Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lordkazan

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: 20:49, 29 September 2006 (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
Lordkazan is uncivil to those he lands in disputes with.

Description
Lordkazan fails to assume good faith. He is also using wikipedia as a platform to engage in advocacy, rather than to improve an encyclopedia. He frequently tells a less than complete story in an attempt to dupe adminstrators into innapropriately actioning people he is in disputes with.

Failure to remain WP:CIVIL

 * 1) in which I am told that I am "not a diety".
 * 2) in which I am told that I should not "tell [him what [he] can and cannot do" in response to my request that he not use one-click rollback for non-vandalistic non-self rollbacks.]

Failure to WP:AGF

 * 1) in which he files a checkuser against me in response to my disagreement with him.

Wikipedia as a platform for Advocacy

 * 1) Beyond his obvious actions to make Derek Smart's entry as negative as possible, he has strongly pushed an anti-circumcision POV on that article - to wit, he encourages SPA-POV pushers to continue in their bad actions

Disingenuous reports

 * 1) In which he reports a content dispute as persistant vandalism - "persistant" vandal had not edited article for days.
 * 2) In which he tosses warning templates on experienced users talk pages in what appears to be an atttempt to intimidate.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * 

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


 * JBKramer 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * DRK 02:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I consider the choice of evidence for AGF and advocacy to be poor, though having read through the relevant pages I consider all complaints to be valid. Jakew 09:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Jakew. Addhoc 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also per JakeW. Dasondas 16:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * per Jake, and my own many interactions with this user. Avi 00:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Jakew Crimsone 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional statement by Jakew
My apologies for the slightly unconventional addition of this statement. Due to my interactions with this user I do not feel that I can file an 'outside view'. However, as I explain, I believe that this dispute is merely an illustrative example of his conduct.

There is no shortage of evidence of incivil conduct, and I do not intend to provide an exhaustive list. Here are some examples:


 * Here is the first message he left on my talk page: "I did cite evidence you dipshit, don't accuse me of vandalism when I go to the talk page and post the fucking refutation to the information a removed. Furthermore I removed information that had NO CITATION, and that it's impossible to give a good citation for because all the studies are fatally flawed. I removed it becuase it was FLAT OUT WRONG. Your restoration of it therefore constitutes vandalism"
 * Shortly afterwards, on another user's talk page: "Jakew may need to be reported to the admins for bannination. The bastard is about as biased as they come"
 * Describes another user as a 'criminal' (ironically, on WP:PAIN).
 * "I haven't the patience for rabid pov-pushers like you and Dasondas today. ... I give your position equal representation, even though I consider it a reprehensible violation of human rights for which you should be tried and convicted and sentanced most severely."
 * "However they're all being made look bad by these power-tripping, sometimes partisan, always unreasonable arseholes who think they are Gods-on-earth or something. These arsewipes will violate many wikipedia rules, especially the civility rule, and then the moment the user responds in-kind they ban him - getting away scot-free with their behavior. These arsewipes partisanly-support certain pov-warriors who they're friends with, abusing wikipedia rules to keep their pov-warriors in control of certain articles. ... This is absolutely unacceptable and every one of these admins is harming wikipedia and should be banned for life." (edited by user since this RfC was filed)

Several editors have warned Lordkazan about his conduct. 

User's view of civility
I have previously advised Lordkazan about misuse of popups to revert non-vandalism, and like JBKramer, received an unsatisfactory response. I am particularly concerned by the following exchange, which I think is illuminating:

This seems to be missing the point of civility somewhat, that being to try to avoid causing offence. This attitude of "why should I care if other people think I'm incivil?" is fundamentally incivil.

Conclusion
Lordkazan has a history of violating civility. The present dispute is merely an example of his inappropriate behaviour.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Jakew 13:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Dasondas 16:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Addhoc 16:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Avi 00:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Crimsone 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:46, 17 October 2006 (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.'' ''

I'll admit I can be occasionally uncivil and when I am intentionally such, I apologize. However just because someone else considers something uncivil - such as using popups to do a revert - doesn't mean that i consider it uncivil. There isn't one definition of what is uncivil.

Furthermore I don't fail to assume good faith, I assume good faith until I have evidence otherwise. Such as when a user admits they're engaged in such.

As for pov-pushing - I keep my pov on talk pages, I NEVER have attempted to push Pov into an article. The simple fact of the matter w/ the edits on derek smart today is that the situation in question is one that I was one of the participants of - I was the person he made legal threats against. My opinion on circumcision is MY OPINION, which I have a right to - and I have NEVER pushed it into an article - ever. I keep it on the talk pages. I understand the NPOV policy and endorse it. My purpose here is to RAISE THE QUALITY OF WIKIPEDIA - some articles have subtle POV-violations (like Circumcision). how many edits do I have one that article? 6 total - three of which were a small revert dispute which was resolved.

AS for my encouragement of User:Christopherk - he inserted CITED information into the article! I was being friendly!

My requestion a checkuser was just being THOROUGH - the only user who had disagreed with the content of the article to that point was User:Supreme_Cmdr - I had never heard of JBKramer until today, i just wanted to make sure it wasn't SC. No offense was intended, and he chose to take it personally.

"Disingenious reports" The persistent vandal edited the article this morning! The user in question was BANNED for his behavior - the behavior I gave him warning templates for! (though I may have accidentally been under the impression that he edited it twice today, and for that I apologize - however the blocking admin seemed to deem his behavior deserving of a time-out) - user was later unblocked by a reviewing admin who considered his actions to be content disputing not simply blanking. I would point out that the user is blanking signification sections of the article and content with citations. I don't think it unreasonable to consider blanking cited content vandalism. Apparently I am not the only one to hold this position.

Later Additions

 * JBKramer made a personal attack against me in this edit both in it's content and in it's edit message
 * Also read my comment in the CheckUser - I purposely said that I was just making sure - no offense was intended. He did proceed to state that I was "engaging in a fishing expidition" as if I was some crooked cop.
 * Use of popups - popups are a tool, i use that tool for efficiency, any other user's artificially introduced considerations of meaing mean absolutely nothing to me - that's what i told him "you can't tell me what to do" over - he was trying to force his opinion of popups usage down my throat. Until I see a wikipedia policy that says "you cannot use popups whenever you need to revert" (Which would be an assinine policy) I will use them when I need to revert!
 * "many editors consider" - argumentum ad populum
 * Just because a change is "good faith" doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree with it - I clearly didn't agree this his edits, so I undid them. simply disagreeing with someone is not uncivil

Proposed resolution
We COULD have been more civil with each other, though some of the things I said/did that he considers uncivil I disagree with that assessment of. I propose we simply say "hey, we were having an argument, frustration sometimes leads to people saying/doing stupid things - let's get back to helping improve wikipedia instead of squabbling over some pointless RFC about things that are in the past."

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Lordkazan 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Kerr avon 00:41, 4 October 2006 (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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

The user in question refers to Supreme Cmdr, who isn't a persistent vandal, nor has he been banned. He's an experienced editor who has been blocked on two occassions for 24 hours. Addhoc 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He was blocked by InShaneee  Lordkazan 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And was subsequently unblocked, because he was involved in a content dispute and isn't a vandal... Addhoc 11:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * According to you, and in the opinion of one admin - in my opinion and in the opinion of another admin he was. Lordkazan 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So you'd agree that the matter is controversial? Jakew 14:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - the simple fact is the user was blanking significant sections of cited content. Lordkazan 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Such an action may or may not be vandalism, depending on the context. Suppose it happened again. Would you be willing to assume good faith and act as though it was a non-vandalism edit with which you disagreed? Jakew 14:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence comes ahead of assumption. See article history, user edit history, etc.  You are not even involved in the situation or know the history of the article.  Your attempts to mediate are commendable (assuming good faith), but you are operating on incomplete knowledge. Lordkazan 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, last time I checked admins were required to check with the blocking admin before unblocking... --InShaneee 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that all of the diffs provided as evidence against Lordkazan are from today. --InShaneee 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several points of importance which need to be addressed

