Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-19/Paneriai

Gone
I am deeply sorry about this, but due to some IRL problems I am simply unable to mediate this case any longer. I've requested another mediator to take over for me. He should be able to handle this better than I. -- Raziel teatime  18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, you did a very good job. I think you were great and you really tried but this is not easy. No offense, but I think that whoever takes over this job is "nuts". Most administrators don't want to have anything to do with Eastern European disputes. It is a big mess full of editors who are so nationalistic that they can't even see anything beyond their "sick little nationalistic world". Little "bloody" simple thing, such as name of the city in a different language turns into nasty WAR. Problematic nationalistic editors would have to disappear or retire in order to stop this insanity. Thanks again for the effort and I hope to see you again somewhere around.--Jacurek (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, Raziel. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck, I hope nothing overly serious in real life! V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * NOTE From Mediator: Please do not make any personal attacks while discussing the issue. I really don't want this whole thing to blow up just because someone got mad and decided to get back at someone by insulting them. Thanks! -- Raziel teatime  19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in this dispute, as well as for all the Lithuanian places, especially in Wilno region ,we should add hte Polish names, as well as maybe Yiddish, Russian and Belarusian names. This country has a unique and divere history and the official languages varied in different periods of time. Ruthenian in medieval times, Polish in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian in the Russian Empire, Polish in Poland Wilno Region and Lithuanian in Lithania. Also, many of the cities have rich Jewish heritage, with some of them having Jewish majority in different times. You can see linguistic diversity in List of Lithuanian Places in other languages. I think that regardless of the political point of view to what lead to different things in Lithuanian history, we can't just delete it's past by saying it offends current Lithuanian fellings. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, and official past names of places, that reflect their heritage, past, and sometimes ethnic composition are needed. This is also the common rule for Hungarian names in Transilvania, German names in Western Poland, German names in Czech Republic, German names in Kaliningrad oblast and ext. Moreover, the polish cities, that have some Lithuanian heritage, have their Lithuanian names shown in the heading of the article - see Bialystok and Suwalki.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September. For what it's worth, here's my piece before that happens, and I might as well make it long and exhaustive.


 * First, I want to endorse everything that Mikej007 says above. The reason this is a recurrent problematic dispute is because editors like Dr. Dan and Lokyz claim (implicitly - they never really come out and admit it) some kind of exception for Lithuanian places from standard Wikipedia guidelines. According to these guidelines alternative names (in parentheses) can be included in articles on places if at least 10% of English language sources use these names, or if a substantial population of speakers of another language/ethnicity have lived in the place. This is why we have "Breslau" in Wroclaw, "Stettin" in Szczecin or, more directly, "Suvalkai" in Suwałki. These criteria are well satisfied for Paneriai, as I've shown on the talk page, so that the Polish and Yiddish name "Ponary" should be included as an alternative name - this is particularly true since this was a site of a major massacre of Jews and Poles by the Nazis (additionally I'd like to note that even the Polish village of the same name, Ponary, includes the German name "Ponarien", bot-added. Let me underline that - bot-added).


 * Since the objecting users (Dr. Dan and Lokyz) cannot argue with the guideline, nor with the evidence presented to support the application of this guideline, they (Dr. Dan in particular) resort to diversionary tactics - changing the subject, asking pointless and endless questions, irrelevant comments as well as the standard personal attacks and questioning of motives (and even quoting Lynard Skynard lyrics for no apparent reason) (in the interest of trying to retain a shred of good faith towards these users I'm not gonna say anything about the strange anon IP that all of sudden appeared on these articles). They do not address the issue. And because of this the discussions on the talk page end up being fruitless and get bogged down. We already had this discussion at another Lithuanian city's article Biržai and only after I asked for a Third Opinion was the situation finally resolved (and there I was dealing with a much more constructive and reasonable user, Novickas). I was hoping that asking for third opinion on this issue - Paneriai/Ponary - would likewise help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.


 * As to the recent development, I think I detect a bit of initial bias in Raziel's description of the matter, particularly this part: The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc.. What actually happened here is this:
 * As part of my argument, I pointed out that most Polish cities had alternative names in their ledes.
 * Dr. Dan found a few which didn't (well, they sort of did, but anyway)
 * Jacurek and Mike said, "fine, go ahead and put alternative names in there"
 * Dr. Dan went around and in addition to putting names in, bolded them and put them first (i.e. not as "alternative names" but as "proper names")
 * Jacurek and Mike (I think) put Yiddish and Polish names, as alternative names, in the lede of Vilnius (where it actually belonged for awhile) and maybe some other Lithuanian cities. Presumably this was done with Dr. Dan's approval (see his comments about "new consensus").
 * (An illustrative fact here is that no Polish editors involved, or Mike, give a fish about whether or not Lithuanian or German or Yiddish alternative names are included in articles on Polish cities, but Dr. Dan and Lokyz insist that no Polish names must appear anywhere near a Lithuanian place's article. And this is a revealing double standard).


 * The bottom line on the above is that while this has spilled on to other articles, it's not a case of putting Polish names in Lithuanian places to make a POINT. If anything it's the opposite - Dr. Dan putting in alternative names in Polish cities to make a POINT (as in, if you do this to me, I'll get you back!), without bothering to do the work to show that the relevant Wiki guideline actually applies (his silly and irrelevant example of Etats-Unis is another case in point). What is required here is quite simple - a consistent application of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The one that says that an alternative name should be added if at least 10% of English sources use it or if a significant number of people of another nationality/ethnicity/language used to live there. This is what I've been saying from the beginning, this is what I'm saying now, and this is why I've asked for third opinion on this matter twice already. If the objecting users have a problem with the guideline then they should lobby or attempt in some way to get it changed. Otherwise the guideline should be applied. We don't ignore guidelines simply because in some cases they rub somebody's nationalistic feelings the wrong way.radek (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A symptom, not the problem
This might be a good time to discuss representation of historical names in the Baltic States. Even now, for example, English language writings on WWII in Latvia refer to Libau, Goldingen, and all. Anything in English on Vilnius before independence (that is, common usage at the time) refers to Wilno, less often to Vilna, and, again, such names have continued to be used in scholarly works. Personally I am for sticking to current usage because every non-current place-name in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia usually signifies some conquering power and I have no desire to enshrine any one of those in WP. That said, it's not that simple. Polish->Lithuania, German->Latvia, German/Danish-> Estonia... most non-native place names have been common English usage at some time and have had a way of surviving to the present particularly in scholarship--and it may be better to opt for inclusion of some historical names than to leave out. I've only come to this editorial modification to my own personal position because, as I've mentioned, Libau et al. keep popping up in scholarship--and it's a disservice to our readers to not let them know, for example, that Liepāja = Libau. This would require buy-in on the part of, in particular, Baltic editors, and should be part of an effort to improve usability of Baltic WP content. As I've indicated, my personal ideal would be current native names only for the reason I've cited, but I'm willing to entertain options if it is done as part of a standard with clear benefits identified. I do not support making it an open season smorgasbord to do, say, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Belarussian,... I do (reluctantly) support the primary English language usage name prior to independence—as this is the English Wikipedia. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very pithy, very well put, Vecrumba. Part of the conundrum, unless of course the "New Consensus" is to apply that "smorgasbord" wholesale into the leads of articles, will be resolving the problem with lead placement. Should all of this stuff, no matter how undue, be added to satisfy an agenda, wrapped around google hits, bending Wiki Policy to it's limits, be placed in the lead? Or as miscellaneous info? If the former is what we want, and all agree to, fine, and it should be applied to all geographical entities equally. If it is a policy that will be applied selectively here and there with the kind of objections that I just finished dealing with at User talk:Dmz5 (Bаршава), it will be a "tough row to hoe". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to say it out loud - whatever this "new consensus" that Dr. Dan imagines is, I don't think I'm part of it, mostly because it is not a consensus and because it doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. Taking a "smorgasboard" approach to alternative names is silly and will most likely result in an annoying tit-for-tat as in "you put your name in my city, I'm gonna stick the Chinese and Polynesian names into every one of your cities!". Simply, all that is needed is a consistent application of the existing guideline - if more than 10% of English language sources use the name, then we can put it in as an alternative name. If not then not. For example, I seriously doubt that 10% of English language sources use the Hungarian name for Krakow so we don't have to worry about it.radek (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys I can't contribute to this discussion at the moment because I had an accident last night ( broken ribs, collarbone etc.) I will try to get back to editing as soon as possible but now I'm in too much pain. Talk to you soon.--Jacurek (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Get better! The discussion will still likely be going on...
 * Again, I completely support including all historical place names in articles, however, the place name for the title and in the lead should be the current one unless there is clear and compelling 3rd party evidence to the contrary regarding current common English usage (for example, the BGN database). I also have come to support, albeit out of editorial necessity and not personal preference, the inclusion of pre-independence common English language usage for place names despite, for the Baltics, the most common often being the language of a hostile power at some point. Any other solution will render article leads into "list of place names for X" instead of reading like an article lead by just sticking to other English language usage the reader should be aware of. Again, this is not my personal preference, however, I have come to believe it is the editorially responsible action here, and which also serendipitously bridges a good deal of the gap between native versus foreign language smorgasbord without getting into the heated nationalities debate. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Vercumba, what you suggst is fine, but it should be a common policy to thw whole Wikipedia and that is not the case. In fact, most of the time coomon historical names are presentd in the lead sucj as Hungarian→Romania, German→Poland, German→Czech Republic, Hungarian→Uzhgorod region, Polish→Western Ukraine, Polish→Western Belarus and I can go on and on. In the specific example of Lithuania, the Polish names represented at some time the majority of the population of those places, and until last century the official name of the place. As for the Yiddish, can we deny that in many cases, mojority or plurality of that city's population was Jewish - meaning that the most used name was the Jewish one? I think what Radek proposed is fair - 10% of common current English usage or minority today or in the past (we have to decide how far to go - I think a century is enough).

Btw, I frankly don't think that your comment about "hostile power" is in place. We can debate about it endlessly, but just think about it - is a country that represents the ethnic majority/plurality of the local population is a "hostile power"?--Mikej007 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - the "at least 10%" isn't what I propose. It is what the current Wikipedia policy is. I'm only trying to follow it.radek (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mikej007, you will note I stated "the most common...". Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power. Unfortunately, my point and concern are that place names are often used on Wikipedia to open old historical wounds to lord past conquest, suzerainty, and hegemony on the current (and hopefully rightful) inhabitants of a territory. The "10%" solution (that is, creating an ultimately arbitrary formula) opens WP to that abuse. As I have noted, this is the English Wikipedia, and the lead is best served with alternate common English place names prior to current usage and not with all significant language variants from significant periods, whether prior or current.
 * I certainly welcome a wider standard regarding alternate names in an article lead, however, the proverbial elephant is best eaten and digested one bite at a time. If we can come up with a standard for Baltic place names, then perhaps that can work elsewhere. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power - It's not only about that - in some cases, especially in Lithuania - the majotrity of the populatuin as not Lithuanian (and it's not until this very day). And even if it is a majority, the ones who built Riga were the German, Swedish and Russian. Should we erase that history - definitely not. Shpuld we erase Jewish history - abruptly murdered by an invading power (with collaboration of the locals in many cases) - definitely not. This is the case not only with the Baltics, but with all other areas that I mentioned. Thus - 10% + minority (present/past).--Mikej007 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a mediation on this issue was attempted and failed in the past: WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. Bottom line: the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors, by attempting to remove all non-Lithuanian names from some articles. I consider such attempt at rewriting history damaging to this project; as many works in English use (not very consistently) different spellings, those spelling should be present in the affected articles, particularly when those articles deal with history of more than one country. In other words: nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so, and other names were used (and that usage, rightfully, survived in modern English literature and shouldn't be censored from Wikipedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ..." a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors". P.P., which Estonian editors were you thinking of when you wrote this? Dr. Dan (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ..."nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so"...P.P., did you mean between 1922-1939? Or did you have some other time frame in mind? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ..."the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors".. I find it odd that you, P.P., excluded Germany from the region. Was there any particular reason? And btw, which Jewish editors? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is why mediation or discussion never works here - Dr. Dan just tries to change the subject, brings up irrelevancies and thinks that he's a host of a question/answer gameshow, inbetween making various implications and "hints" and who knows what else.radek (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing the subject how, Radeksz? Each of the above queries are directly related to a statement made at this discussion, right on this page. If they were truly irrelevant you should have made your snide comment about game show hosts after they were posted. As to "why mediation or discussion never works here", maybe it's because people pick and choose when and what they will respond to. I'd still like some answers from P.P., perhaps he was busy with matters like this . Like you, he evidently doesn't agree with me that there was a new consensus allowing the placement of alternate names into these articles. Evidently only Mikej007 seemed to agree with me out of the parties involved here. I say evidently because he hasn't protested or changed P.P.'s edit. Due to Jacurek's unfortunate accident I can't determine how sincere he was here . Perhaps he still favors a two way consensus. It seems that once again certain editors are "gung-ho" about placing Polish toponyms into the leads of Lithuanian geographical articles, but not so keen in having other languages placed in theirs. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know..I'm reading all this just can't type, will join asap. Thanks P.S. Yes, I still favor a two way consensus. --Jacurek (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, your comments about Dr. Dan could easily be interpreted as a personal attack, so I will reiterate: Please do not make personal attacks. Do not even make a remark that sounds like, or could be interpreted as, a personal attack. It really is not going to help.

Also, forgive me for asking, but am I correct in assuming that this "new consensus" is to place alternate names in not just the Paneriai article, but other articles regarding geographical places? -- Raziel teatime  19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain that to P.P. regarding Warsaw and his recent reverting of Mikej007 with this . I believe Radeksz is not in favor of any "new consensus" either. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if Russian is necessary in Warsaw's article but for sure there should be English and Yiddish spellings there. If we start placing Russian names then minus well we should have one in German also. Please be aware that somebody will start placing the Russian names in articles about Lithuanian cities such as Vilnius for example. Hope this will not create any problem. (Sorry can't type anymore...)--Jacurek (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Khmm, and where the consensus was reached? Please provide any diffs where everyone has agreed that it is a consensus?--Lokyz (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Not sure if Russian is necessary in Warsaw's article but for sure there should be English and Yiddish spellings there." Why not, Jacurek? The Russian people are a great people, the Russian language is a great language. Warsaw was part of Russia for a long time. For someone who is in favor of placing Polish toponyms into Lithuanian geographical toponyms down to the smallest hamlet and now even "neighborhoods" that seems odd to say the least. A few hours ago you made this comment What's up with that? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's keep it reasonable. English and Yddish name are important for Warsaw singe a) it is English wiki and b) beforw WWII Warsaw (like most cities and towns in Poland) had a large Jewish minority. But Russian? Why? Because of the Russian partition? If yes, we should add the French name too (due to Duchy of Warsaw), as well as Russian name to Berlin and German to Paris :D As far as I am concerned, the important questions are a) is the given name used enough in English literature to justify it and b) is the history of the place connected with a given language (usually due to part of local population speaking the language as primary language. Ask those simple questions about every place, and you'll know which names are important - and which are just POV-pushing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping it reasonable would be fine. Keeping a balanced approach would not only be reasonable but promote knowledge for the "convenience" of the reader as well. Warsaw was part of Russia for a very long time. As for the Duchy of Warsaw, it existed about six years. As for French names, I believe I recently discussed them with Radeksz here []. I find it very troubling that the argument for placing Polish names in Lithuanian articles would take precedence over placing Russian names in the appropriate Polish articles. Hopefully not everyone in this discussion agrees with this premise. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Warsaw was part of the Russia for a very long time. Really brilliant logic, just a curiousity: when do you plan adding Аляска to Alaska? Loosmark (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Loosmark, I wasn't planning on it at all. What I'll do instead is bring up one of the reasons that some object to placing the Russian toponym in the Warsaw article. Remember this? In that example you seemed upset with the idea of placing the Russian version in English WP. I could be wrong (about you being upset). But when you posted your remarks at User talk:Dmz5 regarding your position ..."i don't support Yiddish or Russian toponyms for Lithuanian geography neither am i against them i simply don't have an opinion about that", you didn't clarify your position on placing Polish toponyms for Lithuanian geography. Could you tell us what it is now? Otherwise you might be accused by someone of changing the subject. Like I was here  Dr. Dan (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lithuania was part of the Russia (in its various guises) for much longer - so why are you not adding Russian names to Vilnius, Kaunas or Trakai...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, how much longer? Unless of course you think the members of the PZPR (in its various guises) in Katowice who were shouting "Niech Żyje" weren't "really" part of Russia again. If so, you're in good company. Gerald Ford didn't think so either. In his own words.... Dr. Dan (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use Russian spelling in either (Warsaw or Vilnius) but will not object if there is one. English and Yiddish however should be in both. I know Dr.Dan will not like it, but I also know that Vilnius should have Polish spelling as well since the city was held by Poland for so long with majority of the population in the past being Polish. Vilnius is a very specific case. I understand Lithuanian editors who object the inclusion of Polish spelling for historical reasons. Lithuanians view the Polish presence in Vilnius as an occupation of their capital and Poles see Vilnius (Wilno) as city they helped to build and as a city of the Polish heritage. We should agree however that Lithuanian capital Vilnius shares a lot of history with Poland and include the Polish spelling in the lead.--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "English and Yiddish however should be in both". Jacurek, what does English have to do with this mess? Is anyone trying to exclude English from English WP? What are you talking about? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, of course English is already here.--Jacurek (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer to Dr.Dan's question above: i don't have a specific position on Polish toponyms for Lithuanian geography in the sense that there should be some special treatment for them. Simply, I totally agree with what radek wrote somewhere above, we only need apply wikipedia's policy on the subject which is clear enough. Loosmark (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, let me point out that Wikipedia already HAS a policy/guideline to address this very issue and no new "new consensus" or anything like that is required. The already existing policy is a good one as it differentiates between places which are referred to by alternative names in English language sources or have had a significant presence (troops in barracks don't count) of other language people living there, from frivolous insertions of names just to make a point, for revenge (not that any Wiki editor would actually be motivated by things like that) or for no reason what so ever. The policy - that at least 10% of English language sources use the name - is a good one and it just needs to be implemented.

