This link by Hillock65 maybe an important evidence: [1]. However, the key statement by Kazak ("Короче, если кто знает англиский прошу помочь поставить его на место."), in reply to complaint by User:Ghirlandajo, should be translated to English by someone trusted by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I would love to do so, and paste it into my evidence:

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, the former two are insignificant, hooligans, whilst the the latter is an out-of-control troll. Previously he was banned by the arbcom, and other administrators (whose temper he expired)...and returning from the bans, picks up where he left. Several days ago we've seen just that.

However I am completely shocked by User:Hillock65. In he came on Russians in Ukraine and is not letting anyone have slack. Stubborn, uncompromisable and pushes forward like a tank, and on top of that throws tantrums. Should someone ever mention anything to him, i.e. stop insulting me and begins to whine all over wikipedia. Trying to constructively discuss the issue with him...Here are some examples:--

1. I wrote how the borders of Ukraine developed during the Russian Civil War. There I listed all the short-lived republics (Soviet) DKR, Odessa, Taurida etc. He demands on the inclusion of a Don Soviet Republic. I tell him that Don was never part of Ukraine and is outside her borders. He finds a source where it is loosely written that Central Rada declared its borders on the whole Yekaterinoslav Governorate, which included the Don. Examining the map, and we see that the Don is not on the map...well no, for him its not a proof, if its written in "the source" then such is the case. Anyone wishing to do so can read this bullshit
2. When we discussed the Kievan Rus, he demanded to include Belarusians (despite the fact that the article is about Russians not them). Because as he explains They are our brothers which had to endure the same bad fate as we (i.e. the Ukrainians) by living in the Russian Empire. So how should I react to this? Disregard it as bullshit, he'll whine. Ask him have you lost it completely? Also will while, and simultaneously continues to revert...

However he himself is very demanding for sources, and I when I, for example, refer him to Russian wikipedia, he does not even wish to know of such e.g.. This is irrespective of the fact that quality-wise, our articles, written mostly by Vodnik, are brilliant,every sentence is referenced there. Anyhow if anyone knows English I ask for aid in putting him back in his place.

Now I will also add some annotations to the comments above in due course.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is my version. You ask everyone in Russian WP to help you to bring down Hillock65 ("Короче, если кто знает англиский прошу помочь поставить его на место."). You do it in reply to a suggestion by User:Ghirlandajo that something should be done with Ukraininan users.Biophys (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KK's translation leaves much of the rudeness out. For example, I failed to find the translation of this: Послать, заскулит. Not that it matters that much, anyway. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's obviously some rough spots in the translation, but it's accurate enough in substance—if not necessarily in tone—that it's not really a big deal as far as I'm concerned. Kirill ^(prof) 01:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that an arbitrator can begin preparing a proposed decision in this case within the next few days. It would be helpful if the parties or other interested editors could indicate whether they have completed presenting their evidence, or if not, by when they anticipate being able to do so. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am anything from complete, on the contrary the breadth of evidence that I can gather is such that it is best to wait until my opponents present theirs so I can at least know where to search for it and which parts to pull out.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As per Kuban_kazak, the pushing for a proposed decision when it is clear that evidence has not yet presented by some parties is reeking to me of a potential railroading of Kuban_kazak, particularly as Kirill has already drawn up proposals on banning KK, yet nothing at all to do with Hillock. If the members of the committee have already made up their mind as to what the outcome of this arbcom is going to be, without allowing ample time for all parties in this dispute to have their case heard, then please make it known so that others needn't waste their time looking for a fair decision. Such things are indicative of show trials under Stalin. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Grey Fox-9589 apparently wants to provide some evidence [2]. I left him a message. I completed my part. Biophys (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completed presenting evidence too. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. This is my first time on an arbitration page so I hope I'm doing it correctly. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grey Fox: I see no problems with the evidence you have presented. AGK 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Although it's possible I might add a few minor, additional points later (depending on the circumstances), I've given the bulk of my evidence and I'm happy for ArbCom to consider it now. --Folantin (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted the message above because the committee has been criticized (sometimes justifiably) for taking too long to render decisions, so I have been trying to make sure that rulings are issued timely, especially in the smaller cases with just a couple of parties directly named. There is a norm of practice that evidence should be submitted within one week if possible, although this has been not usually been achieved. I didn't indicate that I was set on a particular schedule, or suggest that any party or observer should have less than a full opportunity to present evidence, so if Kuban Kazak or anyone else needs a bit more time, all I need is for him or her to say so with a time estimate. However, references here or anywhere else in the arbitration process to "Stalinist" "show trials" are grossly inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry for that. I did not mean Arbcom proceedings, but only a specific statement by Irpen.Biophys (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think he was talking about User Russavia's comment above, not yours. Ostap 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYbrad, the committee may have been criticised in the past for taking too long, but the timing of your note, and the fact that proposed decisions have already been made without giving time for an involved party to provide a shred of evidence, casts doubt in my mind. Given that this same arbcom has yet to respond at all to my email from two months ago, and several follow up requests, regarding my sockpuppet debacle, you'll excuse me for being highly sceptical of anything this Arbcom does. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russavia: Emails to the mailing list do occasionally receive no response; this problem is derived solely from the sheer volume of messages that pass through ArbCom-l per day. I would advise you re-send the message (and perhaps also ping an Arbitrator via their talk page, email, or IRC, requesting they handle the message). It is likely that your email was simply snowed under the other messages and not noticed. AGK 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AGK, whilst I understand your message, and why you have posted it, I believe the arbcom has some questions to answer here, because it has been confirmed that the first email was received, as I received a reply on 21 September which stated: "Yes, emails received and a little discussion has happened. Our docket is full at the moment so I can not give a promise of a speedy resolution." It is the emails which I have sent since requesting answers since which have gone unanswered, and I can clearly demonstrate that the docket is not full, because of the number of ARBCOM cases which have been accepted and worked on since then. The latter part of this is akin to one refusing to answer the door when a debt collector comes knocking. FayssalF was consistently uncivil to myself during that debacle, and basically forced me to out myself, and a simple apology does not cut it. I want, and am entitled to, an explanation as to what happened, how it happened, who or what was responsible, and what has happened so that it doesn't occur again in future. If ARBCOM doesn't want to provide a public answer because they think it will simply just go away, I would more than happy to have the entire mess re-instated onto my talk page, and force the issue...I see ARBCOM elections are coming up...perhaps that might be a suitable forum to question candidates on whether they believe such behaviour from arbcom members is acceptable and whether ignoring these issues is something that Arbcom should do. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some people are already asking such questions [3].Biophys (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, User:Russavia and User:Miyokan know my real name (not "ethnicity"), and they both posted information about it in WP (this is all well known to Moreschi and Lars). Russavia received a block for doing just that. The statement by him is factually incorrect. I do not care about anyone's "ethnicity", as my ancestors were Russian, Jewish, Armenian, and Georgian. Culturally, I am Russian.

Cossacks are a social group, not an ethnic group. I doubt that Kazak belongs to that group because he painted them as "Pro-Nazi" [4]. Claiming their "enemies" to be "Pro-Nazi" [5] is a standard Soviet propaganda trick. All mass exterminations of nations in the Soviet Union were "justified" by the Soviet propaganda on the grounds that the entire nations were allegedly "pro-Nazi". Now KK places same thing in WP about ... Cossacks. I have no idea who KK is in real life and therefore can not disclose his identity.Biophys (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "pro-Nazi" part: It is a misunderstanding of user:Biophys. Kazak added the epithet "pro-Nazi" specifically to single out pro-Nazi Cossacks, so that the text in question would not be read as about all Cossacks. While the intentions of Biophys are noble, his statements, including the one above, are often of poor logic and full of exaggeration with political purposes. `'Míkka>t 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully disagree. This is diff. The subject of the article "refers to the forced repatriation of pro-Nazi Cossacks and ethnic Russians to the U.S.S.R. at the Second World War..." That was a forced repatriation of civilians (including Cossack women and children) along with militant Cossacks. The statement implicitly justifies the massacre of civilians by NKVD/SMERH, the crime against humanity (they are all "pro-Nazi", hence they got what they deserved). That was also debated at my talk page [6]. This has nothing to do with politics. This is merely a human rights matter.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I understand your point (I am quite aware about Soviet crimes; I wrote half of the articles on the topic, including the one you mention), my point is you are attacking Kazak accusing him of tricks of Soviet propaganda. Let's not go into moral discussion about the WWII event here and how the edit in question could have been phrased better. The fact remains that you are attacking Kazak for his edit judging it from your political POV, not from whether his edit was well sourced. While I respect you for your many contributions, your mindset is way too politicized. This, in particular, prevents you from seeing the logical error in your reasoning, because you simply ignored the essence of my comment and dived back into politics. `'Míkka>t 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the statement by KK implicates all Cossacks who were transferred to the Soviet Union. "Politics" means to be "pro-Soviet" or "anti-Soviet". Yes, you can tell that I have an anti-Soviet bias, just as I have anti-Nazi and anti-racist biases. But I have all such biases for only one reason: I support human rights. It does not matter for me if people have been exterminated based on their race, ethnicity or based on their social origin, as in the case of Decossackization. Yes, I have that bias. But that bias is a humanitarian one; it is not of "political" nature. No, I do not "attack" anyone as you tell. I only cricize a certain type of propaganda by KK, and many others agree that he is involved in soapboxing.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a strong impression that you are not interested in what I am saying. Let me repeat: In this particular thread you are specifically attacking KK because you don't like his edits. What is more, your attack is dishonest, because you falsely accused Kazak that he painted them [Cossacks] as "Pro-Nazi", and your last correction does not fix the problem. Now, let me stress: I am specifically phrasing in this way: "your attack is dishonest". Assuming that you are a honest person, I may conclude that the dishonesty of the statement comes from you genuine lack of understanding that you are making a logical blunder. I mentioned the "logical error" above, but you did not react to this. I may conclude that you are less interested in a logical discussion than in a display of your political preferences and dislikes. `'Míkka>t 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exercise: Find a logical fallacy in the (combined) statement of Biophys: I doubt that Kazak belongs to that group [Cossacks] because he painted them as "Pro-Nazi" (the statement by KK implicates all Cossacks who were transferred to the Soviet Union) . Hint: start from wikipedia article "logical fallacy" and get familiar with them all. Very useful both in real life and wikipedia editing. The first wikipedian who reports correctly to me will be awarded (TBD). `'Míkka>t 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine. I withdraw a part of my statement to stop this discussion. Indeed, my main point was a reply to Russavia, rather than anything about KK.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In other words, you refuse to admit that you were wrong. This is fine with me as long as you understand what error you have made and why. Do you? `'Míkka>t 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, let me apologize for speculating that KK does not belong to Cossacks. This is simply irrelevant to this case, and I could not imagine that KK would make a big story of it. That is why I deleted a part of my statement above. Second, this deleted part is not a logical conclusion but an assumption (logical fallacy does not apply). If I was a Chechen, I would never try to constuct a phrase implying that all Chechens are "pro-Nazi", knowing that many thousands of my fellow Chechen compatriots have been executed based on the false accusations that they are "pro-Nazi". Actually, I would never try to constuct a phrase implying that all Germans were "pro-Nazi".Biophys (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong answer; no award. A cookie for an apology, however. Training exercise: read wikipedia articles conclusion and assumption. Exercise 2: please explain what logical fallacy is used when Biophys addresses my question about the italicized statement with the answer about the "deleted part". Note: Answers to all exercises will be printed as usual by the end of the week; look for small print upside down. `'Míkka>t 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read KK's edits the same way as you did. It was a bad edit of his and a bit unclear but I read it as good faith. At the same time however, I've noticed about ten instances of KK trying to edit how Chechens were mass nazi collaborators, even though that's largely detested by historians, so that point stays. Grey Fox (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it was good faith, and now the text says basically what he wanted, but in a neutral way. Yes, Kazak's style and tone is not neutral, but this is a matter of context editing, so let's not start fingerpointing: there are quite a few political fighters around on both sides of the fence, on the fence and under. The problem to be discussed is not what he writes in articles, but how he communicates with colleagues. Otherwise this will be nothing but politically motivated witch hunt. `'Míkka>t 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]