Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban kazak/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Hillock65

Kuban kazak's stalking and harassment

From very first edits with this user it became clear that he is a very opinionated Russian editor, bent on pushing his POV in Eastern European articles. However, my first indication that this user intended to harass me appeared in 2007, when I was alerted by other users that Kuban kazak had posted a comment on the Russian Wikipedia's ANI with an explicit call on Russain wikipeidians who speak English to come and "help him put me (Hillock65) in the right place"[1]. One of the users from that community, who is mentioned in the announcement and who answered his call to arms was User:Водник. That user became quite active in the English Wikipedia within a month of Kuban's notice appearing on Russian ANI and while aided by Kuban kazak in his edits[2] and staying in the off-wiki communication with him[3] proceeded to make controversial changes specifically in every article that I created[4]. This pattern of meatpuppetry and harassment finally escalated to Kuban kazak following virtually my every edit apart from interwikis and starting revert wars anywhere I edited[5][6][7][8][9], even in the articles where he never edited before me making corrections there.

The final confrontation, which precipitated this ArbCom happened in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), where Kuban kazak having followed me there, started another revert war over the lead in the article.[10]. While I was the one who started the discussion first[11] and introduced sources[12], Kuban made every effort to remove them and to stall progress reverting even his own compromised versin[13], clearly intending to battle and harass me until the very end.

Kuban kazak's POV-pushing and edit warring

Kuban kazak is an opinionated Russian nationalist, the fact acknowledged even by those, who curiously consider him a benefit to this community[14]. This user exhibits views similar to the Russian extreme right as evidenced by his own statements, where he lumps Russia's neighbours as just "other Russians"[15] and the proudly displayed picture of Joseph Stalin on his user page[16]. His imperialist attitude to for example Ukraine is evident even in edit summaries[17]. This user's campaign to purge Wikipedia even from mentioning Ukraine[18][19][20][21] and the inflammatory statements about Georgians and their president[22][23] shows that Kuban kazak's mission is to use Wikipedia to further Russian nationalist agenda in the areas where Russia is being challenged in real life: Belarus, Ukraine, Caucasus, Chechnya, Georgia.

To push this agenda was only possible through edit warring, of which this user has an extensive record and multiple blocks[24]. In the areas, which he chose to monitor (Belarus, Ukraine, Chechnya) his edits are invariably accompanied by edit wars with different users, where he misrepresents sources[25], introduces OR[26] and even attempts to add as a sources such hateful book as "Ukraine is not Russia, it is a disease"[27]. This user edit warring extends to everything that concerns Ukraine, for example even in metro articles over the Russian language[28][29]. Regular blocks for EW and warnings[30][31] by admins have failed to correct this destructive behavior, which makes ArbCom's intervention necessary.

Evidence presented by Mariah-Yulia

Evidence for what?

I tried to referee between Hillock and Kuban at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) but soon lost a clue what they argued about, in my view (although I know little about any Orthodox Church) I didn't see an attemp by Kuban to "Russification" it, quite the oppisite, he could have (according to wikipedia infobox rules) removed "Moscow Patriarchate" from the infobox (making the "other" Ukrainian Orthodox Church look illegal) but didn't. It is not Kubans fault that in Ukrainian registers the church is only registered as Ukrainian Orthodox Church, so far Hillock hasn't stated/proofed otherwise. So what the hell was the problem at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)? If Hillock doesn't like how the name is registrated in Ukraine he should write to the Ukrainian Goverment (I can show im the building...). So far Kubans behaviour at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) doesn't seem rude/wrong to me.

Respect

I did advice Hillock65 this summer (see:[32]) to be more cooperative with Russian editors (Kuban in particular). To no avail cause a couple of months later he posted this: [33] (completely of-topic commentes about V. Putin) on Kuban's talkpage, yeah that's not going to make Kuban more cooperative is it?

In fact if you treat Kuban with respect he is cooperative as shown here: [34]. In fact Kuban was cooperative in the writing of Russia–Ukraine relations and he shows no interest in current "Russia vs. Ukraine" controversial articles like Russians in Ukraine, Russian language in Ukraine, Anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine or Ukrainization. I don't know mutch of Kuban's editing in other field cause or I don't go there ore he doesn't. In fact I lost interest in Holodomor (I did notice Kuban edits there a lot) and UPA cause the wikipedia articles don't seem to be in a good shape with constant battles seem to be going on (although I removed those pages long ago from my watchlist because of the shape there in). Because I don't go there I can't comment on the behaviour of the editors there.

It would be desirable if Kuban stopt habits like writing in Russian or accusing User:Ostap R of being a sockpupet of Hillock cause that would be the surprise of the century for me... Ostap is so obviously a different editor then Hillock... In general I think he should show more respect to editors who are obviously not vandals but just disagree with him, but so should those editors! I think if everybody was just friendly to each other (first ask the other user before throwing accusations around about someone everywhere except on the userpage of the editor your accusing would be a good first step, after all she/he won't be able to give you a wedgie...) we wouldn't have needed this "Requests for arbitration"! We should work together, not fight each other. I'm sure we all can do that.

Evidence presented by Kuban kazak

How it all began.

