This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. I would like to leave comment by this line, but it will be very very long if I do. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hillock65 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, but renamed per NYB in Abtract-Collectonian. Kirill ^(prof) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

STRONGEST SUPPORT!, in particular using it as a Historical propaganda, and disregarding historical neutrality. (I admit this is something that I myself need to follow, we all can get carried away). --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hillock65 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) It is expected that discussion on the English Wikipedia will normally take place in the English language. Use of languages other than English is permitted where such use furthers the goals of the project—for example, when collaborating with editors who may not be fluent in English. Attempting to use a language other than English to conceal inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, is strictly prohibited, and will be dealt with severely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, I admit that this has been a problem for myself. Of course given that English is not my native one, I sometimes do have difficulty in carrying across the intended message to another user who I know will understand the intent if it is in Russian. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The use of foreign languages should be limited to those situations, where no English sources are present. I hope this provision extends to the use of foreign language elsewhere as Kuban kazak has a history of abusive statements on his talk page and in edit summaries in Russian. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support See comments on WP:V below too. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) User pages are provided to facilitate communication and collaboration among Wikipedia participants. They are not to be used for prohibited purposes—particularly not for the posting of material likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my proposal section, I added Charles Matthews draft wording from the Request for clarification and motion. I'm not exactly sure how to best use it. As a add on to this proposal? A separate proposal? A comment section that is an official part of this ruling? I think it is a good interpretation of what is permissible and can be useful for editors and admins trying to explain why the content needs to be removed so I think we should included it somewhere. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think a principle rather than an addendum may be better, given that we're free to restructure things at this point. As for whether it should be separate from this one, I suppose the real issue is whether we want to vote on them separately. I don't really anticipate a significant difference in support between the two. Kirill ^(prof) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As User:Hillock65 said I had a picture of Joseph Stalin, [1], with an appropriate disclaimer, that this was done out of my disregard for wikimedia allowing this image to be posted around wikipedia. Unlike other ribbons, this serves no purpose and is a primarily tool for expressing personal views. Delete the image, and I will happily blank my userpage for all its worth, hence Support --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Talk pages should not be used as a sopbox to further nationalist or other agendas, the purpose and the rules for using that space are clear enough in WP:USERPAGE. So, if everyone followed those rules, there wouldn't be any disagreements or problems. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, but I'm not sure why it is linked to an earlier part of the decision rather than to What Wikipedia is not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Yes, we shold not post materials likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Placing a hanging rope to execute the president of Georgia (as Kuban Kazak did) clearly represents an example of such posting.Biophys (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in theory but with reservations as being too vague. Is a "ribbon supporting Georgia" within what is allowed on a userpage? Or how about a userbox stating that an editor is anti-NATO, or pro-Foo, or "I support the independence of Kosovo/Abkhazia/South Ossetia/etc". This needs to be clarified within the letter because obviously this is going to apply to ALL editors, not just those involved here. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I often am puzzled why editors edit the way they do, whit Kuban his userpage makes that clear, whit other editors I'm left to guess and in doing so often assume "bad faith" and "hidden agenda's", I know I shouldn't but I'm only human. Of course there should be limits and material likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute (like saying people should be death) should be removed. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) On 19 August 2007, as part of the decision in the Piotrus [1] case, a general amnesty was granted to "editors who [had] been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined".

Comment by Arbitrators:

The inclusion of pre-amnesty matters in the submitted evidence is unhelpful, to say the least. Kirill ^(prof) 04:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My inclusion of pre-amnesty evidence is unintentional as I was not aware of this. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same, per Hillock--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thank you for noticing this. I did not know. It tells: "amnesty for most editors", which is not quite clear. I thought it only applies to editors mentioned in Piotrus-1 case (KK was not one of them).Biophys (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject As KK was not a party to that arbitration, and due to many editors not even knowing about it (including myself until not so long ago), and due to protraction of some disputes, all evidence should be presented. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate behavior, including:

• Using Wikipedia for propaganda and political and ideological struggle ([2], [3])
• Posting highly inappropriate user-page material ([4])
• Incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([5], [6], [7], [8])
• Edit-warring ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), including edit-warring to restore comments which were already violations of policy ([17], [18], [19], [20])
• Using Wikipedia as a battleground ([21])

