Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Has been warned on multiple occasions about avoiding vandalism, incivility, disruptive behaviour, and patronizing, but continues nonetheless. Has been banned several times last week on WP:3RR. His edits on Terrorism in Kazakhstan Hizb ut-Tahrir East Turkestan Islamic Movement Huseyincan Celil New Great Game have been contested by multiple users on violating WP:NPOV, WP:AD but he has continued to engage in incivility, personal attacks, name-calling and patronizing when asked to reference his POVs on disputed contemporary issues. He refuses outright to engage in discussion on the subject, instead constantly reverts NPOV edits to push POVs. He sprays multiple pages with the word "Terrorism which is a term to be avoided and used sparingly on Wikipedia.

Desired outcome

No more disruption on Terrorism in Kazakhstan New Great Game Hizb ut-Tahrir East Turkestan Islamic Movement and other Central Asia articles, and no more POV pushing. Restoring a constructive atmosphere so that these pages could be edited and improved.

Description

The user has been reverting edits by other users without engaging in a constructive dialog to overcome disputed points. He virtually prevents other users from editing pages he has started or just made a contribution. He insist on name calling, harrasing other editors with pejorative words like "nonsense" "vandalism" "ridiculous" "lie" "amusing" etc.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism uses the word terrorist in the narrative voice.
2. WP:BLP: [1] The issue here is about a person whose status has been debated, but the user single-handedly convicts him on terrorism charges.
3. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:VANDAL: [2] [3] [4] "Nonsense" "lie" "ridiculous" "amusing" are his replies to the users who tried to engage him on the subject.
4. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL: Calls two users who do not agree with him "vandal," accuses fellow editors of being members of a party or organization [ [5]
5. WP:AD, WP:NPOV Peppers multiple Islam-related pages with the word "terrorism." Goes in extremes to hail dubious pages from google to give the impression that he is referencing his sources. On multiple occasions, however, his own citations contradict him. Refuses to acknowledge the contradiction between his POV and his source. Here is an example [6]. Here is another ; Explnation of my edits - please discuss not edit war Here, My edits reverted without discussion.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:WTA
2. WP:BLP
3. WP:CIVIL
4. WP:NPOV
5. WP:HAR
6. WP:NPA
7. WP:POINT
8. WP:-(

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. Talk:Hizb_ut-Tahrir

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. cs 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Aaliyah Stevens 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I must add that KazakhPol has been most uncivil towards me, repetitively cites, or references his false claims to references that actually contradict his point, hoping to pull the wool over readers eyes, and at times blatantly insisting on a false reference e.g. that FIS are listed on the US state departments terrorist list, when they are clearly not. The most telling discussion is on the talk page of Hizb ut-Tahrir reply
3. Zleitzen ( Talk) 10:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) There is a real issue with KazakhPol's interpretation of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS in relation to terrorism that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. reply
4. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC) A very troublesome editor. Abuses other editors, repeatedly calls us vandals, constantly reverts, adds disputed or POV tags when he doesn't get his own way, and won't allow them to be removed even after weeks. Latest example here. reply
5. TheColdTruth 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Based on the references provided above, and most of edits by KazakhPol, anyone will be able to see the fact that KazakhPol's edits push specious propaganda and POV, and distort realities. reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. — Viriditas | Talk 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC). KazakhPol's article talk page comments and editing behavior is inappropriate for Wikipedia. reply
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
3. linaduliban ^(talk) 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Djma12 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Otebig 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC) From my experience, he’s very disruptive and incredibly rude - violates WP:CIV and WP:EQ, and constantly reverts perfectly good edits. reply

Reaction

Hahahaha this is hilarious. I will try and expand my response to this later, but I would just like to point out Cs's copying and pasting of policies from the RfC I started on his editing - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs. Neither he, nor Aaliyah Stevens, bothered to read the policies before re-posting them here. Hahaha and now Cs is trying to use sockpuppets to annoy me. This RfC is such a joke. KazakhPol 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Response

Well. Let's see... I have never been warned for being disruptive, vandalizing, or patronizing, but I am sure that adequately sums up Cs' and AS opinion of me.

WP:3RR

Funny that they brought up the block for WP:3RR, but neglected to mention the fact that I was speedily unblocked when another administrator pointed out I had not violated it. Also funny that they make this allegation but chose not to include it in the list of policies I violated. As for the rest of the introduction. They managed to confuse block with ban and misinterpreted both WP:WTA and WP:DTO.

WP:BLP

Actually, he was convicted. [10] Hence another user re-added this fact correctly citing WP:LEAD. [11] Neither Cs nor AS understood the dispute on Huseyincan Celil. Cs followed me onto the page and used a sockpuppet ( Tutmoses8) to harass me [12].

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:VANDAL

Really? My comments on the talkpage were vandalism? This must be a new type of vandalism I am unfamiliar with. Considering that multiple editors have now reverted your edits [13] [14] and you were shown to have lied in your edit summaries [15] [16] (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs for more details) I find it hard to take this particularly seriously.

WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL

I never said Aaliyah Stevens was a member of HuT. I said it would not suprise me since she twice posted copyvios (December 2006) taken from HuT's website after she was warned. Many of AS's edits to Hizb ut-Tahrir have been vandalism.

