Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 04

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

Placenames in Central-Eastern Europe

There are currently some 100 edit wars over the naming convention for geographical objects in Poland (cities, rivers, provinces etc.) The historical background of the conflict is that Poland was partitioned in 1772-1793 between Prussia, Austria and Russia, ceased to exists as an independent state for 100 years, put to heavy Russification and Germanization practices, and emerged againg as an independent state after World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945).

This is why all of modern Poland was subject to some sort of German-language rule in its history. During the Bismarck's times Poles were persecuted and expelled from their lands, and during the Hitlers times Poles were exterminated and expelled. Both German leaders thought that this was a good idea that Polish language should be forbidden and German language used for the geographical objects in occupied Poland.

The problem users are Nico, John Kenney and RickK who think that it is still a good idea that Polish cities should be called by their German names in English Wikipedia. On the other hand there are dozens of Polish editors, who are disgusted and feel insulted by using the German names for Polish cities. The worst massacres were commited by the Nazis during World War II to the Polish people just because they wanted to be Poles, not Germans. That's why the German names of the Polish cities are no longer just neutral alternative names, they are the Nazi names, and that's why they are so offensive and insulting to the Polish people.

Most of the conflicts are over the city names, there is also some conflict over intepretation of the historical events.

Suggested solution: Naming convention for geographical objects in Central-Eastern Europe.

Rule 1. Geographical object should be called by its English name if there is one. In case there is no accepted English name: Rule 2. If there's a conflict over a city name, official name should be used. Rule 3. If an geographical object has different names in several languages; the official language of the country the geographical object is located in, should be used as a preffered name in English Wikipedia.

Mestwin of Gdansk 17:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

examples of articles involved: Gdansk, Szczecin, Poznan, Warsaw, Wroclaw

besides the renaming of Polish cities some users use offensive languagem for example Nico writes that western Poland should be called Eastern Germany, and Gdansk, Poznan and evev Warsaw should be called former German city

It seem that the problem is already being discussed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(disputed_place_names) Mestwin of Gdansk 18:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sympathise with this, but have no time myself to involve me here. Who can help this person ? FirmLittleFluffyThing

I agree that this is a problem that should be solved, but it does not appear to be a request for mediation. It is a naming convention issue. Mediation may be appropriate, but it must occur between at least two people. Is anybody actually requested mediation? Tuf-Kat 20:59, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I request mediation between pro-German editors: Nico, John Kenney, RickK, etc. vs. pro-Polish editors (myself and a dozen of other editors: Mestwin of Gdansk, Space Cadet, Yeti, Ruhrjung, Halibutt etc. Pro-German editors think that 19th-century German names of the cities ARE most commonly used in English; pro-Polish editors think that the 18th/20th century Polish names of the cities ARE the most commonly used in English. This conflict cannot be solved on the talk pages and needs mediation. Except Warsaw and Cracow that have a common English name (non-Polish/non-German) this problem involves all of some 800 Polish cities. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation between me and User:Caius2ga, also known as User:Swiecino, User:Gdansk and User:AntiNaziWatch. He is a vandal, with a long history of vandalism and nasty ad hominem attacks, especially attacks on me. Here is a good example of his behaviour [1]. There is little more to say. I'm tired of him and his lies, manipulation and personal attacks. We reached compromise and peace in the Silesia case exactly because he left last year, when he was about to be banned. I certainly admit to have opinions on German-Polish issues, but at least I try to be cooperative. Spending time on caius2ga, however, who in the Oder talk pages stated "it is a matter of honour to erase any German name", posted numerous "WARNING: Nico the Silling" messages around on Wikipedia or is calling everyone he disagrees with nazis and neo-nazis as well as flooding, spamming and vandalizing even talk pages (like the Silesia vote), is fruitless. It is completely impossible to deal with him, which john pointed out months ago [2]. A mediation will not bring anything new. Thanks, but no thanks.

Btw., RickK and John are not "pro-German" editors, and Ruhrjung is not "pro-Polish", as far as I know. -- Nico 00:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nico that I don't think that a mediation with User:Gdansk would be particularly useful, especially if he is, indeed User:Caius2ga, which he seems to be. He has proven himself to be an utterly uncooperative user. However, I think that this is an issue that might warrant some kind of involvement from people other than the people who have involved themselves heretofore, as there are many less obnoxious contributors who essentially agree with User:Gdansk on how to deal with this issue, and there are others (including myself) who have argued strongly for the opposite. Some sort of discussion involving outsiders might be useful. john 01:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I decline to participate in either arbitration or mediation. It's all nonsense. RickK | Talk 02:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like to label myself as a "pro-polish" contributor. I just don't believe in the absurd idea of calling the same city different names throughout history. Wether it's a former german, austrian or polish city. I'm fine with comments explaining the diversity, but that's about it. And I really don't believe Fahrenheit will turn in his grave if we write that he was born in Gdansk. I don't like to call people Nazis for what they think, but then again we do have a joker around here who likes to quote neo-Nazi propaganda in relating to Polish history, just to push people's buttons. A little example of his style: "kings of Poland, at least in the past, usually were Germans, (...) they often were German souvereigns as well and (...) they spoke German, not Polish".

Space Cadet 01:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I would love to see Uncle Ed in on this.

I hold a wider participation by experienced wikipedians in a discussion on naming principels to be (much) more important. In my opinion, mediation is not (yet) quite called for. However, if mediation nevertheless becomes the chosen alternative, already at this stage, and if I at the time chosen for mediation am present at the computer (i.e. not at work or out in the sun ;-) I would be happy to follow the process and participate with what I feel called for. I would however like to make clear, that although I at some moments have lost my temper in frustration over some contributors' provocative and implacabel attitudes, I do not perceive me myself as being one of the warring parties in need of mediation, rather as one of them who until now have tried to contribute to constructive solutions of the conflicts aswell as to stimulate more bellicose editors to cooperation.

There is a another, but in these disputes intertwined issue, which I would like to emphasize. The words "Germany" and "German" can be understood quite differently by different people. There remains a considerable confusion regarding connections and differences between ethnicity, nationality and citizenship, aswell as on questions such as if "Germany" at all existed before 1871, if Imperial Germany and the German Empire are synonymes, and if the adjective German is limited in its scope to things pertaining "Germany" (whatever that now is).

(User:Wik is someone I think would be important to include, and for quite other reasons User:Adam Carr.)
--Ruhrjung 07:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a mediation commity either, but apparently all previous compromise proposals have failed. My proposal included (5 for, 5 against, 1 abstaining). The problem is that apparently there can be no compromise and only one name should be chosen in each case to avoid confusion. Either Gdansk or Danzig, either Warsaw or Warschau, either Szczecin or Stettin. I'm not sure, however, if this could be accepted by both sides.

Anyway, I'm always willing to help.Halibutt 09:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that mediation is required. According to me argumentation of Nico is pointless. Conventions enforced by him cause mess. The naming conventions has to be used consequently. If we start using Posen for 19th century Poznan it will be necessary to use French names for cities in western Germany on the beginning of 19th century, Czech names for cities in Lusatia (Budisyn instead of Bautzen) between 14th and 16th centuries Polish names for Ukrainian cities, German names for French cities and for Chanell Islands between 1940 and 1945 and so on. It is ridiculous.

I support the proposal of Mestwin of Gdansk. Yeti 22:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a clean and beautiful compromise that would satisfy everyone, but I simply see no better option.Halibutt 23:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Obsession about 3rd Reich and German language

In my opinion the problem user is Nico who is obsessed by the history of the First, Second and Third German Reich or Empire and also obsessed about the German language. The main activity of Nico is to put into the English Wikipedia, as many of the German language as possible. He makes sure the German placenames are listed everywhere, that German placenames are printed in bold letters, and that the German placenames are listed are listed before any other names. This may be desirable in the case of of placenames in Germany but the same activity is very disturbing and offensive in case of the placenames outside of Germany, especially those countries that were occupied by Germany in the past. (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia).

Obsession about German language only

The other pro-German users: John Kenney and RickK do NOT share the Nico's obsession about the Third Reich, but they do share the obsession about the German language. They often support Nico in edit wars about the German placenames, and do not hesitate to erase informative content just to revert to a version that contains the German names. They are not as dangerous as Nico, but thay should also be examined and included in this mediation propoesal.

German placenames only for the German-speaking countries

My personal opinion is that we should accept German names in English Wikipedia only for placenames in the German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and avoid German names in English Wikipedia for the placenames outside of these coutries. At the same time I am willing to accept the compromise, that the German placenames are used in English Wikipedia for geographical object outside Germany (and especially in Poland) on condition thay are used in limited numbers, and they are listed after the native names (in case of Poland: Polish, Latin, Kashubian-Pomeranian, Silesian. In case of Lithuania: Lithuanian language etc)

Requests to ban Nico

There are also several requests to bann Nico form Wikipedia (at least form English language Wikipedia) if he continues to harm the articles by his German language obsession.

That's why I requested this mediation and I will accept the results. Either we find a compromise solution about the German language in Poland or I will request to bann Nico from Wikipedia. Mestwin of Gdansk 16:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian/Lithuanian/Belarussian placenames

Results of this mediation should also include the placenames in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia the coutries that were administered by Poland, Russia, [[Germany and Austria for many years in the past, and that's why they have many different placenames in various languages.

Im my opinion the compromise solution should be that the native names should be preferred. Ukrainian placenames should be preferred for placenames in Ukraine, Belarussian placenames should be preferred for placenames in Belarus, Lithuanian placenames should be preferred for placenames in Lithuania, etc. For example the Lithuanian cities should be called Vilnius and Kaunas for all historical periods (and not Wilno, Wilna, Vilno, Vilna). Ukrainian cities should called Kyiv (not Kijów, Kiev) Lviv (not Lwów, Lemberg, Lvov) for all historical periods, although the older English publications preferred Russian of Polish names for these cities Mestwin of Gdansk 16:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

German placenames prefered in Germany

Results of these medation should also include the German placenames of ther gerographical objects in Germany. For example the German names of Greifswald, Stralsund, Wolgast, Bautzen, Havelberg should be preffered in English Wikipedia for all historical periods, altouth they have also Polish names: Gryfia, Strzałów, Wołogoszcz, Budziszyn; and Lusatian: Budyšin. Mestwin of Gdansk 17:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flemish/French placemanes in Belgium

Belgium is a bilingual country - northern part is Flemish Flanders, while the southern part is French, Walonie. Most of the cities have names in both languages. Some cities like Brussels and Bruges have English names, while others have not. Flemish names should be used in the Flemish part of the country, French names should be used in the Wallon part of the country. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments to this request

I'm not clear on where to add my comments to this request, so I'm placing them here, at the end of this section.

To be honest, I don't see where mediation will be of help in this matter. Both sides appear to me as being fairly hardened & upcompromising in their positions. I make this assumption on the following observations:

One side has set forth a fairly detailed bill of demands above, which
Includes the request for having someone banned,
Historically, both viewpoints have extensively argued for their own POV without any sign of compromise (although the participants have changed over time),
There has been at least one straw poll, whose results seem to have had no effect on this dispute, and
My own contribution at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names), which was aimed at finding a compromise, has gone uncommented upon.

(Because of the last fact, I recuse myself from mediating this dispute.)

If we could have another poll, this time with all parties promising to abide by the result, & which drew sufficient votes from all parts of Wikipedia, perhaps the Mediation Committee could help. But even then, I believe it would only settle part of the conflict.

P.S. Please consult Godwin's Law about the use of the term Nazi. I believe it is possible to be a German chauvinist without also embracing Fascist ideology. -- llywrch 19:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions to solve this dispute forever

It is nearly impossible to create ONE article that pleases both sides. There are just a few possibilities to solve this dispute forever:

1. Bilingual names everywhere (e.g. always "Gdansk/Danzig", "Szczecin/Stettin", "Wroclaw/Breslau").

2. A technical preselection of the preferred name. A command like [[#SELF]] would insert the preferred name of the city from the REDIRECT page. The server software could be extended with an IF-clause: #IF [[#SELF]]="Gdansk" THEN WRITE "Szczecin" ELSE IF [[#SELF]]="Danzig" THEN WRITE "Stettin" ELSE IF ...

3. Two different articles for disputed cities that give a slightly national POV (simply choosing one name is already a national POV). Contributors need a common goal if they want to write a good article. Creation of two different articles would create two competing, but not opposing groups. Whereever a separation in two different articles is not possible, links should show both articles (e.g. Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk/Danzig). Readers could choose which article they want to read. Deleting OR REDIRECTING articles of the other side should be regarded as vandalism.

4. If you have another idea to avoid a national bias when using disputed placenames, please add here.

Please regard these ideas carefully, as the permanent edit war discourages many users. Two competing articles need just a little bit more storage, but they could reduce conflicts that makes the whole project a madhouse. Remember that this project lives from donations and nobody wants to donate any cent for an institution that makes his contributions a subject of permanent edit wars. Two different articles for such a disputed issue could create a willingness to donate that exceeds the costs for additional storage by far.

This encyclopedia has many special interest pages (e.g. special arms), so a few number of competing pages for the same issue should be allowed. If not, you should try to insert a technical preselection as quickly as possible in order to make such disputes as invisible as possible.

--80.134.126.118 17:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested involving User:Gdansk,, User:Wik, User:Adam Carr, User:Nico, User:John Kenney, User:RickK, User:Space Cadet, User:Yeti, User:Ruhrjung, User:Szopen and User:Halibutt, User:Sca, User:Przepla, User:Cautious, User:Kpalion.

User:RickK - Refused mediation
User:Nico - Refused mediation
User:Adam Carr - Refused mediation
User:Wik - has not responded to the mediation request

User:Gdansk - Willing to participate, no opinions regarding the mediator
User:John Kenney - Willing to participate, no opinions regarding the mediator
User:Space Cadet - Willing to participate, prefers User:Ed Poor as mediator
User:Yeti - Unclear -- apparently willing to participate with Gdansk as his representative
User:Ruhrjung - Willing to participate, although questioning the meaningfulness, no opinions regarding the mediator
User:Halibutt - Willing to participate, no opinions regarding the mediator
Lirath Q. Pynnor - Accepts mediation, no preferences

Llyrwich has recused himself as a possible mediator, and Anthere has indicated she does not have the time to participate. All other mediators are assumed candidates.

Hi, guys! Shall we have another go at it? --Uncle Ed 22:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ok! Lirath Q. Pynnor

Where and how? Perhaps we could start on a public talk page and then move to e-mail (with multiple cc:'s) for private discussion as needed. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why would I know how? Im not a mediator! Lirath Q. Pynnor

Could everybody who is willing to participate in mediation please leave a message at User:Ed Poor/Mediation. I would suggest outlining your desires for mediation -- what you would feel to be the ideal outcome of mediation (and, perhaps, a more practical outcome you would be happy with). If you are not willing to participate with Ed mediating, either leave a message there or e-mail me (you can use the "e-mail this user function") so we can work it out.

This is a rather large mediation group, so I'd like to suggest whittling down the number of participants. Would anybody be willing to be represented by another person? Would anyone be willing to represent others? Do you have any other desires about how mediation should occur? Tuf-Kat 20:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should also invite User:Adam Bishop as he has an opinion on the subject and also takes controvercial actions: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Admin_powers_abuse_by_Adam_Bishop -- Mestwin of Gdansk 00:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because I was blocked by some sort of Wikipedia Ku Klux Klan (see (Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Gdansk), just for using a Wikipedia naming convention, I am sorry I cannot participate in the mediation process at the moment. Mestwin of Gdansk

(last comment added by IP: 62.244.138.99 - restored by sannse (talk) 19:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC))