Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/REX

Case Opened on 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• REX (talk · contribs) has complained regarding the behavior of
• Theathenae (talk · contribs) with respect to articles concerning Arvanitika.

The case has beeen opened mainly to consider the behavior of REX

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 1 (REX)

On the Wikipedia article Arvanites there has been a dispute going on for quite some time over whether the Arvanitic language is a language in its own right or a dialect of the Albanian language.
I have provided the following references:

• Encarta refers to Arvanitic as a variant of Albanian.
• UNESCO RED BOOK ON ENDANGERED LANGUAGES: EUROPE refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian
• Ethnologue calls the language Arvanitika Albanian.

These are wholly credible sources, especially UNESCO which is an agency of the United Nations and they specifically refer to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Albanian. User:Theathenae utterly rejects these sources and will edit war anyone who disagrees with him, however credible his opponent’s sources may be. He has written on the article Arvanites: Their language, Arvanitic has developed separately from Tosk Albanian and has been heavily influenced by Greek over the course of the past five centuries, to the extent that it is today considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike. This statement is utterly his POV. He has provided no evidence to support such a statement and it contradicts with what UNESCO says. He also says on Talk:Arvanites that the article sould say: Their language, Arvanitic shares a common origin with the Tosk Albanian language this statement is also wholly inaccurate because it calls Arvanitic a language which shares a common origin with Tosk Albanian, rather like English and German are separate languages which share a common origin. This statement is also influenced by his POV and contradicts with UNESCO's statement. I have pleaded with him on his Talk Page and on Talk:Arvanites for him to consider his stance carefully, but he refuses only saying that (quote from Talk:Arvanites): I will continue to defend their right not to be labelled against their will. This statement that it is against their will is quite inaccurate. The Helsinki Report on Human Rights clearly says that some Arvanites use the term Shqiptar to describe themselves, that is the same term that Albanians use to describe themselves. Therefore, how can being called Albanians be against their will? Anyway, UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue wouldn't use that phrasing if it were against their will as he puts it. The UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue Reports were written by professionals, they knew what they were doing. I have proved all his sources to be false here but he has not indicated that he will observe Wikipedia policy. His behaviour is utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia I have told him on many occasions, but he refuses to listen. I have asked him to provide some references so that I could know that the scholarly community view Arvanitic as a separate language and not that he is not speaking off the top of his head (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). He can't, I have already demonstrated above that at least linguistically Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian, and my sources above indicate that the scholarly establishment view it the same way (Both the UNESCO Report and the Ethnologue Report were compiled by professional linguists). If a certain phrasing is good enough for an agency of the UN (UNESCO), then it is certainly good enough for Wikipedia. We simply cannot accept User:Theathenae’s word over the word of institutions like UNESCO. This would be a violation of Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. REX 11:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional statement by REX, motivated by renaming of case

As I don't know what I am being accused of ("considering the behaviour of REX" is very vague and does not refer to any specific transgression), I'll do my best to defend the behaviour I suspect you are referring to. I apologise if this is too much, but the relevant evidence would have been on the preliminary statements, but for some reason the name of the dispute has changed and with it, the focal point of the statements. Firstly, and I would like to make this quite clear, my behaviour broadly reflects the behaviour of almost everyone on the relevant talk pages (mostly Talk:Arvanites and Talk:Macedonia (Slav)). I suspect you know by now that the nature of the disputes, in both cases, is in reference to content and phrasing. These disputes have been going on for about five months. They already existed before I joined in; this can be ascertained by checking the discussion on the relevant talk pages. My views, in both cases, were always backed by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These sources were usually Official Reports or Encyclopaedia articles from other encyclopaedias (not Wikipedia).

In the Arvanites dispute, the questionable points can be seen at this diff. All my edits were fully compatible with Wikipedia policy and were true, as opposed to Theathenae's which were original research and lacked any verifiability whatsoever or contradicted what existing sources said. He hadn't provided any sources so that other editors could know where he got his information.

