Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Consensus[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Consensus requires that decisions be made by a process of discussion, negotiation and compromise. When there is no existing policy one may be crafted using the procedures in Wikipedia:How to create policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Civility requires courtesy towards other users and the assumption of good faith Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive user may be banned[edit]

3) A user who disrupts the functioning of Wikipedia by insisting on taking action which violates consensus may be banned or their editing restricted.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Naming Conventions[edit]

4.1) The Wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions are guidelines which are developed and updated by community consensus. Editors are expected to follow the naming conventions to the extent that they are applicable in any given situation, and to make a reasonable attempt to extrapolate from them in situations where they do not exactly apply. Editors who do not agree with consensus naming conventions should discuss them within the community, instead of disregarding them.

Support:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I agree that editors should not willfully flout the rules, but they are free to disregard them. (However, the editor disregarding the standards must not try to prevent other editors from then altering his contributions to comply with the standards.) ➥the Epopt 16:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Naming Conventions[edit]

4.2) The Wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions are guidelines which are developed and updated by community consensus. Editors will not be censured if they disregard (or are unaware of) naming conventions when creating new material. However, they must neither alter existing compliant material to make it noncompliant nor interfere when other editors change material to comply with the accepted conventions. Editors who do not agree with consensus naming conventions must discuss them within the community, not disrupt them.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is AndriyK's crusade regarding use of transliteration of Ukrainian language names and places for historic persons and places and the tactics he has used.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Naming conventions[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names provides that "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.". The Naming Conventions currently do not address the question of names and persons associated with the Kievian Rus', the historical predecessor of Russia and Ukraine.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (reworded to remove awkwardness)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

AndriyK's crusade[edit]

3) AndriyK, taking an aggressive Ukrainian nationalist position, has strongly advocated use of the Ukrainian names for historical places and persons. Without obtaining consensus regarding policy, he has repeatedly inserted his preferred usage into a number of pages (links to evidence) and moved a number of pages, see Move log. Facing the obvious tactic of others moving back he devised a method of preventing reverts of his page moves by producing an artificial history for redirect pages, see [1]. For non-administrators reversing such a move involves placing a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence#Move fraud.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

AndriyK's appeal to the Ukrainians and personal attacks[edit]

4) In order to obtain reinforcements AndriyK appealed to forums frequented by Ukrainians, negatively characterizing his opponents on Wikipedia. Those recruited were requested to take his side in disputed votes which some of them did, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Workshop#.22The_falsified_voting.22 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Workshop#Personal_attacks_on_outside_forum.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Copyright violations[edit]

5) Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan all disrupted removal of a copyright violation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence#Mass_disruptions_of_multiple_articles

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rudeness and personal attacks by Ghirlandajo[edit]

6) Ghirlandajo has sometimes been discourteous [2] [3], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence#Rude_comments_in_edit_summary

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Restrictions on AndriyK's editing[edit]

1) Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

AndriyK banned[edit]

2) AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan warned about copyright violations[edit]

3) Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ghirlandajo warned[edit]

4) Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reversal of irreversible page moves[edit]

5) Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Case to remain open[edit]

6) Due to uncertainty as to the efficacy of the remedies in this matter, this case shall remain open and may be modified to impose remedies regarding participants in this dispute other than AndriyK.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't see why we need this. It's not like we're a formal court and have "open" and "closed" dockets. Issues with the enforcement of this decision can be handled in the usual manner (discussion on the "requests for clarifications" section on RfAr). Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kelly. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 17:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should AndriyK move any page or change the content of any article to conform with his preferred usage before an agreement is reached as to a naming convention concerning historical Russian names and places he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proof of agreement[edit]

2) AndriyK shall be considered to have arrived at a consensus regarding use of Ukrainian names for historic names and places when following Wikipedia:How to create policy he and the others concerned with this matter have come to an agreement and a link to the agreement placed at the foot of this page.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

No penalty is proposed for those Ukrainian editors recruited by AndriyK. It is hoped that they become productive editors of the English Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time thinking about whether more remedies ought to be applied. There are grounds, but bottom line, the perspectives of all the ethnic groups involved are of interest. Please try to include these perspectives in articles without overdoing it by bringing ethnic conflict into Wikipedia. You are all welcome here. Fred Bauder 14:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close. ➥the Epopt 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Fred Bauder 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. James F. (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037697226"