I first came across Hillock in May 2007 when I was working on expanding Russians in Ukraine. True the topic is indeed very very sensitive, but from the start Hillock's position (as it would become habit) was that of not working together, but instead scrutinizing individual contributions, and REVERTING! The amount of diffs that can be provided there is extensive, but within a few days we have gone from WP:CIVIL discussions to this kind of nonsense on and on and on. The dispute of the article became deadlocked especially after User:Hillock65 has recruited a very notorious and disruptive User:AndriyK whose contributions need not any mentioning. Contrary to Hillock's lies above this was five days prior to my comment on ru-wikipedia. The person who did come to aid me was User:Russianname, who contrary to Hillock's lies above, wrote the article Russian language in Ukraine and on ru-wikipedia dozens of FA articles related to his home city of Lviv (ironic is it not?). Later on Hillock and AndriyK would repay Russianname by launching an RfC against him for the purpose of intimidation. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEs involving Hillock

Zaporozhian Cossacks

Betweem 2 November 2007 and 17 May 2008, User:Hillock65 made an edit to the article which was not supported by consensus and followed with a half-a-year revert war: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 after which the article was locked for 2-3 months, all this time the talk page debate never ceased. A survey which indicated that the majority of editors refused to have such a strong POV statement which is favoured by nationalist Ukrainian historians, was still rejected by Hillock (despite him initiating it), even after the article was unlocked in May, Hillock made a further 1, 2, 3 reverts. Now that is only those relevant to the use of one word destroyed. Hillock also made several reverts on the same article regarding a poster. Moreover the dispute of "destroyed" was carried over by him onto several other articles including: Peter Tekeli; Zaporizhian Sich: 1, 2, 3 4; and Danubian Sich, 1, 2. Incidentally on his evidence section above, User:Hillock65 is clearly lying, he refers to the dispute that User:Mikkalai and me had over the latter article, where after writing the article, from several sources (but not including them in citation format), for reasons still unclear, Mikkalai went mad, and eventually got banned after my report on An/I].

User:Folantin & User:Grey Fox-9589

One of the biggest accusations in my name was my usage of wikipedia as a battleground and POV-pushing. So how could then one explain this pattern of behaivour. On Chechen people I make an edit, which I agree was amateurish, and later clearly stated that the questionable source I took for granted on a: different article. Folantin however carried out a 4 reverts of the material [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] etc. The resulting discussion on An/I failed to have any remedies, and ended up with both being blocked for 3RR. So if I was to be a non-compromising "combatant", how can one explain these edits:

WRT to User:Grey Fox, or User:Pietervhuis as he was once known, he accuses me of having no sense of neutrality. Well on the same article, when I suggested to re-format the navigation box of famous Chechens, he instead demanded that it includes Dzhoxar Dudaev, a very controversial figure. Even when there was no consensus, and even more when there was no free image available, he continued to push the issue: here. Upon returning as Grey Fox, he for example carried out two reverts of the article, w/o giving any explanation on the talk page: [41], [42]

Brief reply to Folantin

I would not have re-inserted the 80% statistic if you only flagged that sentence and removed it alone, however you reverted the whole re-vamp of the section, which included numerous developments in the history of Chechen people during the 1920s, the Caucasus War, the 19th century etc. I was never aware log in log out was a sock of M.V.E.i and I can honestly write that upon offering you a sincere apology I was not even aware of log in log out being banned then, I was actually not aware of him being a sock of MVEi until much later when Mariah Yulia queried me on his disappearance.

Now wrt my sandboxed version, the 80% statistic was there because I was editing the section bit by bit, week by week, and when I got round to editing about Uralov I removed it. As for Hopkirk, then "I gave up" upon going on wikibreak on the 5th august, by that point I lost interest in wasting my time searching for a compromise with someone who clearly showed they do not wish to have it altogether. Like I said I follow #1 of my self-set principle, forgive & forget. Can you do that? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Biophys

Now here is the most interesting figure, having all but never crossed the user in a debate over the past three years, I find it rather puzzling that he was one of the first editors to join this arbcom. I should maybe mention that the editor is likewise very highly opinionated and is has personal reasons for his campaign here to portray Russian politics in the worst possible light. Often this results in WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH type of articles such as Phone Call to Putin, Web brigades and so on. Now I do recall how this summer User:Miyokan got permabanned for trying to dissect his background. So based upon an exclamation on my talk page, he claims I am part of criminal gang. How does he do it? Well he takes a Cossack exclamation, which resembles a Russian criminal slang term that was used in a 1970s film and from that paints me as a Russian criminal. Now bearing that in mind, I believe this if anything violates WP:NPA.

Feedback to diffs

Regarding the proposed decision

Reading some of the other comments, one finds a pattern of trying to obscure evidence by painting only half rather than the whole picture.

1. For example, lets have a look at the proposed decision of my "bad doing". The incivility and personal attacks: ([43], [44], [45], [46]), three of the examples are limited to my userspace. The latter one was the report how an admin clearly over-stepped his power and though the title might have been pushing, it does not challenge the fact that on the article described User:Mikkalai at that moment clearly lost it, going mad was not necessary meant to insult him. On the contrary it was meant to show the user has showed behaivour which I have never before seen and (never seen since).
2. Using wikipedia as a battleground:([47]) Sorry but that is a complete misrepresentation of the comment and its intended meaning. First of all after posting the comment one would notice that the article in question saw no more reverts on my behalf, second after posting the comment I made two consensus proposals to User:Folantin: [48], [49] (and even apologised to the user) , that's what I meant by not abandoning the article (in the end I went on wikibreak and gave up altogether and the article still is a POV mess...)
3. Userpage. I am not going to argue, I have violated WP:SOAPbox here. However if that is so, then how again I have to re-adress the issue of this image, how can wikipedia sanction a soap-box image which is only used for userpages and classify it as an official ribbon certainly that violates both SOAPbox and NPOV of wikipedia. Again, I would like to see this issue adressed. For the record, I have blanked my userpage, redirected it to my talk and intend on keeping it that way.
4. Edit-warring: The edits here that were shown are that of Holodomor article. It shows continuous efforts of User:Horlo and User:Bobanni who despite the extensive consensus on the talkpage of the article, continue to pester the article for WP:SOAP intention. Few WP:SYNTH articles such as Holodomor denial and Holodomor genocide question have been written by them. So when over the course of several months. The second part of the diffs point again to my userspace, which as said above is now, to all intents and purposes permanently blanked. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding those presented by User:Biophys as personal attacks:

1. I told User:Ezhiki to not be a bitch, in Russian, on my userspace, after asking him to handle a WP:3RR violator on Grozny who was deleting material from the article, he too blocked me for restoring it afterwards. Perhaps it should be noted that I was still fairly new on wikipedia then (having joined in autumn 2005) and was largely unaware of its principles, so when I get a message out of the blue that reads: Sorry, man, but you broke the 3RR as well. Have to block you too. Naturally I was angered, considering that it was not done via the AN/3RR but at the admin's discretion.
2. I think I've mentioned the "Horn breaking" enough times already. For the record Biophys, the similarity of our Cossack exclamation that takes place in the past tense to the one that you try to portray as a criminal slang threat which is the future tense is purely coincidental! Having said that the intention was nothing more, it was only a reaction at learning that Folantin was also treated to justice.
3. Indeed some Ukrainians may take offence in being called Little Russians. Here was a clear personal attack directed against User:Andrew Alexander, who kept a sprawl of reverts on Khreschatyk article. Later I apologised to those who were needlessly offended, the apology still stands to this day btw.
4. Here is a classic example of where a film grain is given without showing the fully photograph. As said above for User:AndriyK who was first blocked by this very same arbcom for a month to come back and wage a WP:BATTLE on Russian architecture over a tag which included if one checks the reverts 20 such edits, when arbitrators begin to use blocks against him to cease edit warring, I think the comment, though rude was an example of just what feelings those around him were feeling.
5. User:KPbIC, now here is another story, how does one like when all of your edits are stalked upon and often reverted. The issue here involved trying to bring the namings of Belarusian cities to one standard, which was not the Lacinka derived transcription that some favoured. I went through the a full process of pushing the change for WP:CYR (read from here down) had support of many Belarusian editors, including a professional linguist, KPbIC (which literally is a male verse for the Russian word for rat - КРЫСА (Krysa)) did everything to oppose me. Such is the example of Maladzyechna which became the focal victim of the dispute, and there Krys went to extreme lengths to prevent the move. So by calling him a rat, which after all is what he chose to name himself I think its rather a case of someone living up to his title than if I was to call some third party a rat which I will not. BTW Biophys translation is wrong it should read: You are very annoying, truly a rat!
6. User:AlexPU who was blocked first for a week for this type of edit summaries: You just make such propaganda changes fucking again, and I'll fulfill my threat about Russian articles! and fuck propaganda and stylistic censorship!. I happened to report him hence my comment, and then for his continued foul mouthed comments on his userpage had the block extended to a month (Biophys, would you volunteer to translate the final paragraph?). Anyhow Bakharev later un-blocked him pre-maturely, and I reminded him that if he was to go back to what he threatened to do, he would be reported again and most likely blocked (as was the case).