In detail, my sources are as follows:

• • I say that Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρε̰ Shqiptarë is another self-identifying name for this ethnic-group and Theathenae says that it isn't. According to the HHRC's report: They call themselves Arvanites (in Greek) and Arberor (in their language); but in Northwestern Greece, in their language, they use the term Shqiptar (the same used by Albanians of Albania), a term strongly disliked by the other Arvanites, who also resent being called Albanians. This is a difficult situation, because the article in question applies to both these groups but, depending on location, they use different names to refer to themselves, and the name used by one of these groups is found offensive by the other. Theathenae wishes to remove the name Shqiptar on the grounds that the Arvanites of North-western Greece are not Arvanites since they don't identify as Arvanites, but as Albanians. This claim, which may be true, has no verifiability and is original research. What I want to say is backed by the above source and according to policy my version can be used, but his cannot.
  • The and Arvanitë in Albanian is an attempt to compromise with Theathenae because it emphasises the differences between Arvanites and Albanians, given that modern Albanians don't call the Arvanites of North-western Greece Shqiptar (ie Albanians) like they call themselves, but Arvanite (ie Arvanites) means that the Albanians do NOT view the Arvanites as Albanians. Theathenae rejects this (I don't know why). The verifiability of my claim can be found in any Albanian dictionary (that Arvanit means Arvanite), but it should be noted that its verifiability has never been challenged. It has just been called redundant.
  • The a variety of as promoted by me and the closely related to modern Tosk Albanian but has evolved separately over the course of the past five centuries as promoted by Theathenae is also disputed. UNESCO calls the language Arvanitika Albanian and says that it is a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian (it should also be noted that Britannica calls it a dialect of Albanian and Encarta calls is a variant of Albanian, at the article Albanian language in both encyclopaedias. Given that these are not readily accessible online without payment of a fee, I have not used them as my only sources). I have been prepared to leave out Albanian from the name of the language, that is why now it is just called Arvanitika, for the sake of avoiding a massive dispute on the subject (I however fail to see why I should compromise and make all the first moves, given that I am the one with the sources) The word variety is a linguistic term and can refer to a dialect or a variety of a standard language in its own right, and is another concession from me. The diaspora dialect (which is verifiable and can be used according to Wikipedia policy) seems to be something that can provoke and edit war, so I replaced it with the rather subtle word variety. Theathenae rejects this in favour of his original research. The evolved separately over the course of the past five centuries which is promoted by Theathenae has no verifiability and is original research derived from the fact that the Arvanites have been in the area which is now Greece (when they moved it was part of the Ottoman Empire) for about five hundred years. That does not mean that it has evolved on its own. According to the HHRC report cited above, all Arvanites were called Albanians and identified as such until the establishment of a Greek state, when they were subject to hellenisation. The Greek state was established in 1830, so Arvanitika was only isolated from mainstream Albanian for about 175 years. This is of course original research on my part, but so is Theathenae's. That is why it is my argument that neither should be used. Theathenae again rejects this.
  • I say that Most Arvanites strongly dislike being called Albanians, but the Arvanites of North-Western Greece do identify as Albanians and call themselves Σ̈κ̇ιπτάρε̰ Shqiptarë. This statement is true according to the HHRC's report I have cited above and therefore is verifiable and can be used in the article. Theathenae removes it in favour of They strongly dislike their language being called "Albanian" and also resent being called Albanians. This is misleading and inaccurate and is obviously a blatant attempt to suppress he fact that the Arvanites of North-western Greece (Epirus and Western Macedonia) do identify as Albanians. I fail to see why he wants to remove such an accurate statement (which gives an accurate view of the situation in the Arvanitic Community as described by the HHRC report).

As I have become tired of constant edit wars and harsh arguments etc I finally gave up and violated Wikipedia's no original research policy and drew a distinction between the two groups of Arvanites: the ones who identify as Albanians and the ones who do not. I incorporated the Albanian identifying Arvanites into the Albanians article (check diff) calling them The Orthodox Christian Albanian minority, which is located in North-western Greece and has been there since the Middle Ages. Their number is estimated at about 30,000. While de facto, it is true it is still original research and lacks proper verifiability as all sources call these people Arvanites.

