Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kuban kazak

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
Some way to keep Kuban kazak from breaking Wikipedia policies in the long run.

Description
User:Kuban kazak is known for his violations of the WP:3RR policy and revert wars. I feel that another revert war is starting. I currently filed a request for mediation on this issue. However, the issue is that the user (Kuban kazak) keeps edit warring even though this issue was taken up with MedCab and now with MedCom. I appreciate his contributions; however, I find his POV contributions and edit-warring unacceptable.

Me getting involved in the dispute on this user's behavior started when I created an article (Podilsko-Voskresenska Line). Then, User:DDima expanded the initial stub I started, and added the disputed Russian name for the line. I asked on the talk page about removing the name. DDima said he doesn't mind. Since we were the only two contributors to the article, consensus was reached.

However, about a day later, Kuban kazak made an edit to the article and reintroduced the Russian name, against consensus that was reached on the talk page. I reverted him. It took a few reverts for him to finally make a statement on the talk page and start discussing the issue. However, since consensus was reached on the prior version, I expected him to discuss the change without edit warring. Sadly, I was wrong.

In addition to that, I got reported by him to WP:ANI. I had the article protected to try to resolve the WP:ANI incident. Then, protection expired. I expected Kuban kazak to refrain from introducing the Russian name until the MedCab case was over. Sadly, I was wrong once again, and the case ended up moving up to MedCom. I gave the user a few chances to stop re-adding the Russian name until discussion was over, but now my patience is over.

This is the description of my run-in with the user; however, other users have had other run-ins, I'm sure they'll comment on this page. — Alex(U 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Revert war at different article (Kiev Metro) and Russians in Ukraine
 * Personal attacks in foreign language, in edit summary
 * Consensus at Podilsko-Voskresenska Line talk page before dispute started
 * Kuban Kazak readding Russian after consensus on talk page was reached, and before leaving a comment on talk page
 * Readding Russian after protection expired and while MedCab was in progress
 * Readding Russian once more
 * Reverting again
 * Violating WP:POINT and admits it
 * Positing an explicit call at Russian WP to harass me
 * Personal attacks and incivility at Russians in Ukraine
 * Repeated edit warring

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:EW
 * WP:BATTLE
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:HAR
 * WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Discussion on talk page, including two protection requests failed due to refusal to compromise
 * WP:ANI report #1 article protected, protection expired, revert war started again
 * MedCab Case mediator left; refusal to compromise
 * WP:ANI report #2 article protected, not much done to resolve conflict

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * This was bound to happen. I have had the same issues of edit warring and personal attacks from this user and tried to resolve it. On his talk page, on AN . I also participated in two MedCab mediations with this user in one of which he refused to respond. I participated in MedCab mediation on Metro stations, where User: Kuban Kazak refused to compromise and stalled the progress. This new round of edit warring is nothing unusual with this user. --Hillock65 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Novelbank 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Akhristov 03:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ukrained 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) - I tried and failed to warn Mr. Kuban kazak against being POV-pushy at Russians in Ukraine, not to mention dozen of other pages.

Other users who endorse this summary

 * User: Hillock65
 * AlexPU 11:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AndriyK 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shao 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Inside view by Ukrained
Ladies and gentlemen,

Completely endorsing the “Statement of dispute” for this RfC and “Outside view” by User:AlexPU, I would like to stress one more side of Kuban kazak’s WP behavior: his inadmissible incivility and attempts to turn the project into battlefield (a biased forum were users from one country dominate and rule). This concerns the vast majority of articles and talkpages edited by him.

I collected over 50 diffs supporting this fact, and all of them may be presented here on demand. Kuban kazak’s typical term for opponents is “you low coward” and ethnic/political slurs brought from Russian-Ukrainian relations (like here or here). Some people even deserved a title of “disgusting rat” from him

But let me focus your attention on diffs especially striking. Note that the majority of uncivil comments or edit summaries are in Russian (translations may be provided on demand):


 * Comparing AlexPU to a dog (at the same time, suggesting that “barking” on the users from other countries is acceptable, especially on those who hasn’t written enough articles yet )
 * Suggesting to hide new articles from the community and to “give the nationalists a kick in the face”
 * Announcing a cabal of Russian users’s community, that is growing by means of meatpuppeting and going to OPRESS anyone opposive to their versions of pages, up to the limit that those infidels “would feel like guerillas” in the project, (interestingly, reminding his opponents that “Russia was (and is) a totalitarian state without press and thought freedom”). Also announcing cabal and canvassing on Russian Wikipedia
 * (Not suprisingly) asking a newly-promoted Russian administrator to “finally take care of one of the Ukrainian clowns now” (soon after, the admin in question issued several block warnings for me)
 * Calling other Russian admin a “suka” (taboo word literally translated as “bitch” but meaning “traitor”, "authorities colaborant") in a content dispute regarding Chechen war
 * Threatening me with bomb attack in real life (this could be even taken seriuosly after him declaring his real-life involvement in Chechen war  and 2006 riots against authorities and attacks on U.S. soldiers in Crimea )

and, finally,


 * Personally insulting FOUR users in one message regarding this RFC, including those who haven't attended the procedure yet at the moment (along with expressing joy about the fact that Ukrainians suffered persecutions from Russia back in the history)

''Russian users of English WP are encouraged to judge on how Mr. Kuban kazak’s actions are beneficial for their collective image in the project. E.g. they might want to support or dismiss the claims about existence of Russian cabal here. E.g. by influencing Russian administrators who seemed to be ignorant of Kuban kazak’s deeds, despite repeated reports at AN/I.''

Also I’d like to note that Kuban kazak’s POV-pushing in articles’ text spreads far beyond – to the level of vandalism. Hasty to revert other version or purge warranted tags, Mr. Kuban kazak oftenly damages edits irrelevant to content dispute (like style or grammar). This was especially typical for our content dispute over Soviet partisans. Or, what is inadmissible, he inserts trollish passages directly in mainspace.

When I first met Kuban kazak on WP, I identified him as a sincere teenage political activist intolerant to real-life opponents, but also willing to develop WP content. His first useful contributions on subway&trams were convincing me that the project benefits from this user. Apparently, other users treated him the same way, judging by the fact that this is his first RfC, and his block log is inadequately short (compared to his deeds).

Since than I realized HE DOESN’T LEARN ANYTHING unlike me or conflictous users (like my compatriot AlexPU).

Given all this, and other views, desired outcome of this RFC for me is blocking User:Kuban kazak for at least six months. Perhaps this could teach him something and focus him on the meritous process of studying subway stations, trains etc. Thank you for reading.


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ukrained 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Hillock65 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Akhristov 08:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) AlexPU 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) AndriyK 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Shao 18:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) One more example of User:Kuban kazak's abusive wording right from this discussion.

Inside view by Hillock65
First off, I would like to apologize that my statement and evidence was not organized and presented properly at the beginning of this RfC. I have never participated in an RfC before and have made a few mistakes, which I am presently trying to rectify. I fully concur with RfC's Statement of dispute and User: Ukrained above, I feel that my experience with User: Kuban kazak is somewhat different from the rest, since I have known him only for about a month.

After a mere month of editing with Kuban Kazak I not only share the same views on his disruptive behavior but also believe that he has a deep-seated animosity towards Ukraine and Ukrainians. That can be evidenced from his one-sided editing of almost exclusively Ukrainian topics. In numerous Ukraine-related articles he is known for constant warring over Ukrainian names, inclusion of hateful anti-Ukrainian literature as "sources". His hatred goes down to such petty things as inserting the definite article "the" in front of Ukraine, whenever he can — even in places where it does not and have not belonged. Lately, this has extended even in the metro articles, for which and for wonderful job there he should, indeed be commended. (POV-pushing in Kiev metro articles is being mediated now).

In my view all this gross incivility, name-calling in foreign language and persistant revert wars particularly on Ukrainian-related topics stems from the above-mentioned problem. This animosity leads him at times to really strange and outrageous behaviour, not acceptable neither here nor anywhere else — to severely disrupting the WP by presenting unrelated facts and then using them as a leverage (WP:POINT), to recruiting revenge squads at Russian Wikipedia directed specifically against me(WP:HAR), by being intentionally uncooperative and hostile and by ingaging in constant revert wars. I have presented evidence of all this in the Evidence of disruptive behaviour.

Having said that, and given his good track record as metro-topics editor, I feel that prolonged ban will, indeed be unjustified. Prohibition to edit Ukrainian topics or topics related to Ukraine up to a year might, indeed be more reasonable and beneficial for the project as a whole. --Hillock65 18:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Hillock65 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Lysytalk 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Akhristov 08:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)~
 * 4) Endorse, but sceptical specifically about the suggestion to censor his edits by topic. Who's gonna do that, in a neutral way? Plain block is easier.AlexPU 11:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) AndriyK 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I have some experience of discussion on the same topic with User:Kuban kazak's participation. Basing on this experience I would strongly support Hillock65's point of view. Shao 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by AlexPU 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Kuban kazak acts ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE in the manner characterized by editors who started this RfC. Presently, Kuban kazak is persistent and reckless revert warrior at Russians in Ukraine, Russian language in Ukraine and Russophobia (articles he wrote in a very one-sided manner). Earlier, he was exhausting my nerves at Soviet partisans. And I first met him at the main article for the page that is the subject of this RfC two years ago when he was focused on pushing irrelevant Russian names for articles.

And don't forget systematic deletions of "fact","dubiuos" and "NPOV" templates by him in revert wars, without following discussion or article improvement.

Just pushing his propagoshauvenistic POV in mainspace seems not enough for him. He is also spamming articles and talkpages with irrelevant links to the Russian/Orthodox nationalistic websites he is probably fond of in real life. When normal users chastise him for that, the guy starts bombing us with even more citations absolutely irrelevant to the text! You usually don't expect to receive mentoring-like off-topic non-English citations regarding your real life diff:(, do you?

To be short: he is either a hopeless childish hooligan, or a troll, or both.AlexPU 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I can predict a standard response to this view from Kuban and his friends: "AlexPU was blocked three times for profanity and civility!!!!! He was! He was! Here are the diffs!!!"(he tries to humiliate me with that for already a year, you know - like here yesterday) Yes, I was. So what? Does this justify Kuban's revert hooliganism?AlexPU 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) The user does indeed have a history of revert warring without discussing first. — Alex(U 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Affirmed.  - recent revert without clear explanations. --TAG 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse. --Hillock65 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I endorse this view and ask AlexPU to update it with all relevant diffs available in pages' histories (as necessary for a USER CONDUCT RFC). Ukrained 09:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --Lysytalk 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --Shao 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Ghirla
"Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfC". This is exactly what we have here. The whole page is about one article: Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. No evidence of a wider behavioral problem has been presented.

"RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process". This also applies to the current RfC, in a sense. Kuban kazak is a valuable content creator with strong views, hot temper and, consequently, a penchant for revert-warring. Does it make him unsuitable for editing Wikipedia? I don't think so. Strange to say, Wikipedia accommodates even such persons as AlexPU with mind-boggling history of personal attacks and Hillock65, recently blocked for anti-Semitic edits and responsible for maintaining several canvas-pages for revert warriors in Ukrainian wikipedia (although he requested them to be deleted, I had their edit history exported to my private wiki for further consideration). Everyone who supports their actions does so with considerable damage to his reputation and standing in Wikipedia.

In short, Kuban kazak is requested to pursue the policy of 1RR and to pay more attention to discussing the problematic issues on talk pages, while Hillock65 and Co are requested to stop gunning for Kuban kazak all over Wikipedia and misrepresenting him as a disruptive editor. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Alex Bakharev 07:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I am not to judge if it is an article of an editorial RfC, but I agree with the rest Alex Bakharev 08:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Obvious fishing expedition by two editors who are actually worse. --Pan Gerwazy 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by
I have never had any personal experience with the user, rather what I am writing is from his contribution history. Kuban Kazak seems a great user, but I am afraid his edit warrings are way too much to be comfortable. From his block log he has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring, incivility and 3RR violation, by different admins, since January 18, which was long before the Podilsko-Voskresenska Line article was created. Surely it cannot be limited to a single article then.

He even promised once "to be good" to get a 3RR block overturned (on Feb 21, 2007) but further blocks for similar actions does not suggest he kept it. A look at some of the pages listed here does show he unilaterally keeps reverting to the version he prefers, edit warring with other edits. Even though he does talk about it, he shows a very uncompromising stance, which I am afraid is not at all constructive to a community driven consensus oriented endeavor like Wikipedia.

His talk page shows he has been involved in a lot of cases requiring mediation, which further makes me doubt his ability (or intent?) to strike middle ground. Furthermore, his refusal to respond to concerns brought against him appears quite disturbing. Such I'll-do-whatever-I-feel-no-matter-what-others-think attitude is extremely unhelpful to what we are doing here.

My advise to Kuban Kazak: Stop edit warring, and adopt a more encompassing attitude. Never engage in a revert war, if something is not to your liking, start a discussion. Till the issue is resolved, dont touch the article and risk it being unstabilized. Apply a limit (lower than 3)voluntarily to the number of reversions you will do, and stay within that. You are a valuable contributor, dont let disagreements over content to change people's perception of that. --soum talk 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Akhristov 09:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Hillock65 13:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Lysytalk 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Alex Bakharev 07:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --Pan Gerwazy 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) AndriyK 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) --Shao 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by MaksKhomenko 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Having read several talk pages from the articles named above, in my opinion Kuban kazak writes in a non-neutral manner, shows no desire to co-operate in resolving a dispute and is constantly reverting edits by other users.

Clearly on numerous occasions the user is not interested in contributing to the articles, but is rather eager to propagandise his views and opinions in the articles. --MaksKhomenko 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ukrained 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Hillock65 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Lysytalk 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) AlexPU 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) AndriyK 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --Shao 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Akhristov 04:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Alex Bakharev
Kuban Kazak is a hot tempered and opinionated editor who not always follow WP:3RR and WP:POINT to the letter. He also inclined to put his opinions on edits and editors (often it is a strong opinion) in plain words rather than putting the same opinions using weasel terms. On the other hand he is a greatly productive editor contributing enormously to the main space. I would just mention WP:METRO - a large project almost single-handily managed by Kazak - and Portal:Chechnya - that he created and quite nicely cooperated with quite opinionated Chechen editors. if you look through the history of his edits, most are quite productive, there are little of POV-pushing and soapboxing (unlike the contributions of some of his opponents). Regarding his talk page comments: they are often strong but usually not venomous, not messages that use civil words but carefully engineered to hurt. As a recommendation to Kazak I would suggest to obey WP:3RR and WP:POINT to the t, avoid unnecessary conflicts (Kazak was IMHO not right in his original conflict with Akhristov and escalated the conflict). To the other participants I would say that contributions of Kazak grossly overweight the disruption he causes. Alex Bakharev 08:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Akhristov 08:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, except I'm having doubts about User:Kuban kazak's contributions outweighing his disruptions. — Alex(U 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) --Ghirla-трёп- 11:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pan Gerwazy 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.