Regarding User:Hillock65's statement

1. I've been labeled as a communist, nationalist, tsarist, putinist, and many other types of -ist. In reality I am none of the above. However when Hillock calls me a Russian nationalist, he is dead wrong. I can go into politics and state that I am patriot rather than a nationalist, but that would lengthy. Here is an example of how Hillock considers a coat of arms of a sovereign country: a pathetic two-headed bird.
2. who curiously consider him a benefit to this community, interesting, is the fact that in almost all WP:BATTLEs we've had, the result was that it would be my voluminous additions that would set the spark, but the aftermath in all cases would be an article. Russians in Ukraine after all, in structure and in format was started by me, same with the lead of Cossacks, same with Russia-Ukraine relations the list can be endless. So Hillock only falls short of acknowledging that his input in those articles, has been the result of my input. Of course WP:BATTLE is never a good thing, but if does produce something, its attention to the article, and more often than not, the result is that the article's quality would increase, where it would have not been otherwise.
3. This user exhibits views similar to the Russian extreme right What are the views of the Russian extreme right then? Enlighten me?
4. where he lumps Russia's neighbours as just "other Russians", It is not a view it is a fact shared by many historians and researchers (though not politicians) about the closeness/distance of various East Slavic groups. Yes I believe that Russians and Ukrainians are a lot closer than Hillock tries to show they are. Am I wrong? I don't know. Does it matter to me? No! I was asked a question on what my view was I answered it in the diff he gives.
5. and the proudly displayed picture of Joseph Stalin on his user page, and two diffs later, I added a footer which said: I do find that the image might be very offensive to many. I apologise if this makes you so, and believe me I am not a Stalinist and know well what that name means for many...Please realise that I did not want to put that image up, on the contrary I want to take it down, however I feel that this is the only way I can get people to realise just what it is worth to have hate provoking templates and Images exist. I still stand by my words on the question of the Chechen ribbon, and regarding Morenschi's comment that was put there for the 300 thousand non-Chechens who were forced out of their homes in the early 1990s, by those whom the ribbon claims to support.
6. His imperialist attitude to for example Ukraine is evident even in edit summaries, so by taking part in a demonstration, I can now be discredited, again political opinion is something that Hillock of all people, are not innocent of, yes I traveled to Crimea in 2006 to take part in the anti-Nato rally I had a great time there.
7. This user's campaign to purge Wikipedia even from mentioning Ukraine:First diff shows the actual publication from the 1897 census, as Little Russian speakers rather than Ukrainians, which was Hillock's interpretation. Second diff actually does not purge Ukraine from the text, simply adds other bits. In the third diff, the Ukrainian verb got purged, because the term Ukrainian Cossacks were obscure, they could refer to those of the Sloboda Ukraine, the Hetmanate, the right-bank Ukraine, and the Zaporozhian Cossacks (as well as other groups). By leaving just cossacks, I singled out the usage of term. The last diff is even more obscure, here is where Hillock is pushing his Ukrainian nationalism into articles, for one, the term Ukrainian came about only in the early 20th century, the historic context for the formation of Cossacks, i.e we are talking about Medieval times its perfectly and even better to use the predecessors of Ukrainians the Ruthenians in that time frame.
8. and the inflammatory statements about Georgians and their president: I'd better simply give the diff of an opinionated Ukrainian editor on that topic [50].
9. shows that Kuban kazak's mission is to use Wikipedia to further Russian nationalist agenda in the areas where Russia is being challenged in real life: Belarus, Ukraine, Caucasus, Chechnya, Georgia. Same can be said about User:Hillock65, User:Biophys, User:Folantin, except from the opposite perspective. However I stress again, that when the people above sought victory in battle, I sought consensus.
10. To push this agenda was only possible through edit warring, of which this user has an extensive record and multiple blocks. If there is one thing that I do despise apart from double standards is lying. In that statement Hillock combines both! I've had 6 3RR blocks, of which only 2 were after me and Hillock came across, Hillock's block log [51], is of almost identical length. However if anyone doubts my comments, please review this AN/I thread. It really needs not say more of how his claims of revamping articles are nothing but reverts: [52].
11. In the areas, which he chose to monitor (Belarus, Ukraine, Chechnya) his edits are invariably accompanied by edit wars Which was why I was able to launch Portal:Chechnya with opinionated users w/o a single fad faith comment from either party, which was why I was able to have WP:CYR take off with Belarusian editors, and not to mention that of my barnstars six were given by Ukrainian editors...
12. where he misrepresents sources, introduces OR and even attempts to add as a sources such hateful book as "Ukraine is not Russia, it is a disease", that is the first genuine accusation that I can actually feedback to rather than dismiss as nonsense. Yes that is true that there were individual occasions as the examples shown that these instances have happened, however of all the people, Hillock's attitude to sourced material is equally dubious to say at least, as Russavia's comment below on Ukrainians in Russia shows. First of all the Ukraine is a disease book, was purely accidental I was searching for a passage to back a statement (which I was with different sources) and accidentally stumbled across this one, Hillock, for one, has done the same with greater regularity: [53], again same problem of source misrepresentation and Original research.
13. This user edit warring extends to everything that concerns Ukraine, As if that is not true for Hillock, at least I've managed to get my 3RR blocks on a range of articles, rather than be limited to Ukraine as in Hillock's case.
14. for example even in metro articles over the Russian language. To save the arbcom on time please see Rusavia's comment on how a WP:DR concerning the Russian language in names over an articles which Hillock never edited was hijacked by Hillock and due to my convincing arguments nationalist Ukrainophobic orders that Stalin's ghost gave to me I was repaid with an RfC and RfAR.

Evidence presented by Biophys

Offensive comments by Kuban Kazak

This user is often involved in intimidation and harassment of others. He usually uses Russian criminal slang for making threats to avoid detection. The particular expressions he is using are familiar for a native speaker from popular movies about the criminal world. Some of those expressions are considered very offensive (e.g. "Do not be the bitch [the traitor]" or "we will break your horns [we will beat you up to subdue]").