In many cases, he has made comments and posted materials in the Russian language in order to avoid scrutiny of his conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 04:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Reject, the above diffs and statements are neither accurate nor compelling. For example you point out this AN/I report as an example of incivility. Sorry to say, but when an administrator destroys a days work and then tells me to read the fucking edit summary. Is that not going mad? You cite numerous edits to my userpage where I made personal comments based on my views. Sure, I have, I agree, however is this a personal problem with me, or with many other users. The list could be rather long. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this has engaged in a variety of inappropriate behavior. If one could expand this section to include all the varieties, then I can single out those in which I admit to and those which I disagree. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I decided to stop presenting the evidence, as much of what I wanted to show was presented by other users. Besides, there is not enough space to give all instances of KK's disruptive behaviour. All that is presented sufficient enough. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support All the above plus my evidence. Users who don't know any Russian would be at a loss dealing with KK. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Proven beyond the reasonamble doubt by diffs in Evidence secton.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject outright as to support this wholesale is impossible. I can point out dozens of editors who also use WP for their own propaganda and political/ideological purposes. I can also point out dozens of editors who also use their talk page for inappropriate purposes (such as the highly contentious "Chechen ribbons" - are they supporting the terrorism behind it?). I can also point out dozens of editors who also promote WP:BATTLE conditions, etc, etc. Separate each, and address individually, rather than trying to 'blanket' attack such as this. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1) Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 04:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The issue here is that for the times that I leave wikipedia, so does Hillock (please see his activity between 5th August 2008 and 15th September 2008 when I was on wikibreak), in that case, I very much doubt that upon the ban's expiry there will be any lasting outcomes. Its not that I disagree that some of my actions in my past can warrant such an outcome. However bans alone don't solve problems. They only freeze them. Likewise I will vote against banning Hillock, should that proposal come around. Its anti-WP:BATTLE remedies that need to be enforced, along with keeping a cool head in disagreements. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that I would like to say the following regarding blocks and bans. When User:AndriyK had his arbcom it was found beyond reasonable doubt that he had a crystal clear record of edit-warring, violating copyrighted material, vote fraud using off-wiki canvassing and page moves done via locking the redirect preventing automatic move-back. However he was blocked only for one month for the latter. Now per my feedback to the proposed decision, we have four points Soapboxing via userspace, using wikipedia as battleground (which is a case where what's said does not par with what was done), edit-warring, and general incivility. Well neither AndriyK's record of edit-warring or indeed Soapboxing via edit wars, were the reason of his ban, which again was only a month. Now I of course recognise that despite me permanently blanking my userpage, some punishment might be inevitable, but honestly is a year a bit too much? If the time scale is reduced to say three or four months, then honestly if the arbcom believes that such a penalty is justified I will accept it w/o any hesitation. However a year is something that I am prepared to appeal.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: parties don't vote on proposals—only the Arbitrators will have the power to pass a proposal into a final decision. Parties can, of course, express their opinion on a proposal when it's at the Workshop stage (as this one is currently), or can express their opinion on the talk page when a proposal is in voting (at /Proposed_decision, when the Arbitrators move to voting)—if that's what you meant? (It simply sounded as though there was a misunderstanding of the structure of Arbitration here.) AGK 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not support Apart from being premature as there is going to be other evidence presented to be looked at, banning should only

