Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK

Naming conventions
Not bad, not bad, although still not in the same league as the Serb-Greek-Bulgarian controversy over Macedonian language :)

Seriously, though, it would appear that there are two separate questions here:

Ahasuerus 21:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are the current Wikipedia naming conventions sound? Or are they too ambiguous, one-sided or otherwise more likely to promote controversy than prevent it?
 * Are some editors trying to change these policies by fiat rather than by going through the formal process?

The current Wikipedia naming conventions are not sound. We are slowly trying to fix them at Naming conventions/Geographic names. It is a shame that many users who have time to pursie this RfA had no time to post at the WNC:GN yet :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment to AndriyK's statement

 * I am sorry, if my activity damaged Wikipedia in any way.

And you didn't know what you were doing when moving pages in three steps to create redirects with history too, right? But after you created 20 or so such redirects that make articles unmovable, only then you realized that moves may be accomplished in one step or, better yet, proposed at talk fist. You said earlier that you "learn fast". 20 redirects before realizing is indeed a lightning speed --Irpen 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, creating redirects is not forbidden by WP policies. The number of steps is not limited either.
 * I am sorry, if I was not carefull enough when read the policies and missed any important pieces.--AndriyK 18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this behavior of yours of not just "creating redirects" but creating of unmovable redirects and moving articles irreversibly to force your POV on the community is the main subject of this arbitration. An important part of our policies is the spirit in which they're made. The arbitrators are requested to decide whether these moves are made in bad faith. Even your revert warring is a secondary offence to this move fraud. --Irpen 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment to the statement by Yakudza
First of all, trying to present this as a conflict of AndriyK with some anti-Ukrainian group is a plain nonsense. As I explained in my statement already, all active members of the Ukrainian community at en-wiki co-signed this ArbCom submission. For more, see the third paragraph of my addendum at Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK. This speaks much for the "unanimity" that Yakudza questions.

Secondly, this arbitration is mainly about the sneaky tricks and not personal attacks and lack of civility on the account of user:AndriyK (still highly regrettable). If Ghirlandajo made questionable edit summaries on occasion, he was wrong at it. However, I worked with this editor and I know that he is not a bully. He and I disagreed many times on issues and I've seen Ghirlandajo as an editor susceptible to communication and able to compromise. He is certainly one of the most knowledgeable, valuable and prolific editors of the Russia related topics. I agree that we all should control ourselves and not allow the annoyance to overflow into the edit summaries. The quotes of Yakudza and others are picked after digging through hundreds or thousands of Ghirlandajo's edits. That I stopped contributing and became obsessed with AndriyK is a big overestimation of his importance in my life. You can check my contributions, some of them I added to the list of the articles at my user page, to see that.

"Irpen rarely accepts a compromise" claim is better checked with the whole community of Polish, Russian and Ukrainian editors who know me and no doubt would be surprised by this statement. I would welcome AndriyK and all his supporters to start and RfC against me. I wonder how many supporters they will find for that and how many people would certify my "hardness", "obstinacy" and "inability to compromise". AndriyK went recently to a Polish board to campaign against Ghirlandajo in connection with this arbitration but was rebuffed there twice here and here. AndriyK's and Andrew Alexander's frantic campaign at Maidan.org.ua forum itself drew the criticism from the very readers of the forum which AndriyK accused in being my sockpuppets at the forum.

Some of the users that came to Wikiepdia from Maidan inspired by AndriyK's calls came here with the desire to contribute and I had several collegiate communications and collaborations with some of them in spite of the difference in views. See for example the User_talk:Ashapochka.