• "Do not be the bitch" (Нe будь сукой), meaning in this context: "Do not be the traitor (the "bitch"), do not collaborate with wikipedia administration" (this is an expression from Russian criminal slang, see article Bitch Wars) [54].
• [A comment to Folantin being blocked], edit summary[55]: "Folantin got what she deserved. We have beaten up (criminal slang for beaten up) much more special people, but it is better if others beat them up for us. And the best thing is when she does it herself." (this is translation by Colchicum from my talk page) . Kazak used an offensive expression that came from criminal slang Fenya in this particular combination: "I'll hit your horns off, tear your mouth, skew out your blinkers!" See also this discussion/explanation for more detail [56]. Translation comment: "Ломать Рога" (break horns) means "beat him/her up" in order to "subdue" in Russian criminal slang See this ref. to official Dictionary of Russain criminal slang.
• Edit summary: "rv the Little Russian troll"[57]
• "This dispute is settled. Go away, s... (offensive ethic slur denoting an Ukrainian)" ("This dispute is settled. Provalivay svidomyi")[58]
• Last phrase: "You are a disgusting Rat, that is the truth"("Противный ты вот правда Крыса")[59]
• "You [are] like a dog let of a leash"[60]

Threats and suggestions to create tag teams by KK

• "wether the arbitration would be successful or not, you are forgetting that there are more Russian wikipedian editors [than Ukrainian editors][61]
• "Do not blame Irpen. I blocked you here... I will invite more editors from the Southern or Eastern Ukraine, and they will make you a real partisan [meaning they will teach you a lesson] (Кстати действительно какой то вакуум в Украинских статьях образуеться из-за нехватки авторов с юга и востока Украины ... Знаешь я их приглашу, вот тогда тебе по-настоящему прийдеться партизанить ...)[62]
• I ask everyone to help me to show him [Hillock65] his place [63]. That was said in reply to complaint by User:Ghirlandajo. The entire passage by Kazak begins from the following: I would like to add to Ghirla's words, that en-wiki previously has several vandals-trolls. These are User:AlexPU, User:Ukrained and User:AndriyK (see here for more detail).
• [Message to User:Alex_Bakharev when he was elected a WP administrator]: "Congratulation! Now you should finish off one s... (ethnic slur for an Ukrainian) clown" (Передаю казачье поздравление тезка! Вот только теперь с одним свидомым клоуном надо довести дела до конца...)[64]
• "Irpen you are wasting your time..." and so on. Two last phrases about their WP opponents in the end "Just don't give those fish a hook to bite on. If needed, WE will blow them out with the dynamite!!!" (А если надо динамитом заглушим!!!). It is not quite clear what kind of "dynamite" Kazak and Irpen ["we"] are going to use against other WP users compared to "fish". That could be ArbCom proceedings, blocks, or something else [65]

Bad faith accusations by User:Russavia during this case

During this case Russavia made a number of offensive/bad faith comments:

• Accusing the entire ArbCom of "Stalinist trials", this one being an example [66]
• Repeatedly accusing FayssalF of bad faith [67] to prove the "Stalinist trial" thesis [68]. This accusation is certainly wrong. Making and correcting mistakes (if any) is a good faith action.
• Accusing me of "sneaky block-shopping and fishing" [69], and even a more aggressive comment here, when I looked into the alleged sockpuppeting issue (which resulted in the block by FayssalF mentioned by Russavia) and found that Russavia edits 24 hours non-stop, which might indicate multiple users using the same account. I only asked an uninvolved admin [70], which is not a wrongdoing.

Defamation campaign by Kuban Kazak and Russavia

• In reply to my evidence in this case, KK and Russavia accused me of "outing" KK at the ANI [71], [72], talk pages, and below. These claims are false. I do not care and know nothing about anyone's identity or "ethnicity".

• Russavia also accused me of BLP violations. He did this everywhere: during an unrelated AfD discussion, at the talk page of Kirill, at the BLP noticeboard, and WP:RS noticeboard. After looking at the matter, I decided that it would be safer to remove the defamatory information (even though one might ague it was OK sourced). I removed it and reported to BLP noticeboard that the problem has been resolved:[73]. And what Russavia does? He re-inserts essentially the same text, but only making it bigger, which only creates additional "undue" problems because the entire controversy is hardly notable. When I tried at least to shorten up the defamatory statement about living person, he reverted me and was blocked for a 3RR violation.

Harassment by Russavia did not stop

• I am not going to provide any evidence prior to the Russavia block for harassing me. When he came back from the block, I suggested him to live in peace.
• No, he did not stop but continued following and reverting my edits everywhere, including a revert in my own evidence section, and in many articles: [74],[75], [76],[77].
• He also teamed up with other users. He invited User:LokiiT to fight me [78]. He also said: "I will ask other members of the web brigade editors for their opinion."[79]. And... User:Beatle Fab Four, an old warier of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn[80] who hunted "trolls or jackals" together with banned User:M.V.E.i.[81] came and deleted all perfectly sourced materials from a book by two notable historians. Beatle Fab Four said: "I restored version by Russavia"[82],[83],and suggested to block me later [84] (most of BBF claims in the last diff are false, but I should not comment on that).
• I finally tried to convince Rusavia to avoid each other's edits, as another user suggested, but he refused [85] [86].

Reply to KK

Yes, I completely agree with KK that two Ukrainian users and administrator Mikkalai were uncivil. Yes, Mikkalai received a block, and the majority of administrators were on the side of KK. Yes, KK might indeed be provoked in a few cases, although certainly not in the case of Folantin who simply debated the content issues. Yes, it would be fine for ArbCom to consider behavior of other users as well. However, this does not excuse KK. As about my translations and interpretations of Russian texts, all of them are double checked. Not to mention that Kirill can easily check any Russian language issues as a native speaker.Biophys (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Folantin

Kuban Kazak edit wars to insert false Russian-language sources

I’m interested in the Caucasus region. I don’t come from the area and I have no particular dog in any of the fights there but I’ve managed to edit articles on Georgia, Ossetia, Armenia etc. without anyone getting upset. I don’t edit much on Chechnya, but I had the Chechen people page watchlisted simply because I had contributed to the etymology section, including adding a valid reference. Then on 2 July 2008 Kuban Kazak arrived and slapped a "citation needed" tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources [87] focussing the article on Cossacks rather than Chechens. He re-added the “citation needed” tag to my sourced material twice [88] [89] in spite of being told it was referenced in the edit summaries. When he finally added references for his material (mostly to online sources in Russian) [90] I investigated. Since I am able to read some Russian I checked out one of them as a sample (an online page written by Alexander Uralov). It did not contain any reference to the fact it was supposed to verify. Moreover, the whole tenor of the source he used said exactly the opposite of what he was claiming in the article (i.e. the Chechens collaborated en masse with the Germans in World War Two). See my translation and explanation of this source on my user sub-page here for further details. When challenged about this misuse of sources [91], he tried to change the subject [92], then offered another source in Russian (a newspaper article) [93] which again failed to back the fact cited [94] (the 80% statistic). He refused to give any explanation for his behaviour, finally telling me to clean up his mess myself [95]. I reverted him and began to source the previous version of the article, adding a reference from a reliable source in English to a fact he had marked as "dubious" [96]. The next morning KK reverted me and reinstated his material, including the Uralov reference to the 80% statistic which he knew was false [97]. Much edit-warring ensued. On July 21 (i.e. over two weeks after he had first inserted it) he finally dropped the Uralov reference from his proposed revision of the article [98] (maybe he had read it at last).

Kuban Kazak's attitude to WP:V and WP:RS

WP:V says: “Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.”

KK is not keen on this. He prefers WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a way of assessing sources, adding “dubious” tags to ones he doesn’t like (e.g. on Nichols [99]). KK objects to English-language sources in favour of his own Russian-language ones. When he selects an English-language source he approves of it contains no reference to his claims.

• Rejects English-language source by Joanna Nichols, tenured Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Berkeley [100] who teaches a course on the Russian-Chechen Wars. Implies she is equivalent to a Holocaust denier:“again there are professors funded by most reputable organisations that deny Holocaust” [101] (lower of the two sections he added). This blatant BLP violation on ANI itself was ignored by admins.

• Objects to Amjad Jaimoukha’s The Chechens: a Handbook (a standard English-language ethnographical account) [102]. KK rejects Jaimoukha in favour of Peter Hopkirk. “For example it [Jaimoukha’s book] ignores the savegery of the Chechen attacks on Cossack stanitsas as documented by a wide scale of international historians such as Peter Hopkirk's book The Great Game". Unfortunately, Hopkirk’s book contains no reference to the Chechens whatsoever. “Chechen” (or variants thereof) is not in the index and a scan at Google books and Amazon Online Reader reveals nothing. This doesn’t stop KK from planning to use Hopkirk to reference the following statement: “"The Chechens were known for their bitter savagery against the Russian military, and civilian population during their raids”.([103] Note 5). When challenged he claims he will go and find the exact page [104]. That was July 22. Since then, no response.

Uninvolved users' comments on the above at ANI

User:Mathsci comments on the academic credentials of Nichols and Jaimoukha and notes KK has engaged in "nationalist edit-warring" elsewhere[105]. Another comment by Mathsci [106]. User:Akhilleus comments on KK's "tendentious" attitude to sources and notes the description of a tenured professor as a Holocaust denier [107]. User:Dougweller comments at length ("It should be a red flag when someone is calling academic sources 'biased'") [108].

Conclusion

KK seems to be here to WP:SOAPBOX, pushing through his version in defiance of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. He uses the Russian language as a smokescreen. It was only because I can read some Russian that I was able to check up on his sources. Biophys' evidence shows another way he uses the Russian language to evade policy on Wikipedia.en. Given the history between Cossacks and Chechens, I think he lacks the objectivity to edit articles on Chechen (or other Caucasian) topics.

Brief reply to KK

Um, you reinserted the reference to the "80% statistic" even after you knew it was false. You only offered me that half-hearted apology after you lost your chief ally "User:Log in Log out" when he was banned as a sock of User:M.V.E.i and you were feeling a little exposed. As my evidence shows, you still wanted to reinsert the Uralov 80% ref until July 21 (long after any of the diffs you give). You "gave up altogether" after I asked you to prove that the Hopkirk book you were allegedly using as a source contained some mention of the Chechens.

Evidence presented by Russavia

Stalking of Kuban_kazak by Hillock65

Hillock refers to an RFC and Medcab above. If we look at the article in question, Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, it appears that KK and Akhristov worked on this together (with some edit warring), and the dispute that arose was whether Russian language names are suitable for "Ukrainian" topics. Hillock prior to that dispute doesn't appear to have edited any articles relating to Metro topics before this, and it appears that his intervention was due to this message left for Hillock65 on the uk:wiki (in which he calls KK a rabid Russian nationalist), so it appears that Hillock65 had no place in that dispute, except for his being canvassed by another editor to get himself involved; the dispute being hijacked as a result. Before Hillock initiated the medcom request, he filed an RFC against KK, which appears not to have been anything but an attempt to corner and get rid of an opponent.

The AN/I comment by KK may demonstrate that Hillock's editing pattern on en:wiki is somewhat limited to interwiki links and perhaps stalking of KK's edits; for example: [109], [110], [111]....the list goes on, but a pattern has emerged; KK would make an edit to an article, which he would be familiar with. Hillock would immediately revert, provoking an edit war, and takes an uncompromising stance; for example Talk:Ukrainians in Russia#Kuban section and neutrality when KK presented sourced material to Hillock, he removed it completely, not even bothering to check it; when User:Faustian re-presented it to Hillock, he accepted KKs version. It appears the only way Hillock can compromise with KK is when a third party (often an Ukrainian editor) repeats what KK has said. Thus, are we to say that it is KKs additions that are not justified and warranted?

KK has a huge number of contributions, has written countless articles from scratch, and for that, despite sometimes holding opposite viewpoints on history and politics to many Ukrainian editors, he has been able to get on perfectly with the majority of them. Indeed, as KK pointed out on AN/I out of the six barnstars, four were given by Ukrainians, that is at a time that Hillock was unable to get on with any editor (including non-Russian ones) that opposed him. At the same time, KK has been a somewhat stabilising force in the Ukraine-Russia area over the edits of his that I have familiarised myself with.

In regards to the edits picked out by Hillock above, using Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant as an example, I have reverted Hillock's removal of the Russian name out of the lead; this appears to be a major thing with Hillock, in that perfectly legitimate insertions of Russian language names are removed, in what appears to me to be a desire to rid legitimate entries of Russian from Ukrainian-related articles. So I think, that this arbitration request should be looking at some severe issues that Hillock has, instead of simply being an attack on and an attempt to get rid of an opponent that is clearly what he is trying to do.

Looking at the dispute surrounding Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, I have come across this arbcom filing from 12 months ago. Then arbcom did not take the case, and as the essential elements have not changed...there's a dispute and an editor appears to clearly abusing arbcom processes in order to take out an opponent. This is best dealt with for the time being on an editor level, rather than at arbcom.

Discussion of ethnicity by Biophys

At the admin noticeboard User:Miyokan was banned at a result of discussion, and I was blocked for 2 weeks for alleged harrassment of Biophys based upon his alleged ethnicity. It was made very, very clear at that forum that the discussion of and/or insinuation of other peoples' ethnicity was an absolute no-no; and I agree with this. At the initial discussion of the arbcom case, Biophys made the comment; Please do not think that Kuban_kazak is actually a Cossack in his real life. He is not. This got the expected denial from Kuban_kazak, and a question from KK as to whether he is going to have to show his passport, etc in order to prove it is who he is. As Biophys was at the receiving end of Miyokan's ban discussion, he knows full well that the discussion of others ethnicity is not on. Apart from being a form of harrassment and/or personal attack, it does nothing to create a harmonious editing environment amongst editors. It should be noted also that Biophys not 24 hours ago removed that comment from the evidence page, claiming it is not relevant, but it is entirely relevant, particularly given Biophys' consistent harrassment of other editors, in the form of discussion of their belonging to web brigades and the like. (refer Piotrus2 arbcom for information).

In response to Biophys above, several things. Firstly, there is a concept self identification. Cossacks see themselves as a distinct ethnic group; many don't see themselves as being Russian, or Ukrainian, but as Cossacks. If KK says he is a Cossack, it is not up to anyone else to dispute that. I do thank you for the diff you supplied and which you used to doubt his ethnicity, for if anything it shows that KK is a somewhat impartial editor on such things; for him to acknowledge that some of his own group were pro-Nazi shows that he is somewhat impartial on that issue, for it is true that some Cossacks were pro-Nazi. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have struck this on the basis of KK accepting apology by Biophys, and so long as Biophys now understands that discussion of any editors ethnicity, purported or real, is not helpful to the project. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Grey Fox-9589

Disrespect for other view points and offensive comments

Kuban Kazak is quite exhausting Russophile when you disagree with him. He is not shy to claim that he served (and still serves) in the Russian army and participated in the 'liberation of Grozny' (which became the most destroyed city in europe since dresden). My experience with him is usually when he decides to edit Chechen related articles, in which he tries to give his personal account of chechnya's history, often accompanied with insults, that, despite frequent warnings, never stop. Here's a few examples in chronologic order:

• "All of the commanders are dead (and burning in Hell!)", "Please stop pushing the pro-Terrorist POV into the articles" [112]

• This PIG himself admitted to being a terrorist, what more do you need?"[113] And warning: [114]

• "Well Russia freed Grozny from the Ichkerian filth in early 2000,"[115] And warning: [116]

• "Yes they are criminals and human scum and the biggest mistake was that their parents did not use condoms on that unfortunate night." [117]

• "That is real Chechens, not insurgent scum, but since the latter don't exist anymore, that eliminates the problem" [118]

This is, of course, unacceptable behaviour in violation with policies such as WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE. Not only are there neutral users working on chechen related topics who are annoyed and provoked by such behaviour, there's also Chechens on wikipedia who can be provoked by such language. Warnings however never seem to work.

