Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kuban kazak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would actually be surprised if User:Ghirlandajo objectively treated the subject and didn't try to be overly enthusiastic in his attempts to defend delinquent Russian editors here and almost on all other message boards[1][2]. Kuban Kazak's record of incivility and revert warring goes far beyond the Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. In my summary above I provided ample evidence of desruptive behaviour way beyond one Kiev Metro article. But since User: Ghirlandajo insists there is nothing beyond this issue, I will ammend my summary above with 2 more policy violations WP:HAR and WP:POINT, for which I will present evidence. Instead of an honest attempt to appear unbiased User:Ghirlandajo is engaged in character assassinations of those, who dare to question actions of those for whom he advocates. Here goes anothere conspiracy theory of Hillock65 and Co, even though unlike him I do not advocate for anybody with questionable track record. To reiterate the request I made before, I would like to ask him to abstain from personal attacks and character assassination attempts and focus on the behaviour of one of his proteges. We doesn't need to exhibit incivility here, of which he has been warned and banned numerous times[3]. --Hillock65 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Ever changing "evidence" section
Three days after the RfC was launched, Akhristov and Hillock65 completely recast it and altered the substance of their accusations, so all the previous comments appear now to be moot, as they addressed a different assortment of evidence. Since the footing for this request is constantly modified by the accusers, it confirms my suspicion that the page is primarily a vehicle for harrassing their opponent in a content dispute. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think changing diffs to back up one's claim to a better instance or summarizing what is being shown by the links and diffs, constitutes as harrassment, as long as the complaints are same. As far as I can recall, the complaints have stayed the same since inception. --soum talk 10:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unlike you, Ghirla this is my first RfC ever, so, naturally I did make a lot of mistakes - misplaced evedence, omitted important facts. I did make an honest attempt to put everything together. I cannot see, how the timing of presenting evidence can exuse your friend's behaviour. It doesn't matter, when additional evidence is presented, if it shows Kuban Kozak's disruptive behaviour, it belongs here. You can come with better excuses than these.--Hillock65 11:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Necessary procedure comment
Mr.Ghirla's view contains false information that may spoil the procedure. This is a USER CONDUCT RfC regarding general conduct of User:Kuban kazak. In particular, it is filed in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct section (filed [4] long before first answers on this request appeared). I don't know how such a misleading information by Mr.Ghirla appeared, but all participants and readers of the RfC should be aware of the real status of the procedure. Ukrained 09:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Mind-boggling histories of personal attacks"
User:Ghirlandajo was as kind and neutral as calling AlexPU a user with "mind-boggling history of personal attacks" [5] (but probably denying this fact in regard to Kuban kazak). I'll refrain from judging this statement here.
Instead, look what I've got: 10 to 15 users agreed that Mr.Ghirlandajo himself was a revert-warrior, POV-pusher and troll. And that was only one of two RfCs on User:Ghirlandajo (I'm sure not the last one).
Given that, I'm asking Mr. Ghirlandajo, as a courtesy, to not call anybody a "personal attacker". His apologies presented to AlexPU would also be great.
Seriously, I'm asking everybody to stay within the limits and refrain from turning the RfC page into a circus with procedure tricks and attacks on users that happen to dislike Mr. Kuban kazak. Please remember that such a circus would discredit anyone involved, regardless of national identity. If someone feels an unbearable need to troll and attack Ukrainian users, please direct your attempts here. Happy edits, Ukrained 10:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested resolution
Here's my suggested resolution: keep Kuban kazak from editing Ukraine-related articles for a period of time agreed upon by RfC participants, and keep a close watch on his contrubtions. As soon as he breaks a Wikipedia policy, he should be blocked for a period of time (also decided by RfC participants). Please list your propositions as to the amount of time below. — Alex(U|C|E) 12:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure RfC has the authority to ban somebody from the articles. At any rate this decision is counterproductive: most contributions of Kuban Kazak on Ukrainian themes are quite good. Wiki policies are edited daily and their interpretation is widely different. Alex Bakharev 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I dare to disagree. The presented evidence shows exactly the opposite. While his contributions on Metro articles generally don't cause concern, his edit warring, POV-pushing and incivility is overwhelmingly restricted particularly to Ukraine-related articles. Very much so. If he is banned from editing Ukrainian articles and left to work on topics that he is good at, the project will only benefit.--Hillock65 13:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- And here I would like to point out the following sentence from Akhristov's request: "Since we were the only two contributors to the article, consensus was reached." How can consensus be claimed to exist when the major contributor to Metro articles (as acknowledged in the preceding comment) has not yet appeared on that page? --Pan Gerwazy 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no precondition that concensus can only exist with a particular user to be present. No one owns any articles and no one has absolute monopoly of opinion. Concensus very well may exist without the major contributor to Metro articles or any other article. --Hillock65 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- And here I would like to point out the following sentence from Akhristov's request: "Since we were the only two contributors to the article, consensus was reached." How can consensus be claimed to exist when the major contributor to Metro articles (as acknowledged in the preceding comment) has not yet appeared on that page? --Pan Gerwazy 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dare to disagree. The presented evidence shows exactly the opposite. While his contributions on Metro articles generally don't cause concern, his edit warring, POV-pushing and incivility is overwhelmingly restricted particularly to Ukraine-related articles. Very much so. If he is banned from editing Ukrainian articles and left to work on topics that he is good at, the project will only benefit.--Hillock65 13:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- My suggestion would be to impose a non-revert restriction to his edits, and a no personal attack clause, with strict surveillance. If he violates, the case can be taken to ArbCom. --soum talk 13:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well you might as well start drafting an arbcom, because I refused to participate in this RfC which is based solely on double standards and PA. Should I also launch a similar set of Rfcs agains half of the people who are participating? (just an example of the colourful language that they use, should that not be assesed accordingly, with a prohibitation of editing Ukrainian articles?) I will not respond to this RfC and you will never get me to, nor will I change my edit habit, unless an arbitrator tells me to. I am not afraid of a bunch of hard-headed nationalist cowards. So go on file an arbcom, though do tell me when you do so, so I can file an equal one on each and every single one of you! Until then, no further comments. (this rfc ain't even on my watchlist btw). --Kuban Cossack 13:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
