Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen

Description

I am rather new to Wikipedia. I registered a half a year ago, but have not been visited the site very frequently. I do not have many edits. Mostly, I spent my time reading articles, policies and occasionally participating in the discussions.

The reason of my involment into the dispute on Russian architecture was my disagreement with the methods used by a certain group of users in the dispute on this article. I'll restrict my comment to the behaviour of Irpen because it looks like he was driving the conflict.

Clearly, there was a dispute on the content of the article and it was marked by a dispute tag. AndriyK proposed to request a mediation to settle find a solution. Irpen did not accept this proposal, instead he was trying to "settle" the dispute by removing the tag. A few other users helped him.

He claimed that the tag was unexplained in his edit summaries, although the reasons were explained in the tag. (This was a POV-because tag).

When I tried to clarify the positions of the users and propossed them to answer some questions, he blamed me for "Pestering", athough no clear answer has been given. He claimed that the matter was already discussed, but I did not find any clear answer in the discussion.

Irpen has his own and very strange understanding of consensus. He believs that mere answering to the objections of other users is sufficient to settle the dispute. He does not care whether the opponent is satisfied with the answer or not or whether further steps (like mediation) are needed.

I tried to convince him to resolve the dispute according to WP:DR but he refused. It seems he feel himself comfortable with the edit wars being supported by a few other users whose actions he likely coordinates.

He is often assumes bad faith of other users and calls what they do "trolling".--Mbuk 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian architecture is not the only article where Irpen has been engaging in removing repeatedly a dispute tag. So did he at Ukrainization. The definition of Ukrainization given in the leading paragraph of the article is not found in any reputative sources. This is likely an Irpen's invension. I marked the article with {{OR}}. And proposed Irpen to provide the referense to the reputative sources where this definition can be found. He did not provide any reference but just blanked the tag and was referring "to the talk above". But no reference to the definition of Ukrainization can be found there.

He was also participating in the edit war on Battle of the Lower Dnieper but did not accepted the mediation which I proposed twice.

I concur with Mbuk, Irpen indeed misinterprets consensus. He believes that consensus is what he has agreed with his friends Kuban kazak and Ghirlandajo. Other opinions are labeled as "troliing", "rusophobia", "aggressive nationalism". Any attempt to change an article against their "consensus" results in an immediate revert. Being numerous and organized they push their POV by edit warring and discrediting their opponents.

I hope the community will find the way to save wikipedia from such editors.--AndriyK 16:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One more example. Irpen inserted into the article History of Ukraine the number of Holodomor victims that he considers as "scientific" . These numbers are not generally recognaized by the scientific community. Therefore, I proposed a more neutral version . Irpen reverted my edits on the same day . I marked the POV problem by {{POV-section-because|...}} and initiated a discussion on the talk page . Irpen removed the tag. This is the example of exactly what Mbuk wrote above, Irpen believes that his answer on the talk page is suffucient to consider the dispute to be settled.--AndriyK 08:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Here User:Irpen removed the tag with misleading comment alleging that the tag was "unexplained" .

He removed the tag many times , , , . (Please mention that he removed the tag three times during 24 hours, wich is forbidden by the policy and there was an active discussions on the talk page ).

1. This comment show that he assumes a bad faith of other users . Here I was blamed for trolling.
2. Here he disagrees to resolve the dispute by mediation .
3. Here he urges another user to ignore my warning about the policy violation .

--Mbuk 05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Removing the {{OR}} without providing any reference , .
2. Removing the tag before the dispute tag during the discussion, i.e before the dispute was settled. This is the link to the discussion
3. Removing the same tag from another (but related) article .--AndriyK 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:Vandalism (the subsection "Improper use of dispute tags " in the section Types_of_vandalism)
2. WP:Consensus
3. WP:DR
4. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
5. WP:NOR
6. WP:Verifiability

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. First AndriyK warned Irpen
2. Then I tried to convince him to stop removing the tag
3. Irpen removed the whole discussion from his talk page .

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I obviously support and certify the evidence above.--Mbuk 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
2. I support and certify the evidence above.--AndriyK 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Irpen is a very hard and obstinate editor. But he rarely accept a compromise. In article Khreschatyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) he during several months did not want to take the compromise offered editor (User:Gnomz007, User:Bryndza, User:Mzajac) but seasonly returned to its very POV versions (see also , , , , , , , , , and more) --Yakudza 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Irpen was and is an obstacle to resolution of the dispute over the Battle of the Lower Dnieper article. He accuses others of not accepting dispute resolution, but from what I have seen, this is hypocritical in the extreme. I entirely agree with Mbuk's assessment - Irpen does not seem to value neutrality or consensus. His disruptive behavior is a drain on the efforts of other editors, as he stalls the work of those who do value consensus. - PatrickFisher 06:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
3. I agree with User:AndriyK and User:Mbuk given their rationale as well as my experience of editing other articles. User:Irpen is indeed an uncompromising haughty participant of edit disputes. In my opinion, Irpen misinterprets WP:Consensus on a daily basis. He permanently tries to convince editors that consensus (and removing of POV-tags in particular) should be achieved through neverending adding of new arguments if previous arguments denied by the other side. This is a strange, manipulative vision of consensus and collaborative work. Sometimes (not very often) we come to a some compromising version of pages with Irpen's group. But it always takes an edit war usually started by Irpen, with his edit summaries like "rv blanking/nationalism", "explain your position more", "bring new arguments" ("cite more sources"). His POV-pushing tactic is to drown his opponents in a permanent discussion (instead of changing text in a neutral way). His usual approach to other users is subject to separate RfCs. Ukrained 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Per all above.AlexPU 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Per all above. Irpen is well-known for pushing POV and trying to make materials on Eastern Europe to look the way he wants, even when there is no consensus reached. --Monk 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
6. While nobody is perfect, Mbuk is essentially correct in pointing the distruptive parts of Irpen's activity. As a possible resolution, Irpen may be banned from removal of dispute tags for a period of time. --KPbIC 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
7. This is what I've seen of Irpen. Insults, edit wars, and hostility. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Patience please, for now...

Hi folks,

I've got the news of this RfC by AndriyK when I was just about leaving for a week-long combined work/pleasure travel from which I will be back only in the end of the coming week. These two days I could briefly check its development through a wap-phone and needless to say this is not the means to contribute much. However, I am pleased with both its existence and its course. It will certainly help to find some problems we are having here and may help to address them.

I assure you that an elaborate response to the issues raised here would be coming, perhaps even before I return. I will occasionally have good net-access and may have spare time to spend on this even during this week of my travel. This is the great opportunity for all to recoup what's going on and to share our views on that. I am afraid that some active participants here would not be pleased with the course of this RfC but there is time to see for that.

In the meanwhile, I have two requests. To AndriyK and whoever is helping him in pursuing this, to never make any statement without providing links and diffs to support them. To others, to please care to actually click on the links and diffs he or anyone else provides and/or take the statements not accompanied by diffs with the grain of sault. Just like Elonka did click on the diff and found little to her surprise :(. The stuff posted by user:Ukrained at the talk recently, a bunch of claims not accompanied by diffs, is exactly what I request my opponents not to do. To those who read it, I request to try to find a full context of whatever the diffs/links mean. That is if I said, that a certain action of someone was trolling, it may be worthwhile to check what was going on right before or right after this particular link. Could be that this was not a PA but a statement of fact (could be not, as well, we all may mistake. just see for yourself.)

My second request is to try to prevent this page and its talk from getting messy. Please post your entries at the best place so that others can see what they are related to but, OTOH, don't mess the entries of the other people. Please supply section headings, keep it structured for better readability. I very much wish that this is read by as many people as possible. I hope this is my opponent's intention as well. Please make it easy for others to follow by sticking to my suggestion above.

More will be coming these days.

Regards, --Irpen 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary by abakharev

Thanks to User:AndriyK for the possibility to say a few words about User:Irpen. As far as I know he is one of the most productive editors working with the Ukrainian topics. He created or entered significant parts into a huge number of articles, he even created the most useful Wiki tool for the Ukraine-related articles: Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements (see Incidently it appeared to be the first New article announcement board on Wikipedia). He is glad as a child to every new Ukraine-related article or every new Ukrainian editor and trying his best to facilitate announcement Ukrainian articles to WP:DYK (even something that should not be there IMHO) or WP:FA. He spends a lot of time couching and mentoring new Ukrainian editors, distributing wiki-awards, etc. He also is in constant talks trying to negotiate settlements of different disputes involving Ukraine and its neighbours: User:Halibutt's RfA from User:Ghirlandajo, naming of Crimean cities from User:Kuban kazak, Threat of the Dnieper reservoirs from me, etc. I think his efforts should be highly condemned especially by the users claiming to be "Ukrainian Patriots".

Regarding the removal of the tag from the Russian Architecture. According to WP:VAND Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. I think this exactly the case here. There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article, only the words that t describes the structures that were built by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus (i.e. hundreds years before Russia was created) and located in present-day Ukraine as if they were "Russian". For months it was explained that all three Eastern European peoples came from the single medieval nation Kievan Rus'. There is no discontinuity in the flow of cultural and artistic traditions from the times of this nation to the present, nor there were any borders separating Ukrainian Rus' from Russian Rus'. Thus the section on the Kievan (Medieval) Rus is required for the article. The question was discussed on RfC and there was a consensus to keep the section. There were no suggestion by AndriyK how to improve the article, or how to greatly emphasize the Ukrainess of the ancient Kiev buildings, there is nothing of that sort on the talk page. The dispute tag is not a graffiti, it should be there if any good will proposals present on the talk page and I do not see any. Even a simple proposal to keep the tag for the related section only is refused. Frankly if the same amount of energy spent on inserting the tag was spent on writing the Ukrainian architecture article (incorporating if necessary, Rostov or Novgorod building for the Kievan Rus sections) the problem would have been already solved.

For the Khreschatyk article it would be better if Irpen will answer himself after he return from his wikibreak. I am not an expert, but after looking into the history of the article it appeared that the variant with a few short lived Ukrainian states was accepted by everybody, including User:Ukrained (e.g. ), or User:AndriyK (e.g. ). Thus, I guess the restoring to this phrase should not be described as highly-POV edit.

In short, I find the overall behavior of Irpen to be commendable (that does not mean always infallible). I would recommend his opponents to concentrate on positive contributions rather than draining resources on the fruitless edit wars and conflicts.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. abakharev 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Tēlex 15:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Olessi 19:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Pan Gerwazy --pgp 23:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Kuban Cossack 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC); Definitely, nothing can be more appaling than to see the face of Ukraine and Ukrainians (Irpen) being spat at by other "Ukrainians" (AndriyK & Co.)
7. —Ëzhiki (Igel Hérrisonovich Ïzhakoff) • (yo?); 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Introvert • ~ 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Irpen is one of Wikipedia's best contributors working on Eastern Europe topics. This RfC is petty harassment and should be ignored. 172 | Talk 07:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
10. MaxSem 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
11. `'mikka (t) 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
12. KNewman 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
13. TheQuandry 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Dionyseus 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by David.Mestel

Looking at this issue, there seems to me to be three main questions under dispute: Was the POV tag correct? Did AndryK et al commit an "offence", so to speak, in putting there? Did Irpen do likewise in removing it?

The second question is, I think, the easiest, so I will address it first. My answer is an unequivocal no. By citing WP:VAND in this case, abakharev, essentially on behalf of the respondant, suggests that AndryK's actions amounted to vandalism. This is patently not the case. WP:VAND states that vandalism is only vandalism if it is not made in good faith. Since there is no evidence of bad faith, a charge of vandalism cannot be sustained, although I don't think that the inference of the cite is strong enough to suggest a failure to assume good faith.

This would seem also to give an answer to the third question. Since the only defence to violations of the 3RR was the implication that the edits reverted were simple vandilism (although adding or removing POV tags is specifically excluded on WP:3RR), it would seem that Irpen did indeed violate the 3RR. However, this is not the case. Mbuk, arguing for the complainant, has clearly misunderstood the 3RR, as he thought that it forbade reverting three or more times in 24 hours, rather than more than three, as is the case. That is excusable. It is a simple misunderstanding of policy. What is not excusable, however, is his apparent attempt to mislead the RfC, whether through negligence or through malice, by citing the same edit in multiple diffs as evidence of the respondent's frequent reverts, and for this I think that he must be censured in the strongest possible terms. However, under WP:VAND, it is forbidden to remove other people's dispute tags more than once in 24 hrs, as Irpen has done, although it also specifically states that this is not in itself a basis for a 3RR violation on the grounds of simple vandalism.

However, other evidence cited by Mbuk does seem to point to some wrongdoing on the part of Irpen. I will go through the evidence piece by piece. The evidence cited under point 1 regards violations of the 3RR, which I have already addressed. Under point 1 the second, he presents evidence that Irpen was at times extremely rude, although I do not think that the charge of failure to assume good faith is substantiated. Under point 2, he presents evidence showing that Irpen declined to participate in mediation. While this is sufficient evidence to show that other methods of dispute resolution have beeen tried, I don't think it can count significantly against the respondant. The reason for this is that he had, I think, at least some justification for declining mediation, as the arguments had been addressed at some length on the article talk page. However, he was again somewhat discourteous in the phrasing of his comment. In point 3, I think that Mbuck almost condemns himself out of his own mouth, in the sense that he cites the respondant's suggestion that the warning he posted on Telex's talk page should be ignored. I think that Irben was entirely justified in this advice, although possibly not in his strong language, as it was essentially a threat that Mbuck would file for Arbitration if Telex did not comply with his request, under the guise of a censure for undisputed wrongdoing. Lastly, he cites evidence that the respondant removed an OR tag, allegedly without any explanation. However, he did provide a reference on the talk page to a point on that page where references were given, and this claim is therefore unsubstantiated.

Now we come to the first, and thorniest question. Did the POV tag, as a matter of principle, deserve to exist. I would suggest that the answer to this is yes. To resolve this, I think that we must not get too bogged down in the nuances of Wikipedia policy. The real question in deciding whether to add a POV tag is this: Is there a substantial dispute over the neutrality of this article or section, about which there is not a firm consensus? That is to say, one or two flat-earthers against a multitude of other editors does not warrant a POV tag, because there is essentially a consensus. However, the above situation is not a valid comparator for this case. Here, there is a dispute between, essentially, a couple of editors on one side, and a couple of editors on the other. In an AfD, a ratio like that would undoubtedly be regarded as "no consensus", and that should be the case here. The correct course of action in this case, then, is to attempt to establish a consensus. In pursuance of this, I suggest that a content RfC should be filed, to bring the dispute to the attention of other users, and the POV tags should be retained pro tempore.

In summary, then, my opinion is thus: Irben acted in a manner which was rude and therefore not conducive to a successful resolution of the dispute, as well as removing dispute tags multiple times in 24 hours, and for this he should be censured. Mbuk attempted, either by malice or negligence, to mislead the RfC, and for this he should be strongly censured. The POV tags should be retained on the article pro tem., and a content RfC be filed to establish a consensus.

As amended like this. --David.Mestel 04:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. David.Mestel 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Sounds reasonable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)