File talk:EU on kosovo independence.png

Hello,

I have protected this image because of the editwar.

Until you have sorted out what image should be used the protection will be maintaind. When you ready please come to my talk page. Sterkebaktalk 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The current edit has no sources to back it up. The edit I made has the sources and they are listed in description and I will put them on here too per request by SterkeBak:

• Fico v Belehrade: Medzinárodný súd musí uznať protiprávnosť Kosova, Slovak PM voices strong support for Serbia - Roberto Fico said that he is "convinced that the declaration of Kosovo's independence was not in line with international law".

• Slovakia ardent in opposing Kosovo independence Robert Fico: “Today, I do not exclude the possibility that Slovakia will never recognize Kosovo. Kosovo is not some independent territory, it is an integral part of Serbia where Serbs, and members of the Albanian ethnic minority live.”

• Briefing of diplomatic correspondents by Foreign Ministry spokesman Mr. G. Koumoutsakos - "we have taken our positions based on this in every case – there is the basic principle of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states. Based on this principle – which is of long-standing importance to, and is a fundamental constant of, the Greek foreign policy of all Greek governments – Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

I don't see any content dispute (quotes are so clear that they couldn't be clearer, admins on english wikipedia called them strong and stable evidence and so on), the only thing I see is superficialness where anyone can come in and vandalise an image without of course giving any sources or reasons and get away with it. Now let's see what is there to discuss?--Avala (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Avala thanks for your reaction. As a answer to your quistion, if other users als can give a source than we need to discuss. If nobody give a source....Than we are done and i will revert it. Now it's just wait and see. Sterkebaktalk 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well sources aren't always needed but I guess it's better to have it, see COM:NPOV where it states it really doesn't need a source, but the one giving best reason, well.. then we've solved this. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There ought to be some order here. If the image is trying to reflect the reality and to be of any value on other projects than we need to backup any edits by valid sources to prevent vandalism. Otherwise we could have a file on French flag getting changed to pink-green-orange and staying that way because hey commons doesn't need npov and sources.--Avala (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on the dispute board, that's what our project scope prevents. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem so to me.--Avala (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then you should read it, see this part, short said it should be educational and such an image of France wouldn't be educational. --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that it doesn't seem to be working.--Avala (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My side (and not only mine) of this issue

Greetings. I was working off-Commons on the template code ("cite..." family of templates) on the Polish Wikipedia, and was unaware that there was a discussion here requiring my participation. I only just now became aware of this "controversy", page protection, and requests to discuss it. I certainly was unaware of all the discussion above.

• General considerations:

If one examins the edit history and the file upload history, one will note comments that explain the events in a chronology, and show that this item has on one hand pitted users Avala & Tocino against users Mareklug, Cradel and others. I have not communicated with Cradel on this issue. Perhaps he should be notified on the English Wikipedia of this conversation.

Initially, there was a color in the map legend (red) which distinguished states which have taken an official action not to recognize. And there was a color (yellow) for those nonrecognizers in the EU who taken no official position yet, or were delaying making it official. Once Avala, at my suggestion, simplified the map legend (I suggested to him that he do so, or create an alternative graphic), the issue went away: The problematic "official" modifier was also removed by Avala as well (and justly so).

• As to Avala's evidence, for Greece, it solely consists of a transcript of a press briefing by a low-level official (the departmental spokesman of the Greek Foreign Ministry), answering "live" verbal questions on Abkhasia and South Ossetia, injecting in his answer an impromptu a mention of Kosovo.

Please compare that singular event against the weight of prepared statements from later dates by the Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis herself Aug 26, 2008, where she makes no mention of Kosovo in this context and draws no such parallels that her subordinate did impromptu, once.

Or examine her other statements, where she is very careful to state Greek policy ambiguously, explicitly supporting a common European Union line, an being agnostic on Kosovo status, albeit eventually hinting at recognizing Kosovo [1], as she does in her speech at the UN in September:"The new reality of Kosovo requires continued attention from the international community. UNMIK has done a good job providing security for Kosovo’s population, and its successor, EULEX, should assume its responsibilities as soon as possible."

Previously, the President of Greece has explicitly stated [2] that "Greece is taking small steps in the direction of recognizing Kosovo" independence.

Given all this, coloring Greece yellow was congruent with the original map legend, in letter and spirit.

• As for Slovakia, I think it is instructive to note, that the official statement made by Slovakia MFA on 18 February 2008 is still not supplanted by any other, even though a new, permanent opinion was promised. The web page does not contain any official ruling that was pre-anounced and required "4 months of deciding" in light of world developments and in-depth analysis of Kosovo as sui generis or nations to self-determine their borders.

What Avala offers in the case of Slovakia is media quotes, but not official issue by the government. Nonetheless, a careful reading of the official MFA statement from 18 February 2008 on the MFA page will show that the state of Slovakia (officially as a state) qualifies its position on Kosovo independence with respect to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and based on UDI alone, was not able then to recognize Kosovo, but would decide the issue formally later (hence the 4 months). Yet, after 4 months and more having passed, no statement has replaced the february one. Slovakia officially is delaying.

Prior to the breakdown of negotiations when Ahtisaari mediated between Serbia/Russia and the Kosovars, Slovakia was on record supporting the Ahtisaari Plan, which stipulates of course supervised independence of Kosovo.

• I invite you to read the Avala/Mareklug/others-authored rough consensus depicting Greek and Slovak positions on the English Wikipedia, even though currently they both reflects Avala's editing: w:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Still, I think you see there certain ambivalence present.

In sum, the situation is characterized by a degree of ambiguity, and the original tri-color map legend encouraged noting these considerations in separate color, esp. what with the use of the word "Officially" in the legend. This is no longer the case, after Avala's last edit. which triggered the page protection, after I *removed* the template that someone else put there, contesting the image. So, if anything, I accepted the outcome, since Avala changed the tri-color to bi-color on the map legend.

Avala, by changing the rules of the game in mid-game, as it were, did so in the direction of removing ambiguity, but by doing so altered what the map represented. This has caused certain dissonance on the Polish Wikipedia which uses this map, in the article pl:Kosovo, as the new version became incongruent to the one our legend depicted. We had to change it, albeit our text continues to point out that Greece and Slovakia have not yet acted officially. The Polish editors (me included) are at consensus on that issue. I.e., for a tri-color map, my map version is what the Polish wikipedia describes by local consensus.

Please note that I and other seasoned users of the English Wikipedia who edit w:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo have over the months criticized Avala for portraying positions of certain governments -- official positions of states -- shall we say, controversially and using sources questionably. I'll point out the relevant graphics by Avala and others on Commons in this subject:

• Image:Kosovo_relations.png (Avala and other)
  • Image:Kosovo_relations.svg (same content)
• Image:Kosovo_relations2.png (Mareklug and others)
  • Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg (same content)
• Image:Kosovo international reactions.png (Gugganij, Campton and Mareklug)
• Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png
  • Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.svg (the map chosen on English Wikipedia after map edit warring)

All told, I don't object to unprotecting the map we are discussing, and setting it in the binary color mode (red/green) imposed by Avala (at my suggestion as one reasonable option). However, I continue to believe that the tri-color map is the preferred version. And on the tri-color map, the present state (protected) is truthful and factual. But I am willing to forego advocting it, in the spirit of building consensus, and acccept the bi-color.

I do object to being characterized by Avala as a vandal, by implication, if not actual charge (which he has made, in templates on my talk page on the English wikipedia). I take issue with his threats, made in file upload comments here on Commons, and on my talk page on the English Wikipedia. This includes selective templating of my page, on issues where he is at adverse position.

Such threats and templating are out of character for an administrator participating himself in an editing disagreement, and certainly inappropriate for a regular user, who is an administrator elsewhere.

For that matter, this is not how an experienced, collaborative editor ought to behave (he has 12k edits on the English Wikipedia).

Respectfully, --Mareklug ^talk 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Mareklug is known to make huge posts but in total I think what we are looking for here is summed up in this sentence "All told, I don't object to unprotecting the map we are discussing, and setting it in the binary color mode (red/green) imposed by Avala (at my suggestion as one reasonable option)." though he still continues to believe that option with yellow is right. Mareklug btw the 4 month period they talked about has passed and the Slovak PM talked about it but in the overhauling of the page on Wikipedia that quote was lost.Anyway I am glad we have consensus.--Avala (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in lucid English, Avala. There is no need for you to interpret my say for the other people. This usurpation of my voice is indicative of your generally forcible editing: "it's my way, or the highway". The present frozen state of this map is optimal and truest, minus the incongruent sources you injected and the mismatched map legend you imposed.

However, I agreed in the spirit of consensus building to let you have your way.

I also pointed out other maps, which clearly show your unreasonable map edits, including that Slovakia is shown by *all* other editors than you to be NOT OFFICALLY REJECTING KOSOVO YET. Please don't obfuscate that.

I would like to make this a broad RFC on Avala's misleading edits on Kosovo recognition/Kosovo relations-related map content on Commons.

I would also like to object to having me out of the loop, while elsewhere Avala characterizes my map edits as vandalism, unsourced, or unreasonable. This is extremely uncool behavior, especially for an experience editor and an administrator (on Serbian wikipedia).

I think that is all I have to say. There's no reason to rebutt what I said. The evidence stares you in the face from all those maps. We all have eyes, and we all read newspapers. --Mareklug ^talk 18:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're having consensus here, as a possible "involved" admin, I'll let somebody else remove the protection if they agreed their is consensus here on the talk page. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)