Case Opened on 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Hillock65 (talk · contribs)
Kuban kazak (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kuban kazak

Statement by Hillock65[edit]

There is evidence that User:Kuban kazak has been following my edits on Wikipedia with an explicit aim to start edit wars and harass me. I am not a frequent contributor to the English Wikipedia, however, many of my edits in this community are followed by Kuban kazak and edit wars are initiated: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. There have been numerous attempts on my part to deal with edit warring, including an RfC and a MedCab. In every instance of edit warring initiated by this user, it is me who attempts to start discussion on the talk pages and provide sources[7], whereas he makes every effort to stall any possibility of a compromise. Constant edit wars almost everywhere where I attempt to edit articles on Eastern European topics are indicative of the pattern of harassment this user has adopted in relation to me. As well, this user has a history of recruiting revenge squads at the Russian Wikipedia to come and harass me at the English Wikipedia.[8]. An attempt has been made to deal with this issue in RfC and even though his call to arms at the Russian WP received no support, the issue of harassment and edit warring has not gone away and unfortunately needs to be addressed in ArbCom. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillock65 sought victory rather than consensus Really?! Let's see: [9][10][11]. No comment, at least not here and not now. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kuban kazak[edit]

I'll be honest, I took time to put my statement, waiting who and what would write so I have at least an idea to know what is it I am accused of. Well in all honesty reading some of the comments I have mix of disappointment, surprise and amusement. I am not going to indulge here in providing individual diffs about who and when said what, there is a evidence section for that. I want to point out that being on wikipedia I try to follow three simple rules which I set myself:

Unless the issue concerns myself in my field of interest, don't get involved. I was asked numerous times to support WP:BATTLEs involving some very sensitive issues, like the "occupation" of Baltic States, South Osetia wars, numerous arbitrations involving individuals like Digwuren, Piotrus, you name it. However I did not participate. While they battled it out I was happily writing articles, or getting on with my life. What strikes me that individuals like Biophys and Morenschi, with whom I maybe come across once or twice in my three years of wikipedia were the first ones here to put their thoughts down.
Second, is WP:STICK, once its done, its over, forget and forgive, move on. Unfortunately some people just can't do that, for them its all about revenge and getting even.
And the third is to be honest with myself, and accept responsibility for my actions. My being here on wikipedia is articles, and articles I am to write. No I am not a professional editor, in fact English is not even my native language, so yes I am well aware that sometimes I can misinterpret a source here, put something wrong in there, and maybe loose my temper. And I regret it! Sometimes I have needlessly offended people who turned out to be very productive editors.

Now then, let's have a look at my accusations, below it was stated that I had the allegiance of a blocked user, well on the same WP:BATTLE on Chechens, they had the sockpuppet of HanzoHattori. Biophys was equally keen on showing his political views on numerous controversial issues. Yes I put that hanging rope for Sukashvili, and yes I believe that the "censored" should be hanged for what he did this august. If you are to use political views as the precursor to banning people, you are effectively taking a side in the debate, because there is no such thing as non-bias there is only consensus on a neutral note. Problem is that Hillock65 sought victory rather than consensus, same with Folantin, same with any other user with whom a lot of time was wasted on a WP:BATTLE. Read Russavia's and Irpen's comments below to see the tip of the iceberg evidence that can be provided for that statement. Thus I welcome the arbitration, because it is very amusing for the people who accuse me of wrongdoing, regularly do the same with greater frequency, and if there is anything I hate more then its double standards.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment, at least not here and not now. Indeed, why not tell them about the ... six month edit conflict on Zaporozhian Cossacks over one verb: 2 November 2007 — 17 May 2008 ... no comments needed indeed. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ostap R has numerously queried me for some proof of my accusations of him being a WP:MEATpuppet of Hillock, well the fact that his statement was written by Deacon quite shows that. Why indeed any WP:BATTLE that has Hillock65 participating Ostap R is there most of the time ... That's why I am disappointed I thought you all could do better in your accusations ... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I've been accused of being a communist, a nationalist, a Stalinist, an Imperialist... quite mutually exclusive terms if you ask me. Truth is that I don't follow an -ism and I am not an -ist, and indeed I despise -isms. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your own words, you demonstrate you're a jingoist braggart who's here for a fight. Actually have you ever thought that you won the battle because I gave up on the article, since it was impossible to seek consensus with you? Why don't you have a look at the edit conflict and the talk page and the An/I and see how many times I mentioned the word consensus, and how many times I have asked you to stop personal attacks and try to seek it? Yes we Cossacks are a militant people, yes, myself included, we have seen more than one conflict cross in our lifetimes. Remember Folantin, I did not inflate a dispute into a Battle on the Chechens article, you did. I simply took pleasure in seeing what that victory cost you, hence the tone of my edit summary.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)[edit]

Comment: Leaning toward accepting the case since other steps in dispute resolution (RFC/user, mediation) have not resolved the conflict. But I want to wait another day to give more users a chance to make comments first. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. As usual, will look at all involved users. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. It seems likely the Committee may be able to clarify the issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per FloNight. Changed casename for neutrality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to look at all users; I don't think it would be right to merge this with the Piotrus case although there is some degree of similarity. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.