I think that my display of willingness to compromise and good faith are overwhelming. In this case, I don't have the behaviour problem, but Theathenae does (something which appears to be a popular misconception around here). When I invited him to talk so that we could resolve this dispute, he never answered; he would blank out his talk page. Check diff 1 diff 2. As you will have undoubtedly noticed by now, I have made attempts to compromise and invitations to discuss and to reach a consensus. Theathenae obviously wishes not to (I still fail to see why my behaviour is being considered here and not his) and will consider nothing less than his POV. If one were to check his entry in the Block Log, he/she would notice that he has a slightly longer record of Wikipedia policy violating than myself and in conjunction with the fact that his Swedish user Arvanítis has been banned from the Swedish Wikipedia for POV pushing, we can assume that his behaviour has been scrutinised before with unfavourable results.

Another major problem in these disputes was the verbal conduct of most parties. As these disputes have been going on for so long, over time all parties became frustrated and personal attacks became common on both sides. A similar conduct was observed on Talk:Macedonia (Slav). Over time, I have been called diff a far-right Albanian nationalist, diff someone with narrow-minded far-right Albanian fanaticism, and Albanau was equated with the UÇK. In this one, the personal attack was in Greek, but it still was a personal attack. Here I am being called an Albanian extremist. Here, I am (amongst others) being ridiculed because I am from a former-Communist Eastern European country. Of course these are just isolated examples taken out of context and I understand that because I have made my fair share of personal attacks, I do not have the right to complain about the ones made against me. I am just pointing out that personal attacks can be found on both sides, so it is not just my behaviour which is worthy of being considered for PA, but many other people who are in these disputes. I would also like you to take into consideration as aspect of Theathenae's behaviour which could accurately be called double standards. He professes on Talk:Arvanites that the Arvanites are being named against their will by calling a minority group of Arvanites Albanians (which is what they call themselves), but on Talk:Macedonia (Slav) he couldn't care less that the ethnic group discussed dislike being called Macedonian Slavs and call themselves Macedonians, but he insists on calling them Macedonian Slavs. In other words, the principle of calling a people a name against their will is bad in some articles, but it is allowed on others. Again, in the Talk:Macedonia (Slav) dispute his views are not backed by reliable sources nor Wikipedia policy, whereas mine are.

Anyway, my whole point here is to demonstrate here that it is not fair to just consider my behaviour, when the same kind of behaviour can be found on other users, especially when taking into consideration that the arguments put forward by me and my edits were fully compatible with Wikipedia policy as opposed to theirs which was not (ie they have violated more policies) and I have actually tried to solve this dispute and displayed good faith and they won't even co-operate. In other words, there is worse behaviour out there than mine, and I don't believe that it would be fair to just consider mine. A solution for all these problems in general should be found (perhaps forbidding personal attacks as it has been suggested by various users). REX 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statements by others

Statement by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

I've intervened in this little brawl a couple of times, at first to deal with a page protection issue, latterly to kill an edit war-cum-shouting match with a brief block to the participants.

Against my feelings that I should be more discreet and get involved less in arbcom cases, I've been asked to intervene and put the case for dismissal, a case which believe in very strongly.

This is a piddling little dispute, mainly a matter of breakdown of good faith and communication between theathenae, REX and a third party who hasn't been mentioned here. Fred Bauder may well have a point that some Greeks find REX's description of the Arvanitic language as a dialect of albanian insulting, and I'm not a linguistics expert so I cannot say whether it has any merit.

Whatever that may be, the parties haven't even begun to explore the possibilities of dispute resolution yet. They're not well versed in Wikipedia policy and I suspect that nobody has really sat down and explained to them that they're expected to do anything other than scream and throw things at one another if they have a difference of opinion. This is abominable behavior, but doesn't appear to involve malice, but rather an unfamiliarity with the territory in which they find themselves.

I had decided to work with these people and try to bring them through this to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I think I have had some limited success; the edit war has died down and I think they're likely to listen to advice. I need more time and it cannot work if an arbitration case is brought. Please grant me that time. The committee should not be getting involved in affairs where there are still editors of good faith and proven skills willing to try to heal the situation without the huge and potentially damaging upheaval of an investigation. The committee has also, if I may say so, taken on a huge caseload for itself in the past couple of weeks. Even though there may soon be more mid-term appointments, this case would in my opinion be an unnecessary burden on an already overloaded committee.