be done as an absolute last resort, when other avenues have failed. Perhaps mentoring is a better solution at this stage. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely support. No, banning is not a last resort at all: to ban we simply have to be convinced that the costs of keeping KK around outweigh the benefits. I, for one, am convinced. Moreschi (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's where you and I differ. I see banning as a last resort action. KK has been quite a prolific editor, and has contributed much on areas which would otherwise go by the by (WP:SOVMETRO is but one example, as is Russia-Ukraine relations where he has proven to be a stabilising force). I also have to question your motives, when you make comments such as (paraphrasing) "ban this nationalist" with nothing else. This takes one back to this, where you called an editor the "very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned", and later accused the same editor of egregious nuttery, whilst saying that an editor who affirmed his belief that Putin is a paedophile, and later re-affirmed it on his own talk page, is much saner. WP is not a battleground, and instead of simply banning editors, when other options are available. Mentorship is a much better solution, IMO, particularly considering what KK has contributed to the project, and my belief that behaviour (on all sides) is rectifiable. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not support Although he needs to change, if he hasn't changed his ways in let's say 6 month then I would support a ban. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Man has had quite enough chances (check the block log). The users who so far do not support such measures aren't ones who constantly have to engage in conflict with Kuban Kazak, cope with insults and constant reverts. Of course it's easy for them to protect him. I've lost my good faith in Kazak for a long time now, and I've seen other users perma-banned for far less uncivil behaviour. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Pietervhuis your block log also mounted [22], and if one looks at mine: 6 3RRs, two for incivility: One for calling a user a troll, (William M.Conneley's first ban), the next incivility block came from User:Lupo's attack on removing several thousands of our images, and me calling him a copyright Nazi, particularly since he did not bother informing anyone about his move, I'm not questioning that I did not deserve it then, but please see the details what caused this outburst. The last one was about my userpage. Now note that most of them came in 2006, when I was still new to wikipedia. You on the other hand had 6 3RR blocks in a space of half a year. Surely that would warrant you being banned as well? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Given that this proposal has been put forward without even hearing of evidence, I have raised concerns here. I would appreciate an answer, because the longer one looks at it, the more and more this has the feel of a show trial/kangaroo court. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not supportHis contributions to wikipedia outweight the negatives. Consider teh articles he created: [23].Faustian (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and how many of those can be trusted given KK's attitude to verifiability and reliable sources? How much of that information will have to be checked and double-checked for accuracy and neutrality by other users? Quantity of edits is a liability when there is no quality control. --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you add that to the banning policy, creation of articles by users Folantin does not trust. Once again, I've admitted I was wrong on the Uralov instance, I admit that I might have been wrong on other instances. So please, scrutinize my contributions all you want, after all you've refused me to scrutinize your version I've pointed out that Joana Nichols is wrong on several instances, and her very condensed paper contradicts numerous more extensive references. So maybe you should also be banned now? Maybe Biophys should be banned for articles like Phone Call to Putin. In a controversial article these things happen! The problem is that as long as wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia which means that anyone can edit it, there will never be 100% quality control. Also, contrary to your beliefs, I try to make my contributions qualitative. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up three of your references. Not one of them checked out. You never even read Uralov. You are a complete time-waster and I don't see why other users should have to clear up the mess you've made due to your bias and/or sloppiness. --Folantin (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I copied them from another article which I took for granted. Yes had you took a more WP:FAITH attitude back then at the first revert, or flagged the section as dubious, all that time that both of us wasted on the dispute could have been saved. I don't see why other users should follow your bias against other editors, just because they made a mistake, which they themselves regret! Tell me Folantin why are you taking this personally? You've got a victory in the WP:BATTLE, you've kept your version of the article, you got an apology from me and a suggestion to forgive & forget, so why are you continuing to WP:STICK this one single issue. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's personal about this? When you are banned, Wikipedia will be rid of a POV-pushing edit-warrior who can't be bothered to read sources or edit summaries, whether in Russian or English. As I pointed out in my initial statement, you were still adding unsourced material this very month. You've learned nothing. You've wasted hours and hours of my time, but once you're gone you won't be able to waste that of other editors. --Folantin (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So give an example of me adding unsourced material this very month? You obviously hold a grudge against me, and it seems nothing will make you get rid of it, ok once more I APOLOGISE FOR MISINTERPRETING THE SOURCES AND THE WP:BATTLES THAT WERE PROVOKED BY THEM! If I am to be banned do consider that in a year's time I shall return, and then where will you stand on this? Well the incident on Chechen people has happened a quarter of year ago, and you have not changed or learned any lessons for that matter of fact. So Folantin you are making this personal for reasons only you can understand. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it was not me who created article Phone Call to Putin. I only added some sources there. This is just another example of the poor source checking by KK.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that accusation as well, whatever — Web brigades... that's not the point here. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, as is Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree The statement goes both ways though, when you have a questionable reference such as: this one, proper attribution i.e. according to x, y happened and influenced z needs to be present. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --Folantin (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)WP:V says: “Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.”

