bad faith edit, as can be seen if anyone sees the talk page of the article] On the other hand there can be million links (tourist agency sites or nationalistic fairy tales), but based on what researches? Mustafa Imamovic, Yale professor gave very good interpretation not just in a section which was quoted in the Famous Bosniak site. His book is based on his long research and respectable professor career.--Emir Arven 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC).."

Oj, svijetla majska zoro

This song is an old folk song, that is the present national anthem of Montenegro.

The song originally glorifies the fight of the Serbs against the Turks. Emir Arven removed the original quotes, and replaced them by a blatant unsupported section, full of hatred towards Serbs (especially because the section falls down under trolling). It goes as following: "After the de facto annexation of Montenegro by its war-time ally Serbia at the end of World War I, lyrics have been altered many times in order to make the case of an alleged Serbian heritage of Montenegrins. Nowdays discredited as forgeries, these attempts are widely regarded by both eminent historians and the general public to be politicaly motivated and subservient to a Serbian nationalist agenda and a strategy to covertly assimilate fiercly independent Montenegrins. Various forms of these versions of the text can be found in Serbian press reports and propaganda material, and on the world wide web as well, but they seem to have lost their backing after the collapse of the nationalist regime of Slobodan Milosevic and are now supported by nationalist individuals, rather than a political entity or regime." I repeat that this is solely written as a hate speech towards Serbs (100% Original research).

The Montenegrins have always spoken and most speak now, the Serbian language. However, Emir replaced the language with "Montenegrin language" (a recent thing promoted by a minority of Montenegrin & Croatian linguists). It is to my belief that this edit was made solely & exclusively because it wrote "Serbian". He also replaced the "..The anthem is criticised on the base that its lyrics are the one made by Sekula Drljevic, Montenegrin collaborator with Nazis during WWII." with "..The anthem is criticised on the base that its lyrics are the one made by Sekula Drljevic, a controversial Montenegrin because of his role during WWII, executed by Serbian Communists by the end of that war.." which is another fabrication written solely on the plan to discredit Serbs. If anyone would take a look at Sekule's article, he would discover that the fascist was assassinated by his own soldiers, Montenegrin Chetniks. And lastly, in the edit summary of this POV edit, he wrote: "Serb vandalism! Denying of Montenegrin language! I tried to improve the article."

After this trollish edit of his was reverted, he reverted it back, giving a non-sense explanation in the Edit summary, and then again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again (in the edit summaries he made references to several neo-fascists like Jevrem Brković, but it is irrelevant to note because they AFAIK do not support those edits of his, as has been proven).

Njegoš

Peter II Petrovic-Njegos is the greatest writer of the Serbian language ever. He's a Montenegrin. He made this edit, removing all mentions of Serbs. In the edit summary he wrote: "rv anachronism and serb vandalism! It is just cyrillic not serbian cyrillic; Njegos was a Montenegrin poet, not a Serb poet" He then reverted to his (which is obvious 100% trolling based on an ethnic hatred) version and then again and gain and again and again

At the talk page of the article Emir Arven's pushing can also be noticed. Emir Arven did not even read any of Peter's works. So, I presented to him the only online version of his greatest work and the greatest Serbian Epic ever written: the The Mountain Wreath. Note: Everyone in former Yugoslavia read/reads this. Look how Emir replied: "..The source that you give is completely POV and not acceptable. It is the Serb mythological site."

Some other uncivil points

Over at User_talk:Domitius/Archive1 I discussed history revisionism subject with Domitius; Emir Arven suddenly appeared and wrote: "..But we are small nation, so bigger are alwayes trying to impose their will as Serbs and Croats always did during history. The last genocide commited by Serbs is just an example of hatred which can be tracked to the Middle Ages. That is my opinion. Emir Arven 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)" This can be connected to Emir Arven's edits over at Stephen II of Bosnia, where he tried to present that Serbs constantly hate Bosniaks for almost a thousand years, and whenever I gave occasions of Bosnians & Serbs getting along during the Medieval times, Emir Arven would just constantly repeat how Serbs all the time hate Bosniaks and that bad-faith ethnocentrism of Serbs towards Bosniaks dates back to the very Middle Ages (sic!).

Mood

Bairam came, and as usual, I always send messages to congratulate Bairam to all followers of Islam (that) I know (Emir Arven appears to be a Muslim). See what I wrote here and then his following reply; I wrote: "Bairam is an excellent opportunity to make peace. Isn't it? :-) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)" And this is Emir Arven's response: "When you mention Bairam, old memories come to me, becaue on Bairam, Serb army surrounded Sarajevo and started to kill people. You can see there some pictures and stories The siege of Sarajevo. Bairam is a good muslim holiday, but if you want to learn smth from it, than you should behave, not just destroy as Serb army did with my city. --Emir Arven 19:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)"

I don't think comments are necessary here. The response alone made me extremely sad.

He then below wrote: Anachronism is a form of denial. You are the one that use anachronism when writting the articles, based mostly on Serb sources, which are full of mythology. --Emir Arven 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just down to below he made a comment which is a proof of what I've been saying, how he thinks, claims and spreads (or better, propagates) that Serbs hate Bosniaks since the middle ages: "They never shared full territorial unity except in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Pinceses didnt rule Bosnia, just males. [indicating that he doesn't know history by the way, I'll be damned if Queen Jelena Gruba is of male sex] Bosnian rulers and their knights had many fights with Serbs. It is well known that Bosnian rulers supported Bosnian Church which was the reason that Serbian rulers used to send complaints to Pope asking him to attack Bosnia. Bosnian rulers used to marry princesses from other countries in Europe not just from Serbia. Serbs naver liked Bosnians because of their religion, not then, not now.--Emir Arven 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)"

He then accused me of supporting the controversial Serbophobia article:"Because your sources are irrelevant. On the second hand, you have already supported another Serb myth called Serbophobia as I can remeber. I have not seen any serious source or research about Mehmed Pasha. --Emir Arven 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)" Controversial as it may be, Serbophobia is not a myth, it is Anti-Serbian sentiment, which appears to be present in Emir's case. However, I did not support the drat of that article - once I informed Emir that I voted neutral on its AfD (not be seen bad in the eyes of anyone), Emir Arven wrote this:"Your neutral vote was obvious. If you really want true, you should show that.--Emir Arven 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)" He actually blamed me for that.

To the below, a neutral administrator warned him about the WP:NPOV policy. This was Emir's reply to him: "..you are not even close to be neutral.--Emir Arven 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC).." and "What Serbs? For instance Serb Radical Party, whose president is a war criminal now in ICTY, views all Bosniaks and Croats as Serbs (Serb Muslims and Serb Croats). A million people in Serbia voted for that party. They based their war policy of aggression on Bosnia and Croatia, on that thesis, because they consider Bosnia and Croatia as Serb lands. Not all referneces should be put in the article, because many of them are crap and it is very dangerous to create another Serb myth. We dont need another Milosevis and Mladic in the Balkans.--Emir Arven 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" Highly uncivil, and taking to granted the other things this user said, is fueled by stereotype.

Further below, he wrote: "I am not a sick-minded man [referring to me] to suck up everyone's ass [..] Your problem is that your knowledge is thin so you resort to lying"

After User:DragonflySixtyseven (rightfully) blocked him for revert-warring, personal attacks & incivility, Emir Arven appealed against him, even sent complaints to other administrators (uncivil).

---

Conclusion

This is only a fringe (i.e. one 100th bit) of the aggressive and abusive behavior that User:Emir Arven exposed, and in the end, a very bad ethnic hatred towards Serbs and Croats could be seen in his words if carefully examined. There can be seen a huge pattern of such actions, from the day when he came to present-day. If anyone needs more info (as this is only a trickle of Emir Arven's actions), one only needs to see through his contributions, or more precisely ask me for links, as I have recorded in detail many of his nationalist outbursts. --PaxEquilibrium 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for solution

I do not advice block or ban.

I strongly urge the Wikipedian Community to warn User:Emir Arven because of his behavior and to put him on probation (i.e. watch him closely). But heck, this is only me and I might be wrong. --PaxEquilibrium 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.