WP:AD, WP:NPOV

Actually, if you had read WP:WTA, you would see it is alright to point out when an organization has been designated and banned. If anyone questions the wording I have been using they can see East Turkestan Islamic Movement which I wrote. I really do not know what to make of "Goes in extremes to hail dubious pages from google." I would love to see some diffs of my sources not supporting what I referenced, but alas, neither Cs nor Aaliyah provided any. I'm not sure why Cs posted a link to Talk:New Great Game as evidence... I think thats it.

I probably violated WP:CIVIL in dealing with AS and Cs, so I will try and have a little more patience for new users in the future. Other than that, this RfC is a joke. KazakhPol 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Biruitorul 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply
2. -- Karl Meier 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
3. "I probably violated WP:CIVIL in dealing with AS and Cs, so I will try and have a little more patience for new users in the future." I endorse on that one, it is because I do NOT know rest of the dispute. I think he really needs to improve on this one at least. --- ALM 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
4. With the proviso given by ALM, endorse. -- Pan Gerwazy 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Vic226

I have never known anything about KazakhPol until yesterday, when I saw his input for the outside view in my RfC against Nationalist. They both have the similar aggression upon others who attempt to contest their edits and will revert their changes on sight. I have always tried to stress the importance of having a discussion on contested edits and reach a consensus peacefully, but it seems you are also having the same difficulty with KazakhPol as we are with Nationalist. In the diff link above, I can not find any possible indication that he has grasped our main concerns (mainly WP:CIVIL, which can also be fundamentally applied here), as he asserts that Nationalist is correct with the Naming conventions while having minimal amount of incivility. Whenever there is disruptive editing on a specific area of interest, I do not see why incivility cannot be considered as part of the problems, especially when it has already developed into edit wars and blocks. Again, if one should convince the contester(s) of his/her edits, a discussion is needed, not protection. Upon new proofs provided by KazakhPol, I will need to review both RfC cases and reconsider my standpoint.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Vic ₂₂₆ 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've noticed a similar problem with KazakhPol's edits on the Omar Bakri Muhammad page and Al-Muhajiroun. On the first page, KazakhPol insisted that media claims about Omar Bakri Muhammad were proven fact - [17], using ropey sources that in one case didn't even mention Bakri but referred to someone else entirely. [18] On the other, references attributing terrorist acts to certain parties just don't add up and need close examination. [19] My only other interaction with KazakhPol was on a template deletion for deletion debate, [20] where the same WP:BLP issue came up again. Basically, living people getting labelled "terrorists" without any attribution or legal verifiability. I'm really concerned that as KazakhPol is editing so prolifically, there may be numerous instances of this throughout the site. WP:BLP is the most important policy we have, it must be understood and adhered to by all editors at all times. Also, the fact that KazakhPol has been blocked 4 times in less than two months is not encouraging. Attitude changes are urgently required.

I haven't had a problem with KazakhPol personally. I do think if an attitude change is needed, that the user be given a chance to do so within a certain probationary time period. After all, KazakhPol is a contributing editor. Rarelibra 14:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I endorse the part about the probationary time period. Wal ton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

This actually surprises me, each of my dealings with KazahkPol have been productive, two-sided and friendly, he has even offered to help source things I could not, and accepts my input as another who has lived in and is intimately familiar with the region and topics in which he contributes. I would like to give a positive spin to this forum for my unmet Wiki-peer. Chris 08:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not know the conflict in detail hence I will try to present fairly the part I was involved briefly. The reason I get involved in middle of dispute was "..dont kid yourself. None of these templates will ever leave until you're banned." edit summary. The article was in my watch list since long time and I wish to know what is wrong there and why someone is going to get banned. Hence I checked the article and apparently there is dispute about some Template:Uncategorized. KazakhPol wish to keep the uncategorized template when the article has already multiple categories. Furthermore, the second dimension of dispute was that KazakhPol thinks that Hizb_ut-Tahrir is a terrorist organization. However, was not giving any reference to prove his point of view. Note: that it is possible that he had provided some reference after I left that dispute. However, during my involvement in the dispute he has not given any reference. It is possible that dispute was real and Hizb_ut-Tahrir is a terrorist organization. However, I think that the way he was handling dispute was not right and he was losing his temper. For example [21], saying SlimVirgin "Stop vandalizing Wikipedia..." [22], etc. It was all very heated debate. Once again I want to stress that it is possible that KazakhPol version of facts was right (or may be not right) but the way he was pursing it was not at all right for an admin. At least an admin should be much calmer than that. --- ALM 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

Frankly, I couldn't follow the evidence of disputed behaviour. In the overlap between the articles on my watchlist and the articles that KazakhPohl is interested in I have found him to be cordial, cooperative and collegial. -- Geo Swan 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

My dealings with KazakhPol are mostly from the Andijan massacre article. My experiences with him have been quite frustrating, as he reverts any edit that differs from his POV as "reverting vandalism" or "If you are unfamiliar with this event then please refrain from making controversial changes to this article, much less editing it at all."

More so, his attitude and comments towards other users are uncivil. His usual response to queries on his edits involve abuse.

Why would I ever care about Cs's opinion about anything? I cannot imagine such a situation. If such a situation ever arises, I will be shock and awed. KazakhPol 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most disturbingly, I find that he games the WP:3RR system. Having been blocked 5 times prior for 3RR violations, he now pratices brinksmanship in reverting edits 3 times a day (under the auspices of vandalism) on multiple articles. A simple look at the history of his discussion page will reveal the number of 3RR complaints lodged against him.

-- Djma12 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see this page's discussion page I have added to it. Aaliyah Stevens 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.