There's no need to develop new policy. Just point out to the editors involved that policy needs to implemented.radek (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Radeksz has a point. If alternate names are going to be added to geographical places, Paneriai included, it should be done in accordance with WP:PLACE. Unless someone has a good reason not to follow Wikipedia guidelines? -- Raziel teatime  17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. This should be the end of this discussion and we should follow the policy.--Jacurek (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen to what? If you can type now (meaning recovered), and the other editor who has engaged in personal attacks against me (I expect an apology, btw), has returned and will be able to respond with undivided attention, then after I and anyone else planning to respond in this "informal mediation" with a formal statement, "can we consider ending this discussion". Furthermore now that our "unbiased mediator" has for the second time inserted his "opinion" regarding this unresolved matter, the time has come for him to recuse himself from this mediation. Unless of course it's WP policy for a "mediator" to espouse his opinion prior to a decision being reached. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not my opinion, it is a matter fact. Unless someone can come up with a good consensus for ignoring Wikipedia guidelines in this particular matter, then there is no reason to not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. Which is precisely why I asked "Unless someone has a good reason not to follow Wikipedia guidelines?". -- Raziel teatime  19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "matter of fact", namely the Wikipedia guidelines. I'd like to ask the mediator, because I think you should know in your capacity as mediator, if you know who the author of this 10% "guideline is, when it came into force, and it's history? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I also ask a question here Dr. Dan? Do you happen to know, in your capacity as a long time editor of the Wikipedia, who the author of this guideline is? Or the history of its development? Is it possible that whoever the author of the 10% guideline is is completely irrelevant since it is in fact a guideline? Or are you fighting battles from, five, seven, years ago which is why editors like myself and Loosemark don't really know what you're talking about? If not, then could you articulate the reason why Wikipedia policy should not be followed on this particular article? And in your articulation, since it's obvious you're an eloquent guy, can you express yourself without using any question marks?radek (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent)..."can you express yourself without using any question marks?"...No. Especially when I would have to ask someone why they would interject themselves repeatedly into questions directed to someone else? Regarding your question concerning trolls, yes I've read the guidelines. Have you? More importantly have you read the guidelines on WP: PA? Here's another question mark. What was your point here? And another, where's the mediator? That's five question marks. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, not a symptom
The problem truly rears it's ugly head again. A one way street, not a two way street. When I said fine, let there be a "New Consensus", put in these Polish, and Yiddish names. Go for it. But let's put in the Russian and German names where appropriate too. That now seems to be unacceptable. User: Loosmark pretty much sums it up with ..."Warsaw is specific in that for 50 years Poland was under de-facto Soviet control and many Poles were oppressed so IMO Bаршава would be seen as provocative by most Poles." But despite the possibility that "Wilno" might seem provocative to others, is really of no consequence. So much for the "New Consensus." Please don't be surprised when your heavily POV ridden, and undue edits, are challenged and reverted in the future. And Jacurek, please do not be so presumptious as to assume what Dr. Dan "will like" or "will not like". Hope you're feeling better. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I presumed that because of the long history of our disagreements over this issues. You never liked it, that is all. Thanks, I feel a little better but still can't type for too long.--Jacurek (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Dan i wasn't part of any "new consensus" in fact i was even unaware that you guys were working on a consensus. My opinion is there is no need for any new consensus, wikipedia policy is clear: if at least 10% of english sources use the name or there is a significant minority living there then the other name should be included. Wilno for example, fulfills both criterion, Варшава neither. Loosmark (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do 10% of English sources use Санкт-Петербу́рг​ or Москва? Last time I checked both were included in the leads of those respective articles (Saint Petersburg and Moscow) in English Wikipedia. I think you'll find them in the French, German, Polish, and Spanish versions of WP, too. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What, the hell are you talking about!? Those are the names of the cities in the native language, including those was never questioned by anybody, it goes without saying those are included. Thanks for making me lose 47 seconds of my life for nothing. Loosmark (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the 47 seconds, Loosmark. Please remember all of the previous arguments given about placing "Wilno" into the Vilnius article, and I don't mean just the newly found 10% arguments either. Neither about "English sources" nor "minority populations". And kindly remember that neither "Wilno" nor "Ponary" are names of the localities "in the native language". As for what my point was, Cyrillic has it's place in English Wikipedia, even in articles relating to Poland. Btw, once again this ] is not an argument against it's use either. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit of a problem for me to remember all the previous arguments about Wilno because i entered this discussion only very recently (after sb tried to POV push sth into Warsaw lead that is). What exactly do you mean with the "newly found 10% argument" i don't know. Thats wikipedia policy - if you weren't aware of it before, what can i say though luck. Wilno and Ponary are included in the lead per wikipedia policy, it's as simple as that. And finally yes cyrillic can have its place in articles relating to Poland but only when there is a reason to do so: for example there is an Ukrainian minority living in  Przemyśl. Loosmark (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Loosmark, please remember to be civil and keep a cool head before posting. Thank you. -- Raziel teatime  19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Raziel, the thing is that happens all the time. We try to keep discussion professional and the Dr. Dan asks pointless questions. Bottom line, I think that we should stick to 10%+minority rule (except for native language of course, which is obviously should be there). I yhink this is fair and satisfactory for all parties and there is no point to debate about heritage and staff. There are facts - Wilno, Ponary, Troki and ext. had significant polish and Yiddish speaking populations in the past (and maybe today too). Some of them meet the 10% criteria too, that's why Polish and Yiddish should be in the lead. Btw, same thing for Memel (Klaipeda), this time with German population un the past.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "We try to keep discussion professional and the Dr. Dan asks pointless questions". Ha. Aybody else thinks its high time to start a user conduct RfC on Dr. Dan's "contributions" to discussions? I have at least once, during an arbitration, suggested that his input on talk pages is so non-constructive (constant sniping, baiting, jabs, and yes, sarcasm by a barge load) that a ban from all Poland-related talk pages may be in order; I'd be interested in community input on that proposal, which I think could greatly improve the atmosphere on, well, all pages where Dr. Dan choses to make his comments at. For the record, I'd support a stern warning from the community before such a ban is issued - everybody deserves another chance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As the mediator above says there doesn't seem to be a particular need for mediation on this particular issue - the policy's already there, it needs to be applied, it's just that some editors insist on violating the policy (which when you get down to it, when done repeatedly, is no different from removing reliable sources from articles or making repeated BLP violations). However, there is a need for some kind of action on Dr. Dan's conduct on talk pages - which has been quite problematic for some time (and note that talk page discussions are Dr. Dan's primary inputs into Wikipedia).radek (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Raseksz, aren't you exactly supposedly away? Let me cite As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September --Lokyz (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. "not have reliable access" means sometimes better sometimes worse. This weekend I can access the internet a bit more.radek (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Policy is already there: and a question, Would User:Piotrus or User:Radeksz fix this this outrageous policy disregard?--Lokyz (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already fixed it. Feel free to do it also Lokyz if you see this problem again, there is no need to bring such things here. It looks like you are looking for a fight.--Jacurek (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like another PA. Gosh, where is the mediator. Let me remind you - we're discussing topics and policies, not personalities.--Lokyz (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chill out Lykoz, It was you who violated the policy with you provocative comment. Next time you see an Anon making an edit against the policies just fix it and don't provoke other editors by typing useless comment which serve no purpose and look like an attempt of "getting back at somebody". Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way...why did you boldly reverted this[] without any explanation????? Perhaps our mediator should look at your behavior? After all this talk you keep doing your usual reverts, I can't believe it... THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE, plain and simple--Jacurek (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another PA? I did follow the Polish anon attempts to change the "new consensus". It took rather a long time to fix the problem in Warsaw, despite my calls. Also: using caps is shouting, i.e. uncivility. I hope it's because of the injury, and the editor'll get better soon.--Lokyz (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ..and another bold revert[] (removal of Polish name by user Lokyz) without explanation. Why we are wasting our time here if Lokyz keeps doing what he was doing for years?? Which is a bold removal of every Polish name from all Polish-Lithuanian related articles without or with misleading explanation. Can our mediator intervene here and block or warn him at least???? I'm so sick of this nonsense and I'm out of here.!--Jacurek (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokys, thanks that at least you wish me to get well. Thank you for that. If you could start to cooperate here my wounds would heal faster. Please do it at least for that reason?? Will you??--Jacurek (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another WP:PA and a block shopping. And for the last question of your's - one should consider his actions, because one may bring harm to himself. And sorry, I'm not a doctor, to help healing other's wounds. Let us know, when you'll be better, then I'll provide my statement. I do not want to disturb your recovery. TTYL, and best wishes.--Lokyz (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why you JUST removed Polish spelling from above article (links above) as you ALWAYS did without any explanation AT ALL, instead of discussing it here?? Focus on the problem please, and the problem here is your behavior, thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why you just removed the Name section before reching compromise? -- Lokyz (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And btw I'm not Loosmark], nor Lykoz. Would you please care to appologise me for calling names?-- Lokyz (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problem
So, P.P., an adminstrator, brings out his "little black book" with his three year old "evidence" and suggests censoring Dr. Dan again (nothing new about that proposition, by P.P.). Got any newer evidence? P.P., reiterates the fallacy that I ask pointless questions...:"We try to keep discussion (sic) professional and the Dr. Dan (sic) asks pointless questions, Ha." Professional? Did you mean perhaps that Dr. Dan asks pointless questions about pointless and untrue claims made on these pages, that remain unanswered? Or when you make comments like that, and they are challenged, do questions about them suddenly become "pointless"? Since you have been following this thread here, and at the Talk:Paneriai page I'm wondering why you didn't comment in your capacity as an unbiased administrator about this? Or several other violations of policy? It reminds me of your behavior regarding the activities of this user. Don't you think this was a little too much ? And really, Mikej007, what's up with this ? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So apparantly presenting evidence of an editor's misbehavior now constitutes a "little black book" - of course the real problem is not the editor's misbehavior, but somebody having the gall to point it out. And the evidence is not three years old, it stretches three years back - including more recent stuff like your behavior at Zwierzyniec and Bialystok Pogrom. And what does Molobo have to do with any of this? And how many irrelevant questions are there going to be? How many? What's up with that Dr. Dan? And while we're at it, could you explain your edit here ? And don't you think that this is a little too much ? And why didn't you get involved in this discussion ? How many more question marks must suffer? How many? Eighteen? Three hundred? Who knows?radek (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one of my favorite examples in that list of my "misbehaviors" is this  one at user Talk:Durova, though there are some others. That response followed what she admitted was a "controversial block". One that resulted from an off WP request by P.P. asking her to do so. As for your problem with the Battle of Seelow Heights, I fail to understand your objection to copy editing grammatical errors. Please also note that I did not tamper with the contributions of the Polish Armed Forces regarding the battle. It's a well established fact on Wikipedia that Poland's military contributions were extremely important in the defeat of Nazi Germany, including the Battle of Berlin. As for Spanakopita (hey, you're not stalking me, are you?), if you understand English, the edit is pretty obvious. And since Andrzej Kmicic is a "Fictional Character", it doesn't interest me in particular. Although lately, I feel that I'm having to deal with a lot of fantasies and fiction. Btw, I see even though you mentioned to the mediator that you wouldn't have much time to participate here, you're managing just fine. I thought this last edit of yours was one of your better ones. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Okay, I need to clarify a few things. First off, Dr. Dan and Lokyz, you are in favor of adding the alternate name to Paneriai as long as it is done to other geographical places, correct? And Radeksz, Mike007j, and Jacurek, you are in favor of the same thing as long as it is done in accordance with WP:PLACE, right? -- Raziel teatime  17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with putting in alternative names in paranthases for all places where at least 10% (note that for the place under discussion, it's more like 50%) of English language source use it - whether these places are Polish, Lithuanian, Chinese or Mexican. I anticipate that there might be borderline cases (in which case I think the burden of proof/convincing should be on those wanting to put the alternative name in) and possible exceptions (in which case the burden of proof/convincing should be on those wanting to keep the name out), but if we can agree ... well, agree to actually follow the guideline, then we at least have a framework to start with.radek (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, what borderline cases, and possible exceptions, were you anticipating? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm anticipating that these may arise in general. I'm not anticipating any one in particular.radek (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I did not say that I do aggree to something, I did just suggest, that I would help to put alternative names to the so-called Polish cities leads. I had in mind the Polska Republika Ludowa borders. More when User:Jacurek will recover from his injuries, and when the supposedly absent User:Radeksz will come back, as the arbitrator suggested "in two weeks". Diff will be provided on request.--Lokyz (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to suggest adopting a new policy of naming for places in Poland. But if you look at the name of this case, you may see that we are also concerned with naming of places that were once part of Poland (Second Polish Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't we also concerned with naming for places (sic), that were once part of the Russian Empire, too, P.P.? Like Варшава? I mean its been opened up as a topic here. It's as good as any place to finish up with it here too. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add Austria–Hungary and the German Empire to the list, if editors are so eager to find true (i.e 19th century, that are pushed now) historical names. The Cracow for now is the main issue, since there is WP:ENGLISH, that is neglected at the moment.--Lokyz (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A question
Since the main initiators of this issue are injured, or away (I did not use word flee), should I present my statement, or should I just skip it? (all WP:AGF assumed.--Lokyz (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please present it. -- Raziel teatime  22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a quick answer, I'll do it as soon I'll get to my books.--Lokyz (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be able to occasionally check in, like now, for short periods of time to keep an eye on things. So if you want to you can start and I'll do my best to respond. Just please be understanding, time wise.radek (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokyz, just to let you know, I do plan to make a statement, unless the matter is somehow resolved earlier, but not until ALL of the involved parties are able to participate with their presence and undivided attention. Not while some might "check in...for short periods of time to keep an eye on things" and others are too incapacitated to type. For now I will limit my participation to commenting on misrepresentations of facts, or positive and helpful comments as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: problem not a symptom
On: The problem truly rears it's ugly head again. A one way street, not a two way street. When I said fine, let there be a "New Consensus", put in these Polish, and Yiddish names. Go for it. But let's put in the Russian and German names where appropriate too. That now seems to be unacceptable. User: Loosmark pretty much sums it up with ..."Warsaw is specific in that for 50 years Poland was under de-facto Soviet control and many Poles were oppressed so IMO Bаршава would be seen as provocative by most Poles." But despite the possibility that "Wilno" might seem provocative to others, is really of no consequence. So much for the "New Consensus." Please don't be surprised when your heavily POV ridden, and undue edits, are challenged and reverted in the future. And Jacurek, please do not be so presumptious as to assume what Dr. Dan "will like" or "will not like". Hope you're feeling better. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have observed earlier, this is an English encyclopedia. Therefore the first rule to follow if we are to include any other names is to include other (usually archaic) English language usage, so using Vilnius as an example, and some others: These are all useful to those that would be doing research on the Baltics and Eastern Europe.
 * Vilnius... (archaic: Vilna,  Wilno) ...
 * Liepāja ... (archaic: Libau) ... note I am putting in as archaic English usage not as a symbol of 700 years of German hegemony
 * Tallinn ... (archaic: Reval) ... similarly regarding the Danes

Alternately, as an example, in his seminal work (2nd ed.) Historical Atlas of Central Europe, Magocsi lists in his index: in alphabetical order of historical/other language names. This is clearly far too much for a lead, and per current WP place name standards, can simply go in a "Names" section.
 * Vilnius [LT] (Vil'na [Ru]; Vilne [Y]; Vilnensis [L]; Vil'no [R]; Wilna [G]; Wilno [P])

Arguing over whose alternate name for any place "deserves" to be in the lead or what order they "deserve" to be in is a divisive activity we should all commit to avoid. The only name that we can all agree "deserves" to be in the lead is its current rightful name. Including archaic English addresses a number of historical issues while sticking to English usage and making no judgements regarding "deserving":


 * 1) Lead: name .... (archaic: name1, name2 prior/other English usage, alphabetically )
 * 2) "Name" section: Indicate alternate names, alphabetically, per Magocsi's index example

So, to the mediation here, if we have (archaic, it not being the current place name) English usage other than "Paneriai", we include it as I've illustrated, as archaic English usage, not as whatever language it was derived from, to avoid the "deserving" problem, and indicate foreign language names in a Names section per the WP standard, and in alphabetical (transliterated if need be) name order. I'd suggest this compromise as the convention to use for the three Baltic States. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, Vecrumba is offering a reasonable solution. As the other parties have pretty much relegated the "New Consensus" to the waste bin (Tsk, tsk, and I thought both Jacurek and Mikej007 were with me on that program), consider that the "New Consensus" is null and void, as far as I'm concerned. We'll just have to deal with them (geographical toponyms), case by case. What happened to the mediator, btw. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still for the consensus, but the mediation is king of "overruns" it. Question to both of you (Dan & Vercumba) - what is the problem with sticking to 10% + minority rule for all the places (no matter Poland/Lithuania/Latvia and ext.)? There is not question of "deserve" - this is strict math - current official name and those who are or were used by English books and local residents.--Mikej007 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing, if it is used in 10% or more of English sources in should be rather:

The current use means it is not an archaic name but an alternative name.--Mikej007 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Name ... (also: Name 1, Name 2)
 * Mikej007, you are missing the nature of the solution and the current use of archaic English-language Baltic place names. Archaic does not mean obsolete. English language sources regularly use pre-independence Baltic place names, particularly scholarly sources. Those place names are invariable based on other languages. Including the archaic but still used in scholarly literature English usage addresses most of the needless jostling for appropriate communication of alternate place names while avoiding gnashing of teeth over how those names originally came to be. We are writing an encyclopedia to be as useful as possible to its readers, not anything else. The insistence by various parties on linguistic smorgasbords of place names in article leads produces content which is confusing, is not informative, and which leads to unconstructive and divisive arguing over claims to recognition, acknowledgement, prominence in the lead versus other place names, et al. which solve nothing. I've presented a solution which works in all cases and which is absent of any value judgements.
 * The WP standards/conventions you seem enamored of are part of the problem, not the solution, and why we have wound up here in the first place.
 * To your 10%: The problem with any mathematical rule is that it's just another version of arguing about "deserving" under the guise of an ostensibly quantitative criterion. We all know how well quantitative Google searches work (another WP "standard") in resolving conflicts—they fail abjectly and completely.
 * To your minorities: The problem with minorities is that POV pushers will put in Russian transliterations of place names in article leads anywhere there is a significant Russian presence—in many places the result of Soviet importation of Russians and Russophones while deporting and killing the legitimate inhabitants. I'm not saying that because I'm some xenophobic Russian hater (POV pushers have called me that when they haven't had anything else to back their arguments), I'm just relating what has already happened before in exactly this sort of case regarding Baltic place names.
 * Neither of my objections are my personal projection of "if we don't do it my way, the sky will fall." My objections are based on years of observing prior WP empirical editorial behavior. My solution avoids all those issues. Yours opens up the floodgates. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Just to be clear, the "archaic" designation is required precisely because it is continued English language use of (post-WWI) pre-independence place names. As I indicated, "current" and "archaic" are not mutually exclusive. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for compromises and in fact on Birze, when Novickas wrote up a "Names" section that was enough for me. If those who object to inclusion in the lead would take the trouble to do that then I'd have no problem (assuming that there's no monkey business in how the section is written). But like Mike I don't think I like the term "archaic" here as it can be easily misunderstood. And the Mogosci example you give is pretty close to what the current guideline suggests. Note also that there isn't much argument over which alternative name should go first (IMO, alphabetically) - that's not what's driving the disputes (since it's hard to argue over the ordering of a null set). Also please note that the guideline is not being applied even in clear cut cases, like Ponary, where it's more than 50% of English sources that use the name - so again, it's not really about the accuracy of Google books searches (and these are useful, with certain caveats). Like I said above, if it's a close call, based on Google book searches then it can be discussed. But it's not the close calls that are driving the disputes. It's the inclusion of Polish or Yiddish names in Lithuanian places in any case what so ever, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that these names are used extensively by English language sources. Radeksz (weird keyboard w/o tildes)
 * Well, in this specific case, using the same consistent measures as for Kiev vs. Kyiv and elsewhere (and Radeksz, the emphasis isn't at you):
 * Paneriai (BGN Standard)
 * Dvaras Paneriai (Variant)
 * Panėris (Variant)
 * Panerių (Variant)
 * Ponary (Variant)
 * We note Ponary in the lead per my suggestion (archaic English usage), we note other names in other languages in names section and we are done. I think this is reasonable. I myself added Libau to the lead of Liepāja despite my nationalist desires to spit on 700 years of Baltic German domination and exploitation—properly including Libau as alternate historical  English  usage makes it palatable as it is (unfortunately, perhaps) necessary as this is an  English  language encyclopedia. We seem to forget that in these arguments. Arguing about Polish, Yiddish, Belarusian, et al. "deserving" to be in the lead or "ignoring" historical realities by not having them in the lead is not appropriate and is properly and in all cases neturally handled in a names section per the existing standard. Whatever English-usage variant is used in English language sources is noted in the lead without reference to any foreign language etymology. That will become obvious in the names section.
 * As for the "tuning" issue and my own edit on Liepāja,
 * Liepāja ... (archaic: Libau) ...
 * is per the WP name places guideline. As "archaic" appears to be the cause of some confusion and concern,
 * Liepāja ... (historical variant: Libau) ...
 * would work just as well and I think we could justify and adopt that for Baltic place names. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is... 1st edit and 2nd edit. It's not about what makes me happy, it's about what makes an article more informative for English language readers—that is, equip them better to understand other English language sources. There's no reason to put Libau in the lead as "German name for" because it is still "used a lot" because IT IS NOT GERMAN EXONYMS that are at question, it is ENGLISH LANGUAGE USAGE. Putting Libau in as German because German "deserves" to be there would be patently offensive. (And that is the part my compromise solves.) Done shouting. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. Lastly, I know full well the history of both Polish-Lithuanian alliance and acrimony. I wish the latter were otherwise, but it is not. The lead as it is now can be taken as a reminder of past hegemony and/or occupation. I won't even get into the arguments that have been had over whether there were more Lithuanians in the area, or Poles in the area, what the predominant ethnolinguistic settlement of the area was, who came in and settled when, ad nauseum. That is all  irrelevant to NPOV presentation of English language usage of a place name in the lead and presentation of alternate foreign-language names in a names section. I hope I've made my points clear. V ЄСRUМВА   ♪  14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; this is the kind of reader service WP:NCGN was written to encourage. A reader who runs across the name Libau in an old book and looks it up here
 * Should find the article Liepāja, which will tell him about it.
 * Should find the word Libau readily visible, to tell him he's in the right place.
 * That's all WP:NCGN is about, not anybody's ethnic point-scoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis, that's true but the last time I put Libau into WP's search engine, I got the information about Liepāja, and the Aud, and a village in Canada too. More information than I expected. Liepāja, and Kaliningrad, and Klaipėda strike me as much different examples than Žirmūnai, or do you disagree? When you worked out the "10% Plan" with P.P. were the possibilities of such edits like this a consideration, or this ? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Complaints about editor inconsistency and tendentiousness belong at WP:AE, since they bend an ArbCom decision. On the substantive matter: I don't believe anglophone readers will benefit from untransliterated Cyrillic in any article, Žirmūnai, Warsaw, or Moscow; for those who prefer Russian, there is a Russian Wikipedia.