I ask the committee to reject this case.

Statement by party 4 - Matia.gr (talk · contribs)

I was trying to gather some evidence on my user page. I didn't wanted this to end in RFArb and I've tried many other ways to solve these. I've asked in the past various admins to help me regarding personal attacks by REX (talk · contribs). I've also contacted Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs). I believe he presumed bad faith for me. I want to clear my name and leave this project. I'm too frustrated to do anything - gather evidence, support my case, proove that there was indeed a census in Arvanites, etc. I believe Mr Tony Sidaway has misused his admin priviledges, when he blocked me while I wasn't even editing. I've requested for an apology. I can't find where he warned me or the other two users. Probably he should apologise to REX and Theathenae too. Someday someone will show what happened in Arvanites. I just want to clear my name. +MATIA ☎ 22:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What I've gathered so far is on my userpage. +MATIA ☎ 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've stated many times in the past that I don't want REX to be blocked, and this haven't changed. I apologise for the lack of proper structure and good wording of my statement, but I'm unable to write an essay tonite. +MATIA ☎ 23:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by MarkSweep (uninvolved party)

I was briefly involved as an administrator in the debate on Talk:Arvanites, instating page protection, and trying to get the three main parties to work out their dispute. As I understand it, the content debate is actually quite simple to resolve: all parties should refrain from insisting that their terminology and their version of the facts is the absolute truth. The NPOV alternative is quite simple: describe all relevant viewpoints fairly and neutrally, to the extent that they can be verifiably attributed to reliable sources. While cultural identity in the Balkans is a touchy subject, Wikipedia contributors have successfully dealt with many other subjects that are just as hard or harder.

While the content dispute would seem to be rather minor and not something the ArbCom is expected to get involved in, the fact that the debate is so drawn out and bitter indicates that there's a serious problem here with the behavior of the three main parties. Their exchanges are characterized by name-calling, abusive remarks, filibustering, accusations of lying and general lack of good faith, etc., and the whole debate seems to be going in circles while drawing in more and more pages (most recently WP:AN and WP:AN/I). Revert paroles and personal attack paroles, perhaps even as part of a preliminary injunction, may be in order. --MarkSweep✍ 09:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Chronographos (tangentially involved party)

REX repeatedly engages in disruptive behavior: firstly he probably edits under at least two accounts, REX and Rexhep Bojaxhiu, and possibly a third one, GrandfatherJoe. A glance at the respective "three" editors' contributions is most revealing. I wonder how the aforementioned possible sockpuppetry should best be investigated. I could go on and on about his particular "style", but it all pales into insignificance in view of his latest transgression.

As you may know, there is a rather bitter dispute going on, regarding the articles about the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonian Slavs ethnic group and related matters and articles. Since rivalling POV's, mainly expressing views predominant in the various Balkan countries, have been clashing without many signs of compromise, the titles of the two articles were settled by two editor polls, one in November 2003 and one in June 2005.

Since the June 2005 poll there has been a Request for Comments (which attracted very little outside attention), and talk about a Request for Mediation (without a firm conclusion so far). In other words, dispute resolution has not been too successful, so far. And then came REX who, in association with Bomac, arbitrarily decided to move the Macedonian Slavs article by sequentially redirecting it to Macedonians (ethnicity), Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (nation), all within approximately 60 minutes, the title of the Macedonian Slavs article being of course at the very heart of the dispute in the first place.

Also, this technique of using sockpuppets and "minor edits" is one of the many that REX has used in order to evade a 3RR block, in addition to being an action that contradicts the June 2005 editor poll and the ongoing efforts at dispute resolution. He has repeatedly engaged in revert wars (using the aforementioned techniques) while challenging his "opponents" to break the 3RR rule and be blocked (he promptly reports them if they take the bait). Chronographos 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hardly anything that Chronographos has said above is true. I admit that Rexhep Bojaxhiu is my sockpuppet and I have always done so. The sockpuppet sign has always been at the head of the user page. I have taken into consideration the policy on sockpuppets and while using a second account is not encouraged, if it is not used to double vote in polls or to violate the 3RR or to impersonate another user (I have always had the sockpuppet sign on the user page), I am not violating the policy. I reject the accusation of having anything to do with GrandfatherJoe. I would also like to say that I did not decide to move the Macedonian Slavs page and did not move it in the first place (or mastermind it), but I engaged in the edit war by chance, just like Chronographos and Miskin did. As regards to Chronographos's latest accusation, I would like to say that it is untrue and that that can be ascertained by the fact that he has not provided any supporting diffs and has taken my behaviour out of context and made wide generalisations. My behaviour on that talk page resembles the behaviour of everybody else (including Chronographos) and I would also like to point out that I have never violated the 3RR or challenged any other users to violate it using any of the tactics mentioned by Chronographos. I have only violated the rule once and have been blocked for 24 hours accordingly. As for his accusation of disruptive behaviour, I would like to point out that on Talk:Macedonian Slavs, I am the one (amongst others) who accepted and promoted the idea of mediation as a means of solving this dispute and Chronographos (amongst others) rejected the proposal for trivial reasons. I would like to condemn Chronographos's statement as grossly inaccurate, misleading, irrelevant to this case and untrue in many areas. REX 18:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved party GrandfatherJoe

I would like to inform the arbitration committee that this case is not as simple as it may appear to be. This request is part of a dispute that extends over many pages including Macedonian Slavs, Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia, Albanian language, Albanians, Albania, Kosovo and Arvanitika. This dispute seems to be ethnically motivated with people from various Balkan nationalities attempting to force their views on the intertwined issues on the pages. Firstly, I would like to make quite clear that the behaviour of all parties is unacceptable. There have been edit wars, personal attacks of a political and a racist nature from all sides. In my opinion, the problem lies in the fact that all parties are refusing to listen to each other and only think that what they want to say is right. If one was to glance at the talk pages of the aforementioned articles, they would notice a series of personal attacks and clear signs of unwillingness to listen to each other. There have been incidents of sock puppetry (I have even been accused of being a sock puppet) and flouting of Wikipedias rules regarding reverts (the 3RR). In my opinion, the arbitration committee should come up with a way to include all POVs and not simply enforce one. I also think that forbidding personal attacks wouldn't hurt. These disputes have been going on for too long and they all are motivated by nationalism. Needless to remind you that World War I was triggered by Balkan nationalism. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by tangentially involved party FlavrSavr

I'm not directly involved in the Arvanites dispute, but I am involved in the Macedonian Slavs dispute. It is true that REX, Matia, and Theathenae were engaged in series of personal attacks, and I have discouraged them to do that. Regardless who started, they should stop it. I don't know much about the Arvanites dispute - the majority of them dislikes being called Albanians. However, according to this report [1] (provided by REX), this does not apply to the Arvanites in Nortwestern Greece. As for their language, on the net, I really haven't found any reference to it as a language separate from Albanian. If there are such sources, they should have been presented in the talk page. There is much sensitivity in this issue that should be taken into consideration, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of linguists refers to their tongue as a dialect/variety of Albanian. (See NPOV#Undue_Weight). That doesn't mean that they regard themselves/are as ethnic Albanians, and I don't see any attempt to label them such. The Macedonian Slavs article is another case. Wikipedia actually has a specific policy on this matter - Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms. The vast majority of foreign sources and encyclopedias refers to them as "Macedonians" (their self-identifying term), while Theathenae, somewhat ironically, does not find the need to defend their right to be labeled against their will, in this case. --FlavrSavr 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by tangentially involved party Bomac

As FlavrSavr, I too am not directly involved in the Arvanites dispute, but I am involved in the Macedonian Slavs dispute. About Arvanites in Northwestern Greece, it is obvious (and more than that) that many sources are referring to them as related to Albanians (Helsinki report). The same goes for their language: it is not a separate language from Albanian. So, we should trust the various experts about this issue, and not some amateur natonalists. Now, about Macedonian Slavs. I think that I, REX and some other users made signifficant steps towards ending this dispute. We've changed the first Image that was "insulting" for some (mainly Greek) users, we've let them to erase the number of Macedonians in Greece etc., and still they find smth. that doesn't serves them well. I am getting the view that only I, REX and others want to end this dispute, and other users (I must first mention Chronographos, who is extremely unpolite, then Theathenae etc.) are only there to provoke and quarrel. They are not doing anything constructive. Their weapon is only attacking and quarreling. My opinion is that this request for arbitraton for REX is really non-sence and not fair. Regards. Bomac 11:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved party Miskin

• About the Arvanites: What most people (especially Albanians) fail to realise is that today there's no such thing as "Arvanites", there's only Greeks of Arvanite origin. Why? Because the so-called "Arvanites" choose to believe so. In fact it would be an insult for any Greek of such origin not to be regarded as Greek, especially because Albanian nationalists would want so. Similarly, it would be an insult for a French of Brittany to be regarded as British rather than French. In other words I think of this as a rather fundamental concept that only extremist minds choose to misinterpret.
• About Arvanitika: As wikipedia and any other encyclopedia defines it, the criteria used to draw a line between a language and a dialect are socio-linguistic and not plainly linguistic. I'm not familiar with the Arvanite language, but I'm familiar with what "Arvanite people" and I know what they think about their grandfathers' language and about themselves. In that respect I don't have a linguistic opinion on the subject but I have a social one. What is factual: The people that Albanians call Arvanites do not recognise themselves as an Albanian ethnic group, do not claim any ethnic affiliations to Albania, do not consider that their language is a dialect of Albanian, and regard themselves ethnically Greek (as they're regarded by others). In that respect, wikipedia is obliged to consider Arvanitika as a separate language, otherwise Croatian should be regarded as a dialect of Serbian, Macedonian Slavic as a dialect of Bulgarian etc, etc. Albanian POV is ridiculously trying to force an Albanian ethnic status on an ethnically Greek population.
• About REX: I may be wrong, but I've never seen this user making edits that are not part of an ethnic edit-war in which Greek people are involved. Like I said, I may be wrong. All I know is that him and User:Bomac have been almost vandalising the article Macedonian Slavs by trying to pass ridiculous POVs and move its name to Macedonians (by force). The existence of such editors is that evidence that wikipedia can never be trusted when it comes down to ethnic articles. Anyone can edit and admins are sick of protecting, therefore the person who has the most free time to waste will win the edit-war (by being on the internet 20 hours a day).

Regards. Miskin 15:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: In regard to Miskin's statement on the Arvanites according to the HHRC's Report and the UNESCO as well as Britannica and Encarta (on the Albanian language article, but you can't see it without paying a fee) he is wrong. My edits can be seen at this diff and they are explained fully above and it is also explained why they are fully compatible with Wikipedia policy and should be used. He obviously didn't read it because he is accusing me of things I have never done. As for his accusation of me never having made edits that are not part of an ethnic edit-war in which Greek people are involved, I say take a look at these edits on Greece related articles (I see no signs of hate, do you?):

• diff: I added the phonetics infoboxes on to the Greek language article. They were highly thought of and are still there today. I also added a series of examples of Greek with full IPA pronunciation guide.
• diff: I conformed the article Greek language to the standard language form (ie general reorganization) and added links to the phonetics infoboxes. Widely accepted and still in use today.
• diff: I added the Greek alphabet links. Widely accepted and still in use today.
• diff: I add a sample of the Nicene Creed in Greek. In polytonic text, very time consuming to prepare and extremely hard to write (most letters are inserted from the Symbols on Microsoft Word). Widely accepted and still in use today.

I believe that it is perfectly clear that I am NOT waging an ethnic edit-war, as Miskin puts it, against Greeks, I have valuable and NPOV edits to Greece-related articles, and I believe that this is an indication of Good Faith against the Greeks or against any nationality. If anyone were to check my contributions they would notice that I do not focus solely on Balkan issues ar just Greece related articles. Given that Miskin's statement was a cheap mud-throwing meant to defocus the issues and try to conceal the fact that Miskin considers anyone who disagrees with his views has to be anti-Greek. I would like to remind you of my "proven" statement above. The evidence that my behaviour shouldn't be considered here, but Theathenae's is overwhelming. Actually the first personal attack came from him (check edit summary, he calls Albanau an Albanian extremist) and that lead to a chain reaction of retaliations. Before that personal attack of his there were NO personal attacks, on the talk page, or anywhere else. His disruptive behaviour has been scrutinised before. His identity on the Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Användare:Arvanítis has been banned (check Block log) for promoting what the Swedish administrators have called pro-grekisk propaganda (ie Pro-Greek Propaganda). People say that my edits are pro-Albanian POV. That is not true as I have demonstrated above, as my edits are just the truth. There is no attempt to conceal facts or promote true facts. I have just demonstrated (with evidence) that Miskin's statement is predominantly untrue and misleading. It's not fair that my behaviour is being placed under scrutiny here while there is worse behaviour going on on the same pages. It is also not fair that the accusations against me are being concealed by the arbitrators. How am I supposed to defend myself adequately against accusations I don't know? I have asked each arbitrator what I was being accused of, and NO ONE would (or could) tell me. Every other arbitration case has specific accusations against the "defendant", why not me? Why am I being subject to such unfair treatment? REX 17:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Comments: The articles you linked by Britannica and Encarta pretty much summarised what I just explained to you. Linguistically Arvanitika does undoubtly stem from Albanian, but whether it's going to be officially regarded as its dialect, depends solely to its speakers, and not to you. As the Helsinki report states, the Greeks of Arvanite origin abhor having their language called "Albanian", which pretty much settles the discussion here. Similarly the Griko-speaking community of Southern Italy would have every right to regard its speech as a separate language from Greek, but for historical reason it doesn't choose to do so. However the Arvanite-speaking community of Greece does choose to consider Arvanitika as a separate language (and your own sources verify this), therefore wikipedia is obliged to do so and there's nothing you can do about it. In fact I don't even know why we're still discussing this. Personally I regards parts of the Helsinki report heavily biased, e.g. the part where it points out how Arvanitika is never taught in Greek schools, implying that the Greek government is trying to kill the language (when in reality it has obtained a status of an endangered language). As for you attempt to camouflage all the petty-vandalism you've been occasionally causing to ethnic articles, it almost makes you sound as greasy as a real lawyer. You can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the times. Miskin 16:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by tangentially involved party Macedonian

• As FlavrSavr, Bomac and several others, I was not much included in the issue of Arvanites, but I am involved in the Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs) dispute and several others concerning modern Macedonia.
• About Arvanites in Northwestern Greece, I am definitly not an expert on the field. But, I know that they are reffered to as people with clear Albanian origin who speak Albanian related language. The proofs about this are more than clear for anyone who is neutral on this issue.
• The only family I personaly have met that identifies itself with the term "Arvanites" is a rich family from Solun (Thesaloniki), whose name I would only reveal to some administrator (if needed), who can promise me they to stay anonimous. Even the youngest member of that family, who is about 20 years old explained to me clearly that he is Greek with Albanian origin. So, all my comments on this issue will go in favor of this comment. I beleive that everybody has a right of self identification, which is actually one of the most basic human rights.
• Here, I would like to stress something, that I think that should be strongly considered in this (and any following) case concerning the minorities in Greece (no matter are we talking about Albanians, Macedonians, Turkish, Bulgarians, Roma or anyone else).
• Greece does not recognize any mnorities in its borders (except a Muslim religious minority). It constantly denies any basic human rights to those people, using every single chance it has to assimilate them and make them forget their origin. The worse thing is that this situation last for centuries. And, besides the constant reports which strongly criticise the Greek politics and behaviour on this issue, nothing has be done to fix this terible unjustice.
• Greece is a place where the democracy was born, but now it is the place where democracy has died.
• I have to appologise for my strong words, but I beleive that it is unthinkable some country, which is actually a part of EU not to give any human rights to its minorities. For anyone who want to accuse me for these strong words, I would ask him first to read something more about this issue and then to make conclusions.
• I do not want to give you direct links towards several pages that support this claim of mine. I will give a link towards google's search of +"Human rights" +"Greece":
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2B%22Human+rights%22+%2B%22Greece%22
• Here you can find 1000s, even millions of pages considering this topic. There you can easily find what all happened and is still happening in Greece to anyone who wants to protect his own origin.
• I strongly beleive that this arbitration is direct product of that assimilative politics from the Greek side towards anyone who wants to reveal the truth about the terrible situation of the minorities in Greece.
• Actually, these disputes about the 2 topics topics ("Arvanites" and "Macedonians") are both motivated with one single goal: To hide that Greece actually has numerous population of non-Greek origin. I would like to ask anyone who is included in this arbitration to pick some more knowledge on these 2 topics in order to have a clear picture of the problem.
• I am sure that you have noticed, but I have to stress that out again... REX is only attacked by users which have clear Greek origin, which are only trying to push their own POV (despite the numerous sources which oppose it). REX's only sin is that he promotes the truth about the country that he also originates from (Greece). And his strong, but also provoced and most often justified reactions to the personal racial and nationalistic attacks from Theathenae and some other users towards him.
• In my oppinion, this arbitration is motivated by one reason only: To throw dirt over the name of REX, to make him waste a lot of his time in deffending himself (instead of concentrating on real work of promoting on Wikipedia's NPOV) and finaly to make him shut up and let the Greek assimilative POV (no matter of how wrong it is) keep beeing promoted here on Wikipedia.
• At the same end I would like to say a word or two about the Theathenae.
• 1)This user was already banned on some Wikipedia's as a promotor of Greek POV.
• 2) Just a part of the stile of comments of Theathenae:

And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him?

I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like his face. What are you gonna do about it?--Theathenae 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What??? Theathenae? Is that a response??? I am calling the admin to react on this. Ivica83 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here is a link that proves that this is Theathenae's comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia&diff=prev&oldid=20711858
• I would like to add that somewhere before I used the nickname I_sterbinski, but latter I gave it for someone else to use it. The comment mentioned above is not mine, but I completely share that oppinion and simphatise with the tragedy of 1000s of Macedonian (and other) families that were runned away from Greece just because of their non-Greek identity.
• This arbitration is just another assimilation attempt by Theathenae. It is up to you will you support it. Macedonian 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: The first personal attack came from User:Theathenae (check edit summary, he calls Albanau an Albanian extremist) and that lead to a chain reaction of retaliations. Before that personal attack of his there were NO personal attacks, on the talk page, or anywhere else. His disruptive behaviour has been scrutinised before. His identity on the Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Användare:Arvanítis has been banned (check Block log) for promoting what the Swedish administrators have called pro-grekisk propaganda (ie Pro-Greek Propaganda). People say that my edits are pro-Albanian POV, check my 'additional statement' above where a diff withe every point of differnce can be seem and all mine are accounted for in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. REX 12:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Reject, I might entertain a complaint against REX (talk · contribs) for repeatedly insisting on referring to a language used by Greeks as "Albanian" (which I know to be insulting), but in the absence of input by Theathenae (talk · contribs) making such a complaint and in consideration of our considerable docket, I will refrain. As Stephen Gaskin a spiritual teacher once said. "When you are wrong; quit" Fred Bauder 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to consider the behavior of REX (talk · contribs) Fred Bauder 19:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept as with Fred. James F. (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept as with Fred ➥the Epopt 13:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin 11:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that nationalist perspectives of both minority and majority groups should be included in Wikipedia articles.

Passed 6-0

No personal attacks

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks forbids personal attacks. As applied to this case, as editors with a nationalistic point of view are welcome to contribute that point of view, it is inappropriate to attack them for holding such views, or to bait or badger them with respect to those views.

Passed 6-0

Probation

3) Editors who are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policies with respect to issues which arise with respect to certain articles may be temporarily or permanently banned from editing those articles.

Passed 6-0

Findings of fact

Focus of dispute

1) The nominal focus of this dispute is the articles Arvanites and Arvanitic language. The nominal dispute is over whether the Arvanitic language is to be characterized as a language in its own right or as a dialect of Albanian language [2].

Passed 6-0

Personal attacks

2) Matia.gr, Theathenae, and REX have made personal attacks regarding each other with respect to nationalistic attitudes, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/REX/Workshop#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_REX

Passed 6-0

Remedies

Personal attack parole

1) Matia.gr, Theathenae, and REX are placed on personal attack parole.

Passed 6-0

Enforcement

Enforcement by ban

1) The personal attack parole may be enforced by brief bans, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Passed 6-0