Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Russianname

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 12:31, 20 July 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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User:Russianname in engaged in constant disruptive editing, edit warring, POV-pushing and incivility, he has been unwilling to cooperate or to explain his actions.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

A desired outcome would be a positive change in Russianname's disruptive behaviour, move from confrontation to cooperation and civil and respectful behaviour towards other users.

Description
User:Russianname is engaged in disruptive editing, on multiple articles. This behaviour has persisted over a long period of time despite numerous attmpts from different users to influence it. This user has a clear political agenda and has been pushing his one-sided view on articles Russian language in Ukraine and Russians in Ukraine. Several editors expressed their concern over one-sidedness and POV of the Russian language in Ukraine, which Russianname is translating from Russian WP, yet he refuses to balance the article and persisists in adding one sided material. In several other articles this user spams the text with overly excessive requests for references, and when requested references are provided, new requests are added to disrupt the article further. In addition, User:Russianname is using Wikipedia to vent his POV views by inserting one-sided and dubious pictures in multiple articles in an effort to push his political agenda in the Wikipedia community. Recently, over disagreements on Russian language in Ukraine's neutrality Russianname as a revenge went on revert rampage singling out particularly the articles that I have written. In the course of several days his only edits were reverts on several articles. He has been banned once for revert war on my talk page and as well was reported for 3RR violation to the admins. These reverts were accompanied by insults and incivility, virtually no attempt was made to explain his actions. Numerous attempts were made to come to an agreement, including the MedCom case, which I filed. All attempts to influence his behaviour and channel it into constructive mode have failed because of Russianname's incivility and unwillingness to compromise. Multiple warnings on his talkpage are promptly erased. --Hillock65 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I must add that User:Russianname often reverts articles likely without reading them sometimes even restoring orthographic mistakes corrected by other users. He inserts tags without reading already cited sources. For instance, one of the sources cited in the article about Oleksandr Dukhnovych mentions explicitely Dukhnovych's Ukrainophile activity in the first part of his life, nonetheless User:Russianname started a revert war concerning this point.--AndriyK 06:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Revert warring
 * Incivility
 * POV-pushing

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Appeals by Hillock65:
 * Appeals by AndriyK:
 * Appeals by other users:

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


 * --Hillock65 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * --AndriyK 06:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * User:Russianname has made changes to articles, seemingly without reading them. Faustian 14:40, 20 July 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.'' ''

1) I do not understand the claims of the users who wrote this request. The problem is that these users removed the tags "fact" and "NPOV" from the article about Dukhnovych breaking the rules of Wikipedia:   without giving sources, that can prove their POV. The same was done by User:Hillock65 in the article Fofudja    when he cited the hate blogs aimed against the Russian language and the Orthodox church and did not acknowledge the need to find proper sources. --Russianname 09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

2) User:AndriyK did even worse: he distorted the source and undid my edits when I corrected the article acccording to the sources: . The sorce gives this info: Деякі етнографічні групи росіян, зокрема горюни, що живуть у Путивльському районі Сумської області, етногенетично пов'язані з місцевим давньослов'янським автохтонним населенням. (Some enthnographic groups of the Russians, for example, the Goriuns... are ethnogenetically connected to the local autochtonous population who lived there in the times of the ancient Slavs.) User:AndriyK distortes the source, saying that the Goriuns perhaps lived in the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (so 6 centuries after the ancient Slavs) and are usually considered to be the Russians (but the Goriuns are the Russians according to the source and other scientific researches). The same POV he pushed in the article about the Russians in the Ukraine  --Russianname 09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3) I will add more comments later, when I have more time. --Russianname 09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

{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:

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.''

I have very limited time now so I'll try to be short. Regarding the evidence I have to say that calling conventional edits vandalism is unacceptable and I strongly urge Russianname not to do it in future. The other diffs show that there has been a content dispute during which the behaviour of both sides was not ideal. At least this is how it looked on the surface. When I asked what was the problem that caused rv warring my question was just ignored (probably it was discussed somewhere else but still I consider it as a sign of both sides' attitude). I'm sure the compromise could be achieved over this issue as it has been achieved over other issues of the article, however this would require some external help.

ps. This piece of evidence surprises me since Russianname didn't write anything too bad there imo, unlike User:Akhristov, who wrote that Providing sources in Russian is not a good idea on the English Wikipedia.
 * Commnet I'm not sure if Akhristov's comment is bad. Sources at EN wiki need to be in English so that the vast majority of its eaders can use these themselves.  Sources in Russian or Ukrainian (or other languages) are helpful, but English references are certainly much superior in that they allow for a wider usage, not simply among the multilingual editors.--Riurik(discuss) 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Alæxis¿question? 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Kuban Cossack 23:16, 24 July 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.