 * If this is, as it appears, to be a point-scoring game about "who was occupied by Russia longer?", all participants on either side should encounter the business end of a wet trout and be told to play nice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you see this as a point scoring "game". What I see is an administrator creating a Wikipedia guideline, arguing for it's application (with the help of some friends), yet applying a double standard in its implementation. I do agree with you that anglophone readers would not benefit from "untransliterated" Cyrillic in any article. When appropriately applied it should certainly be "transliterated". Hopefully we are in agreement there. Hopefully we are also in agreement that these types of arguments are not useful or appropriate.... Getting more substantive, what is your opinion concerning a city like Kaunas? Does the WP:Lead (specifically Separate section usage) guideline trump the "10% Plan" in that case, or the other way around? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody who edits Wikipedia in a frenxy to avoid hurting millions of hypothetical feelings could read WP:ARBMAC2 much more closely; but then I do not care for collective self-pity. As for Kaunas, so what? Is any of that false? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Since I've read WP:ARBMAC2 more than once, that's precisely why I'm here taking a position that involves how that's being interpreted by certain individuals who are now being investigated by the higher ups for their agenda and dealings in shaping the project. You're probably aware of that. As for Kaunas, no I don't think any of that is false. My unanswered question concerns your opinion regarding whether WP:Lead, or the "10% Plan", is the ultimate solution regarding Kaunas. Also what exactly is your stance on "minority inhabitants" relating to WP:NCGN? And do you know why Lithuania is not on that list (country-specific guidance)? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lithuania is not on that list because (as far as I know) nobody's written a page or section of special naming advice for Lithuania; if someone has, put it in; if not, write one. (Say something about these elderships if you do; eldership is at least an English word, even if it means a church elder; elderate is not, and appears to be an invention.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't enforce ArbCom decisions; I'm not an admin, and this is not the forum: WP:AE is that way, around the corner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the proceedings going on here, and elsewhere, I certainly will look into the WP:NCGN list and work on Lithuania's inclusion. It needs someones attention. Septentrionalis since you were involved in the formulation of the "10% Plan" guideline, I still would appreciate your opinion if the WP:Lead guideline might not be a better solution regarding Kaunas. Also your spin regarding the "minority inhabitants" argument. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms? That's the same idea as WP:NCGN; just less detail. I don't see a different set of advice.


 * I was not strongly involved in the "minority inhabitants" discussion, so have no strong feelings about it. It seems not unreasonable that (say, to move away from Lithuania), Greek or Italian or Armenian inhabitants of Trebizond should have written about it in English, so the city is likely to be known under that name - as indeed it is; Trabzon is the Turkish form. Including such names is a service to the reader; it warns him to widen his searches.


 * To apply this, then, I would include all the prominent Latin-alphabet names of Vilnius, including transliterations of Russian and Yiddish. Does this make sense? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to appear so dense, and leaving Trebizond out of this, how does ..."When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms?" affect the question concerning Kaunas? Specifically...WP:Lead (Separate section usage for alternative names) ..."Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.''" Dr. Dan (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's the conflict? If you have to, post two versions of the lead, as it would be under each. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that it's a conflict. If anyone else understands what Septentrionalis is saying here please let me know. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you meant that the two guidelines would result in writing Kaunas differently; I don't see how. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case
This Mediation Cabal case should probably be postponed at this stage, in light of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list, where the misconduct of several users on one side of this dispute has come to light and is currently being analysed by ArbCom. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* Xavexgoem (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be "alleged" misconduct, no? V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they are only allegations. Let's not forget that Prokonsul Piotrus has repeatedly denied on the WP project's talk pages that there is a cabal or he has a black book. Even  here, at this mediation, others accused of participating in the alleged misconduct have made it plain that there is no black book (although I think a charge of my being stalked by that editor could easily be proven, rather than alleged, by that same edit). Vecrumba is correct however, the other supposed misconduct is only alleged. But I am leaning towards having a moratorium placed on this mediation due to the fact that too many participants alleged to be involved in serious misconduct, regarding that ArbCom, are parties to this dispute. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing this case on hold. Contact me via e-mail to get things rolling again - it seems caucusing is the way to get things done at the moment. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the hold, since 1) the P-L dispute is somewhat staled, as it is this mediation and 2) the arbcom case will eat much time of most participants here till its over. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)