This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 11 December 2005 (→Proposed findings of fact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Something should be done to prevent messing up of comments on the Requests for arbitration page

1) User:Irpen moved a comment of Andrew Alexander to another place on the page (see Evidence). I admit that the page does not conform the prescribed format. If it make difficult the normal flow of the process, it would be resonable to ask all parties to rearange their own comments according to the format. If comments of one party is moved by another user, it falls out of context. Such cases should be avoided, in my opinion. (I am sorry, if I placed this request in a wrong place. My experience is not sufficient yet.)--AndriyK 19:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Comment by Irpen

Arbcom guidelines as well as repeated reminders from ArbCom members did not change the behavior of some parties to interject their thoughts into the middle of other people's statements. I moved them away from the wrong place only to preserve them on one hand but to ensure the guidelines are followed on another side. If all interjections have to me deleted or moved to talk, I would welcome that.

The claim of AndriyK that he lacks experience in things and should be given some leeway as a newbie is just ridiculous. His knowing in details of the Wikisoftware features and using them to force his POV on the community obviously proves otherwise. --Irpen 09:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

1) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute revolves around the independence of Ukraine and specifically around the development of Ukrainian Orthodox churches independent of the Russian Orthodox Church, see this example of strongly POV edit and archived talk at Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ukrainian versus Russian names

2) A subtheme of the dispute is use of Ukrainian names such as St Volodymyr's Cathedral (Template:Lang-uk as contrasted to Russian names such as St Vladimir's Cathedral, see . Mikhail of Chernihiv and Oleg of Chernihiv (as opposed to Chernigov) was another bone of contention. These historical figures are connected with the Kievan Rus'. The modern Ukrainian transliteration, Chernihiv, is somewhat anachronistic as applied to men who predate use of the language in its present form. There is also a history of use of Chernigov in English during Russian domination (This also involves the Ukrainian city of Halych which was styled Galich during Russian domination.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. While it is obvious to me that places in Ukraine (other than obvious exceptions like Kiev and Odessa) should be under a transliteration of their official Ukrainian name, I am not sure we have a policy or how historical figures and places associated with the Kievian Rus should be styled. Ideally this would be worked out among the parties, but a bad atmosphere seems to prevail. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Silly_Chernihiv.2FChernigov_war.

Comment by parties:

1. Comment by AndriyK :
   • The Old East Slavic language used Cyrillic alphabet. Therefore one needs transliteration rules how the Old East Slavic "Чернигов" should be converted into English. If one uses the modern Russian transliteration, then one indeed becomes "Chernigov". But what is the reason to use modern Russian to the names of ancient cities located in modern Ukraine? According to phonologicals studies (for instance, G.Y. Shevelov (1979). A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag. ISBN 3-533-02787-2.), the tribe that populated Chernihiv area (Siverians) did not have the consonant "g" in its dialect.(This consonant is still not very common in modern Ukrainian). Therefore, if one would try to reproduce in English the city name how it was prononced at the time of Kievan Rus, one would get "Chernihov" or "Chernihiv" (the written language was quite different from the spoken one, therefore what was written with "o" could well be prononced with "i"). What is definitelly known, the city name could not be prononced as "Chernigov".
   • Russian prononiation became relevant only in the second half of 18th century. (It was used by administration, although the majority of the population always remained Ukrainian) Therefore, applying Russian transliteration to the time of Kievan Rus as well to the later period up to 18th century is definitely anachronistic.
   • Let's looks at the modern English usage. All new editions of English language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia) use the spelling Chernihiv in their articles about the city and apply this name to all periods of history. "Chernigov" is mentioned as the Russian name in Britannica . (This spelling is also used in other articles of Britannica, where likely less attention was paid to the correct spelling of the city name than in the primary article). Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia do not even mention the spelling "Chernigov". There are a lot of other sources applying Chernihiv to all periods of history (e.g. , , ). Well, there are also sources using "Chernigov". But I do not see any reason, why transliteration from Russian should be prefered for the name of a Ukrainian city. Why Misplaced Pages should be different in spelling from other English language encyclopedias?