Use of false sources

I was collecting examples of Kuban Kazak falsifying sources, but I noticed User:Folantin already did that. It's a disruptive way of editing wikipedia, because it requires editors such as me to constantly go through Kuban Kuzak's sources to check if they're reliable, or even if they actually contain said information. We can't purchase every book he cites can we? Apart from these cases, Kuban Kazak also tends to simply not source information at all, such as during this episode of revert warring: [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] And here: [124]. There's many more examples, one would only have to go through his edit history and see them right away. He recently did provide a source after I removed the redflag information, but again the source said something different.[125]. His text says "Chechens formed the majority in all mountanous regions, and half of the population in traditional ethnic Russian/Cossack regions (Terek left bank, Sunzha, major cities) the catalyst was set for the mass ethnic cleansing of the Russian population that took place in the 1990s". Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, and while the given source does speak of discrimination, nowhere does it speak of "ethnic cleansing" let alone "mass ethnic cleansing".[126] This behaviour has an endless patern, at the start of 2008 he was already asked to stop inserting the myth of ethnic cleansing of russians [127]. (On his user page he goes a step further, accusing Chechens of commiting genocide during this period in time.)

All in all, I've seen users banned for far less uncivil behaviour and am amazed that with such a block log Kuban Kazak is still able to continue this type of behaviour, especially on eastern european related subjects which fell under special enforcement sanctions by ArbComm. And as usual, other Russophiles come to aid when one Russophile is under attack, but they aren't the ones who have to cope with such behaviour constantly.

Evidence presented by Alaexis

General points

I have limited experience of interacting with these two users. The event I remember most was the dispute over the Russians in Ukraine article; I helped to establish the compromise version then (I hope so, at least). I've also come across Kazak's edits in various Russia-related articles, including some controversial ones. Judging from all this my firm opinion is that both of these users are good contributors and any arbcom decision shouldn't impede their ability to write articles in the areas of their knowledge.

Regarding the evidence against KK

Many of the diffs are about Kuban Kazak's political views and obviously they have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies. Introducing OR is a more serious accusation however nothing is said about OR in that diff. Mikkalai's words there are about completely different things.

The most serious accusation is the "use of false sources", as User:Grey Fox-9589 put it. He writes about the dispute about the ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in Chechnya in early 90s. The provided source tells about harassment and discrimination of ethnic Russians and about their exodus. This particular source does not use the words 'ethnic cleansing' but there are others that do (example). So this cleansing is not a myth and falsification is too strong a word for KK's actions.

Evidence presented by User:Colchicum

Verifiability

I have heard that Kuban kazak is a prolific contributor to WP:SOVMETRO, but in my opinion unsourced content is something we can live without, and he is notoriously reluctant to provide references if he understands the content policies at all, see e.g. [128], [129] (not a trivial question, Pyongyang Metro may be deeper). And we've already heard about the quality of his references regarding Chechnya. I am sorry, but it is not clear whether on average his contributions are helpful, while it is hardly disputable that he is extremely rude and prone to edit-warring. Colchicum (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Mikkalai

Militant disrespect to Verifiability policy

I second user:Colchicum. And kazak is quite aggressive in his dismissive attitude to the most basic wikipedia policy about content. If necessary I can provide ample evidence. In addition to being extremely rude, he will not hesitate to immediately and laborously smear with dirt others when felt insulted. While it was not very smart from my side to make a hint to "read the fucking manual" joke (I assumed it was a friendly joke response to the insult of me being a vandal, because I have never had any conflicts with him; in fact, we often sided against Russia-bashers; still I reverted my own revert 14 minutes later), I was completely overwhelmed with the administritis fury what followed. It looks like he has so long memory of hatred that even dragged my name through mud in this Evidence page, even though I have never ever had any relation to his conflict with Hillock. `'Míkka>t 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Moreschi

Userpage soapboxing

December 2007

Here is the December 2007 version: the picture of Stalin is clearly intended to provoke, despite disclaimer. Mr Cossack claims he is not a Stalinist, but that he was responding to this (a ribbon in favour of an independent Chechnya). Stalin was responsible for the deportation of the entire Chechen people, during which 25-50% of them died, an event often described as a “genocide”. Highly offensive and disproportionate response.

September 2008

Mr Cossack threatens to hang Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia [130]. Image and message removed by Irpen as “unacceptable” [131]. Reinstated by Mr Cossack [132] who then removes the image “for size matters” but not the text “[133]. Finally removes text after long user talk debate [134]. There is still a reference to Georgians as “fascists” on the user page, which LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removes [135] per WP:SOAPBOX. Warring continues and ends up at ANI where Mr Cossack gets a 24-hour block from Fish and karate (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

The full ANI debate is here: [136] (Archive 483). Conclusion: soapboxer, ban, please. Moreschi (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)