1. Supreme_cmdr's status as a vandal. If anyone has the time or patience to go through supreme_cmdr's prolific edits it becomes apparent that he is bent on removing any negative edit about Smart. He claims to have reomved "irrelevant" sections, which are valid and verifiable, regarding Smart's false claims to have a Ph.D, and the flame war etc which were all backed by verifiable quotes, which amount to vandalism or at the least biased editing, which he has got away so far without much warning. Regarding the blocking of Supreme_cmdr, if anyone goes through the time period when supreme_cmdr has not edited, it is apparent that minimal edits have taken place, its only when he appears and deletes whole chunks that the revert wars begin. Supreme_cmdr who has a RFC against him has also been a bad boy threatning to be non conformant to wiki guidlines -: "If you ban me just because you don't like my edits, I will just come back with an anonymizer (which is what most seem to now be doing) and keep putting in edits. If you folks want to play grab ass over this, lets play" I fail to see how Addhoc can say supreme_cmdr is a "experienced editor" when all the editing he has done is to edit the Derek Smart and universal combat(Smart's games) pages, removing anything critical of Smart. Which point to a lack of good faith. So how does that make Smart a "experienced editor". Clearly Addhoc's statement is verifiably wrong.

2. Going through Kazans edits it becomes apparent that he is a experienced editor, who has edited a wide variety or articles. He may have some animosity towards Smart as he has been involved in a Flame war with Smart, however so long as his edits are backed up with facts, they should be acceptable according to wiki guidlines. Kerr avon 10:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Kerr avon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Just because I am a new user does not make me a single purpose account, going through my edits you will see that i have created a article on jayasri which is our local band  and uploaded a sample track, edited Hugho Chavez, which hardly makes me a single purpose account. If I am a single purpose account, then supreme_cmdr too should be labeled as a single purpose account as he too has edited only Smart's article and universal combat which is Smarts games. I respectfully request that the tag be removed from my statement and Addhoc to acknowledge that he has made a error.Kerr avon 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand certainly Supreme Cmdr — Possible single purpose account: Supreme Cmdr (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. can be certainly classified as a single purpose account.Kerr avon 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc you owe Kerr avon an apology for this edit. Lordkazan 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * His only edits are to the Derek Smart article, with a few exceptions, which is the definition of a SPA. Kindly place future comments that don't relate directly to an endorsement on the talk page. Thanks, Addhoc 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes when people have completely opposite ideas with regard to a heated controversial topic like circumcision (Jakew and Kazan have completely differing views) tempers can get frayed and ill tempered behaviour can happen. This is part of human behaviour and should be taken in its stride with good faith.Kerr avon 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Supreme_Cmdr then whom you (Addhoc) egregrariously clasiified as a experienced editor, whose so called experience is limited to just editing the Derek Smart articlesSpecial:Contributions/Supreme Cmdr. He too should be classified as a SPA by your definition. Frankly Addhoc's agenda is openly biased towards supreme_cmdr. Just because I am a new user means that I need time to edit more articles, etc. By accusing users without justification not only are you making them angry, you will make them more reluctant to contribute to wikipedia. My first reaction when you called me a SPA was to remove that article about Jayasri, which took me a long time to produce, I had to rip there song from a CD, edit it using audacity, then save it as ogg, and finially upload the 1.2mb file over a dialup connection, which is quite a lot of work. To do that and be called a SPA by Addhoc who has shown double standards in his approach to supreme_cmdr is very hurtful. My main reason to contributing to the Smart article mainly is that I have a knowledge about this entire fiasco, as I too bought his bc3000ad game beleiving all the hype(Gee whiz, this is a game designed by a guy with a Ph.D (THe Ph.D turned out to be a false claim later) etc) and i was sorely let down by the diaster it was. I was never part of the flame wars (I had better things to do) and now I am residing in Sri Lanka. My only interest in the Smart article is to make it a good article representing both the good and bad sides of Smart. I dont want him painted as the black god of computer games programming analogous to a black John Carmack, which Smart is pointedly not,  he has a history of acadamic fraud with regard to a false Ph.D, false claims about his games (bc3000ad and UC) and should not be painted in a entirely good light. Neither should he be villified, the article should include a balance of what the man is. Constructive criticism of the man should be allowed in the open spirit of wikipedia.Kerr avon 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hardly surprising that since both you and Lordkazan share the same views - all of which violate WP:CIVIL among others - that you would continue your vendetta against me. I'm not even going to bother addressing your comments because that would just be a waste of time. I'll just let your edits speak for themselves. As always, you and Lordkazan (who seems to have been perma-blocked) won't stop until you are blocked. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)