Talk:Kyiv: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 283: Line 283:
*'''Support'''. Agree that "Kyiv" is [[WP:COMMONNAME]] per media, use in international relations, etc. [[User:Tcr25|Carter]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Agree that "Kyiv" is [[WP:COMMONNAME]] per media, use in international relations, etc. [[User:Tcr25|Carter]] ([[User talk:Tcr25|talk]]) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the many arguments ''against'' moving the page. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the many arguments ''against'' moving the page. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' just to point out that, since I'm not seeing any substantial change when compared to the situation in place during the previous iteration of this RM, I'm maintaining my oppose !vote from back then. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=kiev,kyiv Google Trends] results still show "Kiev" clearly outperforming "Kyiv" in common usage in the last year ''everywhere'' (even with a slight upward trend in recent weeks), just as is shown in [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?smoothing=3&corpus=26&content=Kiev%2CKyiv&year_end=2019&year_start=1800&direct_url=t1%3B%2CKiev%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CKyiv%3B%2Cc0 Ngram] {{small|(some have pointed out that Ngram only shows results up to 2019; well, this is an argument that is actually '''against any move''' right now, since more time would be required to see whether a change in common usage settles in or not. [[WP:SUSTAINED|Sustained usage is required]] for a change to become notable under Wikipedia standards)}}. As I said back in July, while there may be evidence that a change in common usage ''may'' happen in the future, sources do not point to this having happened just yet. More so, those even hint at trends on common usage having stabilized again, with "Kiev" still in the lead by a great deal. Remember that [[WP:NOTLEAD|Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows]]. Some people may be eager to see the article title being changed on the basis of "Kyiv" being more used in sources, but this doesn't mean Wikipedia should act hastily or prematurely just because "Kiev" is (and has been for a long time) the "wrong" version for some people.
:P.S. Note that I'm also aware of the existing list showing a lot of sources in support of "Kyiv"; as far as I have seen, that list was heavily edited by pro-Kyiv editors who even overrode anyone adding any source in favour of "Kiev" {{small|(and those that were added have been edited to be presented in such a way that it looks like those also favour "Kyiv")}}. It should probably be handled with care in terms of reliability and at the risk of those handling it {{small|(this said, I just wanted to clarify some points and update them to the re-opened RM; I've no interest in engaging into a lengthy, never-ending discussion, really. Thx).}} [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 21:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


====Procedural note on clerking====
====Procedural note on clerking====

Revision as of 21:11, 29 August 2020

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeKyiv was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Requested move 1 July 2020

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to offwiki canvassing. I am also enacting a provisional move moratorium of 2 years. Having this perennial request listed even every year is too much. I'm not sure about previous moratoriums, so some adjustments to this one are possible. If the Arbitration Committee chooses to examine this, I will of course defer to their respective decision. El_C 15:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since this was a scheduled move request, a new one will take place soon, before the moratorium comes into effect. El_C 16:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second update: the matter is now before the Arbitration Committee. These proceedings are suspended pending their decision. El_C 11:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dicussion unsuspended. Please feel free to mark new or dormant account with the {{spa}} tag to further aid the closer. My thinking is that this discussion should remain open longer than the usual one week, but I'll leave that at the discretion of the respective closer. El_C 17:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2020

Kiev → Kyiv – Since October 2019 when the ban/moratorium was established, the following updates have happened (per Atlantic Council's article from October 21, 2019 entitled Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity, "A number of global heavyweights have recently adopted the Ukrainian-language derived 'Kyiv' as their official spelling for the country’s capital city, replacing the Russian-rooted 'Kiev'"). Specifically, a couple of changes have happened: 1) all major English publications that used their own stylebook have made updates to their styleguides and now use Kyiv spelling, 2) all major English publications that use standard stylebooks (e.g., Associated Press Stylebook or Canadian Press Stylebook) are now following recent updates in those styleguides and are now using Kyiv, 3) IATA has switched to Kyiv and therefore all international airports have updated their English spelling to Kyiv, 4) BGN has switched to Kyiv and, therefore, all major geographical bodies followed suite and are now using Kyiv and, lastly, 5) The Library of Congress has switched to Kyiv and, therefore, all major library organizations followed suite and are now using Kyiv.

Below is the chronological list of those major updates:

Survey (July)

  • Oppose This was completely predictable, both in terms of its timing, but also in terms of its failure to address common usage. It lists a variety of style guides, but utterly fails to indicate whether or not those style guides have had any influence on actual usage, which is the measurement that Wikipedia uses to gauge "common usage". You have to prove that usage has changed. You don't prove usage by simply listing all the people who say "you should do this". You have to actually show that English speakers are paying attention to the "experts" and changing their usage. You've proven nothing other than the "experts" are talking about changing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's test this new awareness of "Kyiv" out with the simplest of metrics, a Google search.
It doesn't seem that actual usage has changed much. Reuters changed officially changed spelling on the 12th, but here are 4560 results of "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken Reuters" just in the last week.
You have to prove your point with actual usage not dictates from "on high". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So let's now fine-tune the example from Reuters to just News using the same search criteria for the last week:
  • "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken Reuters" (last week, News): 894 results
  • "Kyiv -Kiev -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 564 results
It seems that actual usage at Reuters is still about 1.5 to 1 in favor of "Kiev" in the News department.
At the AP the situation isn't much different.
The same is true if I search for all News over the last week.
So nothing has changed in terms of actual usage in the last six months. In the news departments of the English-speaking world usage of "Kiev" over "Kyiv" is still about 2 to 1 even though the style guides are telling them to use "Kyiv". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) RE Reuters News results
Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used only -chicken and forgot to add -Dynamo) Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both -chicken and -Dynamo I just got quite a different result for Reuters (with Kyiv beating out Kiev by about 50%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 509 results
  • "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 706 results
2) RE AP News results
Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only -chicken in one case and only -Dynamo in the other). Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both -chicken and -Dynamo I just got quite a different result for AP (with roughly 1-to-1 ratio, but Kiev beating out Kyiv slightly by about 30%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 984 results
  • "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 685 results
3) RE All News results
Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only -chicken in one case and only -Dynamo in the other). Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both -chicken and -Dynamo I just got quite a different result for all news (with roughly 1-to-1 ratio, but Kyiv beating out Kiev slightly by about 10%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are completely fake. The real search result totals are only on the last page of search. (How can Taivo not know this after discussing this here for literally years?) See WP:GOOGLE. The number of results returned when I click on his links above are 190:184, 24:31, 12:12, 229:197 (Google will probably give you slightly different numbers). These searches are also full of foreign-language results, and should be restricted to English-language results. The supposed Reuters and AP searches are full of “photos from Reuters,” and don’t indicate what they’re supposed to indicate. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 15:55 z
I agree with @Mzajac: that results from TaivoLinguist are fake, made up and manipulative (using one exclusion -chicken in one case and a different one -Dynamo in the other). As I clearly showed above in all examples, except for AP, Kyiv wins over Kiev by 10% to 50%.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And those results are a red herring. Article titles are to be based on reliable English-language sources (WP:TITLE), and independent, reliable English-language sources (WP:COMMONNAME). Raw Google search results might be helpful, but result counts do not tell us this. WP:WIAN: “Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.” —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 18:12 z
  • Oppose - so far nothing to change my mind from common usage. And as said above, even though some sources have officially changed to Kyiv, they still keep on using Kiev. That's not too official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per exhaustively-detailed nomination. On July 1, 2020, the time has finally arrived for Wikipedia to drop the outdated form "Kiev" and start using the 21st-century form "Kyiv". In the same manner that all the style guides and major publications in the English-speaking world depict Beijing rather than Peking, Mumbai rather than Bombay or Kolkata rather than Calcutta, so do these same guides and publications use Kyiv rather than Kiev. All of the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES are now on the side of change. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The renaming suggestion is well sourced, highly detailed and convincing. It is also time that we as Wikipedians acknowledged that while our standards are meant to reflect common use, they also influence common use. I therefore find it far more important to rely on the types of sources used in the request to move than the google searches used in the opposition to it. Arianna the First (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Arianna the First (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Oppose - Still no evidence presented that "Kyiv" is in common usage in English language publications worldwide. Wikipedia's naming conventions do not allow for renaming to "Right Great Wrongs", but in view of the social changes now sweeping the US and other countries, perhaps it soon will. But until that actually happens, we still abide by Common Name rules. - BilCat (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move - no evidence it's the common name. O.N.R. (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per detailed request and Roman Spinner's note on native names' usage. SMiki55 (talk) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SMiki55 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Oppose per the detailed evidentiary rebuttal of the nomination. ——Serial # 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per evidence that actual usage hasn't changed. --Khajidha (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – must be done Thug Rx (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Thug Rx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support – Almost every reliable source and English language style guide uses Kyiv at this point especially in publications from the last year. Notable AP and NYT updated thier style guides. Further i urge everyone to read WP:WIAN before taking raw counts from google as authoritatively indicating common usage particularly in light of other reliable source. Blindlynx (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources" of English usage (the News in this case) use "Kiev" two to one over "Kyiv". The style guides suggest usage, but the actual news writers ignore them twice as often as they follow them. And you clearly didn't read the second major bullet of WP:WIAN where it says that news media are an important source of information. My search criteria were careful and properly constructed to show just News media, just within the most recent time frame, and using the proper search terms. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. News sources aren't the only reliable sources regarding this. Authoritative references namely topographical databases and style guides should also be considered and for the most part use Kyiv.Blindlynx (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is worth mentioning that several of the supporters, including the OP, either have very few edits total, or at least very few recent edits. Given the history here, this is at best suspicious. We should consider that this discussion may well be being canvassed inappropriately.
I find a few of the comments here thoroughly unconvincing.
  • The fact that the Ukrainian government made a request is irrelevant to us. Usage by organisations from non-English-speaking countries like the Kyiv Post is irrelevant to us. And, while WP:NAMECHANGES certainly applies, note that (a) the official change was quite a long time ago now and (b) TaivoLinguist's evidence comes from the last couple of weeks.
  • I see no issue with being "inconsistent" with the names of articles like Kryvyi Rih, since most English speakers will have never heard of the place. And I note with interest that Zaporizhia is used as an example, given that the transcription according to the official standard is Zaporizhzhia. We'll be "inconsistent" with Zaporizhia whatever we do.
  • Arguments based on situations in China and India that aren't parallels to this one are as specious as they always have been.
  • I note that the IP objects to removing "chicken" and "Dynamo" from search results. In reality, sources that use "Kiev" generally also refer to "Dynamo Kyiv", and sources that use "Kyiv" will often still use "chicken Kiev". It is more useful to include only results that refer to the city, not to things named after the city.
  • The claim that Kiev is POV would imply that Kyiv is equally POV. If one is more POV than the other, then Kyiv has the greater POV because it's the neologism. After all, while Kiev may have begun life as a Russian transcription, it became the standard English-language name for the city in neutral sources. The question that we are asking is whether there is clear evidence that that has changed.
    • In particular, the claim, Favoring the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name reinforces the Russian pronunciation of the name and perpetuates a Russian colonialist mindset that denies Ukrainian autonomy is not an argument for NPOV. Because it treats "Kiev" as "the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name", rather than an English word, and is based solely on Ukrainians' reactions to that word. It is implicitly an argument that we should be writing to appease Ukrainian people, i.e. from a Ukrainian POV.
    • The argument for WP:MODERNPLACENAME in the same comment is irrelevant since it's far from obvious that WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't imply Kiev.
So, having dismissed most of the arguments raised for the change, I turn to the IP's argument and Taivo's counterargument, which really is the crux of the matter. There is no point in claiming that usage isn't changing, at least in writing. My impression is that if current trends continue, the most common name is likely to change soon, and we may well want to move this article within the next year or two.
But what decided it for me was a quote from another comment above: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others - particularly given that it was coupled with WP:NPOV. Even if I accept that Kyiv is the most common (and that is not clear to me), it has problems. It seems to have no standard pronunciation that meets the phonological requirements of the English language. And a lot of the arguments in favour seem to boil down to supporting the Ukrainian POV.
But this is a close call IMO. Kahastok talk 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The core argument is that the majority of reputable sources such as style guides and geographic databases use Kyiv. 19:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs)
  • Support Per nom. I am amazed how people push the usage thing. Wikipedia lately has turned into "this is how lemmings call things" instead of "this is how things are called". This is lame and irritating. I presume if people still called Instanbul Byzantium, then the article in Wikipedia would be called Byzantium? This is nonsense. Mikus (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The presented evidence seems like a big red herring that does not actually prove that current common usage has changed from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Indeed, while this may constitute evidence that such a change may happen in the future, it does not mean it has already happened. A simple comparison of both terms in Google Trends show "Kiev" overwhelmingly preferred over "Kyiv" in search results (even in Ukraine, with Kiev comprising 71% of the cummulative searches for both terms). In English speaking countries (the ones we must pay attention to as per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:NCGN), Kiev is still most common with no less than ~85% of results. Some other cities have been brought as examples for the change, but those do constitute examples on why such move cannot happen just yet: Mumbai/Bombay, Beijing/Peking and Kolkata/Calcutta, all show a change in common usage from the previous Bombay/Peking/Calcutta to the new Mumbai/Beijing/Kolkata. This has not happened for Kiev/Kyiv. As per WP:MPN: Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. The current common global usage is still Kiev, so that's the name we should prefer for the article.
On a side note, Kahastok makes a convincing case for preserving the current title and I share his concerns about a possible canvassing taking place in this discussion. This seems a clear political issue in Ukraine, and many of the support !votes look like POVish pile-ons centered on how Wikipedia must seemingly right a great wrong with the city's name, as the Ukrainian government seems to be actively pressing for the "old" Kiev spelling to fall out of use. I must note that Wikipedia, as an independent online encyclopedia, cannot take any side on this issue nor serve as a soapbox to promote any particular political cause. We must limit ourselves to reflect what sources and common usage dictate, and on this issue it's clear Kiev is still the most commonly-used term for the city. Impru20talk 19:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's preference of common name instead of official name is idiotic. This is not just about Kiev/Kyiv, but, say cassette tape instead of compact cassette. Wikipedia became the bastion of illiterate and uninformed. Mikus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go and get a consensus for changing the current Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME if you don't like it, but saying that it's "idiotic" only because of not agreeing with it won't grant you the upper hand in any discussion. Impru20talk 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also, who the heck calls it a compact cassette? That may be the technical term but it's been called a cassette tape by everyone since I was using them in the 1970s when it surpassed my old 8-track tape player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognize that this topic is prime real estate for Ukrainian trolls, canvassed for this purpose. It would not surprise me at all if the sons of the motherland are responding to either an official call or an influential voice in the in-language media to troll Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:TaivoLinguist. Can you tell us which Wikipedians you’re labelling “Ukrainian trolls,” or are all Ukrainians “trolls,” or is it just that everyone who disagrees with you on this issue must be a member of some trollish nation driven by their genes or citizenship? Your remark is deeply offensive and it’s already encouraging others to take up the call. Please reconsider your remark. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 21:59 z
"and it’s already encouraging others to take up the call." Really? And how are these "others" finding out about these comments? Sounds like you just proved he's right! - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:BilCat. Are you implying that Taivo has been canvassing non-Wikipedians to come here and chime in to agree with his comment? Are you defending the comment? What exactly are you implying? —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 22:58 z
Uh, no. You were implying that Taivo's comments would cause more people to come here to oppose him because they were offended. But how would they know about his comments if they weren't being canvassed off-wiki? Hmmm? - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t. You misunderstood. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 01:39 z
Yeah, I think they are and will be coming out of the woodwork.. as if the entire country of Ukraine has marked this day on the calendars. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like the IP who started this--nothing whatsover on Wikipedia until he admits to gathering his evidence "in preparation" for the big day. He came here for one purpose and one purpose only. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, as far as I see the IP nominator had this post prepared since at least 29 June, and the initial filling of this RM was almost automatic once it was 1 July, with a "TBA" comment in anticipation of the copy-paste. It would seem as if the RM came just because of the lifting of the moratorium, rather than because of an actual change in common usage having happened or being demonstrable. Impru20talk 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so much for assume good faith... blindlynx (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF means that good faith should be assumed, but obviously evidence may point to the contrary. As of currently, all evidence points to this RM having been filled because of the moratorium having expired, not because of any sensible new reason about any change in the common usage of Kiev/Kyiv that may bring a different result to previous discussions (specially when even Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME is being dubbed as "idiotic" because it does not bend particularly well to the the cause of having this moved to "Kyiv").
Note that the previous RM (which resulted in a strong consensus against any move) took place between 26 October and 3 November 2019. If you check the dates of the links provided to support this proposal, you'd see that almost all of them are previous to the last RM, and none of them revolve around the actual common usage of the proposed term, which is the issue that, ultimately, is preventing all these RMs from succeeding once and once and once and once again. I believe it's nigh to disruptive and an abuse of process to open a RM on a very conflicting issue just because you can, on the exact moment the moratorium is lifted, rather than because of there being any new sensible reason that can sway the community's consensus in a different direction. Attempting to bore the hell out of all opposers until there is no one left to oppose what seems a very clear attempt to right what is perceived as an historical wrong is not how Wikipedia works. Impru20talk 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a good number of reliable sources have changed since the moratorium was put in place. it's reached the point where almost every style guide and place names registry uses Kyiv. Just because people waited for the moratorium to expire to propose the change does not invalidate good faith. blindlynx (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of the provided sources (which btw, do not prove a change in common usage) only four are from after the previous RM, and just two are from 2020. Nonetheless, stop the charade: this RM has been set up in Twitter to canvass people into having this article moved. That pretty much invalidates the whole RM, since it's been a conscious attempt to game and disrupt Wikipedia by creating the illusion of a strong consensus for the move, when never has been one. Impru20talk 01:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. People here often forget how much Wikipedia shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it. Ausir (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ausir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • That has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article naming. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Sorry, but no. What you say goes against the second of Wikipedia's five pillars, under which we must explicitly avoid advocacy. Independently of how Wikipedia may be regarded by outside readers, it is not among Wikipedia's goals to "shape common usage"; we only reflect on it. Supporting this move in order to have Wikipedia help influence and raise the visibility of a particular agenda is outrightly contrary to its spirit, and it's worrying that several of the support !votes have been explicit on this motive. Impru20talk 23:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard this before from an administrator... basing a move on Wikipedia because Wikipedia "shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it." That goes against all we stand for in policy and guidelines. I'm actually shocked at this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's a goal to shape common usage. Just that it does anyway. I'm not saying the article should be moved in order to shape usage but that the current online usage of the current article name is shaped partly by Wikipedia itself and pretending it doesn't doesn't change it. Ausir (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. The page for Turin (which should probably merit a RM someday) is titled like that in Wikipedia as of now, yet current Google Trends show that "Torino" (the official local name) has already vastly surpassed the usage of "Turin". This is not the case for Kiev. So the issue of whether Wikipedia shapes common usage is not only unfortunate under WP's goals, but also of negligible effect, if any (factually, you'll get to this Wikipedia article by typing either Kiev or Kyiv, because of the second being a redirect and being used in-text throughout the article). Impru20talk 00:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:MPN, and WP:NPOV. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Tāwhiwhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Note- new account only edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This account was created only four days ago and this one is its first (and so far only) edit. What's going on here? It's been several sleeper accounts already suddenly re-activating to support this RM right now. Impru20talk 00:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Long overdue. Common usage is Kyiv in reliable sources. Sure, Wikipedia should not lead a name change but it should also not actively stand in the way. Some consideration, however little, should be given to the official name. Whether we like to admit it or not Wikipedia has a large influence. We are like a boulder blocking the stream and complaining about the amount of water flowing. Let's get the fuck out of the way. The most trusted sources have accepted the name change and so should we. Some say that this is advocacy that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Advocating keeping an old name, despite evidence showing a change is needed, is also against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: agree with your points that switching to Kyiv on English WP is long over due, since practically all reliable sources have already switched over the course of 2019-2020. Also, I'm utterly surprised that nobody has mentioned thus far that even the MOST stubborn English encyclopedia in the world - Encyclopedia Britannica switched to Kyiv on November 25, 2019: https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv. Let me repeat it, so everyone could hear: even the slowest and most conservative encyclopedia in the world, Britannica, switched to Kyiv spelling a little over half a year ago. If today English Wikipedia doesn't follow in Britannica's footsteps, it would mean there's a series issue with the part of WP community that keeps advocating (against overwhelming evidence) to keep it 'Kiev' by all and every means possible.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment coming from the OP of a RM who has been demonstrated has being set up on Twitter to massively influence a move of this article is almost offensive. At the very least, attempt not to depict Wikipedia as some short of advocate group when it is you who are advocating an agenda. Impru20talk 10:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added this discussion to WP:CENT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Roman Spinner and Coffeeandcrumbs, whose boulder metaphor resonates well. If Russia still incorporated Ukraine within its borders, this would be a much tougher question. But the Russians have been gone already for 3 decades, and the indigenous people are telling us what the correct spelling of their city's name is, which is based upon its founder Kyi. The canvassing going on is troubling, but it wouldn't be happening if WP just got with the program already like almost everyone else has. StonyBrook (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just because Kiev is located in Ukraine doesn't mean that we need to use the Ukrainian spelling in English. Dublin is not referred to as Baile Atha Cliath. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not a fair comparison. It is just a spelling tweak, not an alternate name as in the case of Dublin. And Kiev was the Russian spelling in English, so why is that superior? StonyBrook (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev is easier to spell and pronounce in English. Names of major cities are typically translated, not just transliterated. Moscow, Jerusalem and Cairo are the preferred spellings in English, not Moskva, Yerushalayim/al-Quds and al-Qahira. Also, Kiev is fairly evenly divided as far as the usage of the Russian and Ukrainian languages is concerned. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is ever so slightly easier to pronounce Kiev. I don't know about the breakdown of usage, but I haven't heard of any significant movement in Russia, Israel or Egypt to get those iconic capitol names changed to the transliterations, but I sure am seeing it here. StonyBrook (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the existence of movements seeking to change a name is enough for the Wikipedia name to change. In my opinion it remains the best option just to use whatever name is the most common in English, which still is Kiev. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most common usage, in English-language reliable sources in 2020, is Kyiv.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. These sources you post do not reflect a change in common usage, only that some media outlets are making the change from Kiev to Kyiv. This could very well mean that common usage will follow suit in the future, but it hasn't as of currently, which is the issue at discussion right now. Impru20talk 09:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most common usage in English is Kiev... it is the English spelling of the city. And it's not a question of the pronunciation. No matter how it gets spelled in English, Kiev or Kyiv, the pronunciation will be the same.... key-ev. No one will really pronounce it different just because it's spelled different. Like in the USA, few would pronounce Quebek as Kuh-bek... most will say qwa-bek. It will be said Key-ev for 100 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Kiev" isn't a Russian word any more than "Moscow" is. It's the English name of the city and until that simple fact changes, then this question is simply moot. The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts to cherry pick style guides as if they were actual usage data. Requests by the Ukrainian government are important to the State Department and the Foreign Ministry, as well as to any organization that needs institutional permissions and individual visas to work in Ukraine, but irrelevant to Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aside of the explicit canvassing issues below, I've seen that the Ukrainian government launched a renewed campaign through Twitter on 29 June ([8]), actively pressing organisations (the CNN in this case) into changing the city name's transliteration. The tweet has over 2k likes. This, coupled with the lifting of the moratorium on 1 July and this RM having been planned (and a canvassing organized) through the social networks since several days prior, only adds to the already growing concerns that a particular agenda is being pursued here.
I should once again remind the people involved about WP:ADVOCACY: Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy. While it'd perfectly logical for the article to be moved to Kyiv once and if common usage shows that such change has happened, Wikipedia cannot be used as a channel to promote or help further such change in common usage, as some editors have explicitly voiced. The move should happen when and if such change happens naturally, but we cannot artificially enforce it ourselves. Impru20talk 10:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I can't believe this perennial is back again. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Kiev. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The city is already known as Kiev in the western world and is presented as Kiev literally everywhere. Gerg2013 (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This seems to come down to whether we emphasize the major international organizations, major English-language media outlets part of WP:COMMONNAME or the A search engine may help part. Many of the opposing arguments above seem to take the form of "it doesn't matter if so many organizations formally use Kyiv if they still commonly write Kiev". I err on the side of the former. It's the editorial board of these organizations that I think we should be looking to, not specific instances where employees are lagging behind. That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important. That one can find google hits to the contrary is secondary. As has been pointed out, Google hits are complicated to qualify given the number of low quality sources, duplicates, and unrelated topics they'll include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mention "That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important." But is it really when they don't always practice what they preach? I quickly pulled up reuters from today or reuters/NYT this month, and CBC from this month, BBC. The others do the same thing. And that doesn't take into account sources such as Straits Times, etc. Saying you will be using something but not doing it or doing so sporadically means you should not be taking what they say as very important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Off-wiki canvassing

I just found out this from earlier on 1 July: The wiki debate on calling Kyiv Kyiv is back on today, anyone wanna help? [9]. This is really disturbing. This Twitter user is currently active in this discussion and has called for other people to intervene and support the Kyiv claim, laying out the ground for this RM to happen since at least 27 June:

  1. Fucking wiki, this is going to be reopened in a few days btw [10]
  2. If you have wiki accounts please please please join in [11]
  3. July 1st [12]

There are several more comments from today, discussing this with other accounts (which are private so I can't see what they say, but they are clearly commenting about us and not in a very nice way): It took me half an hour to be sick of wiki [13], The most vocal editors are always such disengenuous dick heads [14], Tavio is particularly bad :/ [15].

This user has been also interacting with another (declaring himself as pro-Ukrainian) who is currently commenting on the various responses in this discussion ([16], [17], [18], [19]). On the Kiev/Kyiv issue, this account has also claimed that it's impossible to be politically neutral on this subject. either you think institutions like encyclopediae - online or offline - endorse the right of a people to self-determine or you do not. [20]. This person claimed not to have a wiki account, yet he was told, literally, that You should probably make one anyways [21].

This explains why all of these sudden new accounts/sleepers re-activation. Do you think this is funny? This whole POVish-motivated RM is an insult to intelligence and a gross violation of WP:CANVASSING, a fake attempt at attempting to show an illusion of consensus by gathering similarly-minded editors throughout the social networks. The OP should withdraw this RM or else this should probably be brought to WP:ANI so that appropiate actions are taken. This is purely disruptive. Impru20talk 01:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, and the results are not surprising either. I have no respect for those who snipe at us and call us names behind our backs, and then fake outrage here and cry about AGF. This is Gaming the System at its worst. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad, but not unexpected given its past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And more. Ausir seems to be involved. Not only a Twitter account under his name did like the tweet in favour of the canvassing ([22]), he also bloated about us not being able to accuse him for this comment because of him being "an ancient admin" ([23]). And he has been discussing this RM with the other people for the whole night! Impru20talk 02:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Note that Ausir has locked on his Twitter account while I was writing my last comment. Also note that, just in case, I've taken pic captures of the whole conversation if this needs to be brought to an higher stance. I really don't like for this to end badly, but you cannot pretend to come here disrupting Wikipedia and then act as if this wasn't with you. Impru20talk 02:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2: They seem to have noticed we've spotted their little Twitter conversation and seem to be planning what to do next.([24]). Impru20talk 02:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that no one will be able to accuse me of creating an account only for the sake of this discussion, as some have been accused of here. And yeah, I have been talking about this discussion with a bunch of friends that I've been mutually following for quite a while now. I had no idea discussing public talk page discussions on social media was now disallowed. Ausir (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is NOT allowed, and those "bunch of friends" of you were actively promoting for people to participate in a RM you knew you would open on 1 July to support the cause of moving the article to Kyiv. And you can't claim you weren't aware of it because you were giving likes like crazy to these tweets. You read them and supported them. This is textbook off-wiki canvassing. This is very disappointing coming from an "ancient admin". The least I would hope from you is for this little charade of a RM to stop here and now. Impru20talk 02:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I'm ancient enough that I haven't been particularly active on English Wikipedia as an admin (just making a few edits here and there from time to time, but not following policy discussions and such) since before a page like WP:CANVASSING even existed. I guess you could call me out of touch with current English Wikipedia procedures (I say English specifically, since there is no such policy on Polish Wikipedia, for example). Ausir (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ausir: the CANVASS policy has existed in a form that would prohibit this for 12 years now. If you believe that your knowledge of policies is running that far out of touch, and you're actually running into problems (as opposed to policies you don't know but aren't breaching), I'd have to suggest considering if you should retain your mop. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may have seen a time of Wikipedia when WP:CANVASSING was not of application. But it's of application now. And whether you may be familiar with it or not, you must still abide to it (I'm surprised that bringing a bunch of friends here to influence the outcome of a discussion in order to pursue a particular agenda didn't come out as inherently wrong to you, tho). Neither that nor the fact that you may not have been very active as an admin in recent times does justify your actions or those of all the other people involved here. Impru20talk 02:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Casually discussing the Kiev situation among friends on twitter, friends who have no care about commenting here, is fine and dandy. I didn't look at the twitter account so I have no idea what was said. If those people then come here and post like-minded comments then this conversation was canvassed by you. If you have hundreds of followers and post the link and they all come here and tell their own friends it would be horrible for this move request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, administrator Ausir is not very active here at all. So inactive it's hard to believe he still has an administrator badge. It doesn't excuse any canvassing or his rational that "Wikipedia shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it" comment from above, but it helps explain that he is out of touch with rules around here... enough to question his administrator status. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: because much of the evidence is private/ from off-wiki it would have to go to the Arbitration Committee rather than ANI. If you're not comfortable filing there yourself, you're welcome to send me the material and I'll do it instead. ——Serial # 08:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: To be honest, I wouldn't wish for this to become so ugly unless strictly needed, but I don't know if there is any other way since the whole RM is currently compromised and we can't know how many of the support !votes come from canvassers (we could make a wild guess based on former sleeper accounts/new accounts, but Ausir isn't one of them yet he is still clearly involved. There could be more such cases as well). How can I send the evidence to you?
Also not sure if we should bring this to ANI anyways to get input on what to do with the RM itself, without giving any potentially private evidence, since the canvassing issue has nonetheless been confirmed even by Ausir himself acknowledging discussing this with "a bunch of friends" on Twitter and the posted material is already more than enough to prove such canvassing exists. Impru20talk 09:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did have an OUTing incident (assuming Ausir doesn't give his twitter on his userpage) above, and despite his announcing of it, it's unclear if we'd need to go to arbcom with it or not. We'd definitely have to go if any further evidence beyond a connection between username and twitter handle was to be made. I consider this RM heavily damaged - I'm not sure it can viably be closed and enacted (because we get counter-action, it gets hammered on both sides). I advise closing procedurally and discussing how to handle reopening. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTING involves the publication of personal information to harass other people, and this was not what was done here. I happened to find this Twitter discussion by chance. Only after did I saw that a person under his username (it was a public account at the time) was taking part in it, not just posting screenshots of this RM discussion there (to discuss its progress and insult some of us, btw), but also gloating about being an "ancient admin" in Wikipedia (thus, factually, it was him who revealed his identity). Since several of the Twitter accounts were public at the time of the canvassing denounce, their contents could be seen by anyone. No one here cares about how anyone in this discussion is called in real life; the content of that Twitter discussion only became the subject of the complaint because of them calling like-minded people to use their wiki accounts (or creating new ones) to intervene in this RM to support their cause of having the article moved to Kyiv. Nonetheless, considering that such discussion has been made private as a result of the canvassing discovery, I don't have any issues on the edit revisions involving references to Twitter accounts being redacted as soon as possible and bring this to the appropiate venue to preserve privacy as required.
On the RM itself, considering that it did not provide any new information not already discussed on previous RMs, and that it was from its beginning an attempt to game the system and subvert consensus through canvassing, I can't see a conceivable way to solve it. Impru20talk 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest that this whole matter (not just the WP:CANVASSing but the move itself) be brought to Arbcom. This RM has been fatally damaged to the point of being non-viable. It should be administratively closed and another moratorium put in place or else another one will be initiated in 5 minutes with the same off-Wiki canvassing poisoning the discussion. Is there an administrator looking on?. That's what had to be done for the issue of how to deal with Macedonia when Greek and Greek-sympathizing editors were flooding every discussion about what to call it with "FYROM". WP:ARBMAC2 and the resulting WP:MOSMAC then became rocks to cling to for about a decade until the real-world situation was resolved. This is a job for objective, uninvolved admins and the Arbitration Committee. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. However, I'm new to this whole affair, having only intervened in this RM on the issue to date. So, while I can be able to help explaining the canvassing issue, this will probably require someone with knowledge from previous RMs as well to provide context for the moratorium, previous consensus and so on. Impru20talk 14:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (August)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced at User:Levivich/Kyiv (another list is at Talk:Kiev/sources). The biggest difference between now and the RMs in 2019 is that at this point in time, just about every single major source uses the spelling "Kyiv", not just in their style guides, but also in their publications. This includes academic and non-academic sources. The comparison is not even close. This was a debate for a long time, but now the debate, in the real world, is over, and everyone is spelling it "Kyiv". We should, too. Lev!vich 18:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing though is you list Kiev/sources. Those may be sources that "say" they have switched to Kyiv, but in practice it's spotty. I just read articles today at Reuters, NYT, and CBC that use Kiev. That list is unreliable and updated by those who prefer Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt, some publishers still publish articles with the spelling "Kiev", even though they said (e.g. in a style guide update) that they would use "Kyiv", and even though other articles they publish use "Kyiv". I think, on balance, even among these sources, "Kiev" is the rare mistake, and "Kyiv" is the standard. For example, you posted a Reuters article from today that used "Kiev". Here are three others from today that use "Kyiv": [25] [26] [27] and here is Reuter's Ukraine section; clicking on the various articles shows that "Kyiv" is used almost all the time, with "Kiev" being a rare exception. Here are the search results for "Kiev" at Reuters.com: only three articles this month used "Kiev". Here are the search results for "Kyiv" at Reuters.com: 10 articles in the last two days. As I said, it's not even close.
    You posted a NYT article from this month that uses "Kiev", which is actually a reprint of a Reuters article. But here are two articles from today at The New York Times (own byline) that use "Kyiv": [28] [29]
    You posted a CBC article from this month that uses "Kiev". Here's one that uses "Kyiv": [30]
    Even if you remove Reuters, NYT, and CBC from the list, there are still a whole bunch of other outlets on that list that use "Kyiv". Lev!vich 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But not exclusively. And that list does not include all the sources that do use Kiev because nobody cares about it that uses Kiev. All I'm saying is that the list "may" be correct in who says they will officially use Kyiv, but it is not correct in who actually follows that practice. That makes that list less important than your original statement suggests. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The list in my user space is a list of examples of actual recent usage, i.e. who follows the practice. No comment on the other list. Lev!vich 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have Reuters listed and they are all over the place in usage. With that one not being true as far as "practice" the others are all suspect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Reuters is not "all over the place in usage". I just painstakingly demonstrated, with links and examples, that Reuters used "Kyiv" ten times just in the last couple days, but used "Kiev" only three times in the last month. That's not "all over the place in usage", that's overwhelmingly using "Kyiv".
    Look, one thing is clear: Reuters uses "Kyiv", and so does pretty much everybody else. That's the point of people putting forward all these lists filled with examples. Now, those opposing this move, if they actually had a COMMONNAME argument, would be able to produce a similar list of sources using "Kiev". Not one or two examples. Not one or two sources. But dozens upon dozens of examples. Because there are dozens upon dozens of examples of "Kyiv".
    Now, maybe some think that as long as there is anyone using "Kiev", as long as we can find even one example, then we should still spell is "Kiev". Maybe some think that we shouldn't change it to "Kyiv" until no one in the world is using "Kiev" anywhere. Maybe some think we should be the last people in the world to adopt the new spelling. I don't. "Kyiv" is the common name, per the overwhelming number of examples of usage, plus all the style guide changes, plus all the official name changes. "I found an exception!" doesn't persuade me, and it doesn't undercut that "Kyiv" is the commonly-used spelling of the city in English. Lev!vich 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kiev is used more than Kyiv in the English language, as proven by comparing Google search results of Kiev/Kyiv-related terms between quotation marks. (For instance: "Kiev" 2020 shows over 2x more results than "Kyiv" 2020 - I add the years in order to get more recent content.) You guys should try. For any disputes of this sort I am systematically in favour of using the name that is most the commonly used in English, ironically, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Spafky (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Google search results are not accurate, especially the number of "hits" displayed on the first page of results. See e.g. Criticism of Google#Possible misuse of search results, WP:GNUM (specifically WP:GYNOT), and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Lev!vich 19:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Spafky, you’re reinforcing misunderstandings about COMMONNAME. Not a great way to launch the re-opening of this discussion. It asks us to consider the most commonly used name in “reliable English-language sources,” advises us against relying on Google’s web search, and then to exclude Wikipedia results. And, of course, read WP:GOOG on how not to fall for Google’s completely inaccurate estimate of results. —Michael Z. 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In terms of raw usage, the numbers don't actually point to this move. But given the trends (and more importantly, the explanations for those trends) in how reliable sources use the name, the move seems proper and reasonable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can already feel myself regretting joining this mess. I think some arguments above re WP:COMMONNAME seem to miss the point, namely none of them have an objective foundation or criteria to evaluate against. Thus, all those COMMONNAME arguments end up being anecdotal. We're not going to reach any logical conclusion by considering WP:COMMONNAME alone on this matter, as it isn't specialised to address place name disputes and is thus lacking in relevant objective criteria. WP:WIAN fills this gap and gives us an objective set of criteria to assess against to determine the common name, and indeed WP:NCGN is the specific guideline for article titles for geographic places. That guideline is even kind enough to give specific sites, atlases and services to look at! Analysing their advice...
    • Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. (omitting the list, but see at WIAN) Giving examples like (links go to source) Encyclopædia Britannica. Atlases (I have no access to these, someone want to check?) The Times Comprehensive Atlas, National Geographic, Oxford Atlas of the World, Collins World Atlas, Penguin (this one I could check–Kyiv), ditto (lacking access) for gazetteers and maps (although, for maps I can check, and WIAN permits online ones, the widely used Google Maps and Bing Maps and Apple Maps do all use "Kyiv"). As for governments, we have Geographic Names Information System / BGN (of the US government, also recommended by UK govt), The United Nations (noting the caveat that neither of these shows 'conventional' usage). CIA World Factbook. All these resources use "Kyiv" (except the atlases, which I'm unsure of as I cannot check). CIA World Factbook and the US BGN seem to be the major ones here, since those being changed seems to result in changes elsewhere.
    • English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Others have provided links to show most major English RS now using "Kyiv" in their style guides.
    • Regarding Google Scholars and Google Books, But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change., nevertheless here are the ngram results. Further, WP:WIAN discourages most forms of raw number usage, Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution.
    • Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all. and linking to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues
    Thus, our guidelines clearly state we should place our priority in individual, named reliable sources, and not Google numbers, especially where the former exists (as it does here). As main objections above have revolved around Google numbers, per policy they should be discarded. Considering the sources WIAN advises to look at, it looks like the preference by authoritative sources is now "Kyiv". Looks like the move is now supported by policy. The question of if it is really 'the most common' is somewhat left unanswered, as it can't really be evaluated further, on any objective criteria beyond the ones mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom. The fact that the given sources above (to mention some: Reuters, Associated Press, The Washington Post, and even Library of Congress of the United States) have switched to using Kyiv in their "manuals of style." Even the longtime Britannica has switched to "Kyiv" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv), so its time to use the official spelling. I agree with Levivich, Google hits test is commonly misused, and as per WP:GOOGLEHITS: "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test." Found also a passage at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Neutrality: "As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason I always oppose, because "Kiev" is the COMMONNAME in English, despite claims that is not. Also, the re-opening is not valid, and this should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, you don't get to !vote twice — that is not valid. El_C 08:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ~ exactly what BMK said, both points; happy days, LindsayHello 08:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should have checked to see if I had voted before in this particular RfC, which is one of many that have been opened on this subject within the past 15 years or so, but in all fairness to myself, stuff like that is going to happen when an RfC is closed down and then re-opened after a long period of time. I'm afraid I don't see the justification for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At this point in time "Kyiv" is the WP:COMMONNAME spelling in English. Those who believe otherwise are indulging their own nostalgia or haven't kept up with the current trend. Even the New York Times changed its spelling to Kyiv in November 2019, and most all of the major anglophone media use Kyiv. The same is the case for reliable books. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Ngrams prove otherwise.[31] Rreagan007 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Ngrams you searched would include false positive results like "Chicken Kiev" and so forth. Also, they only go to 2019. Nevertheless, the large drop in "Kiev" after 1995 proves the point. Here's a better, but still not totally accurate, Ngram, which shows an even more pronounced drop: [32]. NGrams make the trendline clear, but they don't quite answer the question for us, particularly given that it's now August 2020, and thus the NGrams corpus won't include any recent publications. Lev!vich 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, yours also has false positives for Dynamo Kyiv - and given the search terms you've chosen those will be more common. Kahastok talk 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree that "Kyiv" is WP:COMMONNAME per media, use in international relations, etc. Carter (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the many arguments against moving the page. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just to point out that, since I'm not seeing any substantial change when compared to the situation in place during the previous iteration of this RM, I'm maintaining my oppose !vote from back then. Google Trends results still show "Kiev" clearly outperforming "Kyiv" in common usage in the last year everywhere (even with a slight upward trend in recent weeks), just as is shown in Ngram (some have pointed out that Ngram only shows results up to 2019; well, this is an argument that is actually against any move right now, since more time would be required to see whether a change in common usage settles in or not. Sustained usage is required for a change to become notable under Wikipedia standards). As I said back in July, while there may be evidence that a change in common usage may happen in the future, sources do not point to this having happened just yet. More so, those even hint at trends on common usage having stabilized again, with "Kiev" still in the lead by a great deal. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows. Some people may be eager to see the article title being changed on the basis of "Kyiv" being more used in sources, but this doesn't mean Wikipedia should act hastily or prematurely just because "Kiev" is (and has been for a long time) the "wrong" version for some people.
P.S. Note that I'm also aware of the existing list showing a lot of sources in support of "Kyiv"; as far as I have seen, that list was heavily edited by pro-Kyiv editors who even overrode anyone adding any source in favour of "Kiev" (and those that were added have been edited to be presented in such a way that it looks like those also favour "Kyiv"). It should probably be handled with care in terms of reliability and at the risk of those handling it (this said, I just wanted to clarify some points and update them to the re-opened RM; I've no interest in engaging into a lengthy, never-ending discussion, really. Thx). Impru20talk 21:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note on clerking

I thought it'd be useful to explain this. I've gone through clerking some of the canvassing concerns.

I've applied for {{spa}} for editors with few edits prior to the first edit to this page.

Some editors had substantial editing histories here, but had become dormant by 1 July and suddenly appeared that day to vote here. The literal phrase "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" seems somewhat misleading in these cases. I have used {{canvassed}} for these, because it is more accurate in implication. I have also used {{canvassed}} in one case where the editor was not dormant but where we have strong evidence that they were canvassed.

Some editors have become more active since their first contribution here, but were dormant at the time they first posted here. I have based the clerking on the position when they first posted here. Kahastok talk 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kahastok. Your work and explanation are appreciated. El_C 07:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion around Suspended Requested move 1 July 2020

Prior discussion

Cassette tape

Fyunck(click) Can you read? You can call it whatever you like, a "plastic thingy with reels", I don't care. But I hate when illiterate WP:COMMONNAME takes over proper technical or official name as an article title, this is idiotic. Wikipedia has redirects, so you can have a redirect from "plastic thingy with reels" to Compact Cassette. Likewise, you can have redirect from Kiev to Kyiv, and it is still searchable. For lay people Wikipedia became the source of information, not an aggregator, and thus it encourages incorrect word usage, skewing the statistics that everyone likes to appeal to when bringing up WP:COMMONNAME argument. Sick. Mikus (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikus The question is, Can YOU read? Wikipedia's rules are plain as day and expounded in WP:COMMONNAME. If you don't like it, then go there and try to get it changed. Otherwise, either shut up and follow the rules or get off Wikipedia. My level of rudeness is simply matching yours. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TaivoLinguist What rudeness? Anyway, I am trying to find a procedure to appeal/contest a Wikipedia rule, can you point me to the right direction? Mikus (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure is exactly the same as it was when you did it three months ago. But unless you have something significant and new to add to your previous proposal, editors may well tire of the same proposal being made repetitiously. Kahastok talk 20:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I actually did that. Forgot about it. So... no one commented? Bruh. EDIT: found the thread. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're overreaching if you start out with claiming "Common name is wrong". I'm certainly in favor of softening it and strengthening the Official name in certain circumstances. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, and sometimes we have to settle for a compromise if it's a move in the right direction. I'd be happy to discuss a strategy on your or my talk page if you wish. - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my troll mode turns people off :) Thanks for inviting to figure out the strategy. Mikus (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What rudeness? I guess that's the problem in the world today... rudeness gets used so much that you become numb to it and don't recognize it anymore. Sad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the proper "technical or official name" of the city as per the Ukrainian Constitution would be "City of Kyiv", not just "Kyiv". I am not sure if this debate is really warranted. Impru20talk 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the city isn't even that. The official name of the city is Київ, not "Kyiv" and not "Kiev". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Kyiv" is the official Latinisation. The Ukrainian government adopted Kyiv as its standard Latinisation in 1995 [33] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Two more years of lockdown

Cripes. Of course there are regular move requests, because this page should be moved. That's an indicator of WP:CONSENSUS. But now moves and free discussion of them are being banned with the justification that there are a lot of them. What are they going to do next, hold a Victory Day parade and a popular referendum? For reference, here’s what an argument for the move might look like:

The content reasons for or against the move should not be discussed here. El_C 17:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support  Please update this article title, because that’s what Wikipedia’s naming guidelines warrant. Articles are supposed to be titled by the name commonly used by up-to-date, reliable English-language sources. (Please ignore the folk wisdom that Google search results tell us what this should be.) I’ve excerpted relevant text below, but I suggest you read and understand the entire relevant sections or pages in context. Be aware that some voters here have misinterpreted the guidelines badly, and propped up some straw-man arguments. Updating this title will save Wikipedia the embarrassment of being out of touch with modern scholarship, including authoritative international standards, popular sources of information, and the English-language media in general.
    • WP:TITLE: “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.” Kyiv meets the other characteristics of a good title, including Recognizability: Kyiv is used in all international standards, by international organizations (and therefore, e.g., in aviation and adopted in all airports), and in current media at least as much as Kiev, and the trend of adoption will continue.
      • WP:COMMONNAME: “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources),” “it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.” Thanks to the nominator for doing the work of gathering this information and listing many of them above. Also see the summary in the article, at Kiev#Name. These sources overwhelmingly support this move.
        • COMMONNAME can not be determined by a Google search! “The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set,” but “raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.” And see WP:GOOGLE on how to find the actual number of search results, because “hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude.”
      • WP:NAMECHANGES: “we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.”
    • WP:PLACE: “a widely accepted English name, in a modern context,” “For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed”: English-language sources have all changed their practice since the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and start of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
    • WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name . . . rather than an older one.” “Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.”
    • WP:WIAN: “Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current,” “English-language news media,” “standard histories and scientific studies.” Recommends a list of specific sources, which support the move.

 —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 15:20 z

User:El_C, this was not meant to be a discussion of content reasons, but my resolution for my edit conflict that you caused when you shut down the requested move. Shall I move that to a separate heading? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 17:53 z
When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor. Until then, my clerking against discussing the views for or against the move in this section are to be expected. El_C 17:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been 13 failed move requests. At some point these become disruptive and a timesink, so some throttling is due. El_C 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been a “moratorium” and requests and discussion have been summarily removed here for six months. Of course there are attempts at move requests because the page title is out of date. And there will continue to be more, so what do you intend, freeze for two years and then for another decade because there are a lot of “disruptive” move requests? It’s the high-handed censorship of discussion that is disruptive and against Wikipedia’s principles. Please un-close the discussion.
As you requested in the close template above, I have started a discussion on your talk page: #Clampdown_on_Talk%3AKiev. Let’s please reconsider this, or move on to a move review. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 15:32 z
  • Two years is absolutely unreasonable. Because the most recent RM wasn't allowed to run its course, a new one should be allowed in the near future. At that point, maybe we can think about a more reasonable moratorium if necessary. Calidum 15:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like too many move requests lately, all failing. But, you're right, I'm caught up. New move request will happen soon. I'll update the request to read that. El_C 16:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, User: El_C, there has been a six-month “moratorium” imposed on this talk page. All move requests or even mention of moving have been summarily closed or deleted. There have been no move requests considered for six months (although they were being shut down pretty quickly before that). —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 17:19 z
I'm looking at the 13 move requests in their totality over the years in my evaluation. El_C 17:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, User:El_C, thirteen requests since this article was created in 2002. The usage of this city’s name has been demonstrably changing at an accelerated rate throughout this whole time, especially after “watershed events,” as the naming conventions refer to them, taking place in 1991, in 2004–05, and from 2014 continuously to the present. So I don't see why it’s a big deal that a request to test the consensus on renaming has taken place every seventeen months. As the need to catch up to other references becomes more blatantly obvious, the demand to update will and should naturally increase. In this context a series of moratoriums spurred by requests create a feedback loop working directly against consensus. Anyway, thanks for taking the time. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 21:02 z
(edit conflict) Almost all of the sources provided to back up the late RM are already previous to the precedent RM in October/November 2019, yet that one still ended in a strong consensus against the move. No proof has been provided that supports the claim that there has been a change in common usage in the meantime (and they cannot be provided, because the change hasn't happened yet). There is evidence that usage may change in the future, but not that it's already happened, and this is what should matter in the end. Politically-loaded and POVish arguments claiming that there is some underground cause against Ukraine are not helpful to convince people that this is not in reality an attempt to right a great wrong/turn Wikipedia into a means through which such a common usage can be achieved. Pretending to ignore established consensus when no new facts can be provided and filling RMs repeatedly until opposers to the move desist out of pure boredom is openly disruptive and a refusal to get the point.
I think that two years may be a little bit excessive. However, there are strong concerns now that a new canvassing effort may be prepared for next time and that we'll be seeing a new RM the day the moratorium expires, disregarding whether common usage has actually changed or not, so it's obvious that there must be a reasonable break until a new RM can take place. This is an intricate and problematic issue, indeed. Impru20talk 16:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Impru20, your Google trends is an indicator of search terms people have used. It has nothing to do with the “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources” that WP:COMMONNAME guides to use. Yours is a straw man argument. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 17:23 z
As per WP:MPN, Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. This is a mere reiteration of what WP:COMMONNAME already establishes. Since many of the sourced claims have happened only recently, you cannot establish the prevalence of the use of the new term over the old one in "independent, reliable English-language sources", since you'll still find a lot of sources from 2019 or even 2020 still using "Kiev". Indeed, you can claim that a change is taking place, but not that it has affected current "common global usage". If we are going to evaluate each other's arguments, I can dub yours as an enormous red herring attempt to focus attention away from the true deciding element here. Impru20talk 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, both of you, stop discussing the reasons for or against the move in this section. I won't collapse this comment thread, for now, but please take note. El_C 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RM above was made completely untenable by the off-wiki canvassing and I would certainly endorse its closure.

The reason for the last moratorium was that this was coming up over and over and dominating the talk page. The consensus was consistently against moving but nothing else could get done. And it had reached the stage where the requests were so repetitious that new analysis of the evidence wasn't happening - ironically, making consensus for the move much less likely. Part of the aim of the moratorium was to give some time so that editors were looking at the issues with fresh eyes.

Also, we should ask Arbcom to desysop the admin who thought it was a good idea to canvass this off-wiki, which was a gross breach of trust. Given the nature of the evidence, this may have to be handled by email. Kahastok talk 16:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on my talk page, I'm fine letting another AE experienced admin take over this request. But the provisional 2-year moratorium after it remains in effect. El_C 16:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On July 2, 2020 El_C, who has admin (sysop) rights on enwiki closed the RM from July 1, 2020 and, at same time, unilaterally imposed a 2-year moratorium on RM for Kyiv. No discussion, no consensus, simply unilateral decision of an admin; completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. If this is not abuse of sysop powers to enact Censorship, then I don't know what is. We should ask Arbcom to desysop the admin, who thought it was a good idea to unilaterally impose a 2-year moratorium, without whatsoever consulting enwiki community.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do whatever you see fit, IP. But I challenge that the DS more than give me the authority to do so. El_C 16:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As another uninvolved administrator I agree with El C that he has the authority to issue a two year moratorium on this discussion by the authority granted under discretionary sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and Barkeep49: Apologies if I was unclear in my wording - I agree that legally speaking El_C had power granted by Arbcom via WP:ARBEE to unilaterally impose a 2 year ban on RM, citing WP:ARBEE powers. What I meant by my comment, was that I'm appalled an enwiki admin actually did it (and it's not personal to El_C, I would've said the same thing to any admin who would propose this). @El_C/Barkeep49 I apologize if I sounded harsh with my "desysop" comment, but that's just the immediate reaction I had (and I'm pretty sure that's reflective of how others feel in this discussion). @Barkeep49 my proposed solution, is that an uninvolved admin reopens the RM immediately, with an oversight on any contribution from "sleeper accounts" and such (to counter any canvassing attempts from both sides - pro-Kiev'ers and pro-Kyiv'ers). Also, citing someone mentioning this discussion on Twitter and because of it throwing accusations of WP:Canvassing is the worst solution a sysop could choose in this situation, simply because this issue has been very hot starting in 2019/2020 and any RM request now (or any time in the future) would inevitably have people discussing it on social media like Facebook/Twitter.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a discretionary sanction action (even if El C has not formally logged it as such yet) it would be inappropriate for another sysop to just reverse it. The good news for you is that El C has indicated an openness to re-opening the discussion under similar conditions to what you propose. And FWIW, I agree that whenever this discussion is had it will face real challenges posed by canvassing. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on my talk page, there will need to be some time. Time to mitigate by tagging sleepers. And time for the Arbitration Committee to investigate allegations of which I have no idea about. El_C 17:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, apologies for being blunt, but that sounds like someone is trying to invoke some legal jumbo-mumbo to artificially delay the discussion. The logistics of how to enforce "tagging sleepers" seems trivial and I am sure any admin on enwiki knows how do it now, i.e., there's no need to "wait" for someone to create some fancy template for it. And regarding your point about the need for Arbcom to "investigate canvassing allegations on Twitter" - again that sounds like someone's trying to artificially delay the discussion, since we all know that Arbcom hearing could take months or even longer.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such intent and I reject the insinuation that it is otherwise. El_C 19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Kahastok: To be fair and as far as I was able to ascertain, the involved admin was not the one that publicly called for the canvassing to happen at first. Still, he obviously supported the call and participated on it, and his gloating about his wiki position may have been counterproductive by helping further such a behaviour. Heeding Serial Number's advice, I've already emailed him all info I could gather on the issue so that it can be properly presented to Arbcom if required.
On the IP's comment above (seriously, that's unhelpful and outrightly disruptive on the issue at hand), considering its short editing history in Wikipedia, its involvement in the canvassing-ridden RM and WP:ADVOCACY concerns behind its actions, I question whether it should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Impru20talk 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll accept that I may be shooting from the hip a bit too much. But Arbcom should take a look and make their own decision. Kahastok talk 17:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-wiki canvassing is a reason to protect the discussion -- to restrict who can participate -- not to shut it down. This is the world we live in. We can safely assume that every contentious Wikipedia discussion will be subject to off-wiki canvassing of some sort. We need to figure out how to deal with it rather than shutting down good faith discussion. Also disagree with the 2 year ban. This is, AFAIR, the first one of these I've participated in, and that because it was listed at CENT.
    If you're going to shut this down, then start a new thread, reopen it with more structure/protections, list it at CENT, and say it's the last one for a year. Shutting down discussion and saying no more discussions can be opened seems problematic. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that, in this case, there were preparations for the canvassing before the RM was opened. It was not a good-faith discussion which incidentally happened to suffer from canvassing; rather, evidence points to the canvassing having been planned alongside the discussion, so the good-faith element is entirely missing from the RM's inception. Impru20talk 17:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, how are you ever going to stop that from happening? Right this second it's two years. Every Tom, Dick, and Mary outside canvasser and non-good faith editor will have 2 July 2022 circled and locked by then. By putting down a date that an RM can occur, that's the date it will occur. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky call. You could attempt for uninvolved admins to intervene and have them review any attempt to open a RM on the issue, to ascertain whether there is new evidence for a change in common usage that did not exist at the time of previous RMs. If that's the case, the RM could proceed and discussion could take place. Canvassing is still a risk, but at the very least that would mean that the date of such RM is not circled and locked in time, but a flexible one that would remove any attempt at organizing such canvassing beforehand. Plus, should there be any new such evidence of a change in usage having taken place, maybe the RM could be successful and we'd skip all of this drama. Right now, what we should be working to prevent is the opening of RMs just for the sake of it. Impru20talk 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I showing my age too much if I refer to the Gdansk/Danzig vote?
This isn't the first time we've faced these problems, and there are ways of dealing with them. But I think we will need some significant outside oversight whatever we do. Kahastok talk 18:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Discussion shut down after two days? Discussion shut down for two years? Shame. Shame. Shame shame shame. Cui bono? Who's afraid of possible (! just possible !) change? Week long discussion every 6 months - so what?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we have a bad faith opening and outside canvassing then other issues are at stake. This was not turning into a normal discussion because of that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not going to have 20 RMs in the next decade. If that is your expectation, then I'm sorry to disappoint. El_C 19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo.. 13 would be cool? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bar Mitzvah! El_C 19:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you look at it that way, lot of kids would be really happy if upon their Bar Mitzvah they were banned from going to temple for two years. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I live to give. But seriously, one reason the 2-year moratorium is provisional is in the interest of BEANS. El_C 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't get it at first (back when I thought today was still Wednesday) but now I smell what you're stepping in, and I encourage everyone else not to publicly worry too much about timing and rules and all that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thank you, User:El_C for taking charge. The fact of the RM wasn't necessarily the problem--I full expected to have a new RM filed at 1 minute after midnight, 1 July, Eastern European Summer Time. I probably wrote as much at some point in the last six months. The problems that this particular RM had were:
  • It was filed by an anon IP with no editing history, but seemed to have been written by someone with experience. The RM smelled like rotten fish from its filing.
  • It was clearly being fueled by new editors and editors who have NEVER before edited on any related topic being summoned by illegal canvassing (obvious even before the Twitter evidence came to light).
  • Then the Twitter evidence of canvassing that came to light. It was public until the tweeters discovered that the game was up and then it was hidden. If it was aboveboard, then why hide it?
If you think a new RM is appropriate, then so be it, but please, please, please tightly monitor it and perhaps even check the editing credentials of any participant. I certainly wouldn't object if you limited participation to only those editors who have participated here before--on both sides of the issue. This summoning of participants from around and outside the Wikiverse who have no history on the page is classic canvassing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, TaivoLinguist. Yes, close monitoring would be a given, for sure. As to what conditions are set out for a new or reopeoned discussion, I admit that that is still up in the air. To a large part due to some of the concerns you've just raised above. El_C 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The close was not helpful. It would have been an easy matter for the closer to ignore all !votes from editors with less than ~1000 edits. I recognize many of the participants on the discussion as frequent contributors to RM discussions. Canvassing is a fact of life on Wikipedia and easy to deal with. A two-year moratorium is preposterous, especially if we have been prevent from discussing the matter since the last moratorium ended.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry you feel that way. But I stand by intervention being necessary, including a provisional 2-year moratorium after this latest discussion is concluded. After 13 failed RMs, it is time for stronger measures. That is what something like the DS can task. El_C 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who first came here due to the RM being posted centrally, I see nothing wrong with seeking out the opinion of neutral editors. The persistent outside canvassing going on however has clearly been catastrophic for the expected result of said canvassing, so I hope those elements involved are taking note. Something like this can simply not be rammed through. StonyBrook (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one can only wonder why it was closed so quickly. Give it a fair chance like any other move request, do not close it because you fear you may lose this time. And to be sure impose years long discussion ban. No kind of "lawyer/bureaucratic" justification, it is just hypocrisy. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to that statement, which verges on a personal attack. You are free to appeal my decision (such as it is) in any suitable forum. But it is a discretionary sanctions action, which you may dislike, but carries its own ramifications. El_C 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now I am in jeopardy because I disagree with this type of winning by silencing of the opposition, very nice, very nice indeed. Yes 20RMs uin next decade - why not, Kyiv/Kiev is evolving thing, so Wiki should hop on board sooner than 2 years too late... I am not saying it must be changed or whjatever, I am for fair RM and fair evaluation. Since when number of supporters/opposers matter. Arguments matter. So why that fear of "canvassing". Oy vey... Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all User:Chrzwzcz this RM was already NOT a "fair chance" because of the violations of Wikipedia Canvassing and the summoning of people outside Wikipedia to participate. There was nothing "fair" about this from the beginning. And your accusations against User:El_C, who was an uninvolved and neutral admin, are completely and totally out of line. He's willing to initiate a new RM before the 2-year moratorium, but only under strict supervision to bypass the obvious cheating that was making this RM totally invalid. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was only accusing these "blink and you miss it discussions" or "elections won by cancelling the elections" type of thing. It is not important how it all started, it is important if it is valid proposal and fairly evaluated. Period. 22:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrzwzcz (talk • contribs)

I do think it’s very troublesome that as soon as the discussion was leaning towards Kyiv, there was a sudden intervention by a certain person who has quotes of Russian dictator Lenin, who presided over the Ukrainian-Soviet war, to halt renaming the title of this article from the antiquated Russian name to the modern name in English and Ukrainian. In addition, I would suggest that moves to restrict the people who can participate in decision-making and consensus building is a form of gerrymandering, intentional or unintentional. The move to take decision making away from regular editors and viewers and into the hands of an elitist clique is extremely concerning. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Tāwhiwhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not sure a user with two edits, both to this page, has any familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:DEMOCRACY) as represented by the Arbitration Committee or admins acting under its authority. El_C 00:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude and I apologise if any offence was incurred per my previous edit - but I would like to gently remind you that sometimes new users do read the policy pages before jumping in. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude — I think you've already crossed that particular bridge. El_C 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was never "leaning towards Kyiv", as Wikipedia discussions are not a counting of "votes". Personal attacks against other users are also not a good idea. BilCat (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I have zero preference whether this article should be called Kiev or Kyiv. I absolutely do not care which of these prevails in the end. It is truly unimportant to me. And any aspersions to the contrary are, if anything, indicative of the very same disruptive trend that ought to be curtailed here. El_C 01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal

Since this RM was procedurally closed 36 hours after opening because it was "fatally compromised" due to off-Wiki canvassing and other potentially compromising irregularities, some specific directives, tailored exclusively for this subject matter may be in order. If discussions regarding the main title header for Wikipedia's article delineating the capital of Ukraine are considered to be such a "timesink" and so "disruptive" to the proper functioning of Wikipedia that they must be put into lockdown for two years, then this is obviously a special case which calls for special procedures.

The key aspect of the lockdown/moratorium is that the denial of the right to discuss this matter and then to vote upon it is unfair to "true" Wikipedians, the ones who show up every day to contribute. Thus, the "modest proposal" is to make off-wiki canvassing irrelevant by limiting participation to those "true Wikipedians" whom we all know, the usual suspects. While it goes against the grain of Wikipedia's standard practice, it will at least allow a poll regarding the mindset of "true Wikipedians" regarding this longterm controversy.

This RM, most likely with the same or slightly updated text, should be reopened by a "true Wikipedian", seconded by another "true Wikipedian" and should be allowed to run until there are no more comments for three, four or five days.

The specifics of this proposal will obviously needs to be fine-tuned, primarily who qualifies as a "true Wikipedian" eligible to participate and vote in this "exclusive" RM and whether such a vote would count as establishing a WP:CONSENSUS. The centerpiece of the "modest proposal" would be to make participation so difficult that only a small number of "true Wikipedians" would be able to participate and then relieve the stringency as needed.

Thus, start with a five-year minimum participation, a minimum of 30 edits per month for every single month of those five years and, as method of excluding single purpose accounts and "sleeper cells", any edits to articles or talk pages relating to Ukraine, Kyiv/Kiev or Russia should represent no more than 10 percent of each month's total edits. Those admittedly stringent preconditions may be loosened upon consensus.

Finally, I realize full well that it goes against the spirit and principles of Wikipedia to create a special class of "true Wikipedians" or "senior Wikipedians" who would hold special privileges not available to other Wikipedians. However, this "special senior participation" would enable longterm Wikipedians an opportunity to express their views and cast their votes while keeping out special interest groups. The alternative is to lock in place for two years a state of affairs which is unsupported by all current WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, governmental institutions, geographical resources and media outlets. Let us discuss the matter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only joined 3 years ago and I have more that 24429 edits. I would fail your "true Wikipedian" test. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel it should be so restrictive. Certainly IPs should be out. But you now have an administrator who would fit the bill, yet was instrumental in canvassing that caused a lot of the troubles to begin with. It would be nice to simply let this one be handled by administrator !votes with the rest of us simply supplying the evidence of Kiev/Kyiv usage, but that is worrisome when we see the lengths some will go to canvas. Bottom line is the lead will say it's Kiev, Kyiv or Kyiv, Kiev, regardless. Most people will still pronounce it Key-ev or Key-ef till they croak, no matter how it's spelled here. I have an opinion on how it should be spelled here based on what I read and see in English writing around the world, but in the end I'm still going to write it the way I please no matter what goes on here and no matter what Ukraine or Russia say I should do. When the sun comes up in the morning (or at least I hope it does) I'll plug away at other wikipedia interests no matter the title here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about the 2-year moratorium, but any extended-confirmed account that wasn't achieved by gaming the edit count should be included in any future !vote. StonyBrook (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are "most people" reliable source for wikipedia? Wikipedie should call it how sources call it regargless of your opinion how "the people" call it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "most people" will pronounce it the same no matter what gets decided on this issue here. Goodness. I did not say most people are any kind of a reliable source as to what is decided here. And Wikipedia absolutely does not always go by sourcing anyway. In the spelling of peoples names we tend to go by how that person spells their name in their native country (using the latin alphabet), not by how it is sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Good evening and welcome to the Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election. The first thing I must tell you is that the turnout has been very good. As a matter of fact, the voter turned out before breakfast."
I suggest you rest assured that this talk page will not turn into a pumpkin at midnight. Per the above, this sort of speculation is not helpful. There are good reasons why there are things that are not and should not be entirely clear at this point. Kahastok talk 21:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chrzwzcz, reliable sources are judged by reliable editors and a WP:CONSENSUS is reached among those editors. Your comment is rather naive because reliable sources differ and have different weights in terms of consideration. YOU count X as a reliable source, but I disagree as to its relevance. That's why reliable editors are important. User:Roman Spinner, while your heart is in the right place, your criteria for inclusion might very well exclude everyone. I have been an editor for over a decade, but during some very busy semesters (especially during finals week) I have done little editing or when I was recovering from surgery or traveling internationally, thus I would be excluded. There is simply no way to state "each and every month X edits for ten years". That's an unreasonable demand even though I respect your intention (as well as your honest willingness to be excluded). I'm willing to trust User:El_C and let him determine how to keep only the appropriate editors involved and exclude those who are not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This "judging by reliable editors" was not quite allowed, it was all quickly banned and moreover maybe banned for 2 years. Not cool. It is completely OK to reevaluate evolving thing more often. Better than just cancel it because "it would surely have same result as before". Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't see how any move discussion on Kiev will not be canvassed, no matter when it's held and under whatever rules. The ultimate decision will probably have to be made by ArbCom, so we might as well appeal to them now. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you're absolutely right User:BilCat. The next RM will just be another stalemate. This issue is so contentious that ARBCOM will be far better and more binding and stable than these continuous and inconclusive discussions. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do believe "Kyiv" is trending upward, and that it will pass the threshold for most common English spelling sooner if not later. We're just not "there" yet. Until then, ArbCom is probably best to determine when and how the change will take place on Wikipedia. It might also be a good place to address whether or not Common Name is an appropriate guideline in situations such as this where a whole country sees a certain spelling or name as an artifact of past oppression, and Wikipedia's role in that whole issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another article with similar issues on name/spelling in light of past oppression is Bangalore/Begaluru, and there are no doubt others. - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved with ARBMAC2 and the stability that the decision brought to Macedonia's name vis à vis Greek trademark demands was invaluable. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:ARBMAC2 is a good precedent for seeking ArbCom's involvement in this issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandcrumbs and TaivoLinguist, due to complaints regarding participation of newly-minted single-purpose accounts, the reasoning behind "a modest proposal" was to start with restrictions so onerous that few Wikipedians would be eligible to participate and then scale those restrictions downward. Of course, in practical terms, depending upon consensus, only one year and 5000 edits should be sufficient for participation or even 6 months and 2500 edits, all other aspects having been satisfied. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C would you consider bypassing reopening this RM, even with strict participation guidelines, and moving straight to Arbitration? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Third. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone expresses intent to bring this before the Committee, then yes, everything gets suspended. As always, I defer to the Committee's guidance or direct intervention. El_C 00:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that User:Impru20 is coordinating with User:Serial Number 54129 to prepare a request for ArbCom. I could have misunderstood. But since few of us have any experience preparing a case for ArbCom, it's probably not going to happen quickly enough to satisfy some here. But I, for one, prefer to present the evidence before a committee of neutral and experienced Wikipedians rather than witnessing another attempt to push through a change based on how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes to sign up for Wikipedia and vote for a change. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I was unaware of that. El_C 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if there was an update which confirms this. El_C 10:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C: Yup. I updated on it yesterday already, but it got lost among all the chatting. I emailed the evidence I had to Serial Number 54129 so he could present it to Arbcom; now we'll have to wait for new developments on the issue. Impru20talk 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Impru20. It is now in the hands of the Committee. I've updated the log and will update the RM summary as well with my next edit. El_C 11:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TaivoLinguist, I find your comment highly offensive. 'Cossacks from the steppes' is a racist rhetoric. 94.153.3.174 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Cossack" is not a racial term, but a cultural term, then it cannot, by definition, be "racist rhetoric". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TaivoLinguist, if someone points out the insensitivity of your comment associating an identifiable group with misdeeds, I suggest a polite apology instead of a critique of their semantics. WP:CIVIL. —Michael Z. 07:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the simple and verifiable fact that the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian public, and Ukrainian business advertising, especially after 2014 and the Russian invasion, has consistently and overtly used the image of summoning the Cossacks to battle as a positive recruiting tool for the Ukrainian army and the defense of the homeland, I find this Ukrainian IP's "outrage" to be insincere. It is the simple equivalent of "calling in the cavalry" to an American. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. We don’t need verifiable sources to do this. Not everybody sees everything based on the same background that you do. —Michael Z. 12:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, maybe so, but WP:V and WP:RS are the cornerstones of the project's aims. TaivoLinguist, please don't discuss the geolocation of IPs for a reason which isn't pertinent to Wikipedia. That is inappropriate. El_C 12:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME source analysis

To assist for the next requested move, please contribute to Talk:Kiev/sources. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! This is what I called for several times and it was declined because of... some kind of reasons, I don't remember, something preposterous probably. Thanks. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, seems very neutral. Users loading the Kyiv section full of sources wherever "Kyiv" is slightly mentioned, then removing/editing sources from the Kiev section so that it's made clear that these also conveniently support the cause for Kyiv. At this time, it seems obvious this issue should be left to a neutral, third party to handle. I'd support Arbcom taking a decision on the renaming issue as suggested above. Impru20talk 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add to the list. Neither Arbcom nor any other third party is going to decide the title of this article; it'll be decided by consensus. The more evidence of COMMONNAME available to editors, the better. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The issue is that the list is basically a copy-paste of what was already said in support of "Kyiv" in the closed RM above, and in itself a red herring to keep the focus away from the true deciding factor here, which as per WP:MPN is the change in the local form of the name having become predominant in common global usage. None of these sources does back up that "Kyiv" has become the dominant form in common global usage; if anything, they point to a trend hinting that such change may happen in the future, not that it has happened just yet, so I don't what what the usefulness of this "evidence" is. I could myself pile-on hundreds or even thousands of sources using either "Kiev" or "Kyiv", which I could find just by conducting the appropiate searches in Google, yet those by themselves would be of little help or even be counterproductive because of them turning into an unreadable text wall. On the other hand, the list is being turned into a pro-Kyiv propaganda item by some of the same people who crafted the canvassing-ridden RM above. Unless you suggest I should jump in and risk edit warring over it, I'd rather be prudent and wait for the issue getting addressed and resolved the proper way. In this case, the above call that we should bring this for resolution by a third-party authority and avoid us the drama of subsequent RMs (which everyone seemingly accept will be afflicted by the same sort of canvassing again) seems like a wise advice. Impru20talk 18:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Impru20, where did you get the idea that “common global usage” should determine the title of an article about a place. The guidelines it is actually “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources.” I don’t know how you expect us to determine this while avoiding finding out what it says in, say, a bunch of English-language sources.
Secondly, I think we can all assume that formerly nearly every English-language source used Kiev. It seems to me that it would help paint the picture by making note of the ones that have changed their practice. If you think that it’s unfair not to list the ones that have actively clung to or reaffirmed the use of Kiev in recent years, anyone may contribute to the list, so fill your boots!
Ironically, compiling the list of organizations and references that have actively clung to or reaffirmed the use of Kiev would be quite easy, since it is quite small. I believe you could not compile a list of thousands of sources. But start with Wikipedia.
And please assume good faith while you comment about editors who are doing a lot of work trying to improve Wikipedia. This discussion has more than enough denigrating language and accusatory innuendo like “pile-on” and “pro-Kyiv propaganda” already. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 19:17 z
I agree that toning down the battleground rhetoric would be helpful.
It's interesting you cite to WP:MPN where it talks about the change in local form "having become predominant in common global usage". The very next sentence says, That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook. Hence why I started Talk:Kiev/sources. You're welcome to add up-to-date references from reliable, authoritative sources such as those listed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I won't be contributing to unofficially re-opening the RM by virtue of moving the discussion from here onto issues deriving from Talk:Kiev/sources. I have made my position on this clear enough below. Impru20talk 19:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if you don't want to contribute to the gathering of sources, but it would be nice if you could stop insinuating that I and other editors have improper motives or are otherwise doing something wrong by gathering sources, as you did below. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it would be nice if you could stop insinuating that I and other editors have improper motives or are otherwise doing something wrong by gathering sources, as you did below Excuse me, but what I said below is that it'd indeed be wrong if such action of "gathering sources" implies an unofficial re-opening of a discussion which is currently closed and with a moratorium in force. This was not an insinuation: I made it crystal clear. Do not suggest yourself that I'm "insinuating" anything else. Whenever I've questioned the actions of any single user I think it's clear who I am referring to and that I won't be saying anything without proof of it. I don't remember having questioned your actions in particular; sorry if you considered it so, but please, do not put in my mouth words that I haven't said. Impru20talk 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Impru20, what moratorium is in force? The way I read the closing of the move request above, including the update, El_C intends to enact a moratorium on page moves after the upcoming re-run or replacement of this move request. If you think they intend to prevent us from collecting sources of information about the subject of this article, please get some clarification. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 21:36 z
That is correct. Provisionally. Anyway, Talk:Kiev/sources remains at your disposal. El_C 21:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misunderstood it, but wasn't it that a 2-year moratorium, even if provisional and pending any future Arbcom development, was already in force?
If you think they intend to prevent us from collecting sources of information about the subject of this article, please get some clarification Get some clarification yourself before rewritting my own statements, I have never claimed you should be prevented from collecting sources of any kind. Btw, you don't have to respond to every comment I make in this discussion. This is not the RM. Impru20talk 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, I suspect the only current purpose of that list of sources is to keep the RM alive in some form. I created that list, so that was a comment about me. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich I have never said that the list's current purpose derives from its creation nor that it has come by your hand. You will have truly created the list in good faith hoping for it to turn into a helpful tool for any future RM. It's sadly degradating into something else. Impru20talk 20:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list contains mainly sources which already switched. The unlisted rest (probably) hasn't switch yet, just by default. If you want to point out high profile (type of) source which still uses Kiev, it is open for edit. 22:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The list is currently a merely reformatted re-post of what was already shown in the RM above, and it has now been taken over by the RM's OP who, incidentally, also happens to unilaterally cancel/re-edit the sources not supporting their cause to make them appear as supportive of their cause as well. Since their own RM was suspended (because of issues also related to their own behaviour) and all discussion on the issue is currently halted, it's very unlikely anyone but those having strong feelings about this will actually care to go to the list and edit it, lest it become another heated/dramatic discussion over the issue. Impru20talk 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And? Good to have it together, and it is bigger and bigger with more and more impressive achievements. Facebook is the latest addition which possibly started all this (facebook generation :)) Who can say RM would end like the last time? The list contains more and more very important sources and it propably reached the threshold. Or who are you missing? Who do you need to be impressed? How come it would end the same when the conditions change? IMHO Kyiv already wins on number of the most important media on board. Are we waiting for number of google search results without any filtering? "Common name in the last year" is OK with me, it is able to react to the changes, not like unfiltered google search. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is very impressive as a massive (and biased) red herring consisting in throwing a bunch of sources mentioning "Kyiv", then distorting any ones which dare to mention "Kiev". Wikipedia is not a battleground, so I'll not be commenting what "wins" here because this is not a matter of winning anything, despite what some people are very obviously intending to do. Impru20talk 15:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy cited by Impru20 asks us to “engage in polite discussion” and “assume good faith.” —Michael Z. 2020-07-04 18:47 z
I agree that there has been a strong lack of politeness in this discussion. However, you were remarkably absent when several users literally threw themselves at insulting the uninvolved admin who closed the RM, so I don't how why you keep mentioning me at every turn. On the other hand, I'm not sure what do you mean with AGF: it's been already stated that it's not an excuse to blind yourself when there's evidence of a reprehensible behaviour going on. Finally, for the second (or third) time: you don't need to respond to every one of my comments, particularly in parts of the discussion where you are not even participating or being mentioned. Note that intentionally singling out one person for purposes other than to build an encyclopedia, even if mildy, is strongly discouraged. Impru20talk 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re you don't need to respond to every one of my comments when I Ctrl+F for the following strings:
  • "Levivich [dubious": 15 hits
  • "Michael Z. ": 20
  • "TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk)": 27
  • " El_C " (with the spaces): 32 (the closer)
  • " Impru20talk " (with the spaces): 38
Just saying. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curious enough, in this section alone I get 12 hits for you compared to 11 for me, 5 for Michael and 3 for El_C & Taivo. So what? I don't get the purpose of this reply from you now. Impru20talk 19:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to deny the fact more and more very important sources already started using it, in that case sure, RM would end with the same result. The list shows mainly the Kyiv sources, because those changed their view. I asked who's missing on the list to show who still resist (like Wikipedia) - I got "herrings" and "distorting". It is just stalling, question is not "if" but "when". Too much energy put into stalling. Wikipedia can't lead the way, but IMHO now is falling behind. And those silly ideas to keep it that way for next two years? Whyy?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Instead the whole idea that common name must take precedence over official name must be challeged. Using incorrect or illiterate terms just because lay people use them in daily life is stupid. Mikus (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The place to make that challenge is at WT:AT, but it's complicated. Using the "official" name is not always best. Most would prefer "North Korea" over "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; "aspirin" over "acetylsalicylic acid"; "FIFA" over "Fédération Internationale de Football Association". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. In all three cases I prefer the official name as the main title. Common name can still be used for redirects. Thanks for pointing in the right direction to challege the policy. So, do I just start a section and state my case? At the top of the page, or the bottom, or does not matter? Mikus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom of the page, and I strongly suggest going through the archives and reading prior discussions on the matter. (I don't know what discussions are in the archives, or how long ago the last discussion was, but I'm sure it's been discussed more than once.) You'll want to address whatever the reasons were in the last discussion for having it be the way it is now. I have no idea what level of support you'll find, but I'm kind of curious to find out. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you want to challenge the Common Name policy, go to the naming policy pages and challenge it there. I will probably support such an effort. But until the policies are changed, I'm going to support them in renaming discussions, as will a lot of others. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat: I told him the exact same in the RM above when it was still open, but I see this person, rather than truly challenging Wikipedia's guidelines, is only coming here to throw insults at them lol Impru20talk 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I said something similar at his ill-fated RM at Requested move 6 April 2020 almost 3 months ago. I do belive more emphasis snould be given to official names, especially in genuinely ambiguous situations such as Cassette tape, or in culturally sensitive situations such as with Kiev and Bangalore. But as a policy, it has to be changed at the policy level. - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And people were worried that they'd have to wait two years! The new RM has started, officially or not. The new moratorium lasted barely 12 hours.

(Which, for anyone interested, is precisely why we this sort of exercise was disallowed in the previous moratorium.) Kahastok talk 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kahastok El_C's note and its update imply there is no moratorium until after the resolution of the suspended move request, and I suspect when it comes it will be a moratorium on page moves, not a discussion ban. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 21:36 z
If there's no moratorium, why not just start a new RM and be done with it?
There is no substantive difference between a "moratorium on page moves" and a "discussion ban". Because if discussion on the article name isn't aiming to change the article name then there is no reason for it to be here. Per WP:NOTFORUM, the aim of talk pages is to improve the article, not for editors to engage in loud, interminable and pointless argument in a way that actively prevents article improvement. Kahastok talk 21:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why, Kahastok? Because the closing note stated that issue is going to ArbCom and there will be a new RM soon. And because they have since clarified further. By the way, if you see behaviour against the guidelines, please helpfully, politely, address the editors or deal with it according to our policies. Complaining out loud is not a path to article improvement either. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 23:11 z
You'll be pleased to know that when there were cases where editors were using this page as a forum for discussing the article name during the moratorium we had, I was perfectly happy to close those discussions as according to the consensus.
And incidentally, since you ask, please could you format the timestamp in your signature in accordance with WP:SIGPROB? Custom formats play havoc with the bots and are thus not allowed. Thanks. Kahastok talk 16:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Indeed, I suspect the only current purpose of that list of sources is to keep the RM alive in some form (specially when considering that (1) it's basically a copy-paste of the sources already posted in the closed RM; (2) that calling for people to keep adding sources to it will eventually lead to disputes over said sources and, eventually, to disputes over the same RM issues all over again; and (3) that it has been taken over by the RM's OP lmao). We should refrain from entering into the frame unless strictly needed. Nonetheless, I'd have wished that the people using this "assume good faith" argument now had raised it on those who canvassed the whole RM discussion, spoke about some pro-Russian Wikipedia conspiracy against Ukrainians or literally insulted the uninvolved admin who closed the RM discussion. This could have helped back then, but guess it's only useful when you complain about the behaviours in the "wrong" side of the discussion. Impru20talk 19:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Levivich, if ArbCom takes up this issue and makes a decision it will most certainly "be decided". ArbCom is the final authority and your insistence that "consensus will prevail" is false. Indeed, "Consensus" is not a vote despite your attempts to make it so. But ArbCom will prevail if they take up this issue as we are asking. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TaivoLinguist, Arbcom will not decide the title of this article. They don't have the authority to make that kind of content decision. It's right in WP:ARBPOL. They can decide the terms of the RFC, such as they have done many times before, but they can't decide the outcome. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TaivoLinguist, also, what do you mean my attempts to make it a vote? Please strike that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich They most certainly can make such decisions enforceable. Check out WP:MOSMAC2. That was an ArbCom decision and was definitive and did not require WP:CONSENSUS. I was involved in WP:ARBMAC2 and saw the process close up. It works and it's definitive. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee can do what they dare to do. El_C 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBPOL: The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. The Arbitration Committee is not going to decide if this article is titled "Kiev" or "Kyiv". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming is not content, it is presentation and style.--Khajidha (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is this, the twilight zone? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However ArbCom comes to its decisions (and it's up to the ArbCom members themselves how they work), their decisions are final. WP:MOSMAC, the direct result of WP:ARBMAC2, stood for about a decade until Greece and Macedonia settled their differences. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the Committee will pick a side. But they may mandate a resolution that encompasses anything they really see fit otherwise. El_C 21:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a case on Ireland with similar procedure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

According to the sequence of events (that has been hopelessly mangled in the discussion) here is the sequence of upcoming events as I understand User:El_C has stated. He is the one in charge here right now.

  • The issue will be submitted to ArbCom very soon (two of our editors are preparing the submission). This is a very similar situation to issues with the naming of North Macedonia prior to 2019 and the naming of articles related to Ireland/Republic of Ireland. In both of these situations there were disagreements that were unresolvable using normal procedures and much bad blood. The ArbCom process stabilized the issue. (With regard to the "official name" position that has been taken by some, "Republic of Ireland" is the official name of no country in the world. The official name of the country is simply "Ireland". But the article is at "Republic of Ireland" to avoid ambiguity with the article on the island as a whole, which is at "Ireland". Using the official name in all cases is not as simple as you might think.)
  • The previous RM is dead because of corruption.
  • There is a two-year moratorium on move requests in place either now or after the ArbCom decision. The original moratorium was to begin after a NEW RM, but since ArbCom will happen instead of a new RM, the moratorium is either a moot issue or will begin either now or after ArbCom. The last moratorium was a moratorium on both RMs and on name discussions. Everyone was simply sick and tired of the constant issue that meant nothing constructive was being done to improve the article. I will assume that the two-year moratorium will have the same restriction. (Obviously, if ArbCom decides to move the article to "Kyiv" or if a future RM as a result of ArbCom's decision moves it, then the issue of a moratorium is moot.)
  • There will not be another RM because it is going to ArbCom.
  • ArbCom will decide what ArbCom decides and we will move on from there.

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the Committee mandating a reopening of the RM I have suspended or starting a new RM from scratch, under some conditions, of course. El_C 03:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neat about Ireland.
Not all of us assume that El_C’s moratorium “will have the same restriction,” which felt like a draconian régime of suppression of discussion enforced by a few editors and based on no clear consensus. I am glad to see disinterested parties intervene here. Let’s wait for ArbCom’s decision instead of overly “clarifying” the undetermined future. —Michael Z. 2020-07-04 13:54 z

FTR, I would point out that we are not just discussing 13 RMs in the lifetime of the page. The last moratorium came in directly after the October 2019 RM. At that time I worked out that that RM (26 October 2019) was the eleventh separate discussion on the article name started since the closure of the previous RM just over three months beforehand (16 July 2019). Many of those discussions lasted several days, and while most were started by new editors they tended to end up with the same editors making the same arguments over and over again.

The whole point behind the moratorium was that this continuous discussion of the article name had long since driven out all useful discussion, and was thus disrupting the article. There is no doubt that allowing such discussion to continue through any future moratorium would be equally disruptive. Kahastok talk 16:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relitigating the RM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Or maybe the moratorium was disrupting the article by preserving a title that has become an indefensible fossil. I appreciate your desire for quiet on this talk page, Kahastok, but I think you may have lost track of the need for us to respond to changing English usage in the rest of the world. I’m looking forward to the ArbCom process. —Michael Z. 2020-07-04 18:41 z
The problem User:Mzajac is that English usage was not changing as fast as you and the other crusaders wanted so you wanted Wikipedia to force change rather than describe change. The moratorium actually allowed real changes to the article to be discussed and made without being drowned in the torrent of nationalistic fervor and trivial, repetitive data that the name change advocates have always brought with them and were bringing on a weekly, sometimes even daily basis. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you defenders of status quo do not want to see the changes. You just talk and talk about nationalistic views and crusaders and moratorium and disliking the "new name". Who cares what YOU think about the " naew name"? Who cares if you think it is pushed and activistic? Sources change, Wikipedia follows, simple as that. No rude comments about people and names, no real argument value in such comments. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you defenders of status quo do not want to see the changes. While it may appear that way to you, it isn't for me or most of the other editors either. I've always personally supported a change to "Kyiv", but under Wikipedia's naming conventions, it is not the current common name, and my personal opinion does NOT matter in these discussions. It's use is growing, and soon it will pass "Kiev", but no one knows how soon. Now that most English language publication style guides support using "Kyiv", it's usage should increase. But until the threshold is actually passed, I'll oppose changing the name in these discussions. And I think my view on this pretty much speaks for all the other Oppose editors that have commented here, other than my own personal expressed opinion. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the adjectives they put in association with Kyiv, I do not share your optimism. "Now that most English language publication style guides support using "Kyiv"" - exactly, now it is crazy to wait 2 more years. When those styleguides changed, it does prove the shift (be it future applications of those styleguides). Why wait 2 years, we can give it standard 6 months - now, when you are certain it will happen, not "if". Well, it did happen (styleguides), we will just see it in actionChrzwzcz (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:BilCat is absolutely right. If you actually opened your eyes and read my comments instead of just my tag line before reacting, you would see that I have written here on more than one occasion that the time may come when Kyiv becomes more common in English usage than Kiev, but until that time comes Wikipedia rules preclude moving the article. If you actually paid attention you would even notice that I have personally referred to the city as Kyiv (unless referring specifically to the English placename Kiev) since 2007 (when I moved there and taught for a year in one of the universities). But Wikipedia is not the place to tell English speakers what to do, it is the place to reflect what the majority of English speakers actually do. I use Kyiv, but most reliable sources and common usage still has Kiev. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chrzwzcz, style guides are just preferences until they are put into practice. If they are put into practice, then it is usage. There's no evidence that preference has turned into general practice. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, they are not "Style Policies" , else the editors of said publications would enforce them, and "Kiev" would appear nowhere in those publications at all, which has not happened. - BilCat (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, as El C says, we shouldn't relitigate the RM and save the arguments for the appropriate time. In the meantime, I can only see this constantly distracting conversation, without any benefit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and was about to post the very same sentiment--this is not the time or place to conduct an RM. We're going to ArmCom (hopefully sooner rather than later) and that's where such discussions, even about whether or not to have a moratorium on discussion will be had and the matter decided. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, (many) English sources kinda already did - they wrote it in their styleguides. So I guess they want to follow their styleguides and use only Kyiv. Yeah yeah, we can wait until we see it in action, but it is expected to have immediate/quick practical effect, do we really have to wait 2 whole years? Most reliable sources - well it is question for fair RM to evaluate. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is for ArbCom to decide. And they will decide if an RM can be fair or not. - BilCat (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if a fair RM could actually be conducted on this issue, User:Chrzwzcz, but we saw with this one that it was corrupt from the very beginning. ArbCom might be able to monitor a fair RM. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking confirmation of the Arbitration Committee having been made aware of this dispute

Can we please get an update from someone about having contacted the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter? You don't need to divulge anything, just confirm that this communication with the Committee has began. El_C 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129 has all the information and evidence of canvassing and had agreed to present it if I was reading their posts correctly. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll see what he says. But if no one has contacted (or will in the near future) the Committee, this falls back in my hands, sort to speak. El_C 08:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that we received an e-mail today. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So this was in someone’s drafts mailbox for a week and a half? Or somebody was busy working on a long email? Who? Is the request about resolving the requested move, or only the canvassing issues? Not complaining, but a lot of editors are waiting patiently, and, frankly, I have no clue what is going on, so some info would be appreciated. Thanks. —Michael Z. 05:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, we've received a request for a private case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Forms of proceeding). For obvious reasons, we're not going to talk about any details. And if we do accept such a case, it will narrowly address only matters unsuitable for public discussion. So if there are broader issues you want us to look at, we need an on-wiki case request. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that sounds to me like, maybe, an individual disciplinary case. Does that pending case prevent El_C from proceeding with resolution of the interrupted move request on this page? Thanks, Joe Roe. —Michael Z. 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what it sounds like is that a formal, public Arbitration Request needs to be made. Resuming the former polluted and corrupted request is not an option. It was contaminated from the beginning. At the very least, a new RM with very tight controls over who participates. User:El_C? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I'm ready to go ahead with a re-opening, provided some nominal clerking is undertaken. I don't know what is before the Committee (privately), but I cautiously predict that it should not be a hindrance toward accomplishing this. As for a full case request (public), I'm not sure what it would entail or what the Committee would be expected to do at this time about this incident. El_C 20:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RM was so corrupted by the WP:CANVASSing that I would oppose a reopening. We can start over without the canvassing, but opening a jar of mayonnaise that has gone bad just leads to more toxic results. But I would disallow any anon IPs and any obviously single purpose accounts (particularly those that have zero editing history prior to coming to this page). I would prefer that involved editors at least have some editing history in the area of Ukraine, but that's harder to justify and experienced editors (not the SPAs and anon IPs above) can be assumed to be familiar with basic Wikipedia policies. Without these two basic safeguards (no anon IPs and no brand-new editors [SPAs]) then we leave the door wide open for further (hidden) canvassing and respondents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' calls for patriots to flood social media with requests for "Kyiv" (it's documented). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All new or inactive accounts should be tagged accordingly by whomever is doing that clerking. No, I don't see why so many editors in good standing should be forced to repeat themselves. I am opposed to a new request. I'm more inclined to just relist the current one. Of course, if the Committee itself has any preference on the matter, as always, I defer to their guidance. Also of course, if multiple editors in good standing prefer a new request over a relist, a new request would be fine, also. But my instinct at this time is to relist. El_C 01:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like we just wait for the Arb Committee to decide what it's going to decide about the "private matter" and then proceed from there at that time. Fair enough. Having been involved in ArbCom matters before, I know that they work on their own time schedule. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the Committee wishes to wait until their private proceeding is concluded before we relist the RM, then that's what we'll do — but is that really what they prefer? I'm not getting that impression. El_C 03:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I strongly urge you to drop that former RM because it was poisoned from the beginning. If those editors in the corrupted RM weren't just here as fly-by-night canvassed "votes" they will come to restate their preferences again. I'm here for every RM. Other editors who care will show up for a new RM. But it sounds like you are going to wait for guidance from the Arb Com before proceeding either way. That's the best route IMHO. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear Taivo won't be bringing this up again. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TaivoLinguist, repetition is not helpful. And of course I will wait for Committee members to guide me further. I'm in no rush to act, still. El_C 04:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

So, El_C are you waiting for the clerking? I don’t know what that means, so if you’ll explain what you expect, maybe I and some others can get started on it, since you were ready to reopen the move nearly two weeks ago. Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking is easy and can be done in minutes. I'm surprised no one has done it yet. I gave permission to edit the archived (suspended) discussion for anyone to do so at any time. But, no, it has nothing to do with that. I'm awaiting further notice from the Arbitration Committee about how to proceed. El_C 19:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our understanding was that the previous RM was suspended pending the result of the ArbCom action and then you would proceed to follow the instructions of the ArbCom decision--either cancelling the previous RM and starting a new one or reopening the old one. But for now we're just waiting. That's actually precisely what you wrote when you closed the RM: "These proceedings are suspended pending their [ArbCom's] decision" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I am willing to start clerking by tagging all new or inactive accounts in the RM discussion above. I don’t know what constitutes “new” or “inactive,” or what exactly “tagging accounts” is, but I will look for relevant guidelines and improvise if I have to.
I’m confused, though, whether you’re “ready to reopen” or waiting for ArbCom on “a private matter” or something. There’s a lot of alluding to some non-transparent, non-consensus process by I don’t know who, and some in-joke about “beans” which I don’t get. I’d like to be informed what is going on, in plain English. Or should I just ignore all these games and whispers and propose the move again, according to Wikipedia’s plain and open guidelines, and seek consensus? Thanks.
TaivoLinguist, speak for yourself, because we do not all share your understanding. —Michael Z. 03:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mzajac, if there were not a general understanding that everything was on pause based on User:El_C's statements, then there would have been a general and constant clamoring on this page to restart instead of nearly total silence for the last two weeks. My apologies if you don't want to be included in that understanding. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, the link is WP:BEANS. The tag is {{spa}}. El_C 12:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I read Beans but I’m too slow to understand what it has to do with this. I wish someone would explain in plain language, instead of nudges and winks. —Michael Z. 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not be circular, but it would be contrary to BEANS to answer that. El_C 14:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mzajac, in the dark of night I misunderstood what you meant by "clerking". I was understanding "opening the discussion back up", but based on User:El_C's response you don't seem to have meant that. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not misunderstand: Or should I just ignore all these games and whispers and propose the move again, according to Wikipedia’s plain and open guidelines, and seek consensus? No, Michael, you should definitely not do that. El_C 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, on a slightly tangential note, apparently there is past precedent for using discretionary sanctions to regulate how a discussion is conducted (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, I believe that format/rules was taken under DS, not a specific case remedy, per the Rules section there). Assuming ArbCom takes no interest in this matter, perhaps there's that option if you decide to reopen the RM. A decent set of rules might lead to a more productive discussion on this perennial, controversial question. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That feels like a bit of a rule creep, ProcrastinatingReader. I'm taking discretionary action and noting it in the log —like with Talk:Ayurveda#RFC:_pseudoscience_in_the_opening_sentence, for example— subject to Committee review. That suffices, in my mind. Anyway, I got a sense (from this) that Barkeep49 is going to take the lead now, which I welcome with enthusiasm. El_C 17:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to take responsibility for this. I have a willingness to help as part of a team effort. I also have a belief that the conversation should happen. So far I have not been able to reconcile these three things. If the original discussion had been allowed to proceed I would have been active in monitoring. When El C closed it down he took on the responsibility for this. I don't know how to restart the discussion without also taking responsibility for it. So while I have given thought to how we might want to resume this conversation I have been shy about actually making it happen because I don't think this is a topic well served by one person leading/taking responsibility. Also not helping is that my onwiki time has been very limited (today's the first day in a while where I've really been able to be on). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm open to suggestions on how to immediately proceed. If I need to be the one to unsuspend the discussion, so be it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I just went ahead and unsuspended the discussion. Will note on the log. Thanks for everyone's patience. El_C 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; I just wanted to float the idea. imo a structured discussion that allows people to reach a consensus in either direction, even if it involves invoking DS to facilitate civil & productive discourse, seems better imo than a undecipherable mess (though I suppose you could say it's unnecessary, after all even the Fox News RfC went without a hitch, mostly), though it'd probably be a great help for the unfortunate fellow who ends up having to close the RM. I see the discussion is unsuspended now, let's see how this goes (or, rather, how long it lasts...).
Btw, what are the guidelines on advertising a RM like this? Noting, of course, that it's not a typical RM and uninvolved opinions based on policy would probably be more helpful than those with passion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The re-opened RM may be advertised on relevant Wikiprojects. El_C 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify, for the record, that the arbitration committee has at no time (at least, not to my knowledge) been asked to involve themselves in this content/naming dispute. Rather, they were asked to look at a very narrow set of behavioral circumstances involving allegations of one party's off-wiki canvassing. ——Serial 17:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is wondering why I'm not going to participate this time, the new university semester starts on Monday and all our courses have been converted to on-line delivery. Making that transition and fixing the inevitable problems with new web courses will take most of my time. I simply don't have any more time to devote to extended discussion on Wikipedia. The Cossacks will probably win by default. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With this talk page being over 190 kilobytes long and only consisting of a move discussion, this must be one of Wikipedia's most heated move discussions ever. JIP | Talk 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13th the charm? El_C 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming this (or a future) RM succeeds, the order will just swap to perennial Kyiv -> Kiev, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That didn't happen with other similar moves, like Yogurt and Hillary Clinton. Once they were moved to the "correct" title, they stabilized (and the stability is the proof that the title is "correct"). My theory is that whenever any content is "wrong", even if there is no consensus on wiki to change it, efforts to change it will never stop (because ultimately those efforts come from readers, not the regular editors who !voted in a discussion, and readers vastly outnumber regular editors). Once the "wrong" content is made "right", efforts to change it stop. Stability is how we know when we've got it right. I predict this will stabilize when it's "Kyiv", and it will never stabilize before then. Lev!vich 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I share your conclusion but not your reasoning. A lot of the RMs and proposals to change have been openly politically motivated. Specifically, it has mostly been pro-Ukrainian partisans pushing a pro-Ukrainian POV. I saw the Twitter threads on this RM when it first started and I can assure you that the same applies here, at least with respect to the original proposal. That's not to say that there isn't a case to be made on the merits of policy, but it is not policy that has driven the proposals to change.
OTOH, historically speaking, the opposition to change has largely come from linguists and non-Ukrainian English speakers. Despite the characterisation we see drawn by some Ukrainian partisans, this has not generally been a Ukraine vs. Russia dispute on Wikipedia.
And the reasons this is unlikely to come back if there is a move are first, because we have a two-year moratorium coming when the RM closes (either way), and second, because this point raises far more passion among Ukrainian partisans than it does with anyone else. Kahastok talk 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that pretty much all editing of Wikipedia is openly politically motivated, all editors are partisans of one kind or another, and everyone is here to right great wrongs. I think we kid ourselves when we think that people who feel strongly that it should be "Kyiv" are somehow different than people who feel strongly that it should be "Kiev". As if one side was coming from a place of self interest and the other side was coming from a place of neutral purity. It's not true; we're all self-interested animals, we all have passions, and we all have feelings and opinions that are formed by our life experiences. I see people talking off-wiki about how the article should be "Kyiv", but I don't think those people are pushing a pro-Ukranian POV, or at least no more so than the people who oppose this RM are pushing an anti-Ukranian POV -- I just think those aren't accurate ways to frame the issue, and I think that kind of framing lends us towards unhelpful battleground mentalities. Lev!vich 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1, Levivich. But I’ll go further. It’s pro-Wikipedia to have the article title reflect prevailing usage in reliable sources. I only see some editors resisting the change trying to recast it as “pro-Ukrainian” and “political,” to disparagingly label some other editors as Ukrainians, to prevent requested moves and stifle discussion, and citing irrelevant and inaccurate Google search results, because arguments based on the guidelines and facts don’t support their desired outcome. —Michael Z. 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't recognise a difference between the argument It should be Kiev because that is the natural conclusion from WP:AT, and the argument it should be Kyiv because Wikipedia should endorse the position of the Ukrainians against the Russians? At times - including in the Twitter threads at the beginning of this RM - it really has been that blatant.
Bear in mind that in most previous RMs the position with respect to WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME was entirely obvious in a way that it isn't today. Until the last year or so, just about every English-language source based outside Ukraine used Kiev. And there were still just as many people coming along trying to get us to change the name. Kahastok talk 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the first sentence is true. It is definitely possible to edit without any sort of visible political motivation. There's plenty of editors whose political views would be difficult to ascertain from their contributions, beyond a complete guess. There's maybe some value in the statement that we have some inherent bias based on our experiences, but it's still possible to be aware of that bias, even if you don't know how exactly to adjust for it awareness is usually enough for most discussions. A certain amount of politically motivated editors is actually necessary, but once you go over a certain threshold consensus stops working properly and the wiki loses value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv&oldid=975684717"