User talk:AndriyK/Arc230806

Revert warring

Hi, while we're all delighted that you decided to come back, I'm a little concerned about the fact that the vast majority of your edits since your ban ended are revert warring. Aside from the fact that you could get into trouble over that, I think (at least in the case of Russian architecture) that you should list all your objections on the talk page before adding the tag and, in the interests of avoiding violating the 3RR, not to revert again, at least, for the next sixteen hours. If the other users don't know what you are disputing, how can slapping a POV tag on without saying anything be any help? You could try tagging the specific sections you object to with {{dubious}} instead, so as to give some indication to everyone else what is troubling you - they may even agree with you. --Latinus 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I explained my objections several months ago. I also proposed the way to solve th eissue. But a group of Russian chauvinistic POV-pushers do not accept any compromises, do not propose any other solutions. They just silently removed the POV-tag during my ban.

If you are interested, please look through the talk page.

Thanks for your comment anyway.--AndriyK 10:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Khreschatyk

AndiyK: "Irpen usually prefers an edit war rather than a fair discussion"

Irpen: "This above is a plain lie."

So, AndriyK, let me give you an update. :)

Based on my short experience I would not say that Irpen is a guy who prefers edit wars. He seems to be a reasonable guy, and actually I think he is. He is capable of listening to arguments. He is doing his best to be patient. He was the major force in taking Bonoparte down. He was too supportive in Alex Bakharev's RfA. He is also the one who attemts to calm down Kuban kazak, when kazak is not acting "like a saint".

It's hard to cooperate with Kuban Kazak, but it's possible. It's not unoften that he reverts first, and then analyses what is going on. He loves metro. He is a patriot of Russia, but I personally would say that he is againts independent Ukraine. He does things that he knows are wrong.

Alex Bakharev has got adminship that he dreamed of, but I would say that he've got too much credit from Ezhiki and Irpen, which he probably does not deserve. Based on my experiance he is unpatient and biased. I doubt he would ever be a good admin. But it's also unlikely to expect from him being so terrible to give opponents a chance to claim the withdrawal of his adminship privilegy.

I've never crossed with Ezhiki personally, but he seems to be a very reasonable and smart guy. I don't know why he nominated Alex for admin. It may be just the best option out of the restricted set he had.

Ukrained was too agressive. Together with his limited Internet connection he probably spent too much time on a few unimportant issues.

Mzajac was not so much around. Unfortunately.

Ghirlandajo is another agressive guy. He focuses on too many issues. From what I see he used to revert a few details without much of understanding. He enjoys edit wars. Now he is fighting against Poland.

DDima is a very pleasant guy. He loves Kiev.

Mikkalai is somewhere around. Smart guy.

Andrew Alexander is a good editor. Sticks to the subject.

Vasile was persistent in bringing some nonsense, including "Ukraine joining NATO by 2008" :) I wish it could be true. :) He is actually one of few who is learning the Ukraininan history from this wikipedia, by reading it.

Constantzeanu, Vasile, Annitas and few other love to count Moldovians as Romanians.

Bogdangiusca is biased toward the mentioned above group, but it's not that visible.

Serhio is a young Moldovian guy but he cannot do much alone.

Who else? One more. AndriyK was banned for a month that I was around. He didn't do anything this month, still he was painted as the worst possible nightmare of the Ukrainian wikicommunity.

That's about it. I think I didn't write anything personally offensive against anybody. If you think I did, I really appologize. Please also weight the benefits of such third-party opinion. Feel free to delete it.

Thanks for the comment. I see, you are a quite experiencie editor. Why not to register? I agree with you on most of the points, but still not on all of them. In particular, I find Alex Bakarev much more reasonable than many other editors. Concerning Irpen, I think you need a bit more time to understand the issue. His trolling are very subtle, and most of the people do not see it at the beginning. Please contact me by mail after your registration.--AndriyK 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New vandalism

Since you vandalize the articles en mass without caring to espouse your rationale, I have to request for comment from other editors. I'm not going to connive vandalism. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--AndriyK 12:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution AndriyK, didn't Ghirlandajo btw violated 3RR on that article ? --Molobo 13:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Not yet. ;)--AndriyK 14:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, please keep all the tags. Removing a tag does not solve the issue. The rules are the same for everyone.

With the Russian Architecture article in the meantime I would really advise mediation. Either side of the dispute may initiate it, and both sides should agree for the mediation to go though. On your side, if you do initiate it, it'll be a very significant indication of your willingness to cooperate.

I tried already to request mediation concerning another article. But with Irpen it did not work. First he apparently agreed, but then find every reason to postpone it. The mediation did not started. He pushed his version by his favorite method: persistent revert warring with help of his gang (like Ghirla or Kuban Kazak). So I would not waste my and mediator's time to initiate one more mediation. On the other hand, if Irpen or somebody else initiates it, I'll participate.--AndriyK 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is formal and informal mediation. Formal one requires formal acception or rejection of the other side. You only need to summarize your points in one paragraph in order to initiate it.

What is really needed is Ukrainian architecture article. Then both Ukrainian architecture and Russian architecture may include a short description and a reference to the Architecture of Kievan Rus as the common main article for the architecture of that period.

Consider, for example this article as a starting point for Ukrainian architecture.

Hey, AndriyK. Bringing new info, references would be of more value to the project than "fact" and "dubious" templates. Don't hesitate to edit articles. The main idea is not pointing out incorrect, or dubious, or POV statements, but fixing them.

This is exactly what I did when I was new here. I corrected mistakes that I found in the articles and supported my edits by references. But my corrections were immediatelly reverted by Irpen and alike. Usually, they do not cited any sources. Any my attempts to insist on my (sourced) version resulted in an edit war.

So I decided to go another way. First, I mark a mistake with the template, so that other people can realise that there is a mistake or unsourced info. It works better. Although Irpen and Ghirla continue trolling and try to remove the templates and it often results in edit wars, but they seem to get weaker support from the community than it was when I tried to correct the mistakes at once.--AndriyK 08:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to edit articles rather than marking them with a tag, as it shows exactly what I think should be corrected or added. I think the community doesn't like many tags; community wants to see perfect articles, which means without tags.

It likely so. But there is a powefull part of the community that prefers to see propaganda instead of factual information in the articles. The purpose of the tags is to show this to the other part of the community.--AndriyK 12:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen is a major contributor of the Ukr related articles. And as he mentioned he is Ukrainian. :) There should be some common grounds between him and you.

A great part of Irpen's contributions is subtle anti-Ukrainian propaganda, like this. He might have Ukrainian passport, but he acts like he hates Ukrainian history, Ukrainian language, Ukrainian independence. He does not show it openly, like, for instance, Ghirla, but he uses every opportunity to bite. (I can show you examples, if you like).

Additionally, he chases Ukrainian editors forcing them to stop editing wikipedia. You may disagree, but this is not only my opinion [1].

Therefore, we have very little common with Irpen, except, perheps, similar passports.--AndriyK 12:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tagging

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Russian architecture. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

I hope you know that this tag is not supposed to be there permanently - why don't you prepare a proposal for that section, at User:AndriyK/KievanRus for example, where the issues that you have addressed have been resolved (or attempted to be resolved) and then propose it for criticism on the talk page. Edit warring over the tag won't get anyone anywhere. If the "other side" are uncooperative, then you can make your proposal anyway and your reasons for it, register (i.e. advertise) the poll at Wikipedia:Current surveys for neutral users to become aware of it and if your proposal seems reasonable to them, it may succeed. Regards, --Latinus 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the solution at the very beginning of the discussion. But it was rejected by the opponents. I know my opponents very well therefore I am sure that any my proposal will be rejected. So I see the only way: keep the tag to inform the reader about the POV problem in the article.--AndriyK 10:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong way. It's not the policy of the community to keep the tag forever. --Anonymous

I agree, but we have to find the way how to solve the POV problem. If I prepare a proposal, it will not work. I am absolutelly sure about it.

The only way is to find more people who understand the problem and are ready to help.--AndriyK 09:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Andriy, may be you should challenge that policy mentioned above? As far as I understand, all or many policies are changeable in a way. I'm concerned with constant POV-pushing too, so, if you start working on tag-policy update, let me know where do I vote. Ukrained 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Neutrality of the word "liberate" re: Soviets retaking Ukraine in WWII"

Hi, I'm inquiring here as a clerk to the Arbitration Committee. Four arbitrators have now rejected your application, named above, without prejudice, saying that it looks like "a misguided request for content arbitration". In general the Arbitration Committee avoids content arbitration, primarily because the community is presumed to be capable of making content decisions.

If left as it is, it's highly likely that the request will fail and be removed by a clerk or an arbitrator in the near future. If there is a user conduct issue, however, as a clerk I recommend that you withdraw it yourself and resubmit a new case based on user conduct. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What should I do to withdraw the request? I think, agreement of other parties is needed(?).--AndriyK 09:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Message from Kuban Kazak

This is the message Kuban Kazak has left at the talk of Russian architecture. I moved it here, because article talk pages are reserved to discuss the articles. Personal discussions should be restricted to the user talk pages. Please answer him here or at his talk. Keep the article talk pages free from personal accusations.--Mbuk 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes tell us about your respect for policies, how many articles did you move and locked the re-directs? Or how you vote frauded two Ruthenian (not Ukrainian as that country did not exist at the time) Chernigov Princes? Or what about the 600-revert St. Vladimir's Cathedral? Or the massive POV in Holodomor that you helped your tezka to push through. After all that do expect anyone to take you seriously? IMO - pathetic... --Kuban Cossack 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC

My two cents: I take AndriyK's WP work seriously and appreciatively. He is doing an important (although uncomfortable) deopinionizing job on UA-related pages. All Andriy's past mistakes and breaches of WP rules are I believe aimed to that descent goal.

Well in that case ever consider to remind him to deopinionise himself. That would indeed be a massive benefit to WP and to all UA-related topics. Let's hope he follows that advice, and will reach that descent goal (I Assume good faith])

As an opposite example, another user that we all know produced a number of topical, hardly-encyclopedic pages reflecting his personal hobby. In my opinion, that is what shouldn't be taken serious :) Ukrained 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wonder how DYKs there are in those articles potentially held. Perhaps you'd care to help on my latest? --Kuban Cossack 10:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: how do you (Ukrained) consider AndriyK's vote fraud and redirect locking pointed out by Kazak (and by the ArbCom as well, incidentally)? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To Grafikm_fr: Well, I consider that mainly as a result of Wikipedia's persistent failure to oppose the POV-bias and harrassment conducted by your Russian Group. Unfortunately. There would be no Andriy's breaches (or alleged breaches) without actions of your trollish and/or propagandistic friends. Ukrained 06:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to assume other people's behavior, since one has to assume only his own acts. Besides, the ArbCom ruling predates my arrival on Wikipedia, so I have no role whatsoever in content disputes on Chernigov/Chernihiv, Russian architecture and so on... that led to the ArbCom decision. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The was no vote fraud. ArbCom considered this case and did not find any vote fraud. I consider this allegation as a personal attack.
2. The unreversible page moves was my mistake. I thought I am allowed to do it because no policy forbids it. I recognized my mistake even before ArbCom decided to punish me. I was baned for one month. The ban expired about half a year ago. What is the reson to discuss it again?
3. I was trying to stop POV pushers like Kuban kazak and others at Holodomor. What the problem? Should not POV pushers meet any opposition? The same at St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Is this edit a model of neutrality?

I suggest you, Kuban kazak, stop the personal attacks and learn to respect other people's opinion even if you disagree.--AndriyK 09:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1. And nevertheless agreed to finally reverse the vandalised title to the article...
2. Good, I am very pleased that you learn
3. Yes, that was not neutral (and actually I never said it was) however afterwards getting into a massive revert war was not exactly civil either (and as for neutrality then there are quite a few other examples ([2], or [3] need I continue).

Bottom line is Andriy, I am not afraid of going on a hearing with you. However think of the consenquences that will surface for you (and some of your sidekicks), are you ready to play it fair is my question? --Kuban Cossack 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the edits [4], or [5]? Care to explaine?

Ты чего вправду такой наивный или за дурака выдаешь себя? --Kuban Cossack 11:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am ready to work on the articles fairly and build the consensus in fair discussions. This is not the way you prefer, unfortunately. --AndriyK 10:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case why do you continue to revert war and to push your POV. Consensus is a tricky thing, we can achieve consensus to have Russian titles for Kiev Metro stations, but that would not be correct would it? Consensus and neutrality are not synomons, and when you push your POV into Battle of the Lower Dnieper or Russian Architecture, you are trying to achieve consensus based on an extreame POV. Yet you are so blinded by Russophobic sentiment that you can never admit to step down from pushing your POV. (very much like User:Molobo) Can't you ever let it go and move on?--Kuban Cossack 11:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, a fair discussion is not your choice. There is no reason to continue.--AndriyK 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

If you care to begin disciplinary proceedings against Grafikm or Kazak, I would support you. I am sick of their personal attacks, primarily against you. I say ban them for a month or so, hopefully they will learn a lesson. - PatrickFisher 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So would I. Additionally, Ghirlandajo is a similar disruptive activist. Andriy, just where do I sign and comment? Ukrained 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Solely based on their lack of civility, I agree that there is a case for pursuing disciplinary actions against Grafikm and Kazak. I say this not so much to make your life easier, but to improve the WP community in general. I know that you had a ruling against you previously, and I've only come across your work since that time, which has all seemed to be very respectful and patient in the face of adversity. Perhaps the same result would come from disciplinary actions against those 2 users. Please keep me advised. --tufkaa 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there are other people who experienced personal attacks of these users. Let's collect the evidence and decide what to do. It would be reasonable, for the beginning, if everybody warns them at their talk pages.--AndriyK 09:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK collect the evidence, we shall see just how much of it is in your favour...--Kuban Cossack 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: My answer

Answered on Patrick's talk. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--AndriyK 19:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your statement at Mediation Cabal

I reworded the statement a bit, tell me if it suits you better. However, please not that you used the word "Stalinist dictatorship" in your POV tag, so don't say you did not propose it. [6]

-- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer you at Mediation Cabal. Let's keep the whole discussion there.--AndriyK 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please do not engage in edit warring when in conflict with other editors, as you have been doing today and recently. Edit warring is a poor way to solve disputes. Actually, it inflames them. Please discuss your proposed edits at Talk:Russian architecture rather than edit warring. Please use WP:DR: go to mediation or RFC. As you know, persistent edit warring may lead to blocks. Dmcdevit·t 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I propsed mediation, but the opposite party refused.

Now they try to remove the tag pretending that there is no dispute. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen.--AndriyK 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, no matter what the problem is. Refusing mediation is not a license to edit war. I have blocked you for 24 hours for 3 more reverts today. Dmcdevit·t 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Dneiper

Can you let me know wahat the dispute is about? Arthur Ellis 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made my opening statement as mediator. Please see the project page and lets work this out. TruthCrusader 11:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have made additional comments on the mediation page. I hope you find my proposals more acceptable. TruthCrusader 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD related to our business

Andriy, there's an interesting TfD vote going on. Ukrained 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys, and what is "your business" here? So far we have seen nothing except revert warring, personal attacks, and anti-Russian hysterics. What a pity that Molobo's ignominous end didn't instruct you to keep your morbid nationalism at bay. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian architecture‎

Andrii, this is getting boring. The general rule is WP:BOLD - can you please fix the article instead of wasting reverts over the size, shape and wording of an ugly POV tag. If it means so much to you (and ethnic Ukrainians in general), start a new article, the architecture of Kievan Rus', and copypaste the section there, or something else. Be bold! --Tēlex 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The artcile Architecture of Kievan Rus is already there.

I tried to fix the article, but my changes were reverted. This is why this long dispute started. Now I am trying to convince th e people who reverted my version to make steps towards resolving the dispute.

Playing with the tag, what you and some other people do, does not help to resolve the dispute.--AndriyK 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This was more than 3 months ago? Why not try again? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To Grafik: in fact, the last time he was there was SEVEN months ago. To AndriyK: And because you did not get your way on Chernigov, even using a sockpuppet [7], we are exposed to this circus now, complete with an RfC on User:Irpen? Congratulations! I decided to put Telex version of the tag back, with the grammar error corrected, of course (and "the article" -> "an article"). Hope you will notice it now.--Pan Gerwazy 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that section is a fork of the main article (or vice-versa) - one should redirect to the other. --Tēlex 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With a fixed version of Russian architecture this would not be a fork.--AndriyK 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it per WP:BOLD. What's the worst thing that could happen? Get reverted? --Tēlex 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Andriy, check out this cool template:

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Kievan Rus'! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

FYI, I'll support! :NikoSilver: 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try once more. This will take some time, however.--AndriyK 09:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

When you do, also modify the Russian architecture accordingly and then drop me a line. :NikoSilver: 09:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary by Alex Bakharev at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen

Just because a small detail is inaccurate does not make a summary true. Alex Bakharev is absolutely right in his evaluation and I totally endorse that summary.

Please don't try to manipulate the results of an RFC in the future. Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What you mean were "results" and what you mean was "manipulation"?

If you mostly endose the summary, but you see an inacuuracy, why not to add a comment pointing out the inaccuracy?--AndriyK 10:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I have other things to do in real life than writing comments (I have a job, you know... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing comments to my talk takes nearly the same time as writing comments to your endosement.--AndriyK 10:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I answered on RFC's talk page, that should replace my own comment plenty. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. My endorsement will stay as I agree with the overall points raised in Alex's summary. Please note that an argument about having or not having a certain tag does not fall under the definition of "suggestions on improving the article", although it can certainly be classified as "discussion". Fine semantics such as this, however, are of little importance in the bigger picture considered by this RfC. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Battle of the Lower Dnieper/Lviv]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Blocked again

AndriyK, despite my previous warning, and then my block of you, you have returned from your block to continue edit warring. These are all of your reverts from just today: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Consequently, you are blocked again. You must stop edit warring. In answer to your question about content reaolution, I would say that there can never by a resolution as long as any party continues to aggressively revert to his preferred version. It flies in the face of consensus-driven discussion and pollutes the collaborative atmosphere. Whatever kind of discussion you egage in, and point to in your own defense, I think this response is not surprising, as long as you are edit warring at the same time. Dmcdevit·t 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are not you so strict to the opposite party who "aggressively revert to his preferred version"?

Why don't pay attention that the opposite party was removing the dispute tag, while the dispute was not settled yet and this is a kind of vandalism? And I was only reparing this wandalism at Ukrainization.

I did not violate WP:3RR. Why do you block me?--AndriyK 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cause you're neither Russian propagandist nor supporter for the Russian propagandists, that's why. Welcome to my world :(. And I happen to know your blocker. I wonder how many Russians did he prevented from editing...AlexPU 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting personal attack against an ArbCom member... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I did '''not''' violate [[WP:3RR]]. Three of the reverts listed above repared the article after vandal attack. (See my message above).}}

Declined, sorry. You were not blocked for 3RR violation, but rather for general edit warring which is a kind of disruption. Although we do have a 3-revert rule here, that does not imply that edit warring is okay if you do it more slowly. Edit warring is very disruptive to Wikipedia, and a perfectly reasonable reason for a block. I checked; the edits Dmcdevit mentioned were in fact examples of you reverting the edits of other people to a version you had previously instated. The 3RR is a rule that lets us see when edit warring is starting to get out of hand; in these cases, edit warring was already out of hand, and your reverting is probably fueling more antagonism. Hence, the block. Mangojuice^talk 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can see that was my last edit before leaving, until now, because I had to get to work, or I would have warned Kuban myself before now (and I thank Mangojuice for doing so). Kuban Kazak's warning is sufficient to me for now because, unlike you, he hadn't just been blocked for edit warring, and hadn't gotten any warning. He'll find himself blocked if he continues also. Please do not refer to other editors' good faith edits as vandalism, as this is a form of incivility. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to damage the integrity of the encyclopedia, not a content dispute. Dmcdevit·t 04:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not refer to a content dispute itself as vandalism. The problem is how some people conduct during the content dispute.

There are special templates the so called "dispute tags". They are used to point out possible violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. There is a policy regulating their usage (see the subsection "Improper use of dispute tags" in the section Types_of_vandalism). According to this policy, users are not allowed to remove the tag unless the dispute is settled. In any case, it is forbidden to remove the tag twice during a 24 hour period. Violation of this policy (rather then a mere content dispute) is a Vandalism.

There is a dispute concerning Ukrainization. Nonetheless, User:Irpen [15], [16], User:Kuban kazak [17], [18] and User:Grafikm fr [19], [20] were removing the tag. Some of them did it twice during 24 hours. I wonder, why only User:Kuban kazak was warned? Is the violation of the policy by User:Irpen and User:Grafikm fr a nice thing. Why do you apply your administrative power with double and triple standards? Why was not User:Kuban kazak warned before, at the same time I was? It seems you look at the people you dislike for some unclear reasons.

Why did not you pay attantion that nearly all reverts by User:Kuban kazak and User:Grafikm fr were done without any explanation on the corresponding talk pages with uninformative and often insulting edit summaries. I invited the people to the discussion on the talk pages [21], [22]. They were either ignored or answered after a revert cycle and the answer does not give any clear explanation what was the reason for the revert.

I hope you'll answer my message and will not ignore it as you did with my e-mail.--AndriyK 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your email, I responded to it on your talk page. To call these edits vandalism is just plain wrong. As I said, vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to damage the integrity of the encyclopedia. Ask yourself whether those edits qualify under that definition, and if your answer is yes, then you need to work on WP:AGF. This question is asked in all seriousness: why does the fact that I blocked you for edit warring men that I am being biased for not having taken action against other edit warriors? The fact is that I am not everywhere at all times. I saw you edit warring because I had just blocked you for edit warring. That's all. In no way does that fact that I didn't happen to notice other edit warring (largely because I wasn't blocking you for your Ukrainization edit in particular, but for reverts across many articles) mean that I condone any edit warring. "It seems you look at the people you dislike for some unclear reasons" is a rather uncalled for assumption of bad faith. The fact is that you were edit warring despite my warning, and the block was correct. If you have any reason to think I dislike you, I'd like to see it, because as far as I know, my warnings and blocks are the first I've ever had contact with you. Please don't assume that because I blocked you my motivations were out of a personal dislike and not out of a simple judgment call. Dmcdevit·t 08:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of properly inserted dispute tags does damage the integrity of the encyclopedia because it hinder resolving POV disputes. Having deleted the tag, the supporter of POV-version of the article do not care about dispute resolution, they ignore WP:DR, refuse mediation etc. The reader remains uninformed that article is biased. It is not a surprise, that deletion of properly inserted dispute tags is forbidden by the policy.

Any edit war always has two sides (one cannot be edit warring with oneself ;) ). This does not mean that both sides are always equelly guilty. Therefore, unbiased and good faithed admin always checks the role of each users in the edit war. Reverting unexplained edits or edits with offensive edit summaries is, in most cases, usefull activity. While offensive edit summaries, removing properly inserted tags, etc. is a violation of the Policies and has to be prevented or punished.

It is difficult to assume a good faith towards the admin, who blocked one of the users and ignored incivility and violation of the Policies by the other ones. It could happen once by mistake. But if it happens second time with an experienced admin and ArbCom member, after the situation was explained by e-mail and on the talk page, it makes me think that the admin abuses his power to support his friends or the users with similar POVs. I would be glad if you convince me that I am mistaking. Thanks.--AndriyK 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't share AndriyK's suspicion about "friends" or "users with similar POVs".

But I would like to second AndriyK's concerns about removing the dispute tags. Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. The problem has to be resolved according to WP:DR. Removing the dispute tag is not the right way.--Mbuk 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, this is a well-known tactic frequently used in football: trying to shame the referee who in all fairness is harsh towards the violator to be harsh too (even if unfairly) towards an opponent. It sometimes works and causes even unjustified penalty kicks ordered by a referee in fear of being called unfair in order to show even-handedness.

Your entire activity in Wikipedia is a huge disruption and you are getting the exact treatment you are asking for. Your disputed tags were placed improperly in contravention to sources cited earlier at the article's talk pages or in the articles themselves. Your unwarranted tag-trolling and revert warring is but the only activity taken at Wikipedia since your month ban by ArbCom for other dirty tricks. You loaded the talk pages of a whole lot of people with baseless accusations and uninterrupted pestering for already answered questions. Your Wikilawyering and unwarranted appeals to the Policy pages where you also gain no support are yet as disruptive.

If you continue this tactic you will find yourself frequently blocked and experienced admins will be able to see who is acting in bad faith here. My hope is that you will simply change your ways and seize disruptive activities for now limited to tag-trolling, revert-warring, wikilawyering, content removal, attacking your opponents and unsuccessful attempts to recruit the supporters for your crusade. If you don't, you have no one but yourself to blame for not being able to edit. --Irpen 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My tags were inserted properly. And your POV-pushing and incompetence multiplied by your stubborness, is a real catastrophy for Ukraine-related segment of Wikipedia.--AndriyK 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a disgusting personal attack.

Irpen did 100 times more for the Ukraine-related segment of Wikipedia then you did, by writing or improving a colossal number of articles. You, OTOH, spend your time inserting tags and arguing on talk pages. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of catastrophes, AndriyK, the catastrophe is your aggressive nationalist position and an attempt to represent such views fringe within the Ukrainian society as the "Ukrainian" one. I said it all at your talk and will say more once I finish writing a response to your frivolous Wikilawyering. --Irpen 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Message from User:Kuban kazak

First two points: 1) when there is a dispute an edit war is the last thing people want (by people I mean a majority of civil and behaved people not the narrow "Ukrainian" group that you represent). When people begin to attack articles, move them with blocked redirects and then vote fraud the revertion of the move, and then start pushing your own opinion into those articles by reverting them 40 times at least is DISRUPTIVE. Any admin will take this issue seriously, particulary against a user who was previously arbcom-banned for actions such as above. BTW no need to lie about what you were banned for, all the arbitrators endorsed the vote fraud and edit warring [23]. With respect to my conduct, then I am a human and like any human we all have our limits in the amount of civility. When people like you begin to go to a scale of 40 reverts since an arbcom ban expired and hardly any useful contributions at the same time who do you think the admin will take out of the two evils, especially when one is provoked solely by the other. Had you not edit warred with tags do you think I would have insulted you? Do you think that you would have been already banned the second time as a warning against disrupitve behaivour? Unlike you me and Grafik as well as Ghirla and Irpen take priority in writing articles and then dealing with assaults against them, NOT the opposite way. An apology would be most suitable. --Kuban Cossack 10:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Moving pages" was eight or nine month ago. It was considered by ArbCom. What is the reson to discuss it again?

My positive contribution is dePOVing articles. I do not think that articles based on rumors or original research is a nice thing. Correcting these articles would improve the content. And this will be my positive contribution.--AndriyK 10:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

DePOVing does not mean inserting tags everywhere. As I pointed out already, blanking and tagging is not a solution, however, editing is.

With your continuous tag warring, you literally ruin the efforts of Wikipedians who write, with infinite pains, articles on various subjects. Then you come and start defacing them with supposedly POV tags instead of editing and improving (and actually dePOVing if needed) them. This attitude is absolutely intolerable and in my (not so) humble opinion your block is well earned. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit articles to de-POV them [24], [25], [26], but my edits were immediately reverted often with offensive edit summaries [27], [28], [29].

The tag is used to avoid a potential edit war: the article is preserved in one side's preferable form, while the POV problem is marked with the tag. The users can concentrate their efforts on resolving the POV problem. So it should be if all the users are reasonable.--AndriyK 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries? Oh please... Everyone, here are the summaries considered offensive by AndriyK:

• [30] : "estored to an earlier version, also contrary to Lysy, it IS sited as reversal to Plonization as well, see refs at talk"
• [31] : "don't blank"
• [32] ::::* "Restored chronological order, but indeed excommunication by ROC is not necessary in the lead"

What in the earth is offensive in these summaries? Your tag placement however, is warrying and offensive, on the other hand. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at this one [33]--AndriyK 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainization and other stuff

Sorry, I was too late with my answer. I was too buisy in my real life and could get to the computer only today. I warned the guys who were blanking the tags at Ukrainization. I do not think it will help much, we have to make further steps. But your blocking by ArbCom member make me pessimistic. It seem that nobody cares about policies here including admins and ArbCom members. Personal sympaties and antipaties seem to prevail. I'll restore the tags at Ukrainization were your opponents are in varience with WP:NOR badly. I would not like, however, to be involved in other disputes were I do not feel myself like an expert. Take care.--Mbuk 22:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll write you an e-mail in half an hour or so.--AndriyK 09:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Medzhybizh

The article informs, that the name was Polish. It was rather Ukrainian. Xx236 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me as a Polish word suited to Ukrainian phonetics. The original Polish version might be Międżybórz or something like it. The Polish ó usually corresponds to Ukrainian і (Like Lwów-Львів, Kraków-Краків, etc.), hence Меджибіж (Medzhybizh) in Ukrainian.--AndriyK 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a Ukrainian village/town have a Polish name? Xx236 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the history of this particular town, but in that part of Ukraine there are a lot of villages with ethnic Polish population. For instance there was a village Богудзєнька(Bohudzen'ka). (It was renamed by Soviets because it means "Gratitude to God" in Polish.) One should not be surprised with Polish names in this region.--AndriyK 14:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is/was indeed an essential Polish community in the town (see the photo of the Catholic church [34]). Still the name means likely not "between forests" (as it's stated in the article) but rather "between Buhs": the town is located between two rivers Southern Buh(Boh) and Bozhok(wich means "small Boh"). It used to have name Межибоже (Mezhybozhe), which sounds more Ukrainian than Medzhybizh.--AndriyK 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

TODO

Please refactor your message at Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko) (the suggestions can be found in the page history). Please avoid personal attacks. Please do not use article talk page for unrellated comments. This works agains yourself.--Mbuk 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--AndriyK 10:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

AndriyK, I cannot understand your recent edits at Ukrainiation. You've been given many warnings and multiple blocks in the last couple of weeks, and yet you continue edit warring with the exact same reverts as before the block. [35], [36], [37]: I don't see any need to waste my time on warnings (and indeed, all my prior effort on warning and discussing with you does seem rather wasted now) anymore. I first blocked you for 24 hours, then 48 hours, and have yet to see any good faith effort to stop at all. I am hopingthat will be different one week from now. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)