WIKIPEDIA:REQUESTS FOR COMMENT FERICK

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC).

Ferick ( talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Ferick ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly edited Kosovo-related articles in a way that violates multiple Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:CON and WP:NOR, as well as persistently engaging in edit wars.

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of disputed behaviour

Repeatedly deleting cited content for POV reasons: [1], [2], [3]
Repeatedly ignoring consensus to impose his own version: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
Making personal attacks on other users: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]
Rejecting consensus as invalid: [18]
Rejecting to refer to Wikipedia's policy: [19]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Extensive discussion on Talk:Kosovo, in particular under:

Mediation request rejected by Ferick: [20]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

ALKIVAR ™ 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes~~, but protecting pages that you are involved in editing is indeed bad, as Ferick suggests. Stifle ( talk) 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)~~ But protecting pages that you are involved in editing should only be done in response to extreme vandalism, that cannot be resolved any other way, and could not be resolved by listing the page on WP:RFPP and waiting it out. Stifle ( talk) 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Marko M 07:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
TheronJ 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Response

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

Outside views

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

Outside view by Kieran T

I wasn't sure if I could write here in "outside view" because I've edited on Talk:Kosovo – but I've not directly conversed with Ferick, and so it's been suggested I can go ahead and contribute here. So here are my thoughts on his behaviour (largely copied from the discussion page for this RfC):

I agree with most of what's been said, and that Ferick has clearly broken some of the guidelines / rules, as documented, and isn't carefully considering the views of other people. But I stop short of signing the endorsement because I think it should be noted that more than once he has been antagonised by people with equally partisan views against his, and also, frankly, by less than sympathetic rebuttals from otherwise fair and civil editors. I feel it's also important to remember that we're writing about a place which was part of a war in very recent memory. I don't know Ferick and sure, he may just be trolling. But it's also possible that he lost people in the fighting, and is extremely emotionally affected by it. This doesn't give him carte blanche to mess up Wikipedia, but I do think the possibility should remain in the minds of people making any sort of disciplinary decision against him. – Kieran T ^{(
talk |
contribs)} 11:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply