Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kuban kazak/Workshop

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kuban_Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop#Kuban_kazak_banned there is already a proposal by Kirill that Kuban_kazak be banned for a year. All of this without hearing evidence from Kuban_kazak himself. At Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Kuban_Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence#Evidence_timetable we have an arbitrator pushing for a proposed decision within the next few days; although this goes against giving editors a reasonable amount of time in which they are able to present their evidence. As I said there, and I will repeat here:

The pushing for a proposed decision when it is clear that evidence has not yet presented by some parties is reeking to me of a potential railroading of Kuban_kazak, particularly as Kirill has already drawn up proposals on banning KK, yet nothing at all to do with Hillock. If the members of the committee have already made up their mind as to what the outcome of this arbcom is going to be, without allowing ample time for all parties in this dispute to have their case heard, then please make it known so that others needn't waste their time looking for a fair decision. Such things are indicative of show trials under Stalin.

The "some parties" is Kuban_kazak in particular. If we are participating in a kangaroo court here in which the decision from the top has already been made, then have the decency to tell us this is so, so that we needn't waste our time which can be spent on other things, because the way it is looking at the moment, there is good reason to believe that this is the case. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The current set of proposals is based on the evidence which had been presented at the time they were drafted. They are obviously subject to revision based on further evidence, and additional proposals may be developed to address other matters or editors as necessary.

That being said: having examined the evidence against Kuban kazak, I find his misdeeds to be so blatant and so indefensible that I cannot imagine any rational explanation being offered for them, regardless of how long we wait for one. Kirill ^(prof) 04:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comment on the evidence talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I drafted two proposals but believe they all could be joined into one proposal concerning the use of foreign language names in different articles, not just the geographic ones or concerning metro articles. Insertion of foreign language name is often used as a part of nationalist tagging, inserting it as a way of asserting political or cultural aspirations or claims. This problem is especially acute in EU articles as different national groups often intentionally provoke confrontation by supplying alternative name in their own language often without any justification or any sources. For example I am still puzzled as to why this person's name is dubbed in Russian[1], even though none of the sources mention it and it is unclear why it is dubbed in another language in addition to the one supplied by sources. This seems to be particularly prevalent in articles dealing with Ukraine as many articles on different topics are dubbed in Russian without any justification whatsoever. This kind of dubbing is not present in other EU articles and needs to be clarified by ArbCom since that concerns this case and is the cause of much of the disruptive editing. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, much of the disruptive editing is from yourself, not to mention the evident stalking of KK by yourself (something which has not yet been addressed by this Arbcom). Whilst insertion of foreign language names may be due to "nationalist tagging", so too can the deletion of foreign language names. For example, you have offered no explanation as to why you removed the Russian name from Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Your arguments for removal of the Russian name from the lead is due to nothing but nationalist rubbish, and is not grounded in any policy nor guideline. As far as I am concerned, such guidelines should be devised by editors with a shred of objectivity, not by editors who wish to push their own nationalist POV (on either side of the equation). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply