Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kuban kazak/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Scrutiny avoidance?
In defence of Kuban kazak, Russian language can be automatically translated by Google Translate. While it's not exactly perfect, somebody with fair grasp of another Indo-European language -- such as English or German -- can usually gain understanding of Russian texts using that tool. Therefore, and in light of the fact that there isn't a shortage of Russian speakers from various cultures and backgrounds on Wikipedia, using Russian in postings can not be reasonably construed as a way to avoid scrutiny.

Furthermore, as long as there isn't a finding of particular Kuban kazak's Russian-language comments having been problematic, a general remark about using Russian sounds somewhat pointless. Wikipedia is edited by people of many ethnicities, of many native languages -- it's completely reasonable to occasionally use non-English languages, be it either to aid a comrade of incomplete understanding of English, in furtherance of a better translation of a particular source, or even to convey a barnstar-worthy untranslatable pun. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The remark is in reference to the Russian-language comments already noted in the finding as being problematic, not so much as simply a general observation; perhaps that's not clear from the wording? Kirill (prof) 13:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it now. While I'd prefer the wording to be clearer, I can't disagree with the substance, given the context. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting already?
Honestly, I don't wish people to see that my low participation (which has been across wikipedia) is part of an attempt to stall the case, but I would like to have the time to present all of my evidence, as well as the workshop. The delay is due to off-wiki developments in my family life, mainly the birth of my third child. I promise that if one can extend it until at least next monday I will finish my presenting of evidence and can leave you to handle the case.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will request on the proposed decision page that voting on the proposed findings and remedies against you be postponed for one week. I trust that you will not engage in the problematic types of conduct that have been discussed during the case during this period. Congratulations on your child. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kuban Cossack, I've seen your request and agree to let you have more time to finish. I'm not going to strike my votes, but I promise that I will look at your complete evidence and adjust my votes if I think a change is needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that this might not be the place to write this, but I would like everyone to see my comments on my workshop. When User:AndriyK had his arbcom it was found beyond reasonable doubt that he had a crystal clear record of edit-warring, violating copyrighted material, vote fraud using off-wiki canvassing and page moves done via locking the redirect preventing automatic move-back. However he was blocked only for one month for the latter. Now per my feedback to the proposed decision, we have four points Soapboxing via userspace, using wikipedia as battleground (which is a case where what's said does not par with what was done), edit-warring, and general incivility. Well neither AndriyK's record of edit-warring or indeed Soapboxing via edit wars, were the reason of his ban, which again was only a month. Now I of course recognise that despite me permanently blanking my userpage, some punishment might be inevitable, but honestly is a year a bit too much? If the time scale is reduced to say three or four months, then honestly if the arbcom believes that such a penalty is justified I will accept it w/o any hesitation. However a year is something that I am prepared to appeal. Therefore I ask you the arbitrators to reconsider the sentence. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already anticipated offering an alternative remedy proposal in this case, once Kuban kazak has finished presenting his evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case you don't hear from me before (you probably will!) consider the agreed a week of your comment above 12:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) as the finish point irregardless of what's in my evidence section. Thanks. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For all its worth I've finished presenting my evidence, I might add some more in due course, but I don't want to hold wikipedia up any longer. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"consider the agreed a week of your comment above 12:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) as the finish point irregardless of what's in my evidence section". That time has now passed. --Folantin (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That case was in January 2006. Wikipedia was a different place then, and much more lenient as regards trolls. Priorities were different. "Disruptive users may be banned" was even explicitly stated as a principle! Plus, Mr Cossack's editing has been probably more disruptive than AndriyK's, who ultimately was banned for one thing only (making irreversible page moves). Based on arbcom cases of the last year and a half, a year off is standard: compare Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior, Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123, Requests for arbitration/Anonimu, perhaps most clearly Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, Mr Cossack's editing has been probably more disruptive than AndriyK's. Moreschi in spite of me never crossing you before can I ask on what basis do you make those, and other accusations? I can understand User:Folantin has a grudge against me for our past run-in, but where do you come into this? What have I done to you? Whether or not I am to be banned is up to the arbcom not you, and since you are an administrator I would like to point out that you have an example to set wrt WP:FAITH and WP:EQ after all how do you expect us to respect other users when you can't do that yourself. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Actually, I could ban you for a year this minute, and it would be perfectly well within my authority to do so, but I'm a polite person and don't like to tread on the arbcom's collective toes when they already have this case under good control.
 * You really don't get it, do you? You seem to think this site runs on a mafia-style system of personal vendettas, and everything fits into that paradigm. Have you considered that I might just have dispassionately reviewed your editing, decided that it's violated policy many times over, and concluded that you deserve a year's ban? After all, I am well known as general disruptive-user-remover.
 * Oh, and describing your editing as disruptive is not incivil, either. It's just a statement of fact. See also WP:SPADE. Moreschi (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were very polite comments you left on my arbcom, so ban me then!
 * Actually this is not a "site". If you are so well-known how come over my three years of disruption on wikipedia have I never encountered you in the past then? Obviously not that well known, just a small hitman without a don would be more correct description, but that's me being personal.
 * So please show me some of those facts! Give me examples rather than obscure statements, preferably outside my and others userspace. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you'll observe that 2 days ago, Kuban noted (above) that he's finished presenting his evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal

 * I hope you are aware I will seek an appeal for this decision. Since I find it hardly justified and biased. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my appeal comment. See Faustian's talk. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Planned block evasion
I notice you are already soliciting another user to help you evade the block : "Anyhow here is what I will ask you to do, I will continue to write articles on my talkpage and I will ask you to copypaste them into article space and give you ideas and support for your articles. Can you do that for me? That way the year will fly by very quick". (NB: Obviously it's worth pointing out that the user in question has not agreed to do so as of this writing). --Folantin (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be alarmed by. Banning policy is quite explicit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose his talk page can simply be protected during the ban. --Folantin (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)