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Weak support, as Rusavia stated below, English sources are preferable, problem is that it is often the case that many English sources themselves are of questionable accuracy, whilst those given in authentic language are better. In this case a reliable translation has to be given and verified by a third party to allow scrutiny.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support If everyone of more than 200 languages started to present sources in their languages, it would be a mess. This is English WP, so English takes precedence. The only exception may be when no sources in English are present or of low quality. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Folantin (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional: Obviously this isn't a blanket ban of all foreign-language sources on Wikipedia.en, just a preference for English when good English sources are available, especially where statements are likely to be controversial or challenged. Obviously, the way KK has used Russian on the English WP is a perfect illustration of how not to employ foreign languages round here. --Folantin (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Support, so long as the English source says exactly what the non-English source states. Not to be used to dismiss non-English language sources in the event that information differs. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see a problem in using English sources (as long as there reliable (BBC etc)) to dismiss non-English language sources in the event that information differs. Especially Russian sources since for me as not Eastern European I can't verify if those Russian sources are reliable. Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 144th place in the World Press Freedom Index (from a list of 169 countries)[24], so Russian newspapers and others (Russia Today also looks unreliable to me) should be used as least as possible. This is not bullying Russian newspapers but WP:V. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly WHY I have absolute reservations against this. In essence what this editor (sorry I don't know who you are as you didn't sign) is saying is that we are only going to present the anti-Russian POV. Take the recent conflict in South Ossetia, if we were to dismiss ALL Russian sources, we would have articles which are totally anti-Russian in nature. As recent reports by Spiegel, New York Times, BBC, etc purport, what was printed in Russian media was for the most part true all along. I suggest said editor read WP:V in conjunction with WP:RS. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing my point (I forgot to sign, above). I only want to use Spiegel, New York Times, BBC, etc to neutralise (the) parts in Russian newspapers who aren't true. To think all English sources are always anti-Russian is a rather bold statement to think I prefer to use anti-Russian sources is simply not true (I prefer to use BBC news as a source, I never had the idea they where anti-Russian). Please don't mistake reporting about governments actions as anti-country reporting. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But when no English source is available other languages must also be possible to use. But as said above one should be very careful using state controlled media. But I don't think using other languages at talk pages or edit summaries are a good idea. Especially when they are used to insult other users. If it's a userpage's talk page it might be ok, but not on an article´s talk page. It has happened several times lately, like here [25]. Needless to say one of those users has been blocked since then. Närking (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should one be careful when using state-controlled media? Does that include BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Al Jazeerah, Straits Times, etc? Why doesn't it include privately controlled media, with their own vested interests? Or are we only talking of Russian media here? That point needs to be clarified in particular. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Kuban Kazak has edit-warred to introduce references to Russian-language sources which did not support his claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, I admit that there were times that I misread a source here and there, however I doubt that I was the only person to do that, as my evidence about User:Hillock65 will show. I disagree with repeatedly or the terms supporting ones claim, I will insist that those cases were coincidental. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hillock65 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - per my evidence. --Folantin (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The current policy states that Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This policy is frequently abused by nationalist tagging and is frequent cause of edit wars in Eastern European articles, when another foreign name unsupported by sources or otherwise unproven to belong in the article is inserted in the text.[26]--Hillock65 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Talk:Mukachevo seems to illustrate that even in Domestic language there are several versions. I think its an individual case-by-case approach. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English language ources settled that argument, didn't they? That should be the requirement for all articles per my proposal. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall it was links such as the official city council... and googling. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Isn't this part of a larger problem being Eastern European editors often mistake ethnicity with nationality? I was a party in some editwars regarding Olga Kurylenko, Gogol and Sviatoslav Richter cause some editors claimed they where Russian cause they speak/spoke more Russian then Ukrainian... Bono also speaks more English then Gaelic yet that doesn't make him English either... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Naming conventions in metro and subway articles should follow general naming conventions guidelines, namely the alternative foreign language names of subway stations should be listed only if it is used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or when the alternative foreign name is shown by English language sources to be relevant.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This policy has also been widely abused and has been the cause of many edit wars particularly in Kiev Metro stations, which was the focus of failed mediation.[27] The issue still remains unresolved as foreign language names are often added as OR or contrary to WP:V. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's look at the fact, most Kievans are both Ukraino- and Russophone. Russian language appears in many official documents, including the websites of Kiev municipality, and even the Ukrainian president. Surely that would be sufficient to warrant adding the alternative language version if not in the lead, then in the footer of the article. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I guess we need a reliable source who says Kyivians (or at least a large part of them) uses the Russian names of the subway stations instead of the Ukrainian ones? Since the names are often almost exactly the same in the 2 different languages this can be proven difficultly... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the root of the problem, put it this way, when Kievans speak in Russians they would say Beresteyskaya, when in Ukrainian - Beresteiska. However here is the irony, when they say Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or simply Maidan, its going to be identical in Ukrainian and in Russian. Rarely will they say Ploshchad Nezavisimosti. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I live in Kyiv and use Kyiv Metro quite often I can say at least about two stations mentioned by Kuban Cossack. Ukrainian Beresteiska in Russian is Brestskaya, but in Kyiv you will never hear ths variant, only Beresteiskaya, which is Ukrainian name, modified according to Russian grammar. Ukrainian Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Russian is Ploshchad Nezavisimosti, but I've never heard this name from any Kyivan. The only difference between the names in Ukrainian and Russian is spelling and grammar (e.g. Ukrainian Pecherska and Russian Pecherskaya). So I don't see any signifant reason to include Russian names to the articles when they aren't widely used — NickK (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Dvorets Sporta, Dvorets Ukraina, Pochtovaya Ploshchad, Levoberezhnaya, Lesnaya? Here the Russian differs from Ukrainian substantially, yet it is equally used frequently. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start this discussion again, it's been going on ad nauseum. Kiev metro articles are rife with Original research, where Russian names are added purely out of nationalistic fervour and contrary to many WP policies, in particular WP:V. For example, in the following articles none of the sources mention Russian name at all (please do check)[28][29][30] [31][32]. And the original research par excellence by far is this one (Please check it out!), where even the amateurish Russian language site gives the Russian name for the station different from what some editor POVishly decided it should be and which is actually different from ALL the sources! All this has been discussed in the failed mediation, it is worth reading. The most telling argument is the evidence by the Dutch wikipedian, who wrote articles on Kiev metro for the Dutch Wikipedia. In other wikipedias, where there is no nationalist tagging and POV pushing he simply took the source and wrote articles supplying only Ukrainian names, because that's what the source told him[33]. In English WP unfortunately it became a battleground as nationalists push their own versions of city names and metro stations, where they are not supported by sources and plainly do not belong. This soapboxing has been plaguing English WP for too long, from one revert battle to the other, something needs to be done about it. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but nationalism has nothing to do with Metro articles, only a way of convincing arguments and discrediting one user. Removing the language can equally be interpreted as nationalism and goes nowhere. The Medcom did not find any convincing arguments to remove Russian from the lead as such, hence amateurish or not but the Russian versions are used. Here is a apartment ad showing just that. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be a source for metro articles? :) LOL!!! No comments. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it shows that some people still use the Russian names... I don't think having Russian names in Wikipedia Kyiv (I say Kyiv :-)!) metro articles should be seen as a big problem, I don't think it will be used as an argument to send Russian tanks into Krym... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Certain kinds of uses are impermissible. These include but are not limited to:

• Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point.
• In general, there should not be negative postings of the attention-seeking kind.
• Blogging: userspace is not for general commentary.
• Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions

Certain kinds of uses are permissible:

• Userspace may be used to warehouse diffs, but only when intended as part of drafting for active dispute resolution.
• Essays are obviously OK (use Category:Wikipedia essays, and {{essay}}, saying this is what they are). By their nature essays deal with “issues, not personalities”. If they ever cross that line, from the general issue to particular and personal allusions, they lose their privileged status.
• Drafts of political as well as policy pieces are OK, say ahead of elections. It is helpful if they are dated and headed to indicate this.
• Support for enforcement of existing sanctions, where there is a real and present need to share information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Addendum to Kirill's User page principle. Charles Matthew's suggested wording copied from RFArb Clarifications and motions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note my tweak; please revert if you don't like. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest putting these as separate proposals (obviously under distinct titles though). Regardless, I think the wording should be improved in general, with one example being 'to make a point' which is too vague on its own (pointed out by Fut. Perf on rfarb page, I think). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) One of the biggest problems that came about in this arbcom was that to this day there is no moderation on how to settle a dispute before it erupts into a WP:BATTLE particularly where we have a WP:COI. For example when I asked for a WP:THIRD opinion on a dispute concerning Balachka I got this reply:[34], which solved nothing. In an analogues case when I asked for WP:THIRD opinion on the poster dispute and the reply too was useless. [35]. The suggested Rfcs, also saw no outside editors coming about. There were analogous cases when Rfcs did not get any outside prominence, and only created additional space for pointless discussions.

2) I propose the following, first to create an anti-WP:BATTLE template, which can be added at will to the talk page, and should immediately get the response of anybody who wishes to have a go at mediating the parties. The person should first restore the article to the pre-war status quo, and if necessary lock it if he has the kind of admin power. Next both editors need to write a summary of what they believe the locus of the dispute is, sections they agree on, and sections they disagree on. When that is done the sources they present must be clearly scrutinised, and if necessary accepted/rejected by the mentor(s). When that is done the compromise versions should be presented to both parties and from there consensus can be imposed. Either way it will prevent the disputes like the six-month battle on Zaporozhian Cossacks from repeating.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: