":Sigh. Yes, it was not civil. But - as much as I it annoys me - we have no rules that allow clear blocking for violation of WP:CIVIL. It's all currently left to individual admins discression, and I am seeing a lot of inconsistency here (that is obviously going to make some editors quite angry). And it was Irpen who was responsible for shutting down WP:PAIN and WP:RFI (two places were attempts to work out rules for WP:CIV violations blocking were made). I have seen - I am seeing - lots of behaviours much worse then Ukrained comments above, but attempts to bring it to attention of other editors are constantly rebuked (by Irpen and some of his friends) as 'trying to get one's opponent blocked'. So seeing Kuban Khazak (one of Irpen's friends) request a review and block of one of his opponents for incivility, quickly supported by Irpen, seems like hypocrisy at best. That said, I'd be happy to see harsh penalties applied to all who violate WP:CIV, but what I am seeing now is 'double standard': a goup of editors have learned to complain about unfairness of reports against them and their friends on WP:ANI and related places, effectivly ensuring 'no consensus' to block them, and at the same time since the other group(s) tend to ignore discussions there, they are able to push their view of 'what is right or what is not'. Basically, Editor A is incivil, Editor X complains about him - but several friends of Editor A who follow Editor X contribs are quick to argue he is not that bad and Editor X is engaged in content dispute, etc. Result: no block. But when Editor X is incivil, and Editor A complains, Editor X nor his friends are not as active and are not aware of the complain, and Editor A is blocked with no or little dissent registered. Is the block of editor X bad? No. But are there double standards in play? Unfortunatly, quite so. Further, editors who try to resolve conflict with due procedures are also penalyzed, as they invest weeks of their time to complain about incivility in mediation, RfC, ArbCom, not always getting even an apology - while others take shortcuts through WP:ANI, find a fortunate (for them) admin combination (i.e. either their 'wiki-friends' or good faithed admins who don't see the bigger picture (that both parties are just as guilty)), and get their opponent blocked. In other words, two editors commit a similar WP:CIV offence: one is blocked after a report and short discussion at ANI, other may or may not be blocked after weeks-long debates at WP:PAIN/WP:RFI/WP:DR paths... As far as I am concerned, this represents a significant failure of how Wikipedia operates: not all users are treated equally (a group that has learned to 'game the system' and has no scrupules about bypassing WP:DR has a significant advantage). Sigh. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I am increasingly depressed about this problem. Przasnysz artifacts trasnlated. PS. If you have a moment, could you review this user's contributions and tell me if he behaves more or less constructive than Ukrained?|  

 "