--Irpen 06:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You pressed Ukrainian editors that can disagree with you out of Wikipedia. This explaines why "all active members of the Ukrainian community" (in fact, not all fortunately) "co-signed this ArbCom submission".--AndriyK 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not only a ridiculous speculation but also a rather denigrating statement towards a group of respected users such as, , that they do things under someone else's pressure. Do you think that I also drafted the messages they were leaving at your talk well before this arbitration? You assume too much of myself as well as of yourself that I have nothing better to do than devise complicated schemes against you as well as try to involve others in that. --Irpen 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This only my personal opinion. It formed after articles St Volodymyr's Cathedral and St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral_ownership_controversy --Yakudza 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Email to me from AndriyK
Hello. I just got the following email from AndriyK:


 * Привіт, Джеймсе!
 * Я прошу Вас допомогти припинити війну редагувань навколо статті "Holodomor".
 * Там це неподобство вже продовжується кілька тижнів.
 * Сьогодні там користувач Kuban kazak порушив 3RR.
 * (Четвертий раз він там вніс невеличкі зміни, намагаючись уникнути блокування,
 * але більша частина статті була повернена до його попередньої версії. Я думаю є
 * всі підстави, щоб його заблокувати.)


 * Наперед вдячний за Вашу допомогу.


 * Щиро,


 * AndriyK

I assume that I received this email because I am an administrator that understands Ukrainian and have not yet been involved in this dispute. For those not familiar Ukrainian, it is simply a request to block User:Kuban kazak for a violation of the 3RR on Holodomor. When I took a look at the history of Holodomor, it did appear that a violation did occur. However, I do not feel comfortable blocking one side of a dispute considering:
 * This RFAr
 * Andrew Alexander removing POV tags on this article
 * Andrew Alexander alternating with AndriyK in who will revert the page. If they are sockpuppets, then this is also a violation of the 3RR.

JamesTeterenko 20:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My view of events
Thank you for your more rational approach, If you are interested this is what IMHO has led up to the edit war. On the 18th of december User Andrew Alexander adds the following [|text] to an already highly controversial topic. Not only is it presented completely in an unrelated standalone way, the POV is EXTREAMELY skewed:
 * The events of 1932-33 in Ukraine were seen by the Soviet Communist leaders as a kind of "final solution" against possible Ukrainian self-determination....One of the leaders of the Ukrainian Bolsheviks, Mykola Skrypnyk, witnessing the results of his cooperation with Moscow, shot himself in the summer of 1933. ...The Communist Party of Ukraine under the guidance of state-appointed mass murderers like Kaganovich, Kosior, Postyshev....

These facts presented in the most unwikipedian POV, they also messed up the whole structure of the article. With this in mind, I, Lysy, Irpen and Michael began discussing about neutralisation of these facts and of course put a POV tag (I think it was Irpen who did that although one can always check). I deleted the section and Lysy replaced the disputed section with a temporary heading:
 * The events of artificial famine of 1932-33 were preceded by the onset of Soviet assault on Ukrainian national culture in their drive to prevent possible Ukrainian national self-determination.

Now Andrew Alexander come back restores the controversal material begins arguing for sources that say that these facts are not related. Although I have not questioned the relation as that is a POV regardless of how one looks at it, I have simply offered Andrew Alexander to start a new article Ukrainian Genocide and set that separately from Holodomor (the famine). He refused and continued to steer the conversation away from the topic with arguments for refrences etc. In the meantime I took it upon myself and rewrote his addition moved it to the existing portion where the facts that Andrew Alexander presented belong and actually not omitting a single fact, expanded the section AND integrated it into the article removing controvertial POV rubbish, making it once again consice. Andrew reverts everything including all my grammar corrections, all my refrence expansion... I revert this vandalism. AndriyK comes along (whom after his arbitration I don't see as a serious editor - have a look at some of the damage he cause to wiki) I revert telling him to bugger off, and well...edit war. -- Kuban kazak 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, let's not continue this at the arbitration to which it is not related. The discussion is ongoing at Talk:Holodomor for a long time. Let's keep it there. This monster case is already full with relevant info and there will be more coming. This is only relevant to the extent that these two individuals continue to revert war. The merit of their edits is not the subject of the arbitration yet. --Irpen 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)