Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by AndriyK

[edit] The most recent: User:Ghirlandajo removes comments of other users from the Workshop page

[edit] 13 December 2005

[edit] 14 December 2005

  • 07:25
  • 07:59
    • I restored the comment [4].
  • 08:04
  • 08:17
    • I resotred the comment and added a section to proposed findingds of facts about the blanking of the comment [6].
  • 08:22

[edit] User:Irpen messes up comments of other users on the Requests for arbitration page

[edit] 9 December 2005

  • 21:15
    • User:Irpen moved a comment of Andrew Alexander user to another place on the page, so that it now falls out of context. [8]

[edit] 10 December 2005

  • 18:12
    • I restored the comment on the old place [9].
  • 18:18
    • I wrote a message on Irpen's talk asking him do not do it any more and proposed an alternative solution [10].
  • 18:20
  • 18:22
  • 18:24
    • I asked User:Irpen whether the Arbitration Committee has autorized him to rearange the page acording to the prescribed format[13].
    • User:Irpen answered [14]. From his answer I understood that noone has authorize him rearange the page.
  • 18:25
    • I tried to restore the message on the proper place once more[15].
  • 18:33

Each party gets their own section and should not make comments in others' sections Fred Bauder 23:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, it should be corrected. But the most apropriate way, in my opinion, if each party moves her/his own comments to the apropriate section and explains the context there. Otherwise the context would be lost. --AndriyK 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on St Volodymyr's Cathedral

Here I provide the evidence that the edit war was started by User:Kuban kazak who tried to use the WP article for propaganda of his extremely conservative Russian Orthodox POV. I did my best to find a compromise and stop the edit war, but the opposite side did not accept any compromise and continued the POV-pushing.

[edit] 22 October 2005

  • 15:06
    • User:Kuban kazak inserted extremely Russian Orthodox POV paragraph into the article St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Just a few examples of POV: "the first building to be captured by the UOC-KP" (in fact no capture or anything similar took place), "neo-fascist UNA-UNSO", "schismatics" [17].
    • This started a long-lasting edit war on the article.
    • I did my best to stop the edit war.

[edit] 25 October 2005

  • 16:35
    • I pointed out on the article talk page the inapropriateness of the propaganda in WP articles [18].

[edit] 30 October 2005

  • 20:27
    • I tried to explain that the "capture" story added by User:Kuban kazak does not correspond to real facts [19].

[edit] 31 October 2005

  • 17:01
    • I tried to convince my opponents not to use potentially neutral article for propaganda purposes [20].

[edit] 1 November 2005

  • 07:24
    • I further tried to convince my opponents to stop the edit war[21]
  • 08:26
    • One more attempt to convince [22].

[edit] 6 November 2005

[edit] 7 November 2005

[edit] 8 November 2005

  • 08:47
    • I tried to convince my opponents to move the disputed suff to a different article [26].

[edit] 12 November 2005

  • 14:07
    • I proposed to apply for mediation [27].

[edit] 22 November 2005

  • 10:11
    • I accepted a version of one of my opponents as a temporal solution to stop the edit war until the issue is solved by mediation[28].
  • 12:20
    • I explained my step to a compromise on the talk page[29].
  • 18:42
  • 18:54
    • I again accepted the version of my opponent (who now talks against me) [31].
  • 18:55
    • User:Irpen clearly demonstrated that he did not accept any compromise [32].

[edit] Broken links

Here I provide the evidence that a group of users push Russian transliteration to WP articles which often leads to confussion and wrong links. I tried to correct the mess, but my edits were reverted which resulted in edit wars.

[edit] 4 November 2005

  • 14:21
    • User:Kuban kazak replaced a link to an appropriate article (Halych) with a link to a disambiguation page (Galich). (The link was correct in the pre-edit war version of the article)[33].
    • He also replaced the name of Ukrainian city Chernihiv with Russian transliteration.

[edit] 7 November 2005

[edit] 10 November 2005

[edit] 17 November 2005

[edit] 18-24 November 2005

The wrong link and wrong spelling were restored by User:Irpen, User:Ghirlandajo and User:Introvert 13 times [39].

[edit] 22 November 2005

  • 16:34
    • I wrote the message to User:Irpen about inappropriateness of the link to disambig. page [40].
    • No reaction followed.

[edit] 23 November 2005

  • 15:30
    • User:Irpen reverted the page to wrong link and wrong spelling with the comment "mass cleanup after a maniac on another spree" [41].

[edit] 23 November 2005

  • 12:35
  • 12:44
    • I corrected the text of the article [43].
  • 15:04
  • 15:24
    • User:Irpen reverted the article to the wrong link with the comment "rv annother anachronistic Ukrainization".
  • 15:29
    • I wrote a message to User:Irpen. I did not want to start another edit war. Therefore, I proposed him to revert his changes himself [45].
    • No reaction followed.
  • 15:29 - 15:39
  • 15:39
  • 15:44
    • I asked User:Irpen do not ignore my messages and informed him that after his revert the article Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi is linked to a wrong place [54].
    • No reaction followed, although User:Irpen was online and even was editing his talk page [55]. This clearly indicates that he messed up the link not exidentally, this was his intention.

[edit] Sneaky vandalism

Here I provide the evidence that my opponents were inserting wrong information into WP articles. These mistakes are not easy to detect. Usually such activity is considered as WP:Vandalism. I tried to correct the articles, my opponents reverted my changes.

[edit] 24 October 2005

[edit] 24 November 2005

  • 09:35 - 14:24
    • I corrected several mistakes in the article List of battles (geographic). Many locations had been listed as if they were on the territory of the present-day Russia. In fact the battle fields are located in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, etc. I corrected these mistakes [59].
  • 14:53
    • User:Ghirlandajo reverted my chnges with the following edit summary
      "rv article to pre-trolling state" [60].
  • 15:31
    • I restored my corrections [61].

[edit] Rude comments in edit summary

Here I provide a few examples of rude comments in edit summary. There were much more similar comments.

[edit] 21 October 2005

[edit] 26 October 2005

  • 12:26
    • Again a rude comment about Polish editors [65].

[edit] 27 October 2005

  • 11:22
    • One more exaple [66].
  • 11:29
    • Again insulting comment [67].
  • 11:45
  • 11:46
  • 11:47
  • 11:54
  • 11:55

[edit] 15 November 2005

  • 06:35
    • User:Irpen decided to use edit summary to insult another users [73].
  • 09:29
    • I pointed out inapropriateness of such comments [74].

[edit] 23 November 2005

  • 15:18
    • This time User:Irpen continued using edit summary to insult other users [75].
  • 15:24
    • The same comment to another edit [76].
  • 15:25
  • 15:26
  • And much more edits with similar comments during this day [79].

[edit] Blanking whole articles and replacing them with redirects without any discussion

[edit] 30 October 2005

[edit] 31 October 2005

  • 11:31
  • 12:01
    • I restored the article [82].

[edit] 1 November 2005

  • 9:28 - 9:50
    • I did some edits [83].
  • 10:40
  • 11:23
    • I restored the article.

[edit] 10 November 2005

[edit] 13 November 2005

  • 04:33
    • User:Fisenko blanked the article and replaced it with a redirect without any discussion [86]. According to his comment the article was "merged with Polkovnik". "Polkovnik" is just a military rank in Russian army. The corresponding article could be safaly merged with Colonel. In contrast, Polkovnyk is not only a military rank. Polkovnyks were also leaders of local territorial units in Hetmanate and Sloboda Ukraine. Therefore, it can be roughly translated as "governor". It's a legal discussion whether the article should be entitled "Polkovnyk" or an appropriate Enlish equivalent may be found. But if the article is blanked without any discussion, it is far from being normal cooperative work.

[edit] 14 November 2005

  • 09:15
    • I restored the article [87].
  • 17:01

[edit] Ignoring the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions by User:Kuban kazak

[edit] 22 October 2005

[edit] 23 October 2005

[edit] 27 October 2005

[edit] 18 November 2005

[edit] Evidence presented by Irpen

[edit] Move fraud

The goal of user:AndriyK since his joining at Wikipedia was not to contribute but to "correct the twisting of Ukrainian coverage at Wikipedia" by the "Russian Chauvinists" as he wrote that himself [98]. He figured that he can get the most bang towards his agenda with the least efforts by moving the articles from the titles that reflect the prevailing English usage towards the titles that are closer to the modern Ukrainian language. (This would be like moving the emperor Marcus Aurelius article to a modern Italian name Marco Aurelio, who is actually a soccer player).

His move log shows an amazing number of moved articles within a short time. He started to actively contributing to en-wiki only from October, 2005 and on the October 5 he already went on the moving frenzie. He started with moving the old Slavic tribes and names:

1. On October 5, [99] Grand Principality of Chernigov to Grand Principality of Chernihiv
2. On October 8, [100] Severians moved to Siverians
3. On October 8, [101] Severia moved to Siveria
4. On October 8, [102] Drevlians moved to Derevlians
5. On October 8, [103] Dulebs moved to Dulibs
6. On Octover 15, [104] Podolia moved to Podilia
7. On October 20, [105] Chernyakhov culture moved to Chernyakhiv culture

Most of these moves where reversed or moved further by other editors, so starting from October 24 AndriyK uses a sneaky trick to make his moves irreversible in all his article moves. His trick makes a use of a feature of Wikisoftware that doesn't allow the move over a redirect if the redirect has a history on its own (such a move requires a WP:RM vote, which he thinks he will be able to falsify using the above tactics). So, he frivolously creates an artifical history of all involved redirects.

ALL of his moves starting from October 24, 2005 (Severyn Nalivaiko → Severyn Nalyvaiko) are done in the following bad faith three steps procedure: (1) Move the article, (2) Go to a redirect with an older name and damage it by adding a typo, and (3) Correct a typo back. Thus, the redirect now has its own history and the article cannot be moved back without WP:RM votes that he expects to flood with sockpuppets and/or followers recruited from internet forums.

This is the list of articles moved in such fashion (counting continues the previous one):

8. Move of Severyn Nalivaiko, see redirect's history [106]
9. Move of Ivan Bogun, see redirect's history [107],
10.Move of Southern Bug, see redirect's history Southern Buh
11. Move of Kurenevsko-Krasnoarmeiskaya Line, see redirect's history [108]
12. Move of Svyatoshinsko-Brovarskaya Line, see redirect's history [109]
13. Move of Syretsko-Pecherskaya Line, see redirect's history [110]
14. Move of Oleg of Chernigov, see redirect's history [111] followed by a VOTE FRAUD (note discussion and number of red link voters or 2-3 edit voters)
15. Move of Mikhail of Chernigov, see redirect's history [112] followed by another VOTE FRAUD,
16. Move of Vsevolod Svyatoslavich, see redirect's history [113] (moved further later and his harm thus corrected)
17. Move of Mongol invasion of Russia, see redirect's history [114]
18. Move of Igor Svyatoslavich, see redirect's history [115], see also the deletion log caused by an admin cleaning it up on his own
19. An extremenly gross move of Russian architecture, see history[116] (restored by an admin who cleaned it up on his own initiative [117], note move time Oct 28, 8:09 and check deleted log for three edits by AndriyK at 8:09-8:10),
20. Move of Peter Mogila, see redirect's history [118]
21. Move of Trubezh River, see redirect's history [119]
22. Moved Battle of the Stugna River, see 14:30, November 23, 2005 moves in history [120].

Presented by Irpen 03:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moves by cut and paste

When user:AndriyK was unable to move articles in the desired locations for technical reasons, he moved them by cut and paste, the technique explicitely prescribed in the guidelines not to use.

  1. Russkaya pravda vs Ruska Pravda. [121], repeated here, and here,
  2. Siverians was cut and pasted twice, see history.

The first of the two moves sparked a discussion at Talk:Russkaya_Pravda#Clash_of_nationalisms. I would welcome Arbitrators to take a look.

Presented by Irpen 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creating bad-faith redirects to existing articles

When an article already existed uder the name to user:AndriyK's liking, he smartly creates the redirects from the name he assumes others might want to move it to and not only he creates redirects from those names, but creates them in the same subtle way (in two steps: a wrong redirect + correction). Now, that a redirect has a history, the move over redirect cannot be made. This shows that the user assumes bad faith from the others, against the policy guidlelines:

  1. To an article Siverian Principality he was writing the following redirects where created by him:
    1. Severian Principality [122].
    2. Principality of Severia
    3. Novgorod Severskiy Principality
    4. Novgorod-Severskiy Principality
    5. Novgorod Seversky Principality
    6. Principality of Novgorod Severskiy
    7. Principality of Novgorod Seversky
    8. Principality of Novgorod-Seversky
    9. Principality of Novgorod-Severskiy.
  2. To an article Chernihiv a redirect from Chernigov already existed. But to make sure it is not moved back (though no one was going to) he added a blank line to it [123] so that the redirect would have a history.
  3. To an article Polkovnyk a move was proposed to Ukrainian colonel. As soon as the proposal emerged User:AndriyK created two redirects from Ukrainian Colonel and Ukrainian colonel and BOTH were created in a similar fashion, in two steps, to make a move there impossible. Please see these histories and check them step by step: [124] and [125].

[edit] Mass disruptions of multiple articles

User:AndriyK has an amazing ability to disrupt dozens of articles in no time at all.

Presented by Irpen 02:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring, 3RR violations and using 3RR as "allotment"

[edit] 3RR

Soon after joining the Wiki, the user:AndriyK posted the following question at help desk[126] that clearly showed his intention to revert war and avoid blocks based on technicalities. While he was rebuffed there, he went on and these are the violations recorded:

  1. On Ukrainian language on October 9, 2005 (see User_talk:AndriyK#3RR). Instead of listing the user for blocking, I left a courtesy warning at his talk to which he frivolously replied that he was just reverting a simple vandalism (a lie, see same link). He obviously didn't learn anything from the courtesy warning.
  2. On Severians on October 25, 2005 (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive5#User:AndriyK). User was 24 hr blocked.
  3. In less than 10 days on St Volodymyr's Cathedral (Nov. 4, see User_talk:AndriyK#User_blocked).

presented by Irpen 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring and sockpuppetry

Enough has been said above about AndriyK's amazing ability to revert war. However, I would like to add that sometimes, a misterious Dovbush (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere when AndriyK has used up his "3 revert allotment" to do the reverts. Please check the contributions of this account for what a productive account this is. Attempts of others to contact him at his talk are also instructive. Checkuser for the sockpuppetry is requested. --Irpen 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Anachronistic name changes

[edit] Games with sources (citing sources that actually say the opposite or unrelated)

[edit] Russian architecture mess

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

[edit] Evidence presented by Ezhiki

[edit] Vote fraud & alleged sockpuppetry

  • On October 27, AndriyK unilaterally and without prior discussion moved the articles Mikhail of Chernigov and Oleg of Chernigov to new titles: [127], [128].
  • Later this day, User:Mzajac posted requests to move the articles back: [129], [130].
  • As the first votes (from established Wikipedians) were overwhemingly in support of the move, AndriyK resorted to recruiting supporters on a Ukrainian forum.
  • The outside forum message called for all Ukrainians interested affecting the results to register Wikipedia accounts and vote. The message also referred to the previous maidan posts, which were a part of AndriyK's defamation campaign against editors opposing him ([131]). Translations into English, along with discussion, are available here and here.
  • Several people apparently followed the lead and voted against the move. The general quality of these voters is best characterized with this post. Rough translation: "If I start spending my time on Wikipedia finding out my ways there, then who is going to do things around here [Maidan.org.ua—Ezhiki]? If you have something specific for me to do, such as to change something, I am ready to be a regular soldier shooting on your command. Just tell me what to do and I will do it [emphasis is mine—Ezhiki]".
  • Apparently, there were not enough people coming from Maidan to affect the results of the vote. AndriyK is thus suspected to resort to using the sockpuppets to further skew the voting results. While it is possible that the accounts could belong to real people (supposedly those coming from Maidan with no plans for further participation in the Wikipedia project), it is my intention to ask the ArbComm to treat them as sockpuppets as per Wikipedia's sock puppet policy. In the interest of fairness, I also request that all accounts that participated in voting are checked for possible sock puppet violations. The list follows:

[edit] Evidence presented by abakharev

[edit] Pushing of copyright violations in the article Ivan Kotlyarevsky 15 October 2005 .. 22 October

  • 06:39 [132] User:Andrew Alexander plagerized [133] and [134] without acknowledgement of the original sources in any form, ultil caught red-handed [135] at 12:56.
  • Instead of acknowlegement of their error a revert war was started by User:Andrew Alexander, User:AndriyK and a sockpuppet User:MaryMaidan. See the history of the article [136]. I found the most disgusting the revert by [[User:AndriyK] on 22:25, 22 October 2005 [137] commited after the question of the copyright was many times explained on the talk page of the article see Talk:Ivan Kotlyarevsky. The article was protected and the work on the article stopped for months.

[edit] Copyright violation in the article St Volodymyr's Cathedral 25 October 2005

[edit] Copy-pasting article's chapters without acknowledgement of the authorship. 02 November 2005

[edit] Evidence presented by Andrew Alexander

[edit] Acknowledgement by the accusing party of "honest good-faith mistakes" of copyright violations in the article Ivan Kotlyarevsky 31 October

  • 00:27
    • User:Irpen wrote, "Personally, I don't think removal of history is warranted, since the copyviolating editors just made honest good-faith mistakes, already corrected by the community. As such, the copyvio version in history doesn't endanger Wikipedia to any legal claim..." [142]. User: Alex Bakharev continues claiming bad faith on this page [143] despite the knowledge that the article was obtained with the personal permission of the author. This seems essentially as an attempt to mislead the arbitration committee into applying punitive measures based on personal, and not objective reasons derived from Wikipedia rules.

[edit] AndriyK requests not to move Chernyakhov culture to its Ukrainian name, 23 October 2005

  • 21:57
    • In the following edit, [144], AndriyK says: "But we have to respect the policies and principles of Wikipedia. According to them, Wikipedia is not an instrument to establish the correct name. It has to use the one, which is accepted by the scientific community (or by English speaking people in general)...". It is obvious that AndriyK is quite able to agree with a valid point made by a person opposing the name change.
  • 19:43
    • This is an earlier request related to the same topic, [145].

[edit] User:Irpen, User:Ezhiki, User:Ghirlandajo actively oppose enforcing Wikipedia Naming Convention on Ukrainian names

This is despite the official status and a wider English use of the name "Kyiv Oblast". The name appears in official translations of Ukrainian government documents [146]. It is also at least 15 times more prevalent on the web compared to the current name of the Wikipedia article Kiev Oblast, e.g. see [147]. Despite these facts the name has been voted down by the above users, see Talk:Kiev Oblast. While voting for or against a name change proposal is not a violation, following the already existing naming conventions is under question. This is a modern name of a modern Ukrainian province. Some of the above users applied multiple reverts to ensure a Russian name of the province remains. E.g. see reverting edits [148], [149], [150].

[edit] User:Kuban_kazak uses a profanity expression against AndriyK while erasing a quote on 22 December 2005

  • 12:08
    • The user removes a quote from the referenced source in the Holodomor article and writes in Russian, "And you, AndriyK (or whatever is your name) can ... away", [151].

[edit] User:Irpen and User:Kuban_kazak erase muliple times a referenced chapter in the Holodomor article on December 18 through 21 2005

  • 16:11, 18 December 2005
  • 16:52, 19 December 2005
  • 13:33, 21 December 2005
  • 19:12, 21 December 2005

[edit] User:Kuban_kazak threatens to start another Arbitration Committee proceeding in order to support his point of view on 26 December 2005

  • 23:33, 26 December 2005

[edit] Evidence presented by Yakudza

User:Ghirlandajo is very intolerant to opinions of other editors. He often offend them. Here are several examples of Ghirlandajo's comments to his edits:

  • (rvv attack by Polish Mafia :)))
  • (rvv a new attack by banderovtsy)
  • (rvv foolish ukrainization of russophone towns)
  • (rvv idiotic Moldovan nationalism)
  • (rvv a new piece of polish idiocy)
  • (stop pushing laughable nationalism, or you will be banned)
  • (rvv islamic propaganda)
  • (rvv a lunatic vandal)
  • (rv edits by another Polish zombie)
  • (rv moron who was blocked yesterday but returned)
  • (rv demented racist who was blocked yesterday but returned)
  • (rv shameless POV-pushing by a banderovets)
  • (rv a revert maniac)

He called me "banderovets" (a very insulting name given by Russian nationalists to Ukrainians). His edits contain a lot of POVs. User:Ghirlandajo makes a large number of reverts calling edits of other users "vandalism" and very rarely discuss the disagreement on talk pages. Particularly he intolerant to new editor. When new users come, they run into the boorishness of User:Ghirlandajo and obstinacy of User:Irpen, see that any constructive work is impossible, and finally have to give up, or get engaged in edit wars like AndriyK. See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo

[edit] Evidence presented by add your name here

[edit] <day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.