Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Irpen

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Personal attack by Ghirlandajo

A couple of trolls launched Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen and hectically spam the talk pages of Russophobic editors in the hope of intimidating this invaluable wikipedian. I suggest every reasonable wikipedian should refrain from feeding the trolls. Let's see how the likes of Andriyka, Molobo, Piotrus, Halibutt and Ukrained stage a Russophobic circus here. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Molobo and Piotrus

The above comment is sadly an evidence how the discussion looks like in regards to Russian related issues with Irpen and Ghirandajo. All that isn't in line with ultra-patriotic Russian version that speaks favourably of Russia is determined as "Russophobic" and users that don't support the pro-Russian view of Ghirandajo and Irpen are accused of being "trolls". Ghirandajo has been warned by Arbcom to stop insulting people[1] but he continues to do so :here a user is called Bulgarian pest.
Actually, Ghirlandajo called this guy Internedko "ignorant nationalist". The "Bulgarian pest" calling is only in the summary of his edit in the Russian portal. Now, to mention this HERE of all places, where you would expect the Ukrainian patriots to be active, looks a bit strange because in his dispute with Internedko, Ghirlandajo was reverting a claim that ... Ukraine was a part of the Old Bulgarian Empire. [2] and [3]User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess Its hard to work with Irpen and his collegue Ghirandajo, many edits are biased and manipulative wording is added, often in line with Soviet propaganda or Russian nationalist ideology, or at least taking statemants by such influences as granted. It is true that Irpen also frequently calls others "trolls" and removes justifiable content:[4], opting for historically inaccurate versions of articles(in this example he tries to claim that Russia took only Belarussian and Ukrainian territories in Partition of Poland). --Molobo 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After this comment, one of the trolls attacking Irpen was blocked for one year. Now it's time to settle the issue with his brother-in-arms and tireless supporter, Piotrus. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo has been blocked for disruption and 3RR warring, and you have been warned that you are doing the same things. Please stop your incivility and learn from Molobo's fate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipated a Russophobic circus and here it is. Don't forget to mention that you have been warned that you may follow Molobo if you practice the same things he did. Please stop your incivility, personal attacks, gratuitous accusations of vandalism and learn from Molobo's fate. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the disclaimer that I and Molobo are involved in several content disputes with Ghirla and Irpen, and so our POV is certainly biased to some extent, I support the above comment by Molobo. I would also like to add that while Irpen often uses talk and discusses issues with me (and most often then not we reach some suitable compromise) he rarely discusses things with Molobo and often calls him troll (on talk pags and edit summaries), which I find very discouraging and creating a bad atmosphere in editing. As for Ghirlandajo, his behaviour on just one content field in a short amount of time (Poland-related edits few months ago) generated a large list of incivility behaviour (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo] for evidence). That RfC has done nothing to curb his behaviour, and I'd rather think that it is Ghirla's extreme incivility and refusal to take part in most discussions that should be of concern to ArbCom, as Irpen behaviour is much less extreme then Ghirla's.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't talk with this user until he is defrocked for innumerable violations of Wikipedia law and spirit, in partciular, for wheel warring to unblock Molobo. See here for my statement. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your slander is not doing Irpen much good, Ghirla.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slander... is it a legal threat? Your comments bespeak your extreme frustration with the block of your comrade-in-arms. Please cool off. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, frankly, you should stop your attempts to protect Molobo, because it harms you more than anyone else. I used to consider you as a nice contributor before all this sordid story started.
This being said, as I said on the mediation cabal case you started, I'm ready to move on if your apologize for the abuse of your admin powers (I'm refering specifically to your unblock button abuse, not the related content disputes or something else) and if you promise that you won't attempt to contest Molobo's block, which is, all content dispute considerations set aside, rightly deserved just because of his countless 3RR violations. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the mediation page, which *I* requested against slander as above, I am not guilty of any abuse of my powers; however there are users engaged in content disputes who try to damage my reputation by repeating this slander.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's go about it again. Have you approved Molobo's disruptive activities? Have you unblocked him after repeated 3RR violations? Checking a block log is sufficient to expose your attitude towards the troll. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, cool off please. Nobody is innocent in this story, but now that Molobo is blocked (and that Piotrus promised he would not attempt to modify his block), I think we have better things to do than chew all this over and over. There are radical POV-pushers out there and Piotrus is IMHO not among them. Futhermore, his attitude towards this RFC in the section below is quite positive and constructive. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide diffs of where Irpen has engaged in name-calling? I tried to follow some of the diffs on the RfC, but the actual links usually seemed to have very little to do with what the related complaint was. For example, one diff supposedly shows where Irpen accused someone of trolling, but I checked the diff, and it looked like a reasonable explanation, without the word "troll" appearing anywhere in it. --Elonka 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You likely mean this link. It refers to WP:DFTT#Pestering implying that I was a "troll". You'll not find in the archive the answer on the questions I was asking. Morover, I proposed to collect the answer of all involved users to see whether there is a consensus. Is it trolling?--Mbuk 21:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please don't miss any chance to use your admin tools against participants of this discussion, rather than just preaching them (which is sometimes fruitless). People elected you for some purposes - please fulfill all those purposes. Best wishes, Ukrained 05:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Piotrus has better things to do... Besides, who are you to decide? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above Grafikm_fr's post is exactly the case of an unprovoked personal attack needing administrator reaction :( Ukrained 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who already used the word "troll" (which by the way is a personal attack) already half a dozen times on this page, you're not in the best position possible to give lessons on civility and politeness, I can tell... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be quite improper for Piotrus to use his administrator tools in this case, since he has been engaged in content disputes with some of the participants. See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When blocking may not be used and Wikipedia:Protection_policy. --Elonka 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about some other admins? Ukrained 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

First of all, I would like to thank David.Mestel for his outside view.

There was, however, a misunderstanding. I did not claim a violation of WP:3RR by Irpen. I ment another rule (see Types_of_vandalism the subsection "Improper use of dispute tags "):

As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.

Irpen violated this rule by removing the tag three times during 24 hours [5]:

  1. 16:49, 20 June 2006
  2. 06:09, 21 June 2006
  3. 06:20, 21 June 2006

The evidence that the respondant removed an OR tag was listed by AndriyK. He explained it in his statement. I cannot comment much on it, I was not involved in that dispute.

By mistake, I duplicated one of the diffs. It is corrected [6]. I thank David.Mestel for pointing it out. I apologize to Irpen and to the community for this mistake.--Mbuk 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the summary by abakharev

I am not a Ukrainian patriot: my application for the citizenship of another country is pending. I am not an ethnic Ukrainian. I do not even speak Ukrainian beyond a few the most common phrases.

I was however disgusted by the way how Irpen and the user who support him behave towards other users during disputes. I got an impression that these people try to "solve" the dispute by the edit war. Apparently they hope to "win" the edit war because they are more numerous and persistent instead of building a compromise and taking the steps suggested in WP:DR. Therefore I got involved in the dispute and tried to direct the discussion into more constructive pathway. But was even more disgusted with Irpen's manner of discussion. This is why I started this RfC.

I am not hundred percent sure that AndriyK is right in this dispute. The truth is likely, as always, inbetween. But his objections are clearly formulated. He proposed a solution (see the archive) of the talk. He proposed a resonable way to build a consensus by mediation. This way, IMHO, is more productive than what Irpen and his supporters were doing.

Irpen's contribution to other articles may be valuable, but this is not an excuse for uncooperative behaviour or ignoring WP policies.--Mbuk 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Irpen has engaged recently in edit warring on a couple of other articles [7].--Mbuk 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, although more should be added to present a full picture of Irpen's wrongdoing. Ukrained
Since Molobo is now blocked for a year, I think we will have some peace now... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "peace" in your understanding means nasty Russian POV-pushing, than you won't get it. Go on, Grafik, discredit Irpen more with your hatred and scoffing comments. "Tell me who Irpen's friends are..." Ukrained 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment to the summary by Alex Bakharev and others (by AndriyK)

The RfC template clearly states as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen#Discussion: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page". In spite of such ruleuser:AndriyK commented on the mainpage in violation of the process. I am more interested than anyone in keeping this RfC clear, structured and in accordance to the policy. I am sorry, that its initiator doesn't take an interest in it but that's not new. In accordance with the rule of the process, his response however, is moved here for everyone to read and comment. My own response, I am entitled to, will be coming within hours if everything goes as I plan with my time. --Irpen 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following statementg is not true

There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article

In fact, there was an intensive discussion on the talk page [8]. The solution has been proposed [9].

It is likely that Alex Bkharev misinformed the community unintentionaly. But the fact that eight more users endorse this misinformation without even looking at the talk page is extremely disturbing.

The interpretation of my edit [10] as my consent with the phrase "a few short lived Ukrainian states" is nothing else as manupulation with the facts. I did not mantioned the POV phrase. Therefore I did not corrected it. But it does not mean that I accepted it.

I propose Alex Bkharev to correct his statement and appologize to the community for the misinformation and fact manipulation.--AndriyK 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

I guess I should answer on this comment here. The diff posted was of November 2005 that is almost ethernity on the Wikipedia scale. Since then the introduction was many times rewritten (trying to emphisize the scope of this article), the differences and inheritance of different states mentioned there. The first section was also re-written with the emphisize on the "Russian part" of the Kievan Rus'. Even if we WP:AGF of the proposal in November 2006 it is unrelated to the tag warring of June-July 2006 abakharev 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this, and support Bakaharev's statement, by trying to manipulate an RfC statement is a violation of WP:POINT. AndriyK should better consider about apologising to the Ukrainian community of wikipedia for shaming them with locked page moves, vote frauds and edit warring on an unpresedented scale. For details see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. --Kuban Cossack 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this one too. Per WP:BOLD, rather than putting POV tags everywhere, you should try and improve the article. Like Alex said, if you same amount of time and energy editing the article rather than engaging yourself in edit wars, the dispute would probably be already solved. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "There was no discussion", which is not true [11].
Does not matter how long ago the solution was proposed, the dispute has not been resolved yet. There was a discussion on the talk page and mediation has been proposed. Irpen removed the dispute tag inspite of the fact that the dispute is not settled, which is agains the policy. And you misinform the community saying "there is no discussion".--AndriyK 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of opponents referring back to the votes in the past and you and Mbuk stonewalling them does not a discussion make. By the way, the link you gave just now, leads nowhere. Of course, I endorse Alex's view that the article was changed a lot since november 2005 to take your proposal into account. You have therefore managed to push the article towards your POV, but because that was not enough, you put the contoversial POV/because tag. Please consider this my answer to your message on my talk page.--Pan Gerwazy 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the link.--AndriyK 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling in and out of RfC

If you expect me to react to your provocations and personal attacks, you won't get such a pleasure from me... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Readers, please take into account that this is not a reaction to AndriyK or me, or whoever wrote after me, but to the following:

If "peace" in your understanding means nasty Russian POV-pushing, than you won't get it. Go on, Grafik, discredit Irpen more with your hatred and scoffing comments. "Tell me who Irpen's friends are..." Ukrained 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Pan Gerwazy 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr.Grafik, since Wikipedia:Trolling is a general approach in your posts (like here), let me confess bad faith a little: every each your appearance on talk pages is so far unpleasant for me :(. Ukrained 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will act as if I did not notice your personal attack on me (mind WP:NPA though) and I will ask you one single question: why is that diff (which apparently you like so much) so terrible in your eyes?? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly because User:AlexPU was punished and commented out enough. You seemed to enjoy his block very much and openly, which is I believe against WP:AGF (the principle fetishisized by your friends Irpen and Bakharev). By the way, are you in edit conflicts with AlexPU? Secondly, that was an act of unprovoked political trolling: AlexPU was blocked for his language, not for his "orange nationalism" (which you mentioned). As for other diffs, I was talking mainly about your abusive politically-dominated comment to WP:RfAr (sorry, couldn't find diff in archives; do you insist?) Please don't make such posts again, especially on WP:DR pages. Ukrained 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I will even find that RFAR diff for you [12], you may also be interested by my comment about it here.
As for AlexPU, I never happened to be in edit war with him, but someone who uses words like "motherf****er" and "troll" to communicate with his opponents will get no respect from me just because of that. Using such kind of words should be restricted to informal use, not to communicate on talk pages. Futhermore, I'm not the kind of person to tolerate open nationalism (especially nationalism using fact deformation) on Wikipedia.
Finally, I never said he was blocked because of his "orange nationalism", I said that "I cannot bear orange and other nationalists". This was just a commentary and in no way an endorsement of the block. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, your last sentence looks utterly unsincere... But thanks for the diffs: I will use them in one way or another. Ukrained 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really strange RFC

I'm not voicing my opinion in the RFC itself, as I've not followed the Russian architecture article but having met Irpen over multiple edits, I believe the RFC is either a misunderstanding or a form of personal attack against him. I know Irpen as one of the most reasonable editors on the Eastern European issues and while I understand that everyone looses his nerve at times, I believe this RFC is out of place. This said, I should also mention that I very often (usually?) disagree with Irpen in content disputes, and I find his POV to be heavily influenced by post-soviet ideology (which, personally I blame on Soviet education, but I may be wrong of course). I can also understand and sympathise with the frustration of Ukrainian editors at Irpen's clearly Russophile approach to Ukraine-related issues. However, everyone has a right to his POV, and once again, from my experience I find Irpen to be much more civilised and open to disputes or negotiations than most of the other editors involved. --Lysytalk 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the primary reason for this RfC is not "Russophile approach" of Irpen. Russian is my mother language. Being not an ethnic Russian I am Russian by language and culture.
The reason for this RfC, as I've already stated above, was the way how Irpen and the user who support him behave towards other users during disputes. His permanent eddit warring, his unwillingness to move towards a compromise.
Removing of a dispute tag twice per 24hrs is against the WP policy and it is a sufficient reason to start RfC, IMHO.
If you have an experince of solving content disputes with Irpen without edit warring and other unplesant things please share this expirience with other users. Instruct them what should one do if one disagrees with Irpen, but Irpen does not even recognize that there is any dispute by repeatedly removing the tag and qualifies questions of fellow users at talk as "trolling". If you found a way how to deal with such behaviour please disclous us this secret. Hopefully this in one of the ways how this RfC can be usefull.--Mbuk 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried requesting a mediation? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AndriyK proposed it [13]. But Irpen did not accept [14]. What was the reason to propose one more mediation?--Mbuk 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was an question, don't jump on the trigger please... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to act constructively. If there's something that you think should be changed in the article, propose specific changes, create new articles where appropriate etc. Editwarring over a tag is simply wasteful. --Lysytalk 21:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lysy! I respect you very much as a neutral and balanced editor. But I am afraid that your own impression about Irpen is not valid in general.
I edit one more example to the evidence at the talk page and expanded my summary. Here I proposed a specific change: [15]. Does somebody consider it unneutral, unconstractive or "rusophobic" (as Irpen usually blames me)? But Irpen reverted me. To avoid one more edit war, I marked the disagreement by a tag and started the discussion. Irpen removed the tag immediatelly despite of the fact that the discussions was going on.
Irpen is very creative, I must confess, in his POV-pushing. Here he added a "compromise" formulation [16]. But it was not a compromise. It now looks like "estimates vary between 3 and 3.5 million", which is not true.
It looks like Irpen's reaction on other user edits depends not on what one propose to change but rather on who is proposed the changes. There are users especially disliked by him. And he persecute these users. You are lucky, Lysy, you are not one of the users persecuted by Irpen. May be therefore our impressions about Irpen's edit habits are so different.--AndriyK 09:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is probable that his reaction depends on who is he dealing with. Everybody does this to certain extent. Personally I also have editors whom I trust less or more than the others and my reaction to their edits might depend on my past experiences with them. --Lysytalk 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he was totally right IMHO. "Several millions" is just too vague and could mean anything. You might want to look at Joseph Stalin article to see how all the estimations regarding Stalin's death toll were introducted and compared, which is even harder to do (cause mind you, estimated vary between 3 and 60 millions...) Sure, it created some nasty edit wars, but people were able to reach a relative consensus at the end. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is right? Other soutrces estimate the number of victims up to 8 or even 11 millions. Is it right to say 3 to 3.5?--AndriyK 09:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then say "an estimate by XXXX is of 11 millions", and quote your sources. Don't say "several millions" without mentionning anything else. Don't forget WP:V. With the diff you provided it was not the case. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the referencies to the sources on the talk page. (Please read the discussion). I proposed to make a detailed analysis in the article Holodomor and do not go into details in the general articles about Ukrain or History of Ukraine.
But the esitmtes of the number of victims is not the subject of the present discussion.
We discuss here the habits of Irpen to remove the dispute tag before the dispute was settled.
Please read the policies listed here.--AndriyK 10:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AndriyK, in this particular sub-thread, I was just pointing out one diff that you provided that was rightfully reverted. And by the way, I'm pleased to see that in the current version of the page, all estimations were sourced. That's what everyone should do. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of caouse the users who makes a revert considers this revert "rightfull" (unless he is a vandal, of cause). Other users may agree with him and also consider the revert "rightfull". But (an)other user(s) disagree. And this is a dispute. The policy forbids removing the tag before the dispute was settled. And forbids removing the tag twice or more times per 24 hrs. Everybody who does it violates the policy. A you agree?--AndriyK 10:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about the tag removal in this thread Andriy. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's talk. What is the problem?--AndriyK 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the wording "several millions" was too vague and unsourced. But since it was properly reworded and sourced since, the problem is no longer there... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my question. I propose you to talk about the tag removal. Was not it policy violation? ;)--AndriyK 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add here that I don't really understand why we have a RfC towards one of the more reasonable Russian editors. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to go after the 'extremists'? Yes, Irpen has a strong POV, but so do many of us. Nobody's perfect :) Bottom line is that Irpen rarely violates wiki policies, he often uses talk pages, and is more reasonable then not (and upper line is what Alex wrote in his comment on the main page of this RfC). I doubt this RfC is going to achieve much, beacause there is more good that can be said about Irpen then bad, therefore a lot of editors will not se much point in forcing him to change his ways. Again, there are other editors who should be of much more concern to the community because of their incivility and frequent disregard for various other rules, and whose behaviour should results in much more concern (and pressure) fromt he community to change their behaviour. Engaging them in debate would be much more useful for the project, I believe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your analysis sums up pretty much everything Piotrus. This RFC is directed against a quite reasonable editor that more often than not, tries to reach consensus. Unfortunately, there are always radical POV-pushers that make personal attacks and engage in name-calling (see the "wonderful" section started by Ukrained just above). I think we have to deal with these people in the first place, rather than Irpen. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Piotrus, I don't think Irpen can be separated from their friends Ghirla and Kuban kazak. This is a POV-pushing team. If Irpen cannot get through with his relative civility, then Ghirla and Kuban kazak come with their uncivility and personal attacks, bring more "revert power" with them and do the job. This is how this team acts.--AndriyK 09:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*whistles*... mind WP:NPA... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you cannot blame Irpen for the other editors. That's neither fair nor effective. Also, while I know this can be sometimes difficult I'd advise to complain about edits not about the editors, if possible. --Lysytalk 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I did in this RfC. I presented the referencies to Irpen's edits. I described his edit habits in my summary. I listed the policies he violated. So did Mbuk as well.--AndriyK 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Hiya, I've been trying to dig into this RfC enough to actually offer a comment, but I keep getting lost in the challenges as to who exactly is complaining about what. So I figured I'd post here what it looks to me like is going on, and some requests for more information.

What this seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) is a dispute between Andriyk & Mbuk, and Irpen.

  • This dispute has been ongoing for several months, in a variety of articles, most of which seem to be about Ukrainian and Russian issues.
  • Andriyk & Mbuk claim that certain articles are POV and non-neutral, and they have been editing the articles to make them more complete (in their opinion), and/or adding POV tags to those articles.
  • Irpen has been claiming that the articles are not POV, that the issues have already been discussed, and has been removing the tags.
  • Irpen has been accusing Andriyk and Mbuk of being "Russophobes", and of engaging in troll-like behavior, specifically by bringing up the same issues again and again.
  • Andriyk and Mbuk are claiming that Irpen has refused to engage in a genuine dialogue about the issues.
  • Irpen is claiming that the dialogue has already been accomplished, but that Andriyk & Mbuk just refuse to accept the community consensus.

Is the above pretty much a good "general view" of what's going on? Or am I missing something?

Now, questions (if of course anyone is interested in my opinion on the matter). Could someone please supply for me, sorted by article:

  • A list of the articles where these disputes have been taking place
  • The dateranges of disputes on each of those articles
  • Per article, a few specific diffs within those dateranges of the disputed behavior

Please include Articles, article talk pages, and user talkpages, as appropriate.

Thanks, --Elonka 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This RfC was triggered by the dispute at Russian architecture. The dispute was started at 08:09, 28 October 2005. My first idea was to dePOV the article by moving it to another title. Now I admit, this was not the most suitable solution. Later, I proposed another one.
The tag was inserted for the first time at 12:08, 29 October 2005 [17].
The user who inserted it explained his reasons on the talk page at 12:33, 29 October 2005 (edit)[18].
Nonetheless, Irpen removed the tag at 14:52, 29 October 2005 [19] with the edit summary "we can't have an unexplained POV tag, explain at talk and than return the tag". He removed the tag many times during the dispute.
It is impssible to list here every edit. I point out the most important (from my point of view) steps of the dispute.
  1. I proposed the solution [20]. And modified the text of the article [21]. Irpen reverted [22]. (Please note that the solution has been proposed. What Alex Bakharev wrote in his comment is not true).
  2. There was a request for comment about the article. There were two comments by Herostratus and Durova with opposite views. (see Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive#Responding_to_request_for_comment). I disagree with Herostratus but agree with Durova.
  3. There was a surway Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive#Survey. Which demonstrated that there are more Russian users than Ukrainian ;) but did not show any clear consensus. Please note that my view is shared not only by the users who voted but also by Ilya K. I also got some support from an anonimous user who later registered as User:KPbIC.
  4. I propose to request a mediation [23]. But Irpen did not accept my proposal [24] thinking that if he discussed and rejected my objection then the dispute is settled, even if I consider his answer unjustified, unlogical and biased.
What means "dispute is settled" in my view, please find here [25].
Then Mbuk joined the discussion. Please see his statement and the eviodence.
Please note that what Alex Bakahrev wrote "There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article" is not true. There was an intensive discussion on the talk page [26] at the time when Irpen was removing the tag.

Plese have a look at my most recent proposals Talk:Russian_architecture#Let.27s_try_to_resolve_the_dispute.

There were also a few shorter disputes on the articles
  1. Ukrainization
  2. Ukraine
  3. History of Ukraine
You can find the links here.
Links to one more dispute on the article Khreschatyk were listed by Yakudza Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary.--AndriyK 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information. And in the other articles such as at Ukrainization, Ukraine, Khreschatyk, and History of Ukraine articles, what date ranges are being discussed? --Elonka 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the discussion on October 5-7, 2005 the sources definition of Ukrainization was kept for a half a year. Than Irpen replaced it with what is likely his original research on April 5, 2006. I mantined it only on 3d of May. And the discussion took place on May 3-5.
The dispute on Khreschatyk started on 11th of January and stopped on 15th of March. Then Irpen resumed the edit war on April 21.
The dispute concerning Ukraine and History of Ukraine was short. It took place on June 14.--AndriyK 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elonka. Thanks for your interest to this RfC

  • This dispute has been ongoing for several months, in a variety of articles, most of which seem to be about Ukrainian and Russian issues.
    Actually I joined the dispute rather recently and only at Russian architecture. My paticipation in other disputes is marginal if any.
  • Andriyk & Mbuk claim that certain articles are POV and non-neutral, and they have been editing the articles to make them more complete (in their opinion), and/or adding POV tags to those articles.
  • I do not have any strong POV concerning Russian architecture. The reason I got involved is not what was discussed but how it was discussed (with removing the dispute tag during the discussion, misleading edit summaries, edit warring etc.)
  • Irpen has been claiming that the articles are not POV, that the issues have already been discussed, and has been removing the tags.
  • Actualy, many issues indeed were discussed. But the problem is that Irpen does not care whether he convinced his opponents or not. He did not try to look for a compromise solution. It looks like he believes that the dispute is settled if the issue was merely mentioned at talk.
  • Irpen has been accusing Andriyk and Mbuk of being "Russophobes", and of engaging in troll-like behavior, specifically by bringing up the same issues again and again.
  • No, I was not blamed for "Russophobia" yet.;) Only Andriy was.
  • Yes, my attempt to clarify the positions of the parties in the dispute was qualified as WP:DFTT#Pestering, which is a kind of troll activity.
  • Andriyk and Mbuk are claiming that Irpen has refused to engage in a genuine dialogue about the issues.
  • Yes, it's true.
  • Irpen is claiming that the dialogue has already been accomplished, but that Andriyk & Mbuk just refuse to accept the community consensus.

Close

Is it time to close this RFC yet? I think abakharev's version of events attained the widest acceptance. --Tēlex 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen told me he was going to post a response. Let's wait till at least that moment. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He already has, hasn't he? --Tēlex 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he told me he was writing an extensive response during his trip. Said he should be back by the end of the week and post it. The diff you provide is IMHO a "pre-response" saying "I'm off for a trop and gonna post it later". Just my $.02 though... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Irpen"