Comment by Irpen

The speculations of what East Slavic language was and how it would transliterate into a modern English is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether there is a prevailing usage in English L texts where the name of the place is used in a particular historical context. That Britannica uses Chernihiv exclusively is just a plain lie and the detailed analysis is presented in Talk:Chernihiv#Britannica.27s_use_in_historical_context. Encarta uses Chernigov in medieval context (see ), plenty of other ref books do so too. The American Heritage® Dictionary speaks about Chernigov Principality in the very article of Chernihiv city . As shown above, other encyclopedias use both versions and in the appropriate context they use Chernigov with substantial margin. And not only other encyclopedia. Look at this comparison in google (where "prince" is added to the city to restrict the usage to the Rus' time). The difference is 30000+ vs 1000-.

However, please note that while I would very much welcome the ArbCom members getting themselves involved in deciding on the matter which follows from ambiguity of our guidelines that allow bad-faith interpretation, this question may be left to the editors who will be carving the improved guidelines. The main issue of this arbitration is not whether Cherigov, Chernihiv, Vladimir or Volodymyr should be used in the articles. There are hundreds of articles and hundreds of similar disputes and ArbCom cannot possibly decide on them all. The issue at hand is, mainly, overturning the bad-faith article moves done with a sneaky trick (these moves cannot be reversed by users because of how they were made) and a ruling that would prevent the user from going on the spree to disrupt dozens of articles at a time. OTOH, if the ArbCom has time and desire to get into these meritorical disputes and decide each of them, I certainly have no objection. --Irpen 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Point of view editing

3) Examination of recent edit warring by AndriyK and Ghirlandajo shows a pattern of removing the opposing point of view together with inserting their own point of view , , , , , , see Talk:Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"The falsified voting"

4) a revert by Irpen with the comment "this article should be protected until the falisfied voting is overturned" point (maybe) to the vote at Talk:Mikhail_of_Chernihiv#Requested_move:_Mikhail_of_Chernihiv.E2.86.92Mikhail_of_Chernigov. The sequence of events is discussed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Statement_by_Ezhiki where it is alleged, "Because the first votes cast were overwhelmingly in support of the move, AndriyK posted a message on an outside Ukrainian forum (), which not only called for all interested Ukrainians to register Misplaced Pages accounts and vote regarding the articles’ moves, but also classified opposing parties as "Russian mafia" (http://www2.maidan.org.ua/n/free/1130025302). English translations of the posts are available here and here. The result of the posts was an inflow of Ukrainian voters—enough to create an illusion of greater opposition than it otherwise would be—whose only goal was to support AndriyK’s POV." An actual translation of one post is available at http://eng.maidanua.org/node/429

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Comment by AndriyK:
   • What User:Ezhiki calles "English translations of the posts ... here and here"' is, in fact, not a translation of my posts but rather the opinion of some of my opponents about my posts.
   • English translation of all my posts is not available. Only one message was translated into English and was published on the English version of the site Maidan. Please find the translation here.

Comment by others:

Personal attacks on outside forum

5) On the Ukrainian forum, AndriyK, in addition to describing opposing Russian language editors (who may very well live in Ukraine) as a "Russian mafia", described "User Irpen is a very cunning, ingenious, and stubborn troll." ("Користувач Irpen - дуже хитрий, винахідливий і наполегливий троль." User_talk:Irpen#Discussion_on_maidanua.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. comment by Irpen

This is rather mild compared to the extremely foul and vulgar language the AndriyK used to recruit the followers and Ukrainian wiki. I don't think what he said is quotable but if quoting of foul language is allowed and ArbCom members would like to see the translation of the language AndriyK uses, I would certainly provide the translation. I could also provide other citations from his personal attacks at the Maidan forum but, again, it is not his personal attacks but his cheating and revert warring is the reason of this arbitration. Getting me upset by a rude user is not a reason to spend so much time of so many people on this page. --Irpen 09:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Naming conventions

6) Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names while it provides "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.", does not address the question of names and persons associated with the Kievian Rus' which is the historical predecessor of all modern russian states.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

AndriyK's crusade

7) AndriyK, taking an aggressive Ukrainian nationalist position has strongly advocated use of the Ukrainian names for historical places and persons. Without obtaining consensus regarding policy he has moved a number of pages, see . Facing the obvious tactic of others moving back he devised a method of preventing reverts of his page moves by producing an artificial history for redirect pages, see . For non-administrators reversing such a move involves placing a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. A dirty trick Fred Bauder 16:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: