Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)  Drafting arbitrator: Shell Kinney (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion on case scope

1) Given comments by

I'm chanting as we speak 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
I don't think we need a formal motion on this, but yes, I think we do expect this to be limited to on-going problems which means we expect to see recent diffs. In rare cases where there's an on-going pattern of behavior, it's appropriate to briefly mention that pattern, but any evidence that consists largely of stale problems will not be helpful to resolving the situation.

A good example of this would be - "Editor X has been edit warring about Trees.[diffs to edit warring, 3RR reports, discussions of edit warring] They have been edit warring about Trees for 3 years [brief diffs to old blocks for edit warring, reports of edit warring etc.] Editor X doesn't use dispute resolution. On April 1st, they edited

Dogwood 22 times (5 were reverts [diffs]) without ever discussing on the talk page." - stay brief, to the point, keep your evidence full of actual evidence and present things factually rather than emotionally. The more we're overwhelmed with background noise from old issues, the less likely we'll be able to craft useful solutions to the current problem. Shell babelfish 05:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by parties:
I do not see why this case should be at all related to EEML. Just because two its participants have been previously involved in EEML case? But many other were not involved. All articles and disputes in question are related to Russia or USSR. Why Eastern Europe? I also agree with Colchicum. Only the behavior of members of the list has been examined by the Committee during the EEML case. Thus the motion could make sense only for them. As a practical matter, is it relevant that Russavia has been previously blocked for harassing me? Is it relevant that he invited Vlad_fedorov [1], Offliner [2], Igny, LokiiT [3],[4] and Donald Duck [5] to "deal" with me?Biophys (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completed my evidence section. Can anyone take a look please and decide if we need to include more participants of the case? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
As the purpose of this case is to deescalate the battleground, the battleground has to be thoroughly examined from the very beginning in order to identify its causes. Otherwise the issue will be repeatedly relitigated forever. As it is painfully obvious that the battleground started well before the EEML, it is perfectly natural to look for its causes in the past. Furthermore, the scope of the EEML case was on the behavior of only one of the parties here in relation to the mailing list and not on "everyone involved". The pre-EEML individual patterns of disruption do belong here as long as they are not abandoned, and many of them aren't. Colchicum (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do may need some background from Pre-EEML but lets concentrate on recent development Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for CU on Biophys

2) Given the amount of evidence related to Biophys proxying for banned HanzoHattori, and given that it was discovered in

WP:EEML that EEML participant was sharing his account, I move for CU on Biophys to establish whether other users (HanzoHattori) were using his account. It would be helpful to check whether Biophys indeed himself was editing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proxing != socking. Checkuser is not for fishing. Shell babelfish 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a/c) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by parties:
I did not give my password to anyone, and no one else edited from my account so far. Since the question has been raised, I tried to edit biological subjects from two alternative accounts, ATMH (talk · contribs) and My very best wishes (talk · contribs) to avoid the constant harassment. But I could not do it. To be involved in hiding or deception is something I can not do. There is nothing else to disclose. My very best wishes.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad, whilst I can totally understand why you would be asking for this to be done, it doesn't appear to be within the scope of asking for check-user to be done. Also, as much as I do think that Biophys has been a long-term disruptive editor, I sincerely do not believe he would be stupid enough to lend anyone, particularly someone who is easily banned as Hanzo, his password - his account is too important to him to just throw away like that. --
I'm chanting as we speak 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:

Motion to allow more space for evidence

3) I ask to allow more space for evidence than 1000 words (I probably need around 2000). There are too many groundless accusations to be responded with diffs. I am sure that arbitrators can decide themselves what was relevant and what was not.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • You've already been told no more than once, so this is quite disappointing. As I tried to explain on User_talk:Amorymeltzer#Arbitration, we do not want or need long explanations from any party. We will review the diffs for ourselves and decide what they mean; we will scrutinize diffs that show more than one revision and look at article histories to ensure we have more than just one side of the story. We really don't care about your back-and-forth and frankly, that's what this case is meant to stop. Just as an example, again, if User:Y says "User:X edit wars [1],[2],[3]", User:X doesn't need to tell us it's not edit warring - we'll check the diffs for ourselves to make that determination; it makes literally no difference that User:Y called it edit warring and User:X disagreed, what matters is what an independent review would call it. Shell babelfish 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A suggestion Biophys - if you remove the evidence you presented that is years old, you would have considerably more space. As discussed earlier, unless you're establishing a pattern (which means you have very new diffs as well), old evidence is not going to be much use. Shell babelfish 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These length limits are in place to help the Committee review the case and vote in a timely manner. If you need to include more evidence, make your existing evidence more concise and remove any unnecessary responses like Shell recommends.
    a/c) 20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment by parties:
I thought that allowing more space would be good for the sake of fairness and for convenience of arbitrators. We can not talk in general terms here. Fine, I moved this content: [6]. It includes a lot of important diffs. If you think that helps you and other arbitrators to better study the case, well, this is certainly something for you to decide.Biophys (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I am not sure what exactly do you mean. Most of my Evidence is rather recent. As about this part, yes, it is exactly my assertion that the older actions by Russavia are practically the same as his recent and current actions. Perhaps my diffs with their explanations are not convincing, but that is something I ask arbitrators to examine.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Comment by Vlad_fedorov: It would be than more than natural to allow more space for everyone, because frankly I have checked the latest edits of Biophys, but not all since the end of
WP:EEML
.
Moreover Biophys' evidence in some cases leads to very old edits before
WP:TRUTH
, by another one. And he claims in evidence that he "removes poorly sourced conspiracy theory".
However, at the end of the day, I generally against such extention of limit, because it would unappropriately drag out this arbcase by allowing each party to write what think about each other, although arbs, even without these explanations by parties, should themselves analyze it. Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look right that a major participant is struggling to put his evidence into the frame of 1000 words. I do not see any harm if we allow all participants to increase the evidence section to 1500 or 2000 words. Longer evidence might be easier to read than the abbreviated one Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding Fut.Perf's intervention

Russavia has complained to Fut.Perf [7] regarding my contribution to this case page. Not withstanding the question why Russavia chose to request clarification from Fut.Perf rather than directly from the Arbitrators on this very page, it appears that Fut.Perf has taken a legalistic approach to my topic ban and has told me to cease and desist from further posting to this page. I don't know what authority Fut.Perf has over the Committee, since Shell has already responded to my proposals and comments on this page. Russavia had previously made known on this page that I am subject to a topic ban [8], so I don't see how Shell (or the clerk) would have been unaware of that as Fut.Perf implies. My impression is that being dissatisfied with the response of the Arbitrators, Russavia sought admin assistance outside the realm of this case. Nor do I know why Fut.Perf addressed his question to the clerk rather than directly to the Committee as well. So therefore in order to get to the bottom of this, I will directly ask the Arbitrators here whether Put.Perf's apparent unprecedented action to act on the behest of one of the participants to warn off another participant from continuing their participation in this active case stands. --

talk) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Since a recent SPI on Martintg by Russavia has been brought up in this case, it would seem that he's been involved in this dispute by others. I see no reason that he cannot participate in a civil manner. Given the topic ban, Martintg should be very careful that his participation here is above reproach.

Russavia, please do not make any more personal attacks or incendiary comments on this Arbitration such as "just because you were (and prob still are) an WP:EEML brigadier where support canvassing was part and parcel of the cabal's modus operandi". We're here to resolve ongoing issues, not to provide a new battleground. Shell babelfish 18:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:
I did not complain, I simply was seeking clarification based upon exactly what was written there. Given the lack of any faith of Martintg in the above and below, it should be self evident why he has been topic banned from this area of editing, and furthermore raises the question as to why he feels it is necessary to breach his topic ban to comment on things in this area that do not concern him. Unless Martintg strikes the above assumptions of bad faith, I may be more inclined to introduce a finding of fact that he has in fact breached his topic ban by even participating on things within the topic ban area. --
I'm chanting as we speak 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Shell, I really, and honestly, don't care about
I'm chanting as we speak 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
No objections, of course, if the Arbitrators should wish to allow him to participate here. However, I don't see Shell's reactions on this page as automatically constituting such a permission, as there is no indication Shell was aware of the restriction at the time she gave those responses (I generally don't assume Arbs know by heart who is under which kind of restriction at any given moment). Martintg is under a topic ban covering all Eastern European articles and process discussions regarding them, and under an interaction ban regarding Russavia except for "legitimate and necessary" dispute resolution. In my reading, this bars him from commenting on disputes beetween Russavia and any third party, especially when that dispute is related to their editing of Eastern Europe articles. Of course, Martintg would be free to make comments directed at resolving disputes he himself has with Russavia owing to interactions that were initiated by Russavia himself, but Martin's comments on this page don't seem to fall in that category.
Unless and until instructions are given by the committee to the contrary, I see this as an enforceable application of the existing restrictions, and would expect Martintg to refrain from further postings here. I leave it to clerks and arbs to decide how to deal with the comments and threads already posted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your relationship is with Russavia, given he previously attempted to canvas your support in an earlier dispute with the Committee[9], however I thought it was the Clerk's role to enforce order on these ArbCom pages, not random admins passing by. Why Russavia asked you and not an Arbitrator (or even a clerk) for clarification, I do not know. First you say I am free to make comments directed at resolving disputes I myself have with Russavia owing to interactions that were initiated by Russavia himself, then you state I should refrain from further postings here. Which is it to be? Your premature involvement here effectively hinders my attempts at developing a case aimed at resolving that dispute I myself have with Russavia. Is that your intent? --
talk) 10:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Martintg, just because you were (and prob still are) an
I'm chanting as we speak 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Russavia

Proposed principles

Proxying

1) Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I believe that Biophys had indeed confirmed that the changes are verifiable and that he had independent reasons to make the changes. Thus, I am not sure the principle is usable here Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

2) Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Something similar to this will mostly likely make it to the proposed decision. Shell babelfish 22:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

NPOV is important

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all majority and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Also likely to show up in the proposed decision. Shell babelfish 22:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is not a

battleground
. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Important. Shell babelfish 22:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Agree. For example, telling "i will fight you to the death" (edit summary) [10] is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Threats by Biophys to create POVed articles diff, diff are unacceptable. Instituting arbitration by Biophys with users over the content issues Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys are unacceptable. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Biophys has engaged in edit warring

1) Biophys has engaged in massive edit warring, conducting over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Biophys and many of the other parties here have edit warred in this topic area. Shell babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys for you specifically, check the histories of
Russian apartment bombings, Battle for Height 776 for starters. Whether or not you think your edits were more correct than the edits you reverted, you were clearly edit warring. This is not the way to resolve differences of opinion over content. Shell babelfish 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Others in this case are being looked at as well; being named in the case doesn't mean that things will be focused entirely on one person. If there are editors who's conduct or editing is problematic that aren't part of this case, then earlier stages of dispute resolution are the way to handle things, not edit warring. It's important to remember that above all else, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Whether other editors are right or wrong, easy to get along with or difficult, we need to find a way to work together for the betterment of the project. Shell babelfish 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russavia, I'm a bit concerned about the diffs Biophys just supplied which seem to reflect the polar opposite of your statement. Biophys repeatedly removed the information and you put it back - you then reported Biophys for a BLP violation. Can you explain this? Shell

babelfish 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we take this to evidence or the talk page if it's going to be lengthy? Best not to clutter up this area any further. Thanks. Shell babelfish 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
A list of all reverts is listed at
I'm chanting as we speak 11:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That is not true Biophys. Take for example, [11] and compare it to the lead of the article from September 2008. Since September 2008, several users have attempted to compromise with you on the article, and you have for the most part reverted to a 1.5 year old version of the article. You have done this on other articles such as
I'm chanting as we speak 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Re to Shell. Can we have some informal conversation, please? In the diffs by Russavia I restored some important information sourced to books by experts. Was it wrong? I provided sources and debated everything at the article talk pages, in response to personal attacks, outing and harassment. Was it wrong? I resisted a sock master [13], SPAs (Saiga12 and YMB29) and persistent political POV-pushers (HistoricWarrior007 and Ellol) [14], after explaining everything to them. Was it wrong? I finally gave up and allowed them to revert everything to their versions. Was it wrong? If I am a political POV-pusher myself, what's exactly my bias? Using books for the sourcing? Is it right to sanction me at the request by Russavia who did this? The choice is yours. Biophys (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Shell: Yes, let's be specific and consider the "Battle..." (one of the most highly publicized episodes of Second Chechen war). This is the debate [15]. This is the revert: [16]. This is the user: [17]. That is what he tells: [18], [19]. But it is me who became a subject of this case and your sanctions. That's fine. Let's leave this article to users like Tebepizdetssuka and Revan2338. Biophys (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to discuss your bias in detail here, but basically it comes out as anti-Russian and anti-Soviet.
And like I said before, simply providing a source does not make your edits correct and give you an excuse to revert to versions that are months old. -YMB29 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your bias? How about you edit based upon your belief that Putin is a paedophile? You affirmed this belief on the talk page of Alexander Litvinenko, and you even threatened to create Accusations of Putin of paedophilia because other editors took issue with your using WP to engage in advocacy. Yes, you use WP to engage in advocacy, and I am not the only one who says this Biophys. Refer to User_talk:Ezhiki/2009#Can_you_provide_some_assistance_here_please where Ezhiki states:

I cannot in good conscience respect a person who would write something like "phone call to Putin" and not only present it as true encyclopedic material, but fiercly defend it when pointed out that it is, in fact, not, and completely ignore several requests for finding qualified sources. To me, that's a giveaway that the person is not here to contribute, s/he is here to advocate, and no matter how much I agree with the cause being advocated, my duty here is first and foremost to the encyclopedia.

People can go on about me being "pro-Putin" and "defending Putin" - given what Biophys has engaged in, then yes, I am defending Putin, because so long as we have editors on Wikipedia who choose to engage in
I'm chanting as we speak 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Russavia was indefinitely banned for threatening to sue wikipedia over this issue before [20] (in [21]). That and this comment above shows indeed how far he wants to go with protecting articles about Vladimir Putin.
talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Grey Fox, a serious question for you here. Why are you here and presenting evidence? You don't edit Wikipedia anymore (at least not under that username), and only appear to return to Wikipedia to support Biophys. Has Biophys asked you to comment here with yet more disinformation? Firstly, the links you showed were when I was topic banned by Sandstein, partly as a result of
WP:EEML
intervention. I was hot under the collar, and many editors understand why I would be. As to your disinformation, I did not threaten to sue Wikipedia at any stage. The words that I wrote were as follows:

But hey, given what you are saying, and given that according to you I am not allowed to remove, discuss, advise or anything else relating to libellous materials on WP, I will in future attempt to contact the subjects of said articles directly, and advise them of the violations and urge them to sue the Foundation for allowing libellous to remain on the project, and will provide them with a link to your answer above which bans me from touching, discussing or advising of the libellous materials about any such subjects. This is not a legal threat, before anyone accuses me of this, but according to Sandstein, this is the only option that I have, and it is an option that one has to consider. But, I won't do that, I will let basic common sense prevail. I will resolve myself to ignoring your interpretation of the ban as it stands right now, and I will remove any potentially libellous information on sight, and in cases of borderline material which may breach

WP:BLP
, I will raise it at the appropriate place.

That was in relation to Sandstein claiming that I would not even be exempt from removing BLP violations from articles, nor even bringing them to the attention of editors on appropriate noticeboards. Of course, this is not something that would have the support of the Arbcom, as per rulings and motions in the recent

I'm chanting as we speak 22:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I've been observing Wikipedia on occasion. It's true that I've become inactive but that doesn't mean I will remain inactive. I wasn't planning on commenting on this case but because of the large swift in balance since the
WP:EEML
case and the impossibility for many users to comment here I thought I'd point out some things from the past. In answer to your query I've sent Biophys an e-mail, after this case was launched, in which I gave him a heads up and told him about the benefits of retirement to which he briefly responded. Apart from that I have no contact with anyone from Wikipedia and nobody has ever asked me to do things here.
The fact of the matter is that you were banned for this
talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Agree. Of course Biophys has engaged in edit warring; he has always edit warred, often with someone helping him (as shown in the evidence). What makes it worse is his avoidance of discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Biophys had crossed all the possible lines in edit warring. I understand why Grey Fox is here - he could loose his long-standing POV ally in Chechen articles, but with all due respect the amount of reverts by Biophys and the last article Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya were the last pill to take. Humanitarian corridors for the terrorists? This is potential know-how discovered by both of you. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbs should we seriously respond to these type of provocations?
talk) 08:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree. Biophys as well as other participants are involved into a number of controversial areas there some reversions are inevitable per
WP:BRD process. There is no indication of sterile reverts on his part Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Biophys has proxied

2) Biophys has edited on behalf of banned User:HanzoHattori

Comment by Arbitrators:
Not convinced this is the case. Shell babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Biophys has stated he did not know who emailed him, that he reviewed the material himself before posting and since this doesn't appear to be a pattern, I'm not certain this specific bit rises to the level of needing a finding. Shell babelfish 22:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." So yes, if edits are verified and you feel there's a reason to make them, you can even if the material originated from a banned user. You are required to take responsibility for those edits as if they were your own, i.e. if someone passes you bad information and you didn't check, it's your fault if it gets caught.

About the pattern, you're claiming quite a few different edits here and there because you think they resemble what a banned user might have done. Another explanation might be that Biophys has some of the same viewpoints as the banned user. I just don't find the evidence given particularly convincing and I think there are far more important issues here. Shell babelfish 23:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess will just have to agree to disagree on this point then. Shell babelfish 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my position on the issue clear and you clearly disagree on a number of points. This will be looked at by the other Arbs who may well feel differently. Shell babelfish 01:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  • I always edited only on behalf of this project and frequently against my own best interests. I never edited on behalf of any outside employers or parties including HanzoHattori. Period.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what Martintg says (possibly in breach of his topic ban),
I'm chanting as we speak 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Question to Shell, in what regard are you not convinced? Can you please clarify that. --
I'm chanting as we speak 22:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Shell, please refer to
I'm chanting as we speak 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally Shell, a request for clarification on your part. Is editing on behalf of banned users prohibited or not? If it is, shouldn't an editor get sanctioned for doing it? You mention "having reviewed the edits" as a migitating factor; does this mean that I can just pick a banned user and start making edits on their behalf if I "review" them before posting? Also, is at least 20 identified edits which have obviously been made as a result of editing on behalf of a banner user, not classified as a pattern, moreso, when it can be shown to date back to at the very least September 2009? --
I'm chanting as we speak 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Shell, you say the that editing on behalf of banned users is allowed if "the edits are verified and you feel there's a reason to make them". I'm sure you are aware that during

WP:EEML
several editors (Piotrus, Jacurek, Tymek and Radeksz) were SANCTIONED for proxying for banned editors, although they may well have "verified" the edits and certainly did "feel like there's a reason to make them." Your interpretation of the guideline seems to be different from what was applied in practice by the ArbCom itself.

You mention that Biophys' claim that he "reviewed" the edits sent to him by HanzoHattori is a migitating factor and a reason why Biophys proxying should not be sanctioned. But what about edits like this? The article was edited before by HanzoHattori, and Biophys had never been interested in German history before. How exactly did Biophys "verify" THIS edit? The edit is completely unsourced. There is not a single source used in that article. So how can he have verified the edit? Note several of the other edits Biophys made on behalf of HanzoHattori are unsourced as well.

You say that "another explanation might be that Biophys has some of the same viewpoints as the banned user." How does "a similar POV" explain edits to little-known articles where the ONLY major editors are HanzoHattori and his socks? For example this edit. It was made to an article created by a HanzoHattori sock. HanzoHattori is the only one who has made major edits on this article. Moreover, Biophys never edited anything related to Japanese culture or Japanese people before. How does "similar POV" explain this edit? As additional examples, Biophys also edited

I'm chanting as we speak 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Shell, what do you want to agree to disagree on here?
The sanctions handed out in
WP:EEML
for proxying for a banned editor? You do realise that a mitigating factor in my seeking sanctions on Biophys for proxying for HanzoHattori was the results of the EEML which all but deemed that proxying on behalf of a banned user is sanctionable? Given that my report has brought us here, and I am under the possibility of sanctions myself, a firm stance from arbitrators is required. Proxying either is or isn't ok. It is not fair to editors to say it is not ok, and then have a threat of sanctions placed upon the messenger when a violation of that is brought to the attention of admins.
Or do you want to agree to disagree on the fact that Biophys has introduced unsourced material into an article on behalf of a banned editor. Biophys claimed that all edits were verified by him, but this is obviously not the case. You also said yourself that there would be no problem if those edits have been verified. You have been presented with one prime example of where those edits could not have been verified as there are zero sources.
Or do you want to agree to disagree on the
WP:DUCKiness
of Biophys' edits to articles which have either been created by Hanzo (or his socks), or have seen heavy involvement by Hanzo (or his socks), and which are not within Biophys' interest?
Please also remember that it was yourself who indicated that you only wanted evidence from the post-EEML period, and evidence on my part has been limited only to this. Anyone editing in this area of WP would clearly be able to tell that they are proxy edits. --
I'm chanting as we speak 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Disagree. There is no evidence that these alleged emails actually came from Hanzo. The fact is that Biophys' email address was outed with the publication of the EEML archive, so anyone could have sent them.
There is some evidence of the possibly that some kind of scam to entrap Biophys was perpetrated. For example the article Ludolf von Alvensleben, HanzoHattori made two tiny edits way back in 2006 [36] and yet this mysterious emailer allegedly asks Biophys to make extensive edits to this article and these edits are presented as evidence of proxying in the AE case. Why would the real Hanzo bother with this particular article which he has not shown any real interest in the past other than a minor drive by edit? On the other hand, anyone could compile a list of Hanzo contributions and feed requests to an unsuspecting editor. It has been demonstrated that the banned user Offliner is in close email communication with one of the complainants, and there has been no denial of the allegation that this complainant may have presented evidence compiled by Offliner.
In any case, Biophys has confirmed that his changes are verifiable and he had independent reasons for making them. --
talk) 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree. Given all coincidences taken together. There are no doubts for me that it was banned HanzoHattori. All e-mails which Biophys may transfer to arbcom could be easily faked by installing two local mail servers and by putting the clocks back to the time desired. They have Digwuren who could easily inform how to make it. This incident certainly should be taken into consideration for future. Arbcom should not rely on Biophys responses (because they are unverifiable), but should evaluate overall real effects and evidence. Biophys was never editing these articles before in such a manner. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional important comment. Biophys has admitted himself that he was editing on behalf of another editor. Whether he reviewed his edits or not - cannot be reliably established. Given that the edits were one-sided, biased and sequential, should we belive Biophys' unveriviable claims? Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There is enough evidence for this. -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be reformulated. It appears that Biophys indeed has made some edits proposed by HanzoHattory. There is no evidence that by doing so he has violated any rules or harmed the project Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys broken promise

3) Biophys has broken his promises to avoid edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Not certain this is necessary; a finding about edit warring should be enough. Shell babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Actually, Shell, this is necessary, because Biophys has clearly avoided sanctions in the past based upon these supposed promises. It is a tried, and tired, tactic used to specifically avoid sanctions, and before long it is back to edit-warring. --
I'm chanting as we speak 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Agree. Doh, after three blocks on 3RR and two 3RR board warnings issued to Biophys, his violation of promises not to edit war should not be taken into account? Well this is an example of clear pattern of his continuing disruptive behaviour. He is not going to reform himself. Any promises he made (to stop edit war, to stop editing contraversial articles, to retire) - were broken. This means probation, admonishment are not an option for him. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Biophys has constantly made promises (that were soon broken) to cooperate, discuss, and not edit war. -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it is necessary Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys behaviour

4) Biophys has received several prior warnings and sanctions. These have not caused Biophys to change his behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:
More likely this will refer to recidivism in general since many of the parties here have had ample opportunity to remedy their behavior. Shell babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
I had no prior sanctions by Arbcom/AE and followed all your official recommendations: not talking with/about Commodore Sloat, unsubscribing from the EEML and not fueling the unhelpful speculations. I also worked toward reducing the battlegrounds by not submitting any ANI/AE requests during last six months (please compare with Russavia). I debated all content disagreements at the article talk pages, limited myself to 1-2 RR per day, and worked toward compromise versions, as in "Russian apartment bombings" [37]. But it did not work very well. After the continuous outing, harassment and battleground by Russavia, Vlad and others, I do not see any other options but to stop editing here, as stated in my last email to Arbcom. But I will appear to receive your sanctions if any. Biophys (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Agree. I did not see a change in Biophys' behavior after the EEML case. -YMB29 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. No change in his behaviour. Administrators were always very favourable to Biophys - he was receiving warnings to his talk pages, two times he escaped blocks for 3RR because of Piotrus intervention. And now he dares to claim that he had never been previously sanctioned? Well in Piotrus 2 case, it was established that Biophys engaged in inappropriate conduct by disseminating information that Wikipedia is operated by FSB. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Martintg

Proposed principles

Not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a

battleground
. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, agitation based on a misplaced, retributive and vengeful sense of justice goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Combining this idea with one Russavia mentioned - this is similar to the standard principle about the purpose of Wikipedia:

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Shell babelfish 22:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:
Disagree The second sentence has obviously been written by Martin in order to call any report of wrongdoing on the part of a sanctioned editor, "a misplaced, retributive and vengeful sense of justice". Refer to simpler version I have offered. --
I'm chanting as we speak 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree Nothing said on who would be the ultimate judge for determining whether something is "agitation". Orwell's Ministry of Truth? What is agitation? We have to deal here with massive attempt to spam Wikipedia with material degrading Russia. I haven't seen any camaraderie or respect to this end from Colchicum. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence is not clear. Do we want to prohibit "sense of justice" on this project? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the adjective "vengeful", so yes, a "vengeful sense of justice" is inappropriate. --
talk) 08:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is that vengeful is a subjective word. The fewer subjective definitions are in a policy the more chances it is useful. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

2) Harassment of any editor is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I'm not certain something this specific has been demonstrated, maybe something more along the lines of:

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Shell babelfish 22:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Valid policy but I am not sure it is applicable here. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Shell, this is a standard ArbCom principle. Certainly for biophys, editing has been made unpleasant for him to the degree that he is discouraged from editing further. Of course any school yard bully would claim the victim's tears are faked. I myself feel sufficiently fearful for my personal safety, due to off-wiki harassment, to curtail my participation. It is an unpleasant experience to find people attempting to publish personal details off-wiki with an invitation calling for physical harm be perpetrated. And for what? Because some people think I inappropriately participated in or canvassed a handful of AfDs? For God's sake. --
talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speculative and inflammatory comments

3) The injunction "Inflammatory comments and speculative musings about user identities, as well as related postings, cause drama and disruption. Editors are reminded that undue speculation, highly charged assertions, attempts at outing (partial or otherwise), and other similar conduct is unacceptable and will be treated as disruption.", enacted unanimously by the Committee on December 22nd, 2009, remains in force.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose It was instituted for EEML proceedings. To extend it otherwise, means that editors are prevented from presenting evidence, say for sockpuppetry, when there is a good faith reason to do so. --
I'm chanting as we speak 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Decorum

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed findings of fact

Russavia and Igny

1) Russavia has engaged in disruptive conduct[38],[39],[40],[41] (and Igny[42] too) in violation of the EEML injunction enacted prohibiting speculative and inflammatory comments [43]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose It is not disruptive to present evidence at a sockpuppet investigation when there is a
I'm chanting as we speak 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that there was no evidence presented. The CU case was declined with the edit comment "Literally no evidence provided" and "This is all just hunches and suspicions"[44], in other words, speculative and inflammatory comments. --
talk) 09:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
there was no evidence presented. Merely because there was no leak of the most recent email history of EEML yet. Not that I approve the use of such leaks but I have no doubt there would be another big case once another leak happens again. And once that happens, I would personally look for Sander Sade's requests for help in that vote and find out who suggested to use a SPA. (Igny (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Igny, do you remember how during EEML case "evil EEML members" begged everybody involved to be checkusered - and how pro-Soviet block adamantly refused this? I wonder if there was a reason why EEML members were not afraid of checkuser - and others were?
I was saddened that the CU case didn't go forward, giving you a chance to hurl nasty accusations at us. A CU would have invariably cleared us and people wouldn't be able to throw these stupid insults around. You seem to be so fixated in your POV-pushing that you are incapable of understanding that great many people simply don't share your views - and may disagree with them while completely unrelated to any block.
As ArbCom did not find I had made requests violating Wikipedia rules before EEML case, thinking I would do so now is just... dumb. I have not requested any help - nor did I need it. If you have proof of such actions, present them - otherwise, a public apology for a direct attack would be in order.
--Sander Säde 07:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely understandable that you issue a public denial of any wrongdoing. And you are right, it is sad that my allegations of your wrongdoings have not been cleared by the CU. And I say that again, I will not apologize for one of you using a SPA to skew the consensus, possibly avoiding a topic ban. With regard to the proofs, read my message above, the proofs are pending and will be available after a new leak of your correspondence occurs.
Re: If you have proof of such actions,, To prove your canvassing in the past, one just needs to go through the evidence presented at
WP:EEML. I do not want and do not have to do that. You can recall your messages at your mailing list yourself. (Igny (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply
]
You may want to go and see
WP:EEML case - and then point our any ArbCom findings of fact that found me canvassing. You are so fixated on the SPA idea that it is amazing. Why are we accused of lack of good faith when we are forced to deal with such edits and editors? --Sander Säde 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: Why are we accused of lack of good faith Because to seasoned editors like you,
WP:BITE applies. (Igny (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply
]
I think you should look long and deeply into the mirror. I invite you to stop these direct personal attacks - because this is what they are, unfounded baseless accusations and lies. --Sander Säde 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to bicker back and forth. You both made your points so let's move on from this unproductive discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Russavia

2) Since returning from his community topic ban, Russavia has continued his battleground behaviour against former EEML members: edit warring on Arbitration request pages[45], possibly proxied on behalf of the banned user Offliner[46], demanding harsher sanctions after case closure[47], bad faith[48], bad faith, uncivil language and breach of privacy[49] and forum shopping[50].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose And this will be explained why one-by-one. [51] is not battleground against any EEML members. This is on a request for clarification in regards to a ban placed upon
I'm chanting as we speak 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. I would like specifically comment on the team of Russavia and Offliner [58] who was blocked by Arbcom for harassment off-wiki. What they did was in fact an illegal email coordination to get another editor banned, precisely the kind of behavior discussed during the EEML case. If several EEML members received very harsh sanctions for doing something like that, what kind of sanctions deserved someone who did it afterward, being allegedly a victim of the EEML abuse? However, this is not really surprising, because I was a victim of outing by Russavia from the very beginning [59], and his current actions are not very much different from his previous actions.Biophys (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tired Martintg voted anonymously here by his own accord, and this was entered into evidence at
I'm chanting as we speak 07:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. I do not know why the edit where Russavia disclosed Martin's IP (!) has not been oversighted already and 18th entry added to Russavia's block log. --Sander Säde 07:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email coordination and advocacy

3) Russavia, having had no real involvement with existing content disputes due to his topic ban, designated himself as "the messenger", coordinated the drafting of an AE report with the banned user Offliner[60] (and possibly others) via email, advocated a long ban for a former EEML member thus perpetuating a battleground atmosphere.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose Denials of email communication have never been issued by myself at any stage. I have been upfront and honest in relation to editing on Wikipedia; always have and always will be. I also have not advocated a long ban for Biophys because he was a member of EEML, but because it is a firm belief of myself and many others that he is a disruptive editor with a long, long, long history of tedious editing and using Wikipedia as an avenue of advocacy of often contentious fringe POVs and conspiracy theories. Add in to the mix the admitted proxying on behalf of
I'm chanting as we speak 07:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Obviously, Rusavia is not a neutral "messenger" as he described himself many times [61]. Who can believe that he filed AE requests on Radek and Birutorul as a neutral side when he makes such comments [62]. By filing his AE request and asking to ban me for two years he wants to win a content dispute [63] ignoring the previous consensus [64] and get rid of me, just as he get rid of all his other content opponents [65]. As about his admitted teaming up with Offliner who was blocked by Arbcom for harassment off-wiki, that was an illegal email coordination to get another editor banned, precisely the kind of behavior discussed during the EEML case. I would not mind if Russavia used his email collaboration with Offliner for improving wikipedia content per
WP:Battle. Please treat all editors equally, as argued here. Biophys (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 06:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no such idiom as advocating oneself as a messenger. I think you misunderstood Russavia's use of a well known idiom, shooting the messenger, with regard to personal attacks at him during this case as an admission of improper coordination with a banned user. (Igny (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. Funny how EEML buddies accuse others of something they do on this same page. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there is nothing wrong in presenting evidence on behalf of a blocked participant. The arbcom needs information from all the sides presented to act fairly. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not[66]. --
talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Outing by Russavia

4) In addition to posting an external link to a Google search of my details[67], Russavia reveals my IP address in the SPI[68], and again in this ArbCom case[69]. In EEML case evidence, the email [20090804-0059] is cited by both Russavia (see second last bullet point[70]) and Offliner (see sixth dated bullet point[71]) in relation to myself canvassing the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination), yet no IP address was revealed in EEML case evidence. However Russavia now links to the specific edit revealing the IP address.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yet more disinformation from Martintg I have not obtained Martintg's IP address from the EEML archive and just posted it onto WP. His admission that he voted anonymously was entered into evidence at
WP:BATTLE
by Martintg; hopefully the Committee see it for what it really is.
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 09:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Russavia restricted

1) Russavia is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with the admonished or sanctioned participants of

WP:EEML
on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose As I have already stated, any comments and interaction I have had have not been without merit. From 2 reports for topic ban violations, 2 editors have either been blocked or had topic ban reset. Another report I made has brought us here. The information I presented on Martintg's SPI investigation was not entirely without merit either, and didn't even get to present views on why else it could be him, because others were more interested in crying outing, possibly to try and derail the SPI, perhaps not, when there was none. --
I'm chanting as we speak 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Except Alex, baiting has not occurred. Notice how I have not raised any issue of Martintg interacting with myself? That is because I am not, and have not, baited anyone. All instances of interaction have been as a result of the EEML sanctioned participants either breaking their topic ban or appearing to be sockpuppeting. Quite legitimate. --
I'm chanting as we speak 00:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What private information have I provided on any editor? Sander Sade, answer that question. And read everything that has been written, including past Arb decisions. --
I'm chanting as we speak 07:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. --
talk) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree seems to be fair that if EEML members a forbidden to interact with Russavia then Russavia should not interact with them. Otherwise baiting is possible. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I warned of this towards the end of EEML case - and I was correct, as soon as Russavia's topic ban ended, he started baiting restricted member with insults, revealing private information and material especially not allowed by ArbCom decision. Do rules apply only to certain Wikipedia editors or all? --Sander Säde 07:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This predictable move by EEML campaigners is just aimed at elimination of the most productive editor from "other side". They have been long trying to ban him somehow, which is easily could be seen in EEML evidence. Where is the evidence of Russavia baiting? Coded threats? No one has no right to bring complain against Radeksz and Vecrumba who have explicitly violated their restrictions? Is it approval by the ArbCom of the tactic currently EEML employs - asking million of questions on whether this or that violates the ban, and then make dubious edit bordering with ban restriction?
Excuse me, but what we have on this case is POV warrior Biophys who crossed the reasonable lines to keep his conspiracies throughout many articles. Second, editing with such POV pushers without commenting on them is just an aggravation of current state of affairs.
How long this repeated tactic of EEML members could continue? They eliminated Irpen, Ghirla and others the same way, and they now try to eliminate Russavia. Please consider the relations of the EEML members not only with Russian editors, but also with Lithuanian and Ukrainian editors. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia banned

2)

talk · contribs
) is banned for X months.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose I have already been blocked for a week for posting the link. Additionally, at the time that I posted it, it was not oversighted, it was still in view on WP. Offliner has nothing to do with this arbitration, so I can't be held responsible for the actions of others. --
I'm chanting as we speak 09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yet more disinformation from Martintg I have not obtained Martintg's IP address from the EEML archive and just posted it onto WP. His admission that he voted anonymously was entered into evidence at
I'm chanting as we speak 10:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. This is my Fof about Russavia: [72]. I am sure that all administrators had compelling reasons for making his blocks. Many people were banned for less than that. On the other hand, there are many mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account. But please make this official. For example, you may wish to issue him an official amnesty for all his misdeeds in the years of 2008 and 2009 if that is your intention.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Given his past block of December 5th, 2009, for knowingly inserting an external link to material previously oversighted, a ban is in order here. The banned user Offliner created this external material which revealed personal information. By inserting this external link Russavia effectively outed these people on Wikipedia. Not having learned anything, Russavia has obtained my IP address from the EEML archive and posted it on-wiki, per this FoF[73] --
talk) 09:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. Very poor attempt to enliven and relitigate something that was litigated. First, how EEML relates to these proceedings? Second, by which logic you claim that Russavia's diffs equals to outing of IP address? No IP were mentioned, no e-mails were cited. Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is linking to an edit by IP and saying it was Martin somehow different from just giving Martin's IP? --Sander Säde 12:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon Sander, you want to prohibit sockpuppet investigations throughout Wikipedia? Biophys has submitted my IPs on La Poet SPI. He committed outing then? Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigations are carried out by specially trusted Wikipedia editors, not by random members. Revealing someone's IP is a serious offense. As you did not link Biophys' edits, I have no idea what he did - and whether or not you had revealed those IP's as yours (how did he know it was you otherwise?). Martin has not publicly claimed that accidental non-logged in edit as his on Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about non-evading honest answer from you? Martintg here voluntarily confirms that it was his own IP. Previously it was an assumption, because neither SPI, nor EEML arbcom confirmed it. Otherwise, what merit his claim has now? And reporting IPs for SPI, linking to previous activities recorded on Arbcase pages under reasonable suspicion is pretty much legitimate. No one has asked to oversight these arbpages, SPI pages or oversighted them. This and Martintg's "That was me!" shows a real degree of Martintg's care about his IP addresses. I am silent about his non-stop disclosure of own whereabouts throughout Wikipedia. I don't think that reasonable people should care about privacy of an individual who discloses his info in every way possible - the rule that OUTING is not applicable in cases where editor has disclosed his personal info was devised for a reason. Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so ridiculous. Martin confirmed that it is his IP after Russavia had outed the information. Russavia did it based on a private e-mail communication, which by ArbCom decision should not be used outside
WP:EEML ArbCom case. There was nothing in Wikipedia about this IP being Martin's before Russavia's comment to the CU case. --Sander Säde 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't confuse others. You have no evidence that Russavia "did it based on private e-mail". He took IP from IP edit on deletion request page and gave a link to EEML on SPI, which is more than legitimate. Alex Bakharev (admin) is of the same opinion. Why on Earth he should fetch IP's from EEML archive, when he has IP of anon edit? You seem to be deep in this logic fallacy. Anyway, thanks to Martintg kind confession that it was him, we now know for sure that he indeed was canvassing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Colchicum

Proposed principles

references to EEML

1) The EEML case has long been over, the evidence has been examined and the decision has been pronounced. References to the mailing list rather than to the final decision are thus not only privacy violations, but also effectively attempts to relitigate the case, and as such are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose It is not a privacy violation, otherwise the case itself would not have gone forward. If this is passed, we may as well wipe EEML from memory, and let all of those topic banned editors back without sanction, even though it is possible that at least one of them has sockpuppeted, and a couple are already under other sanctions. It is also no privacy violation to refer back to EEML evidence if it is being done in order to demonstrate a modus operandi or reasoning in a dispute. That Martintg voted with his IP in an AfD, and then pronounced it to the EEML list, and which was then entered into evidence at EEML, is ok to refer to this at an SPI investigation which demonstrates that those IPs are both Bigpond IPs which resolve to Melbourne, and that comments by the IP on an Estonian article talk page (from which Martintg is banned) are similar to those offered by Martintg in the past, is able to be entered into evidence. Don't break your topic bans and nothing like this will need to happen. That the SPI didn't go ahead, is not evidence that this was not Martintg mind you. --
I'm chanting as we speak 11:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Vlad has a very good point. In fact, most of the evidence that Biophys has entered was entered into one of the pre-EEML arbcoms and in some cases, two or three previous arbcoms. Now, perhaps Colchicum could tell us how attempts such as this by Biophys are not anymore disruptive than mentioning a recent case, that since its completion several members have been sanctioned as a result of them breaching their topic bans. I await your reply. --
I'm chanting as we speak 11:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. This is a separate case. Only one of this case participants was noted in the official EEML remedies: Russavia [74]. The articles are mostly about Russia rather than about Europe. Please bring any evidence, but without references to the EEML. There is no reason to divide anything as "pre-EEML" or "post_EEML". Why not "pre-Stomakhin" and "post-Stomakhin" [75] ? Biophys (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Colchicum (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Additionally Russavia continues to call his opponents "EEML brigadiers"[76], even though he was specifically asked to stop doing so by Shell[77]. --
talk) 10:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting enough. Most of the "evidence" cited against me (outing, evading ban, sockpuppetry, etc) was the evidence on
WP:EEML. Colchicum contradicts to himself. What is the merit then of his and Biophys proposals below about me? Once again, we deal here with people who blindly rush to these arbcase pages to support their colleagues and who blindly throw in any suggestions against other editors without even caring to recheck and understand what they write about. Colchicum here suggests to consider himself and Biophys disruptive editors, since most of their evidence and Colchicum's provocation on Workshop talk page against me, personally, was already litigated in EEML. Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No - none of the evidence against non-EEML members was used in that ArbCom case, including yours. Hopefully this ArbCom will be balanced and do something about editors who actually damage Wikipedia (let me remind you again that there is not a single FoF even remotely describing any damage to Wikipedia by EEML). --Sander Säde 11:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you take time to explain to me differences between Sock puppet by Vlad fedorov to evade ban and conduct outing at
WP:EEML and Vlad fedorov created a sockpuppet to evade his one-year block by Arbcom and report real-life identity of Biophys to user Ellol here by Biophys and ban-evading sockpuppetry, outing attempts and general disregard for other people's privacy by Colchicum? Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No single FoF about EEML damage to Wikipedia? Evil arbitrators sanctioned poor EEML for nothing? Good joke. You are really having good time here. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go and check FoF's, as it appears you haven't done so - it always helps to familiarize yourself with the topic, so oneself would at least appear to know what s/he is talking about. Some EEML members broke Wikipedia guidelines and were sanctioned as a result. Not a single FoF claims that an EEML member deliberately inserted false information or created attack articles, like it was/is a common tactic of "EEML opponents". As for your weird "would you take time", I really have no idea what I have to do with it. --Sander Säde 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Sander, where is the difference between EEML accusation by Biophys and Colchicum and currently posted accusations against me?
2) Absense of diffs in support of your accusations is quite telling. Let me suggest you to start with Internet troll squads article. Could you remind us who started this degrading attack article with one-sided dubious sources and edit warred heavily to keep it alive? Should I bring there links to request for deletion of this article, disrupted by EEML members (among them - Piotrus)? Even nominating admin described it as attack article. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. There is not need for diffs when we are talking about ArbCom findings of facts. If your personal opinions run contrary to the opinions of the highest and most respected governing body in Wikipedia, I think I know which one I trust. As for your 1), you can see I have not commented on them - and frankly, I simply don't care. The mudslinging from both sides is all pointless, nasty and silly - and I feel for the arbitrators who have to go through analyzing it. --Sander Säde 13:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't participated in AE request and was forced into this because of Biophys and Colchicum's accusations and misrepresentations (coded death threats, etc). Your "don't care" attitude goes against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is a place for open and friendly collaboration, not "don't care" exercise. But you, in the end, seem "to care" about selected editors, right? Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What policy might that be? Nothing in "open and friendly collaboration" forces me to participate, or have an opinion, in a circular mudslinging that some people seem to enjoy on this page. I am not a part of that nor do I wish to be a part of it. --Sander Säde 13:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Constantly re-hashing "evil EEML!!" meme gets really old really fast, especially as Russavia et al are constantly making claims not supported by any findings of fact in EEML ArbCom case. If Russavia has any proof whatsoever that Martin broke his topic ban (while not even being in Australia at the time...), then he should present it, otherwise he should stop making slandering allegations. --Sander Säde 11:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are still a lot of unresolved issues from the case that are relevant so you can't just forget about it. -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regarding "It is not a privacy violation, otherwise the case itself would not have gone forward." this is not true, ArbCom chose to:
  • not censure Alex Bakharev for his grossly prejudicial and incorrect announcement of the leaked archive that EEML was all about being out to "get Russavia" and
  • ignore evidence of misappropriation of private correspondence, choosing to believe as the "more likely" explanation (with no proof provided whatsoever) that said violation of privacy was an act of conscience, conveniently exonerating WP from violating my and others' privacy.
Disagree. Obviously any relevant evidence whether already presented on EEML or not might be used to help those investigations. If somebody wants to prove that I am regularly hack personal emails and publish them onwiki you are welcome to use the materials of EEML. If somebody wants to establish that Biophys did not found below himself to participate in concentrated company of harassment against e.g. Russavia they are allowed to refer to the EEML materials. The salutation "EEML brigadier" is indeed incivil and I urge everybody to not use it Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not permitted to continue to make speculative references to material from the EEML archive, there is a standing injunction against this behaviour. --
talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed findings of fact

Hostile manner by Russavia

1) Russavia in a hostile manner approached Wikipedians prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with him per EEML restriction #11A. [78]

Comment by Arbitrators:
There is a concern here about promoting a battleground mentality, but I don't believe it's limited to Russavia. Shell babelfish 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That particular comment may not be a good example, however the evidence shows quite a few times when many of the editors here have been incivil, made personal attacks and in general hurled abuse at others. The persistent edit warring, failure to resolve disputes and POV pushing also contribute to a battleground atmosphere in this area. Shell babelfish 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to dig up diffs (some are on the evidence page already) but will provide them if I propose a remedy to this effect. You could start by looking at the number of times you've referred to the content of EEML emails since the close of that case. Shell babelfish 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already suggested you review the evidence page where several links have been provided; the accusation is not mine, rather evidence has been provided by other editors that seems convincing. As for continuing to repeat personal information from EEML emails, no, that's not all right. If you needed to demonstrate a pattern and the items were part of the case outcome, you could have easily referred to the case rather than bring up private communications if they were all included as you suggest. Shell babelfish 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Disagree I presented evidence on what was, and still is, a likely case of an editor under a topic ban evading their ban by way of an IP. The evidence I presented is clear. What was seen at that thread was
I'm chanting as we speak 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Shell, sorry just to respond to you here. I have not repeated any information from emails, I have referred to evidence presented at the EEML arbcom. There is a BIG difference here. I don't give a rats if the EEML brigadiers have a problem with people referring to evidence, the Arbcom made it very clear back then, that the emails could be used as evidence. And when there is a good likelihood that editors are breaking their Arbcom sanctions, then it is more than appropriate to refer back to that evidence in order to show a pattern. --
I'm chanting as we speak 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. For example, Vecrumba was provoked by this comment [79], which resulted in his three-week block. Another recent example: [80].Biophys (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support. Injecting himself into discussions, taunting and baiting by making derogatory comments and quoting material out of the EEML archive (which was only permitted during the EEML case), knowing full well that these people aren't themselves permitted to interact with him, is symptomatic of this battleground mind set. --
talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree. 1)Well the link above is a link to SPI investigation on two suspicious IP which intervened into discussion of Baltic states occupation. If Martintg, claims he has been interacted with by investigation of these IP's - then he admits, these were his socks. I suggest then to check whether these two IP's were Martintg. Too many coincidences happen these days - mysterious mails to Biophys (from HanzoHattori), mysterious IP's appearing out of nowhere.
2) There was no derogatory comments and quoting material out of the EEML archive on SPI pages by Russavia. Here Martintg deliberately confuses both arbitrators and case participants.
3) Martintg, your comments about Colchicum "don't collaborate with RuSSavia" posts? Is it OK to hint on another user as SS member? Or you prefer artificial creative single-sided coverage? Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only dif quoted show a valid entry into a legitimate and good faith dispute resolution process. Might change my opinion if baiting is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubts Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting other persons' personal information by Russavia

2) Russavia repeatedly tried to post other persons' personal information on-wiki (see [81] as well as several records in his block log). In particular, the piece of information on Martintg's whereabouts had been erased ([82] -- 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)) by an admin by the time of Russavia's comments and wasn't available anywhere on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
There does seem to be a pattern of using editor's personal information in what could reasonably be seen as an intimidating manner despite requests to stop. I note that Vlad Federov appears to have the same problem. Shell babelfish 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large difference between mentioning this information briefly on an SPI as appropriate and using personal or private information as a bludgeon to bring up repeatedly while in disputes. Yes, you can't put the genie back in the bottle but respecting other editors when they try to remove the information is important. There are other examples where you referred to private information related to Martintg, Biophys and other "opponents" from the EEML case. Shell babelfish 01:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Disagree The information on Martintg's whereabouts was indeed onwiki. Colchicum has chosen a carefully selected diff above. He should have presented this diff which clearly shows
I'm chanting as we speak 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment to Shell: C'mon now, a fair suck of the sausage here. You say that when there is clear evidence of an editor editing on behalf of a banned user that there is no pattern, but here you are saying there is a pattern. A pattern of what exactly? I posted what I did, and straightaway
I'm chanting as we speak 00:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Shell, I am now going to have to ask that you provide evidence of me referring to ANY private information in relation to any of the EEML brigadiers, with the exception of the one time in relation to Martintg. I await your response. --
I'm chanting as we speak 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Shell, if you are going to accuse me of something, you need to provide evidence, and not only if you decide to propose a remedy to that effect. You can not make such comments in a hit and run way. Any references I may have made to EEML emails were introduced into evidence during
I'm chanting as we speak 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. Such behavior led to his block from 4 December 2009, as he is well aware.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Re Shell comment on disclosing personal info. Shell, you cannot deny that here I was deliberately provoked to explain past events that were raised here by Colchicum, before you confirmed that these events certainly lie out of the scope of this arbcase. I never was receiving any warnings from administrators or Biophys himself about his personal information non-disclosure.
And, anyway, there is certainly a problem in case were editor who previously was disclosing his personal information, but suddenly without any public warning starts to enforce his confidentiality. The same case is with Marting, who having written virtually anywhere in WP information about were he resides (including wikipedians meeting in Australia pages, etc.), suddenly starts to accuse everyone of outing.
If you accept possibility of such mind change, then you inevitably should acknowledge the same pattern with Colchicum, who posted in WP a link leading to harrasment page, where in addition to harrasment I was outed.
In total let's face the facts of last 5 months: Biophys hadn't stopped edit warring, edited for banned editor, Radeksz violated his ban, Marting by commenting here repeatedly violated his ban after warning, Marting most likely attempted socking, Colchicum came here to support his buddy by provoking other editors (see his contribution activity), Birutorial most likely violated his ban. Conclusions? Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Publication of personal information, via off-wiki sources like PageFreeze or Google searches and linking back, even after being requested to stop, is completely unacceptable. For all the wrong doing of the EEML, one thing members have never ever done is to OUT the identity of Russavia (or any other person) anywhere, off or on-wiki, even though his identity has been long known to the EEML. Inappropriately canvassing an AfD is one thing, but repeatedly OUTing to harass and intimidate people is something else entirely. --
    talk) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oh really Martintg? What about this outing of Biophys to Digwuren's EEML board talk page giving link to the document with real name and address of Russavia? Could we analyze EEML archive to see when Russavia's real name and address started to be discussed by EEML and compare it with this message?Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Bad faith claims to enforce personal information previously disclosed by "the offended" virtually on all WP pages. As for Martintg, simple Wikipedia search gives tons of not oversighted links to his whereabouts. What normal editor, who is not involved with us and with this case, would do when he runs into Wikipedia Australia meeting page with Martintg info and latter communicates this info further in WP to someone? Would you sanction him? If there any tool in Wikipedia that could inform all users that from now on, Martintg personal info is "sikrit" and couldn't be mentioned or disclosed, even if it is accessible and easily found? Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Well if the info was disclosed by the user himself... -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose check user investigations inherently contradict privacy. In this case the compromise between the "outing" of the information posted by Martin himself and the real probability of sockpuppeting appears to be well justified Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, checkuser investigations are done confidentially by a trusted group. There is no justification for posting private information, particularly external links to google searches. The probability of me socking is zero. I was overseas at the time and can prove it with documentary evidence like hotel bookings. Australia is an immigrant society, as you yourself can testify, those IPs could have been anyone, even backpackers from Europe. --
talk) 08:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Checkuser investigations of registered and IP accounts almost certainly provide a wealth of private informations. Checkuser investigations of two registered accounts also often provide significant private information (just ask Biophys). Also checkuser requests are usually based on speculations about nature of editing by a account (interests, point of view, sources, grammar, spelling, timing of edits, etc.). Most of us would rather keep those points private. Another important place there privacy of users are routinely compromised are COI investigations. Wikipedia is built on contradictory principles and unreasonable vigilantism in enforcing one of them usually leads to violation of another principle (those wishing to have very late supper end up with having very early breakfast). Anyway whereabouts of Marting were put onwiki by himself and Russavia had all reasons to believe that Martin considered the info to be public. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However Russavia posted external links to google searches of my private information. That is unacceptable. --
talk) 01:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Assumptions of bad faith by Russavia

3) Russavia has engaged in chronic assumptions of bad faith (recent diffs: [84][85][86] [87] [88] [89] and to show that this is an established pattern: [90][91][92][93][94])

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose There is no need to assume good faith, when evidence to the contrary indicates that an editor is not working for the best interests of this project. Refer to example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Allegations_of_Putin_being_a_paedophile and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Alexander_Litvinenko_.28other_issues.29, where there is no need to assume good faith, because Biophys has clearly lied and/or clearly presented disinformation into evidence, and because there is clear evidence that he has acted
I'm chanting as we speak 12:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. This is evident from his own statement (one paragraph above): "Biophys has clearly lied and/or clearly presented disinformation". No, I did not. I hardly ever made such statements about Russavia.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Colchicum (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Well, it is not funny anymore. Two editors - Biophys and Colchicum accuse Russavia of bad faith by pointing to Russavia evaluation of their POV, ADVOCACY contributions. You forgot to include all other editors then - me, Ellol, LokiiT, DonaldDuck, Saiga12, YMB29, Irpen, Ghirla, Commodore Sloat, Offliner, Skäpperöd, PasswordUsername, Dojarca, Paul Pieniezny, M.K. and many others. This is because your POV, ADVOCACY contributions have only aim - to degrade Russia. Are you still surprised after 5,6,7 years that people do disagree with you? Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, any reasonable person including Biophys himself would agree that Biophys's edits have strong bias. It is not an assumption of a bad faith but a constation of a fact. It is not a banning offense to have a bias but it should be taken into account during editing of articles. As I said zillion times Biophys's bias should not be named Russophobic but rather anti-Putin, etc. but for a follower of La Russophobe blog this incorrect term should be that offensive, I guess. Suggestions that biophys may be somehow supported by
WP:POINT answer to Biophys routinely accusing other users to be FSB agents, plotting death threats against him, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Any reasonable person would agree that the other side has a strong bias too. Biophys has made genuine attempts to reconcile the differing viewpoints as the evidence shows, however some elements of the other side seem intent on eliminating him from participating in the project all together (even resorting to email coordination), rather than collaborate constructively to reach a compromise. --
talk) 01:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Vlad fedorov

1) On September 5, 2007, Vlad fedorov was banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year for a wide variety of disruptive behavior, including threats, personal attacks, sustained revert-warring, and egregiously inappropriate commentary [95]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose Whilst him being banned may be true, this has nothing to do with this case which is centred on post-EEML disruption. --
I'm chanting as we speak 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. As a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Colchicum (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mud sticks, but... In Boris Stomakhin, arbitrators were not considering that Biophys also edit warred, was inserting POV materials and was receiving "consultations" from experienced Piotrus. I am ready to present all the supporting diffs at the request. Vlad fedorov (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this has to do with the current case... -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Since then, Vlad fedorov has engaged in a wide variety of disruptive behavior, including revert-warring (for very recent diffs see [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]), ban-evading sockpuppetry ([101]), outing attempts and general disregard for other people's privacy, as well as chronic assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (there are plenty of diffs right here on these pages, see [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112]).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose Again this is centred on post-EEML disruption. --
I'm chanting as we speak 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Colchicum (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to relitigate EEML. Most of the claims are pre-EEML, edit-warring diffs are far-fetched misrepresentations of the state of affairs:
I contributed material to both articles, which was supported by numerous reliable sources. Contributions were NPOV.
1) Stepan_Bandera What about my final edit, which is pretty explaining all other edits diff? And note, I haven't been edit warring, I just noted that cooperation of Stepan Bandera with SS was already covered and deleted this summary myself. At the same time I added clarification to the another Hero of Ukraine court case.
2)Khaibakh massacre - why the nationality of the executioner shouldn't be known? Why I need to prove the inclusion of Georgian nationality to Stalin article and this article? Hey look, probably you were dissapointed that this executioner wasn't Russian? That was the reason for your and your friend's deletions?
If it was edit warring why no one discussed with me it in other venues, but rushed directly to arbcase? Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been interacting with Colchicum or Biophys or any EEML member. How is it related to this arbcom? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle, probably needed to be reformulated less harshly. Many edits seems to be reasonably innocent while other are indeed unfortunate Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those about nationality of the executioner? Common, then why
Stalin (someone currently injected conspiracy on his ossetian origin) article has his nationality?Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, the info about this NKVD colonel ethnicity is unreferenced (most probably an original research based on his last name) and irrelevant (it would be relevant if somebody would suggest that only Russians took part in the massacre, or only Georgians, etc. It is not the case.). The information abouth ethnicity of Stalin (as well as speculations about his Ossetian routes) are both referenced and notable for his biographic articles. Information of Stalin being Georgian is probably irrelevant to the article of World War II and it is indeed not there Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, it was sourced to Memo.ru. What's wrong with this historic website? This is international historical human rights society. Please, study my edits before commenting. Lone speculation that
Stalin was Ossetian without any reference to his Gerogian nationality (someone tried hard to delete it completely) is clear indication of how deep English Wikipedia is corrupted with POV warriors like Biophys. I cannot differentiate between Russia and Hell, judging by EnWP, but why the hell then they invest more and more to Russia? Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
How did you get there in the first place, within several hours of my edit, even though you had never edited that article before? If you were reviewing my edits, what were your reasons for doing so? It is in your best interests to be very careful with the wording of your response, if any. Another interesting question is what
reliable source made you think that the ethnicity of this guy is relevant to the description of the massacre, but I am afraid we haven't got the time to discuss such things and this is now immaterial anyway. Colchicum (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
First answer is
WP:AGF, second - see your edits in Aeroflot. How being somewhen Putin's close associate is related to current Aeroflot director then? You edit the same way. And I am wondering really, do you want to prove your edits are more disruptive than mine? You have been editing all the time in the same way, except you haven't referenced at all your injections[113], [114]. This is really funny how you milk my edits in the same way like Biophys milks Ellol's "coded death threats". I hope you won't come to Shelly talk page to campaign for your assertions. Vlad fedorov (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Igny

1) Igny (talk · contribs) has engaged in inflammatory comments, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks [115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123] will be taken to AE under

WP:DIGWUREN instead. (-- Colchicum (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Colchicum (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colchicum, I do not remember seeing you anywhere near the discussions (other than this page) for which you have just provided the diffs. So I naturally have some questions. Did you compile the list of my offenses yourself or someone helped you? Someone forwarded that list to you to post it here, right? And that is probably not the first time you have done this job in this case, right? (Igny (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Sure, it was you who helped me to compile the list. And you are still at it as of 03:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC). Colchicum (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

1) Russavia is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with the editors sanctioned by name in the EEML arbcom decision, as well as Biophys, on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:
A more general interaction ban might be helpful on this case since these same editors do seem to keep having problems interacting. Shell babelfish 22:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Disagree I have not been involved in contentious areas of editing for many months. Partly due to my "Russia" topic ban, and since the expiration of that ban because I have been working on various other things. Having said that, since the beginning of
I'm chanting as we speak 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Just a messenger? Do you mean this message? Asking a two-year ban for me was only a message? Outing me (your block by Moreschi) and other people (your block on 4 December 2009) was also only a "message"? You started this entire case to "win" a content dispute about Alexander Litvinenko [124] and ignore the previous consensus [125]. Was it also a message, and who sends such messages? You tell: "this is not interpersonal in nature mind you" [126]. Yes, I believe you. Yes, you explained everything here: [127]. Biophys (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was just a message. A message that you have edit warred, and continued to be quite tedious in your editing. And I asked for a two-year ban because it would send quite a message that you have continued to be quite disruptive to the project - whether it is taken on board or not is a diff matter, but we have one admin who has said he would have indef blocked you, so the report is not without merit. And that is what I will argue and continue to argue, that reports are not just made for no reason. --
I'm chanting as we speak 10:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not admitted to stalking. I have said I have reviewed some contributions of some editors; and this has been done after they have appeared on pages on my watch list - if it is on my watch list, there is a strong likelihood they should not be there in the first place. Only afterwards have I checked their contribs. I've got better things to do than to spend my time on WP worrying about EEMLers, such as the creation of content is a major priority of mine - in fact, it is the only priority of mine on this project. --
I'm chanting as we speak 10:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That's correct, I have actively looked at contributions, when they have appeared on my radar. I have not for example bothered to look at your contributions for example, because I have better things to do, and the same goes for those were sanctioned at
I'm chanting as we speak 10:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You may read it as you like. But if you take
I'm chanting as we speak 10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. Any more general interaction bans, as suggested by Shell, would also be welcome. This must include reporting each other at ANI/AE/3RR and all other noticeboards, complaints to individual administrators, any personal accusations instead of discussing content, coming to each other talk pages, etc. Please make this explicit in your rulings.Biophys (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support. Russavia has openly admitted stalking his opponents in hope of finding incriminating edits, going even as far as trying to paint vandalism reversions (as specially allowed by ArbCom) violations of ArbCom remedies. In another case he managed to file an arbitration enforcement request even before the user in question refreshed his watchlist, literally in minutes. Possibly it is currently banned Offliner, who does most of the stalking, as several of the reports are in a very different style (amusingly, including the enforcement request which started this case, accusing Biophys of proxying for a banned user...), and Russavia has openly proxied for him in other situations.
I think that stalking EEML members has become an obsession for Russavia, creating more than strained editing atmosphere, and seriously damaging Wikipedia. Like Shell said, a more general interaction ban could be a good solution.
--Sander Säde 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Russavia, you have admitted stalking, [129], "...I have been actively watching participants in the EEML for evidence of continued disruption...". But then again, it was probably not your own text, so it is understandable if you don't remember it. --Sander Säde 10:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are describing is passive watching, we all do that - whenever I see, say Colchicum, Martin or Vecrumba in my watchlist, I look what they have been up to. If they mind me doing that, they can just let me know and I'll stop. I, myself, have no issues with people looking at my contributions, as I don't do things I should be ashamed of.
Actively watching is checking user's contributions just to find incriminating edits (i.e. stalking) - and I cannot read the quote above as anything else.
--Sander Säde 10:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At a minimum. This battleground behaviour needs to be stopped. --
talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Strongly disagree. Bringing complains on Post-EEML violations by EEML members of their sanctions or reporting them to boards is not harassment, but exercise of Russavia and everyone's rights. Complain on Radeksz was substantiated, complain on Biophys was more than substantiated, SPI investigation on Martintg was substantiated in my opinion, complain on Martintg violating his boundary of interacting with Russavia was substantiated. EEML members are there to support their buddies by commenting out of the scope of their own complains and violate ban for interaction with Russavia. Post-EEML POV edit warring by Biophys has nothing to do with Martintg and Vecrumba. Both Martintg and Vecrumba do not condemn violations of WP policies by Biophys and Colchicum. They demonstrate biassed approach in their judgement here. If they feel, they were offended in some way by Russavia, why no one of them has brought complain to ANI or AE board previously? Instead they come here and bring their grievances distracting us from the case before us - edit warring and disruptive editing by Biophys and Colchicum. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad fedorov

2) Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia. He has used up his second chance.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose As per comment/suggestion by Bakharev, perhaps
I'm chanting as we speak 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. Evading the previous one year ban by Arbcom to conduct outing, and the repeated outing during these proceedings. I am not sure how Alex can mentor him if he does not listen Alex [130].Biophys (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what your FORK injections and POV pushing about
Krupskaya death speculation all based on single POV source has do to with my listening to someone? I would like to note that you have disrupted even Nikolai Glushkov article, were again this FORK and POV sourced to Goldfarb were injected alone, without presentation of other views. E.g., again you corrupt the articles by injecting to them only one POV. Again, the same story like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy (2nd nomination). Indeed, you always suggest to others to read Moreschi's User:Moreschi/The Plague, then change the word nationalism to conspiracy in the article and read it again, because Moreschi describes your very own symptoms: fringe theories, original synthesis, edit warring, tendentious editing, accusing others of vandalism and censorship, seeking the Truth. And very right diagnosis - most admins are too scared to block for POV pushing, much greater use should be made in this respect of the community sanction noticeboard. Vlad fedorov (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Colchicum (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thank you. You are so kind and friendly. Wish you good luck.
PS. To all. After this generous proposal from Colchicum, would anyone believe that he has come here not to take revenge and not to create more battleground? Clear deliberate attempt to get rid of uncomfortable editor.
I am afraid to ask what remedy would you suggest to Biophys and yourself then. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:BAN
, the Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy, usually following a request for arbitration.
Per
WP:BAN
the arbcom should take into account:
  • Maximizing the quality of the encyclopedia
  • Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity
  • Maximizing the number of users who can edit Wikipedia
  • Avoiding conflict within the community over banned users
  • Dissuading or preventing banned users from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban.
I believe that my contributions which survived edit warring by Biophys in Boris Stomakhin and other articles prove that I am able to contribute important information to Wikipedia.
I had demonstrated at least some reforms since Stomakhin arbcase. Probably, I need some experienced mentor. That would be perfect. Irpen was the only one individual who adised me on something. Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Was this proposal even serious... -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to harsh. Mentoring might be a good idea Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellol

3) In view of this, ellol (talk · contribs) shall be limited to one revert per page per week on all articles concerning Eastern Europe, broadly construed

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Vecrumba listed some of my edits in the
Russian apartment bombings. Although the dispute was initially tough and the both sides edited a lot, however, I answered all points by the Biophys at the talk page, and the dispute is now ultimately over as the compromise solution was forged few months ago. ellol (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not sure what exactly remedy would be appropriate. Please examine my discussion with him here and decide.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am doing quite well and I need no remedy. ellol (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. No objection from me to a possible extension of this restriction to others, including the protagonists of the case, if necessary (but I guess there will be no shortage of others pressing for that), or to a reasonable time limit of this restriction. Colchicum (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are still diffs which are sterile reverts of Biophys on Evidence for Russian apartment bombings article. Biophys sterile reverts in other articles still are. And even in the same
Russian apartment bombings
, his edits are still disruptive because of ADVOCACY, POV pushing, FORKing something that Vecrumba describes as:
  • "Biophys' version indicates speculation in the press regarding Russian secret service involvement"
  • "Biophys resections some headings, no change to content" (Biophys has been trying for ages to make Ryazan incident as part of the event, but it wasn't the same event, but related - here again POV pushing and bad judgement),
  • "Biophys removes speculation" (well Biophys obsession with FSB involvement theory speaks for itself in deciding which "speculation" he removes) - POV pushing,
  • "Biophys inserts section ("Statements about GRU involvement in Buynaksk") asking why it was removed, note, this is NOT content inserted by Biophys at the start of this chain (that is, Biophys is not reinserting his content piece-meal)" - false, here Vecrumba again defends POV pushing, Galkin was tortured and his so-called confessions under tortures were not reliable and it is not mentioned in this new POV injection by Biophys, the authors he injects are not neutral;
  • [131] this massive deletion by Biophys of sourced material is ok? And as Vecrumba says in point 3 of his evidence about this edit "in fact, it's painfully clear Biophys is attempting to work within the bounds set by the reverts of other editors"? Well, I am speechless.
  • The most important thing is that claim of Vecrumba that Biophys revert diffs do not show intermediate edits doesn't matter in the end. Whether Biophys was reverting back to old version by one or more edits or not, it is the final result that matters in determining whether this was revert. There is no magic in surface editing activity, which "accidentaly" each time by the last edit of Biophys returns to the same version. The last edit in Biophys revert diffs is always that of Biophys or not? "They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same" Lost, 6X15.Vlad fedorov (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to anaylze further Vecrumba's partisan and mirror opposite evaluation of diffs, arbs would anyway study diffs themselves, but for Vecrumba, because of his personal POV which coincides with this Biophys, UNDUE WEIGHT POV pushing, FORKing (as for example with POV depiction of Galkin "confessions" received under apparent torture, which Biophys doesn't mention in the Apartment article) constitutes good and NPOV contributions;
One just need to translate Vecrumba's language in Evidence "painfully clear attempt to work within the bounds set by the reverts of other editors" = massive deletion of sourced material added by other editors, "removing speculation" = removing NPOV material from the article, removing another POV from the article, "resectioning of some headings, no change to content" = merging of material related to another event, to the main event, "Biophys' version indicates speculation in the press regarding Russian secret service involvement" = injection of UNDUE WEIGHT POV, etc, etc.;
Moreover, Vecrumba crossed the line of his ban restriction here. Vecrumba is not related anyhow to Russian apartments bombings edit warring, arbs warned him to be carefull not to violate EEML ban restriction. I haven't been presenting any evidence against Vecrumba or accusing him of WP Policy violations etc. Vlad fedorov (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coediting restriction

4) All interaction bans are mutual. Furthermore, all editors placed under an interaction ban are also prohibited from reverting or modifying each other's edits within n days of their occurrence.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support, n ≥ 7. This is great idea that could be used in many other cases as well. It prevents wikistalking. It works essentially as 1RR restriction, but only with regard to interactions between certain editors, if that's the problem. It makes equal a single editor and a group. Consider this restriction issued for the interaction between user R. and a group of editors (A,B,C).Biophys (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely oppose This is a end run attempt in order to prevent editors who are in good standing (such as myself) from bringing issues such as sanctioned editors breaking topic bans to the attention of the community. Sanctions were placed for good reason, and such editors shouldn't be breaking their bans. Shoot the violator, not the messenger. --
I'm chanting as we speak 00:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by others:
Proposed. A one-sided interaction ban is a recipe for disaster. Moreover, a mutual interaction ban alone doesn't make sense and only escalates tension unless the parties don't have reasons to interact. A coediting restriction is needed here. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since it would favor POV warriors, who may then inject to the articles info from terrorist websites, insulting unrelated materials to national banners, monuments, etc. Expected move from Colchicum and Biophys, who represent minority POV views and conspiracies.Vlad fedorov (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if some EEML members are forbidden to interact with Russavia then allowing Russavia to interact with them makes potential baiting possible. Thus, I am for symmetry here. A more general interaction ban might be tempting but take into account that many participants are involved in hundreds of Russia-related articles, blocking interactions might hinder getting consensus there Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Biophys

Proposed findings of fact

Russavia

1)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in outing (his blocks on 15 September 2008, 4 December 2009 and 1 April 2010 [132]), making legal threats (his block on 16 September 2009 [133]), other threats (November 2008), inappropriate canvassing (Offliner, January 2009, LokiiT, November 2008, DoladDuck, May 2009, Kirill Lokhin, November 2008, Jimbo Wales, December 2008), creating battlegrounds (edit summaries) (September 2009,April 2009, April 2010), personal attacks (August 2008,February 2009,September 2008,February 2009,March 2009,March 2009), grossly inappropriate commentaries (March 2009,September 2009), bad faith assumptions (during these proceedings [134][135][136]
[137] [138] [139] and earlier: [140][141][142][143][144]), and BLP violations combined with soapboxing (mostly September 2008: [145], [146], [147], [148], [149],[150], [151],[152], [153]).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Edits from 2008 are way outside the scope of this case as should have been clear by the numerous discussions about using current evidence only. We get it - this has been going on a long time and needs fixed. Help us figure out what to fix by showing us what's happening right now, not dragging out every poor thing an editor has ever done. Shell babelfish 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough - all of you. We are absolutely not here to re-argue disputes from years ago. Biophys, if you can clean up your evidence and proposals to base them off current information then do so; if not, they're likely to be ignored. The rest of you, he's not fooling anyone so as much as you might want to get into long arguments, please keep any statement incredibly brief (such as: Most of those diffs are from 2009 or before) and no more long arguments. Shell babelfish 20:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed.Biophys (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In it's current form, it is full of pre-EEML issues, and is also full of usual disinformation. Refer to
I'm chanting as we speak 09:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Re to Shell: It was argued that the battleground has to be thoroughly examined from the very beginning in order to identify its causes: [158]. Therefore, I simply provided all dates for convenience of arbitrators. Please decide yourself what was relevant and what was not. I do not see any logical reasons for justifying any specific dates, because this case is hardly a part of EEML [159] and Arbcom did not specifically ruled that any actions by Russavia in the year of 2008 (for example) are a subject of an amnesty.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This disinformation of yours is really getting tedious Biophys. Read the talk page in its entireity for crying out loud. You were clearly all but removing information from the official investigation from the article, and leaving only in its place a conspiracy theory -- a conspiracy theory all but claiming that Putin's parents were Georgian -- throughout the entire time, you refused to answer WHY you were removing information from the article proper and hiding it into footnotes. This is something that to this day you still have not answered. My so-called threat was clearly taking the piss out of your claims that you accuse everyone who you are in disagreeance with of being some KGB agent. According to my timestamps, this was posted at 02:19 on 3 November 2008. My very next edit was this at 02:35 on 3 November 2008, which was a post to the

WP:RUSSIA
talk page, where I wrote:

I am having problems with an editor at the Artyom Borovik article. I have edited the article so that both the fringe conspiracy theories and the investigation into his death are covered equally. You can see this version here. The other editor has created this version instead. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but I do not feel that this editor is going to see the problem. One thing I haven't mentioned at the talk page is that the article is by no means long enough to require footnotes, and what is in the other editors version is only a few words of the investigation (which was widely reported), which is then fobbed off by including speculation which we can't fact check for ourselves. All in all it is indicative of problems surrounding a lot of Russian articles, in which fringe theories are given too much prevalence, without balance to all views. Can project members please provide their opinions, and don't be afraid of calling me a dick.

That is not a call to arms. That is not a call for others to come battle with you. It is clearly a notice that you were being

I'm chanting as we speak 20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm chanting as we speak 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. Inter alia, old edits (e.g. unrelated to this case), far-fetched statements with bunch of diffs taken out of the context and twisted with a drop of unreasonable misinterpretation. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks like another set of baseless accusations that Biophys makes to divert attention from himself. -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Any finding about Russavia needs to distinguish clearly between incidents before his topic ban and subsequent rehabilitation, and whatever happened after. If the claim is being made that problematic behaviour resumed afterwards, the finding needs to be reworded accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this case as unrelated to EEML (please see arguments here), and I do not see any difference in his behavior before and after the "rehabilitation". What "rehabilitation"? Was it a statement by Arbcom I have missed? Regardless, many diffs above are very recent.Biophys (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most diffs are either very old or quite innocent. The statement should be significantly edited or rejected Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alex for commenting here. I believe none of the diffs are innocent. On the other hand, I did not want anyone sanctioned, as stated in the beginning of this case [160]. It was not me who started this case. With regard to Russavia, we need an official ruling by Arbcom telling that all his actions in the years of 2008 and 2009, which resulted in his blocks, are a subject of an amnesty.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad fedorov

2) Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a sockpuppet [161] to evade his one-year block by Arbcom and report real-life identity of Biophys to user Ellol. He then outed Biophys again, during these arbitration proceedings.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed.Biophys (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support When a user posts about how another users has visited Spain for a vacation this is completely different than posting an outside link (wiki commons isn't wikipedia) containing the users FULL NAME! I don't see how any remedy but a permaban (like so many others for similar violations) can be of any effect since the damage done is irreversable. If Vlad Federov gets away with a mild sanction or no sanction at all other users should be able to get away with posting a users full name and location too, and that would be an extremely dangerous path to follow.
talk) 13:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Biophys was stupid enough to sockpuppet on Commons, and he got caught. That other users saw this is not, well, unexpected. On his sockpuppets userpage he mentioned an article on Wikipedia he created on his place of work. I looked at it, and saw some things wrong with claims it made. I then placed a very carefully worded COI template on his enwiki talk page, advising him that he may have a conflict of interest. No mention of any names or anything was made. The peanut gallery called this outing. (I was actually blocked Moreschi for alleged harrassment, not outting). But ok, if we use the line that Commons is not Wikipedia, and everyone wants to construe what I did was outting, then Biophys is equally guilty of outing myself! Back in October 2008, I uploaded to Commons
I'm chanting as we speak 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Shows indeed you still believe your block for herassment of biophys was unjustified like so many other of your blocks. As for Biophys supposedly outing you, he probably wasn't even aware your name was in the document which he quite obviously linked to for completely different reasons (showing that the Kremlin is interested in Wikipedia). Also you've linked the document only a few thousand times yourself? With every kremlin picture you uploaded the document was shown on wikipedia (and not commons). Again something completely different than what Vlad federov did which was placing a link that had no value except for showing what Biophys' real identity was or where to find it.
talk) 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Your arguments are flawed and contradictory. Do you honestly believe someone is allowed to post your full name on wikipedia because you were "stupid enough" (in your own words) to disclose your full name on Wiki Commons? I assume not because you are afraid of off-wiki herassment. Yet you still believe users are allowed to mention Biophys' real name, who amongst other users has received threats off-wiki.
talk) 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Wasn't aware? Yeah right. It was only addressed to me in at least two places right at the beginning of the document. Look at the document now, and see where it is blacked out. Also, if I have linked to the document on Wikipedia, the same can be said for those files which Biophys uploaded onto Commons and placed into Wikipedia. I'm not going to point to them, anyone who knows what is what can find them for themselves. But he was stupid enough to sockpuppet, and blamed everyone else for pointing this out to him, and then for pointing out he may have a conflict of interest. As to that block, if someone has a conflict of interest, I will do the same thing again. As I did with
I'm chanting as we speak 16:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's a fact that you people don't know. In early May of 2009, before the existence of
I'm chanting as we speak 16:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's quite obvious you don't care at all about articles related to
WP:COI
notion and Biophys linking to that document are things of the past, whereas Vlad federov's obvious violation is a thing of the present.
The facts are: 1) Both Russavia and Biophys revealed their real names on wiki commons, probably because they were both naive. 2) Both Russavia and Biophys later regretted this and attempted to hide their identities. 3) Because Commons is a different medium nobody is allowed to mentioned either Russavia or Biophys' real name. Agree with me so far? That means NOBODY IS ALLOWED to mention your names and Vlad federov did just that. If you truly believe Vlad federov is allowed to reveal Biophys' real name on wikipedia, how would you feel if I posted your name here right now? A hypothetical question because I don't know your real name nor do I want to. I'm asking you because it seems you want to change rule number 3 into 3) Everyone is allowed to reveal Biophys' name yet nobody is allowed to reveal Russavia's name.
talk) 18:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Grey Fox, it seems to me that you forget what is the reason for Biophys complain. His reason is my edits on Workshop talk page, not something that I've done previously which is out of the the scope of this arbitration. Once again read carefully
WP:OUTING, you have outed Biophys trips which were not published anywhere in WP by him, so you were contacting each other off-wiki, and you have reavealed his personal information about his trips to Kavkaz. So, it quite curious that you, guys, personally, out each other, and demand something from others, not to mention clear provocation by Colchicum.Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually he did tell me about his hiking adventures on Wikipedia and not off Wikipedia, including showing me the mountain range which he thought was most beautiful and details on some ethnos related topics. It's completely irrelevant though, everyone knows the difference between mentioning someones vacation and placing his full name like you did. Especially when its about such a vast area. It would be the same if I were to mention that a user has visited the
talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Great so he told you this off-wiki, and you were communicating off-wiki? Well, I think EEML pattern continues. Excellent. Now answer the question, have you revealed personal inofrmation on Biophys' trips to Kavkaz on wiki, yes or no? I never placed his full name or any info, don't lie. Vlad fedorov (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did. And read properly, I said he told me ON-wiki.
talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you that you have silently agreed that you have been disclosing personal information of Biophys. This is very indicative. Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
I am calling bs on Russavia's website attack. Unless you were running the website on two cans and a string, one computer doesn't do squat against a website (and I am speaking as an IT professional here). Much more likely it was a zombie, taken over by malware. And of course, no one from EEML lived in Pärnu anyway...
Not to mention, this simply is not something EEML members would do. We were tenured professors, respected scientists and professionals, we did not ever do something as low and shameful as creating Encyclopedia Dramatica pages about our opponents with detailed personal info and inviting to kill them all, outing them, publishing private information in and out of Wikipedia - or made copies of oversighted Wikipedia edits. Something like attacking a website is out of anything that any of us would do.
--Sander Säde 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vlad fedorov has already been sanctioned for the creation of the sock puppet, so is irrelevant to this case. He also has not outed you at all during this case. --
I'm chanting as we speak 07:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Attempt to relitigate
WP:EEML
case. Second part is not outing because it was:
Oppose. Irrelevant and false accusations by Biophys again. -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vlad was already sanctioned for the sockpuppeting (one year old). Other information seems to be overdramatized Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come? I do not see any sanctions: [162]. And how about his statement ("An important background...") in this section during the arbitration? This statement had to be supervised immediately, as I officially requested here and at Commons. People at Commons were more forthcoming, I must admit. Yes, I think we need an Arbcom ruling here. If they tell it was not outing, I am speechless.Biophys (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellol

Ellol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a threat using real life name of Biophys at the beginning of message [163] (Google translation [164]), after receiving information about name of Biophys from Vlad_fedorov (see above), and ignoring a previous warning [165]. The threat was constructed as an apology for the previous threat [166] [167] [168]. He also was engaged in POV-pushing and disruptive editing [169], in disregard to our WP:RS policy [170].

Comment by Arbitrators:
I've looked at all of the original Russian posts by Ellol (I read Russian, Ukrainian and a few variants but am not fluent); the first message called a threat was rather incivil, but doesn't contain any threats. The apology was just that and again, even translating poorly I don't see how it could be taken as threatening (it's quite conciliatory actually). However, this is precisely why we ask that you use English when addressing other editors here to avoid just such misunderstandings. I don't see this rising to the level of a finding/restriction. Shell babelfish 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For one of the diffs[171], it's a quote from an anti-establishment blog [172]. It's a call for people who are against what the writer believes are failed government policies to set aside their political differences and decide which side they are on - either for or against Putin. Ellol asked if you agreed with the sentiment. You said you disagreed, but then went on to say "although they are not even remotely as bad or dangerous as FSB and Putin". Ellol has indicated that this caused him to question whether or not you understood the quote.
As for your translations of this message[173], now that I see it in context rather than the snippets you gave diffs to, I wouldn't call it incivil either. In this case, you're literally translating idioms or using outdated material - even I don't know all of them (I haven't had someone to converse with for years). It wasn't the most polite way for him to point out his concerns at your grasp of the language, but there's no case to be made that it was a threat.
Finally, the apology - clearly he did use your name as well as giving his own in return. Given the context of the message, I'm more inclined to think that it was an attempt to connect with a heartfelt apology than some kind of underhanded threat that he knew your name. Shell babelfish 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but no, we're not going to accept translations that are clearly flawed as fact. Good translation is not about matching word for word but rather conveying the proper meaning of the text as per the example I gave you on my talk. Shell babelfish 02:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear here - I completely disagree in the strongest possible terms with the translations you provided. It would be like saying "I would kill to work this out." and have someone accuse me of threatening to end their life; the "translations" you provided are completely useless. Shell babelfish 03:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biophys, two things here - first, everyone other than yourself who's been consulted agrees these are not threats and are current street slang. Second, you've brought this same diff up repeatedly for three years now and been told the same thing each time. Drop it and move on. Please remember that the proposed decision will be coming along shortly and you may wish to focus on anything you feel should be part of that decision - this will not be. Shell babelfish 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed.Biophys (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two important questions to Shell, just for the sake of clarity. (1) I gave my version of translation, phrase by phrase here: [174]. Do you agree that each individual phrase was correctly translated by me? If not, what was your version of translation? (2) Do you agree that Ellol used my real life name in this message (first string after the heading) [175]? Thank you. Biophys (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Shell, for response. The bottom line with translations: unless someone gives me an alternative version of his/her translation, phrase by phrase (and allows commenting about the difference in versions), let's consider this to be correct translation. As about interpreting the meaning of messages, in a proper context, I am sure that Shell and other arbitrators are very much capable of making their own conclusions.Biophys (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Shell. I mean only my translation of individual phrases that create a continuous text. As about the entire text, yes, this is something open to interpretations, as any coded message. Yes, this depends on the context [176].Biophys (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Shell. If you disagree with my translations of individual phrases and think this is really important (I am not so sure), please ask someone to provide alternative translation of each individual phrase and let's compare. But I'd like to summarize, my reading of this story. We had a content disagreement in human rights in Russia-related articles at that time. He came and asked: "Do you understand the meaning of such expressions as "it's better to came to an agreement at the court of thiefs [literally, hitting each other by fingers to the eyes] than to be killed?" and other phrases, like "your creativity is shit" and so on. I asked him never do this again [177], but he came again and basically said "I know who you are!" using my real life name. And he later stalked my edits in "Bombings" and some other articles, which was brought by Russavia in his request. That was the only reason I mentioned the older incidents with Ellol to put the entire story in perspective.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re to Shell. I invite every arbitrator to examine if my workshop statements are supported by evidence and made in a good faith. This particular Fof (see above) is not about a three year old episode. It is about more recent and current problems [178],[179]. As a side note, my translation from Russian "street language" (a mix of gangsters expressions [180],
    Russian mat and obscene Udaff) was correct, as follows from comparison with version by Alex (see below). Biophys (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Biophys, the message was composed in Russian. It was not composed in English, and I see no sense in trying to translate it, as I did it once already and my translation is the only correct because I'm the author. If you want to further discuss the message, please, switch to Russian and discuss the Russian text in Russian. ellol (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was first approached on that topic in June 2007 by a third-party user: [181]. I had to explain my words in details: [182].
Biophys continues to raise that story again and again at every arbitration. Clearly, he has a plan to use that against me. I am sure that all his ostensible concerns are an actor's play. He does not actually care about that story, because it never comes in sight in the mundane editing job, while he is focused on actual content disputes. But when it may suite his goals, he starts to play this type of a paranoid personality that's eternally obssessed with the alleged threats, and raises that issue again.
He is a clever and intelligent person and he knows well what may suit his goals and what may not.
ellol (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is original ANI thread: [183], and this is translation by Alex_bakharev (copy-paste, but combining all pieces in the continuous text, as was in the original message by Ellol):
"Money rules", "I am not excited of Putin", "Underworld meetings are still more civilized than a zatochka [comments by Alex what zatochka is] in a body", "Creative piece is shit, its author is a dickhead", "You should be responsible for your words", "The case of Yukos was solved according to the underworld customs rather than the written law", "You are exhausting us with your lies".
Compare with my version:
"Everything can be done for money. "I do not like Putin". Coming to an agreement at the court of thieves is better than to be killed by Stiletto. [Your] creativity is shit. Author is fucker. One must be punished for making too much noise. Fate of Yukos has been decided [by Putin] based on the laws of criminal world, not state laws. [You] pissed someone off by promoting nonsense".
I think this is very old, but let's arbitrators decide.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I disagree with some of Alex translations. This is "Gangster meetings" rather than "Underworld meetings". Zatochka is widely used outside the prisons (his omitted comment). This is "your creative piece" rather than "creative piece". This is "you must be held responsible for making noise" rather than "You should be responsible for your words". In addition, we both removed obscenities and softened rude expressions, some of which came from
Russian mat. Other than that, both translations are possible.Biophys (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You are just distracting the arbitration from its actual topic, your disruptive behaviour. I think your continued attempts to raise the issue of alleged threats are a part of your disruptive behaviour.
I forgot long ago which wordings I used in that message, and I have no least desire to recall them again. I will not voluntarily return to that issue any more, unless you file a criminal case against me and I will be obliged to speak by the court in Russia.
ellol (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Important notice, Biophys has deliberately made gross mistake in FoF by stating that in alleged "threat message" Ellol used Biophys real name. In fact, Ellol used Biophys real name only in apology message. Again mysterious mistakes, confusions, etc?
Link provided by Biophys in support of alleged refusal by Ellol to follow RS policy is ridiculous. I am also Christian, perjury is a violation of human law and of ten commandments: Exodus 20:16 (You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor). Somehting that he has done by alleging Ellol referred him by personal name in alleged "threat message". Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear arbitrators, could you take note of this discussion and have independent translator (not Google robot) translating Ellol's message?
My major points:
  • Ellol clearly indicated that he wants to understand Biophys's level of colloquial Russian language.
  • How much time passed before Biophys first claimed he was threatened by Ellol? Just over two months. This clearly indicates that Biophys understood his message correctly, but later decided to use it against him, just because Ellol wasn't very careful in selecting phrases from modern Russian.
  • Biophys has made substantial mistakes in translation and demonstarted bad knowledge of modern conversational Russian language here.
  • Biophys has omitted some phrases from his original mesage, e.g. he redacted (distorted) Ellol's original message.
  • Biophys has added pronouns in brackets [You] in order to make these sentences seem as addressed to him. Although in fact they are not specifically directed to specific person.
  • Even though Ellol apologized and offered to work together, Biophys continued to raise this comedy on several arbitration cases
    WP:EEML
    case.
  • In interpretation of Ellol's message Biophys assumes bad faith.
  • Nowdays, "забить стрелку" means to agree to meet somewhere. For example, to agree to meet a friend. And it is no more thiefs jargon. And the whole phrase could be used ironically or jokingly in figurative meaning.
  • I even without any reference to any dictionary hereby claim that "толкать фуфло" today means "to bullshit" and today it is not indicating that a man belongs to criminals.
  • For translation Biophys uses outdated dictionaries of 90-ies criminal slang that suit his purpose. Why doesn't Biophys combine modern dics? For example 'to lie' here, 'to lie' there. Why Biophys uses solely dictionary for old criminal slang? Ellol is not a criminal. Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not provide your version of translation (phrase by phrase please) when I asked you: [184] [185]. That's because any reasonable translation would support my version.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have first this reasonable translation by qualified philologist. You put the cart before the horse.Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The message by Ellol is indeed a pretty polite apology. Misrepresenting Ellol's quite civil behavior as "dead threats", "outing" etc. is IMHO a part of continuing harrassment of Ellol by Biophys. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Alex. Point 1. An extremely nationalistic user [186] comes to my talk page, although I asked him previously never do it again [187], uses my real life name reported to him by Vlad_fedorov, suggests that I am an ideological warrior, asks not to post any sourced information with criticism of Russian government after making previous threats [188], and this is not a threat? Point 2. I harrass Ellol? He made 111 edits at my talk page, although I asked him to stop (please compare with my talking partners). As about the "bombings" article, he edited it only on a few occasions prior to coming to revert all my recent edits in September 2009 (that was the first encounter: [189], and you can find more info here and especially here).Biophys (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) My most recent edit to your page is dated to April 1, 2009: [190]. However after that, quite recently, you appeared at my talk page. Not a logical behavior for an alleged victim of harrassment. Instead, you must have felt it's safe for you to appear at my talk page and engage in a discussion -- because I did not invite you.
2) Admitting the existence of Russophobes such as G. Lukas does not make me an "extremely nationalistic user" from any point of view. But you are making a personal offense against me by calling me "extremely nationalistic".
3) I never used you first name since you suggested me not to. My own policy is quite different, by the way -- I disclose my personal information to a significant degree.
ellol (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was appropriate for me to discuss the suspicious email with you first, instead of reporting the incident anywhere. I found your explanation of email by impostor convincing, because everyone knows my emails after the outings. Therefore, I did not bring this matter anywhere in this case (my statement above tells nothing about that).Biophys (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you feel OK to deal with me when you need it. Then why on earth do you pretend that I harrass you? ellol (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you did it. Fine, let's consider another example. Yes, you edited the "bombings" article on a few occasions prior to September 2009. But we had no any problems with you. Right? Why all the sudden you started acting differently? I made a series of 28 edits to significantly expand the article [191]. But you just blindly reverted everything with such comment: [192]. I suggested to keep each other edits in the article and do not revert to any old versions. You said "Okey" [193] but ... reverted everything to very old version: [194]. That was harassment too.Biophys (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer to bear grudges persistently and to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous, fine with you.
I am sorry, but I do not trust you.
I also have nerves and I can't talk openly to a person who has excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs. ellol (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bear grudges? No, I only wanted to show the pattern: 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. But you still consider your actions as "neutral or friendly" and do not respect reliable secondary sources as "Russophobic". I do not care much because I am leaving. But you may create problems for others [195].Biophys (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys, please, leave the question of Russophobia to citizens of Russia, like you leave questions of racism to african americans. Yes, the Lukas guy is obviously a Russophobe. Yet, I do not have anything against using Lukas as a source. Russophobia is not a crime in the United States or Russia, so feel free to use such sources if you like.
Do you know what? You will never understand the modern Russia. Not because anything is wrong with you. But you do not live this life and do not have related responsibilities and fears. You are trying to continue playing the game that ended two decades ago. Of course your media surrounding attempts to pursue you that that game did not end yet. You are misleaded by the media of your host country. That's why I have nothing against you personally. But I hope that you will start learning about the situation in Russia fairly -- as if it were a completely unknown foreign country. ellol (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you consider anything I say only from your own position. You do not learn, you do not want to learn, and you believe that everything I say is said only to disturb you. What then? Any further discussion is senseless. I will just repeat my point: your views belong to a history book; they are not modern. That's why views similar to yours are losing in Russia, because politics is the way forward, not the way back. ellol (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YMB29

3) YMB29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in personal attacks [196],[197], [198], [199] and inappropriate canvassing of administrator Mikkalai [200],[201], [202] who supported YMB29 in the editorial "battle" using his main account and two sockpuppets [203] [204][205]. Most of edits by YMB29 are reverts in several articles [206].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed.Biophys (talk)
Again Biophys makes baseless accusations hoping that others won't notice that they are baseless...
Also Biophys is the one who is guilty of "inappropriate canvassing" of the sock master admin.[207] -YMB29 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose YMB29 has clearly been pointing out to Biophys his mistakes on articles, and Biophys uses the usual tactics he employes - pretends to engage in discussion, whilst reverting and misusing/misunderstanding sources. That YMB29 has approached Altenmann is not inappropriate, and that Altenmann has used sockpuppets is not something that should be held against YMB29. --
I'm chanting as we speak 08:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I was engaged in discussion, but received personal offense in response [208]. The tag-team YM29-Altenmann was inappropriate. YM29 repeatedly asked Altenmann to use sanctions, specifically against me, because he knew that Altenmann was on his side. That was also inappropriate.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Biophys at his best again. He probably thinks the arbitrators are stupid and won't see what is going on here. This diff clearly shows Biophys asking Altenmann to intervene in our dispute. I asked him to intervene only after, when he protected the article until we resolve the issues, but Biophys was not bothering to discuss... Anyway, everything is explained in the evidence...
And what sanctions did I ask him for? -YMB29 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are important differences: (1) you asked him specifically to "take care" of me (see diffs above); (2) he acted as Timurite on "your side" (see diff above); and (3) I asked him to correct my edits because he had a pro-Soviet POV (opposite to my POV) and therefore could improve neutrality of the article per our
WP:NPOV policy (your diff), but still keeping most of the valid sourced content you deleted Biophys (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Where do you see me asking him to "take care" of you. What are you implying by "take care" anyway?
How was I supposed to know that he was also Timurite? Provide proof that I knew he was socking.
I contacted him because I thought he was a neutral admin. Again you contacted him first about me. He then got involved in our dispute and protected the article. So all your talk about me canvassing is laughable... -YMB29 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose. Clear attempt by Biophys to take revenge on the editor who gave evidence against him and fantastic misrepresentation of the facts. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the personal attacks were quite mild (if any) and the Mikkalai's story is completely misrepresented Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is YMB29 request [209], and this is Mikkalai action [210], at a later date, by one of his sock. This is a tag-teaming with socks, worst version. Or maybe YMB29 is just another sock of Mikkalai? I would not be surprised because Dzied Bulbash (talk · contribs) talked and acted very much like YMB29.Biophys (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe you are a sock of P... I won't go there...
I would like to know how I acted the same way as Dzied Bulbash? How about providing proof for your wild claims.
Also the real tag teaming was done by you, as shown in the evidence. -YMB29 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LokiiT

4) LokiiT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in extensive sockpuppetry [211], [212] and personal attacks [213], [214], [215], [216],[217]

Comment by Arbitrators:
The sockpuppetry is from 2008, unless there is something more current, it's not going to be considered here. Shell babelfish 04:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Biophys (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only diff which is even relevant to this case is [218] as it is post-EEML. And it LokiiT, rightfully, taking you task for the removal of information which Biophys
I'm chanting as we speak 08:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The argument about EEML is irrelevant. LokiiT was not a subject of investigation during this case. I was.Biophys (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose. I see no personal attacks. Biophys POV contributions and his edit warring were the reason for the edit. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Biophys has his own definition of "personal attack". -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly stale conflicts. The only recent [219] looks like an awkward attempt to discuss rather than a personal attack Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this recent diff he falsely blames me of being a terrorist supporter. He made precisely the same accusation/personal attack previously with regard to another user [220]. He did it after the last warning by Bizans who suggested an indefinite ban for him (one of the diffs above).Biophys (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saiga12

5) Saiga12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in vandalism with numbers [221],[222],[223], threats [224] and incivility [225] [226]. Almost all his edits are reverts [227]. He canvassed at ru.wiki to "help" him in English wikipedia: [228] and apparently received the help from Ravenssx (talk · contribs) [229] and Revan2338 (talk · contribs) who acted as his meatpuppets in Battle for Height 776.

Comment by Arbitrators:
There appears to be no corresponding evidence or in fact any mention of this editor elsewhere. Doesn't appear to rise to the level of needing a finding. Shell babelfish 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed.Biophys (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a complex issue, the "numbers" accusation goes down to the use of sources - official Russian government sources (which Saiga12 has used), as opposed to Chechen terrorist sources (which Biophys has used). If Biophys insists, then a similar FoF should be raised in relation to him for the same thing. Calling you a terrorist supporter is incivil, but that alone is not enough for this FoF to see my support, and I must oppose it in its current form. --
I'm chanting as we speak 08:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
See the diff: [230]. Those are numbers not found in the source. This is forgery, no matter what the source might be.Biophys (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the selective offering of diffs by yourself Biophys...this is again disinformation on your part. For if you look at this edit, done 4 minutes after the diff you show, it clearly shows the source used, and the source backs it up. So who do we use? A source with a reputation for fact checking, such as Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or The Independent, or the terrorist-supporting
I'm chanting as we speak 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Comment by others:
Oppose. In this case Biophys who has initiated SPI check for Saiga12, was issuing warnings to him on Saiga12 talk page, deliberately provoked this newcomer to Wikipedia. This poor guy was subjected by Biophys to harrassment in unsuccessfull SPI investigation by Biophys. Biophys in this case was adding to Wikipedia material from terrorists sites and was promoting terrorists POV, which undoubtedly provoked this user. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Biophys clearly provoked him by edit warring to keep information from a terrorist site. -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per
WP:BITE Saiga is a newbee on en-wiki. He deserved a polite warning not an accusations of vandalism Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
He does not look like a newbie. He made 171 edits, but asked for page protection and came to RS noticeboard. He came to fight (his name is Saiga-12). Here he asks at ruwiki that more people should come to enwiki and support him on February 17: [231]. Hence he get help from Ravenssx (talk · contribs) [232] and Revan2338 (talk · contribs) later. He had a number of warnings [233],[234], [235], [236], but responded with incivility and a threat (see above).Biophys (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. I would highly advise arbs to have this diff described as canvassing above translated by some impartial translator, arbitrators may receive further evaluation of POV disruptive editing of Biophys and Colchicum and evaluation of Russian Wikipedia editors on neutrality of English WP articles. No canvassing though.Vlad fedorov (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? He tells, at the talk page of Battle_for_Height_776 in ru.wiki: "Harasho bila ba jesli ba pa bolshe ludej pisali ba w angliskam article na talk page sto kavkaz eta huinja !". Translation: "It would be great if more people wrote at talk page of English article that kavkaz[.org] is fucking nonsense". But they came to support Saiga12 by reverts rather than by comments. Which is easy to explain: reverts (see Revan2338 (talk · contribs)) do not require any knowledge of English. Biophys (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Biophys. He came to fight? You consider your evaluation to be in good faith? How do you determine if the editor comes to Wikipedia to fight? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am unimpressed by his edits so far but the 172-edits user is simply below Arbcom level. If he would continue some admin would block him straight away, no need for Arbcom here. His nickname is probably either an impersonating attempt or a copycat of a former arbitrator on Russian wikipedia ru:Участник:Сайга20К. I have banned impersonators of Saiga in the past, maybe it is connected. BTW I find making assumptions from nickname of a user being a model of a weapon to that the user came here to kill an example of assumption of bad faith. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys

6)

Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [237], [238], [239]
.

Comment by Arbitrators:
The evidence does not bear this out. Shell babelfish 04:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Biophys probably thinks we have a mailing list set up... But I have never even interacted with any of the "like-minded users" outside of this case and the EEML one. The same cannot be said of Biophys and his EEML friends... -YMB29 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Biophys has not been the target of any campaign. As YMB29 mentions, there is no mailing list to co-ordinate such a thing. And interaction on my part with named users has been absolutely limited (and in some cases, not at all). Biophys' contentious edits have caused editors to take issue with them, and have attempted to point out problems, etc, but these have for the most part ignored by Biophys. That Biophys deems it necessary leave the project is not due to any campaign, but is something that he has done by his own free-will. His mention of retirement is an old tactic that Biophys has used when his editing is under review. If Biophys wants to leave, then so be it. I say
I'm chanting as we speak 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional comment Biophys mentions off-wiki harrassment. I demand that he say exactly what has been done by myself that would even be classified as off-wiki harrassment. Unless he has some evidence of this, he best be striking the entire lot, because this is tantamount to an accusation which shows absolutely zero good faith in anything anyone does. --
I'm chanting as we speak 13:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Where is that great world universal conspiracy against Biophys? It's very exciting to see that Biophys, the one who has participated in EEML cabal plans to report Russavia to Australia Secret Service, now pretends he is an object of harrasment. Too many editors disagree with you and you have to edit war? The more you edit war, the more other editors report you to ANI and arbcom? Well, think about your contributions. If you really think that everyone here is not tired of your FSB/KGB conspiracy injection to every Russian article, then it would go forever unless you would be permabanned. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can concur with your latter sentiment Vlad. Immediately after I was topic banned, Biophys added this to the
I'm chanting as we speak 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
1) Oh, "Aeroflot performed myriad of other functions". Terrific. Most people would die for learning this very informative and sourced info. Very encyclopedic, indeed, I would think about inclusion of it to all other articles.
2) Claims by Suvorov and Kuzminov are mentioning Aeroflot only tangientially, could you prove that their information (opinion, belief) about Aeroflot is notable enough for inclusion? I don't even mention that defector Suvorov is highly contraversial person. If there any other independent sources to verify these claims? No? Then what the problem, Biophys? I could find many insulting, defaming etc. material about Suvorov in Internet published in many respectfull newspapers. Why I am not following your logic and spam Wikipedia with this garbage? Any ideas?
3) Aeroflot case. Here Biophys you really crossed beyond the line. To represent this case based only on the info of Berezovsky employee? What about official investigation which found that Berezovsky was stealing the money? I've thought that shareholders such as Berezovsky receive dividents and not proceeds from tickets sales. Transfer of sales proceeds to Berezovsky company Andava in Switzerland is stealing the money. What FSB has to do with this? Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose. Like I already said, you find that many editors do not share your conspiracy theories? You have to edit war to keep your POVed conspiracy material in the article? Because you edit war, you find that many editors bring complains about you to ANI, AE, etc? The more arbcoms and complains are, the more you find that these complains and arbcoms about your outrageous POV are harrassment? Well, seek the answer whithin yourself. I don't even mention that you have dared to institute arbcase against Commodore Sloat just to win content dispute.Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - over-dramatization of the events Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that I feel being continuously harassed during last two years and especially lately [241]. Why did not I stop editing in this area? Because I was interested in the subjects and still wanted to contribute... Not anymore. Yes, I think that was precisely the purpose of my harassers to evict me from the area they "own". That was also the purpose of Russavia when he filed this AE request asking to ban me for two years (and he already does whatever he wants in "Litvinenko"). As someone who used to positive thinking, I consider this to be for my own good. Let's spend my time more productive elsewhere. As about others in this project, this is none of my business any more. I made my statements in this case because it was about me. Whatever you decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh Litvinenko stats [242].Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stats can be used in many ways. As you can see Biophys has started editing that article two years earlier, so the amount of average edits a week/month is probably higher for Russavia. Russavia is much higher in the
talk) 20:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Re [243], Biophys, please stop overreacting. The absence of evidence of group harassment doesn't necessarily mean that there is no evidence of individual cases. Colchicum (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Vlad_fedorov

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1)Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly the goals of the project. Editors that persistently cause conflict may be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Standart. Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV

2)All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (

WP:RS
.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. This is especially important for articles about or related to USSR/Russia. -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a place for advocacy

3)Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting personal beliefs, opinions,

syntheses
of published material serving to advance a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. Wikipedia is not a blog... -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

4)Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring, forking are not appropriate methods of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. And consensus should not be reached by inappropriate canvassing. -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
If you are in minority then, you should agree with majority, not vice versa. Edit wars go against the WP policy. Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

5)Per

probation
. Users who show no signs of improvement over long period, after multiple warnings and blocks, may be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. What else can be done to stop this? -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. If you are in absolute minority with your conspiracy then, you should agree with majority if you don't want to reach consensus, not vice versa. Edit wars go against the WP policy. Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Persistent violations of
WP:NPOV

1)

Wikipedia:NPOV
policy. In particular, Biophys disrupted Wikipedia by adding Anti-Russian non-neutral, POV-pushing material without any self-reliant attempts to make it neutral and disrupted Wikipedia by removing sources representing views that do not conform to his believes, without attempts to reach consensus with other editors, which caused many conflicts in Russia-related articles in Wikipedia.

Artyom Borovik, [244], previous behaviour: [245], [246], [247] Anatoly Trofimov, [248], [249], and [250]

Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256]
Human rights in Russia, [257], [258] Yuri Felshtinsky, [259], [260], [261], [262], [263]
Valeria Novodvorskaya, [264]
Revolutionary terror in Soviet Union to advocate his personal views [267], [268]
Russian apartment bombings Bombing by FSB agents is a majority view
. Red flag, [269], [270], [271] Red Banner, [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281] Human rights in the Soviet Union, [282], [283], [284],[285] [286] [287] [288] [289]
Russian apartment bombings [290],[291],[292],[293],[294],[295],[296],[297],[298],[299],[300],[301],[302],[303],[304],[305],[306],[307],[308],[309],[310],[311]
. Battle for Height 776 [312],[313],[314],[315],[316],[317],[318],[319],[320],[321],[322],[323],[324]
Cyberwarfare by Russian state [325],[326],[327],[328],[329],[330]
Invasion of Dagestan (1999) [331],[332],[333],[334],[335]


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. There is more than enough evidence of this. -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be reformulated - too harsh. Biophys's POV is not Anti-Russian but anti-Putin and anti-communist. Often his views are mainstream, often they are one of the notable views, sometimes they are marginal views. But indeed Biophys is not appears to be interested in fair representation of all the notable views. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent revert wars

2)

WP:3RR
, despite being warned twice on 3RR board and violating his previous promises to cease edit warring.

Red Banner, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff Human rights in the Soviet Union, diff, diff, diff,diff diff diff diff diff

Russian apartment bombings [336],[337],[338],[339],[340],[341],[342],[343],[344],[345],[346],[347],[348],[349],[350],[351],[352],[353],[354],[355],[356],[357]
. Battle for Height 776 [358],[359],[360],[361],[362],[363],[364],[365],[366],[367],[368],[369],[370]
Cyberwarfare by Russian state [371],[372],[373],[374],[375], [376]
Invasion of Dagestan (1999) [377],[378],[379],[380],[381]
Yuri Felshtinsky, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff Anatoly Trofimov, diff, diff, and diff
Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff
Human rights in Russia, [382],[383],[384],[385],[386],[387],[388]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. Same pattern with Biophys. He edit wars, then (like if there is an admin intervention) says that he will cooperate, starts to discuss things, after a few responses abandons the discussion, and then again resumes reverting and edit warring. This has to stop. -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Just like I said, because nobody, except Grey Fox and Colchicum, supports your conspiracies this doesn't give you any right to go on such a large scale edit war with all editors in all articles. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be correct. Indeed there are too much of edit warring Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys disruptive editing

3) Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in persistent and systematic disruptive editing by inserting to various Wikipedia articles of POVed, unreliable, POV forked, synthesized and defaming information about Russian president, FSB/KGB and Russia in general, including Russian history in order to advance his believes, instigating various conflicts in Russia-related articles.

Post EEML

Pre EEML

Deleted personal page of Biophys which was emptied during EEML arbitration contained as one of the main links a link to methods of propaganda and disinformation, consisting of very detailed description of how to disinform and how to advance propaganda.

This is being aggrevated by membership of

WP:EEML
.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. The number of major disputes and Arb. cases Biophys has been involved in during the last few years is a good indicator of how much disruption he causes. -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be reformulated. Pre-EEML edits are outside the scope, they should not be in the decision. Krupskaya and Aeroflot edits are referenced and notable. Still the Red Banner edits as well as editwarring Kavkaz-center info are indeed disruptive Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have separated preEEML cases to demonstrate the overall direction and pattern of activity. Absolutely disagree with your evaluation of Aeroflot case and Krupskaya single-sided presentation by Biophys as referenced and notable.Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colchicum disruptive editing, incivilties, attacks and outing

4)

WP:POVed information Artyom Borovik [401], Aeroflot, [402], [403], [404], [405]
,
Valeria Novodvorskaya [409], [410], [411], Aeroflot [412], [413], (Biophys injections with the same text [414]
[415]),
WP:CIV [418] [419] and provoked [420] [421] other editors and greatly contributed to hostile battleground mentality, posted in Wikipedia links to attack hate speech pages where WP editors are insulted and outed [422]
.

This link, posted by Colchicum, contains such words about editor as "whore" (блядва), degrading Internet-slang word "фофудьеносный" used in Ukrainophobic attacks on the Internet, "ненавистные ублюдки должны быть истреблены вместе со своим поганым родом" (hated bastards should be exterminated with their cursed generation), "россиянского ублюдка" (Russian bastard), etc. and this is not counting my outing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
I'm not seeing anything current in the evidence and some of the diffs given are a year old; not compelling. Shell babelfish 04:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Colchicum's diff's are less than year old, his incivilties are less than half-year old and these should rank pari passu with the edits of other. Moreover, Colchicum wasn't party to EEML (although they were discussing inviting him) and his activities weren't scrutinized. Leaving this alone, invites others to follow his pattern. I am not campaigning for a ban like he does, however ther should be finding clearly stating that his incivilties and complete POV reversals of the articles aren't going to be tolerated further.
His link to attack pages, however is half-year old, and is certainly actionable. Excuse me, but links to "whores", "hated bastards should be exterminated" are unacceptable. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree most of the diffs to the main space articles are good, the double rune edit is indeed deplorable but it was pre-EEML and he seems to settled after a standard civility warning. Misha Verbitsky link was probably put in a good faith. Colchicum is certainly not Verbitsky and he is hardly responsible for Verbitsky's language. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1)Alex, so you claim that anyone could post a link to any WP editor leading to such site as http://lleo.aha.ru/na/en/ or http://idinahui.net/, whose main message is "f*ck y*u", and claim defense that they are not responsible since these sites were written by other individuls? Do you understand what Box of Pandora you are opening?
You are wrong in your statement that this link was published in good faith by Colchicum. While I was discussing POV in Latvian articles and selective sources application, Colchicum suddenly came and posted a link which was absolutely not related to any part of our discussion. This link is mainly concerned with misanthropic Stomakhin and support of his views of Russians as "bastards who should be exterminated with their posterity" (hence Stomakhin's "kill, kill, kill"), which was hardly relevant to discussion. Mr.Verbitsky is known for his insulting, trolling, hate speech style, which recently led to court decision on defamation rendered against him and his humiliating public request for help. Colchicum is not novice to Runet and blogosphere in general, so he knew exactly what he was doing. Colchicum also knew that I do not share Stomakhin's views on Russians (he participated in Stomakhin case), and in this article those who do not share Stomakhin's views are named "whores". So he exactly knew what he was doing.
Note this is not the first time he offended someone, previously he lashed out at DYK nomination on me "freaks, ignorants, Holocaust deniers", and before that insulted Russavia by using his name with SS symbol inside. This also was done in good faith? Common.
2) Colchicum's reverts are identical in content to those respective reverts by Biophys, meaning these are sterile edits => classic edit warring.
Example
Valeria Novodvorskaya, Biophys revert, and absolutely identical reverts by Colchicum [423], [424], [425]
. All four edits by both are made within 11 hours. Still not edit warring?
Example 2 Artyom Borovik, Colchicum revert and subsequent Biophys revert to his version [426].
Example 3. Complete change of the article to the opposite POV [427] (intermediate edits are hidden for convinience - you could watch them anyway). Note the absense of discussion with other editors on the talk page (it's empty), no any message to Russia board. Still it is not
WP:ADVOCACY? For BRD, you need to discuss, where the discussion? Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Outing by Biophys

5) Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in outing of Russavia diff by posting to Digwuren talk page a link to Commons pages with a letter containing personal information of Russavia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Everything is not so straight simple with Biophys behaviour. If he accuses others of outing, then he himself should be held accountable for the same actions. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - obviously not an outing (similar is indeed true for many "outing"s claimed by Biophys) Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also share your view, Alex. But if the claims of Biophys and Colchicum about alleged outing would be confirmed, then this should count as outing too. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of ban by Martintg

6)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated his topic ban. [428][429]
Martintg engaged in provocative battleground behaviour. [430][431][432].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that Martin is participating in this arbitration case with a special permission from an arbitrator, Vlad? Look towards the start of this page...
Also, in first two of your diffs, Martin is exceedingly courteous (especially considering how Russavia calls him "brigadier" and worse, earning a warning from an arbitrator) - and in last diffs, one is Martin deleting completely noncontroversial comments from his talk page ([433]) and the other isn't even Martin's edit.
--Sander Säde 18:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Articles involving Saiga12, YMB29 and Mikkalai

I was indeed involved in edit warring in articles

Red banner, Human rights in the Soviet Union and Battle for Height 776. My opponents were Saiga12 (talk · contribs) and YMB29 (talk · contribs) who made very few edits in the project, most of which are disruption or reverts (please check their edit history). Contrary to all our policies, they removed huge pieces of perfectly sourced content [434] [435], and one of them was involved in vandalism with numbers [436]
.

Moreover, one of them issued me a threat telling that "may be we can meet you in Moscow..." [437] and resorted to other incivility [438]. User:YMB29 did the same, launching a series of personal attacks [439],[440], [441], [442].

To add insult to injury, Mikkalai played a complicated game in these articles, pretending to be a neutral editor who created compromise versions [443], only to revert himself using one of his socks, Timurite, to a version he really wants [444] or intervene in "Human rights" as Dzied Bulbash [445][446].

Two first articles were "won" by YMB29 who reverted them to his preferred version [447], [448] because I followed 1-2 RR.

Battle for Height 776 was reverted to the more complete version with compromised numbers of losses [449]. Later on, a suspicious Revan2338 (talk · contribs) came to edit war (a sock of Saiga12?). How about blocking someone like him on spot? Biophys (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Vlad below. It was me who substantially expanded "Human rights in the SU" article from the stab level, and I do include information you are talking about [450]. As about the "Battle for Height 776", that was my last expansion of content which is not identical to any previous version. The same with many other edits declared "reverts" by Russavia.Biophys (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to YMB29. You tell: "I hope you are not implying that I was teaming up with him [Altenmann] against you." Yes, I do. You asked him to appear on your side in the both articles: [451],[452], [453]. I explained to you my edits in Red Banner: [454]. And remember that WP is not censored. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
You keep on saying that your edits are perfectly sourced, and so no one has the right to modify or revert them? Sourcing is one thing and we know that you can source your edits, but as mentioned by others you have trouble with
WP:NPOV
...
How many times can you make the same personal attack accusations against me? Where exactly do you see a personal attack in your diffs? Me saying that you misuse sources (and providing evidence of that) or warning you that I will report you to an admin are not examples of personal attacks...
As for Altenmann/Mikkalai/Timurite/Dzied Bulbash, funny how you yourself brought him to our editing conflict. [455] So I hope you are not implying that I was teaming up with him against you. -YMB29 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I asked Altenmann to look at your behavior thinking he was an honest admin, but this was after you already called him to the article and he protected it. You were not bothering to discuss anything and I wanted to get the article unprotected. So your accusation is ridiculous. -YMB29 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also you did not explain what was asked of you in Red Banner. Reverting POVed jokes is not censoring... -YMB29 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Comment By Vlad_fedorov. Just face value. Please, note that in this Biophys' "piece of perfectly sourced content" the links to losses of Chechen militants are to
WP:NPOV
.
Red Banner obscenity and disruption. I am not convinced by Biophys that antisemitic jokes about Rabinovich is a "huge piece of perfectly sourced content", or that this perfectly sourced obscene anecdote which says "What a whore! How many times I told her: Do not fuck on the Red Banner!" is a perfect addition wo WP. In each case there is no notability. On pretty much the same contention, Biophys could come to Ronald Reagan and insert many many Russian anectodes about that old daddy, or to Israelis and Chukchi people. Biophys are you really gonna do this?
Re Biophys. Biophys, you are showing us your edit in "Human rights in the SU" dated February 10, 2007 to prove something done by you in 2009-2010? Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involving Ellol (
Russian apartment bombings
and others)

Situation with

Russian apartment bombings was more complicated. Please see complete analysis here. Ellol was extremely non-cooperative. I suggested to follow this fair approach (keep each other's edits in the article and do not revert to any old versions) to resolve our content disagreements. He said "Okey" [456] but made revert to very old version: [457]
.

Ellol started every day from reverting whatever I did ignoring all my compromise solutions. See: February 20,February 21,February 22,February 23. He also reverted me in other articles at the same time:[458], [459]. The dispute was "won" by Ellol who reverted page to his version [460], [461] because I followed 1-2 RR.

I avoided "blind" reverts to previous versions of this articles, extensively debated all disagreements [462],[463],[464],[465],[466] and asked an advice from an administrator who was on the "opposite side" [467]Biophys (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not push political agendas. For example, this compromise version of the introduction compiled by me merely described all factual events in a chronological order, only briefly mentioned the allegations (explaining what led to the allegations), and concluded by the results of official investigation, thus giving them a larger weight. But Ellol reverted even this version [468] because it did not fit his nationalistic agenda [469]. I explained our policies to him many times [470], but it did not work.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by Ellol
Your comment is simply to say, that your move to push through your POV was not supported by a party like in the case of Wikipedia Mailing List. However, you started pushing your view through, and did up to 20-30 reverts to your version. (Technically, you tried to contribute a little while making another reverts.) You attempted to resist your POV at the talk page, but after you were run out of arguments you stopped responsing.
The dispute ended, because
1) I provided the compromise version of the introduction, which suited all sides.
2) Your persistent attempts to insist on your version of the "Ryazan Incident" ended when I agreed to your version but found that you have omitted one important fact (the firing tests were done, and the fake explosives did not explode), supported by the up-to-date newspapers.
However, all of your contributions were ultimately agreed on, despite the cases where you attempted to remove valuable information. In fact, you won the case.
ellol (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Re to Ellol. My "contributions were ultimately agreed on"? What? Just to start from something, this is my version of introduction: [471]. Please compare with your (current) version:[472] And everyone can easily see who made last reverts to "his" version (see my diffs above). I never tried to remove any valuable information from this or other articles, but I objected diluting articles with large quotes that totally duplicate another content that was already present in the article, like you did here.Biophys (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Ellol. "virtually all reverts you attempted to remove evidence that the fake explosives found in the Ryazan incident did not explode at firing tests". What? The episode when FSB allegedly tested at the firing range something they declared to be "sugar" was described in books, and I am fully aware of it (see my comment here). Therefore, I only moved this thing around, but did not remove it [473].Biophys (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) It was not the FSB, but a service of the city. 2) They tested the faked explosive, and it did not explode. This thing is referenced down to the primary source, a most influential independent Russian newspaper Kommersant. [474].
Your Russiphobic secondary sources, obviously, are lying. Surprised? Why do you think Edward Lukas is commonly recognized as a Russophobe? Do you think it's because he helds an unfavourable but plausible view of Russia? Like hell, not. He is a Russophobe, because he lies, like you could see right now.
And IMHO, you should acknowledge to yourself, that you took the side which lied. Providing false evidence is one of the mortal sins. Consider that if you are a believer. ellol (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted a publication in Russian newspaper immediately after the bombings. It tells that testing of the substance was conducted by the local police rather than by the FSB. It does not look like a serious contradiction. Regardless, calling a reputable journalist
Russophobe" and a lier is hardly an appropriate argument.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
1) It tells that testing was conducted by a municipal service -- one which is ran by a city. Looks like several miners/ explosive experts employed by the city?
2) It tells that 1-kg sample of the substance was detonated with a hunting cartrige like the one found in the sacks, and no explosion occurred.
Please, do not mistake cause and effect. Cause is that secondary source (a book by Lucas) contradicts the primary source (Kommersant). This is the argument why we cast serious doubt on the secondary source by Lucas, why we can't use it. The effect is that Lucas is a Russophobe and a liar.
Okey -- how many lies do you usually have to count to call a person a liar? The single one can be always ascribed to a terrible mistake, whatever. For me, the approppriate count is 3. If a person lies in 3 different places, it's enough for me to call him a liar. Would you like me to show you two more lies in a book by Lukas ? This would have no effect on Wikipedia, just I want to show you who are you dealing with. ellol (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re to Biophys. Your point of view can be described as radical. However, my compromise version of the introduction fully reviews the point of view that you support, while viewing it only as one of possible viewpoints. It's more support than you would get while working with almost every Wikipedia editor. You are extremely lucky that you have me as an opponent.
Contrary to what you are saying, in virtually all reverts you attempted to remove evidence that the fake explosives found in the Ryazan incident did not explode at firing tests, what seriously compromises the conspiracy theory. [475]
ellol (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Grey Fox-9589:
Ellol Kommersant was owned by Berezovsky in 1999 who at that time was close to Vladimir Putin so I doubt how reliable your 'primary source' really is.
As for the discussion page, I agree with neither your nor Biophys' viewpoint on the bombings. One thing I do know and that's that alleged FSB involvement in these bombings have been mentioned by hundreds of books, academic publications and the highest quality newspapers worldwide. The newspapers always show both views and never draw their own conclusions and that's what the article should look like too. Therefore both views should be presented and the reader should be the one to draw their own conclusions. I see neither you or Biophys trying to do that. Biophys was wrong with trying to present the FSB involvement as a 'majority view' and what I've seen you do is attempting to riducule the view of FSB involvement, for example by constantly referring to it as merely a conspiracy theory both on talk and the article page itself. I don't want to go through all the effort to find more disruptions as my hopes of that article ever becoming readable are slim.
talk) 10:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Then try to fix this article yourself (I am going to run away). But you have already tried and could not. And that was not because of me.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No and that wasn't my point.
talk) 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Grey Fox, you assume that a newspaper owned by a person translates the point of view indicted by its owner. That's a terrible mistake in your logics, which renders all of your viewpoint senseless.
However, you drastically misunderstood my point of view. Imho, the issue of apartment bombings is highly important. That's why I have always spoken so and continue to: folks, please, add more of the factual information which would prove or disprove the conspiracy theory. I have said it like five times already to Biophys which can be tracked on talk pages. I think, this proves that I have no particular interest in this topic. ellol (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to point out that you have a different concept of what an "independent newspaper" means. Perhaps it has a different meaning in Russia. Anyway the issues raised at this arbcom about this article are mostly content related and not disruption, that's what I tried to say. If there was edit warring it was from both sides, but since it was accomponied by a lot of discussion maybe it wasn't.
talk) 00:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Okey. Just to note, that I have no different notion of "independent media". Technically I see no difference between a media outlet owned by Berezovsky and a media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch. If private ownership of media is the way media operate nowadays, that's not the problem of Russia. Surely, there are the media like BBC which is technically owned by the whole society of the U.K., but that's more an exception, rather than a rule. ellol (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Other articles mentioned by Russavia

Cyberwarfare by Russian state. I believe we made just a few reverts in the both articles. In the first of them, User:HistoricWarrior007 (who is currently banned) restored his favorite version [476] because I followed 1-2 RR, and we came to consensus in the second [477].Biophys (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Allegations of Putin being a paedophile

On 6 November 2008, I came across Alexander Litvinenko, at which stage it included a section entitled Accusing Putin of paedophilia. At that stage the section read:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45]. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds.[46][47][48] Putin commented: "I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it."[49]

It was sourced to [478][479] - both articles written by Litvinenko, and published on the website of a Chechen politician in exiled in the United Kingdom, and a notable opponent of Putin, with ties to Boris Berezovsky, another noted opponent to Putin. Due to poor sourcing, and the inflammatory nature of the accusations (which are almost presented as fact [among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia....wtf]), I removed the entire section and noted in the edit summary "removing section that is in its current state a WP:BLP violation - this section requires very specific, totally neutral wording before it can be included."

I then started a discussion on the talk page (entire section here) and noted it was a BLP violation, noted Arbcom decisions on such issues, and pointed to a thread I started on the BLP noticeboard. Some discussion (and misunderstanding of the BLP policy) takes place on the article talk page (refer entire section link just above). There is zero input from uninvolved editors on the BLP noticeboard. Biophys argues for the inclusion of the claim (note edit summary), as does Grey-Fox. Biophys then reincludes the claim in its BLP state. I remove it again. Discussion continues on talk page.

After some work, I post a neutrally, reworded and expanded version to the article talk page, the version of which reads:

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile,[1] and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo.[2] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[2] The claims have been called "wild",[3] and "sensational and unsubstantiated"[4] in the British media. A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, in which the author states that Litvinenko was a "one-man disinformation bureau", suggests the claim was made with "no evidence to support" it, and further stated that this claim, and Litvinenko's claim that the FSB was behind the Beslan school hostage crisis, was accepted without challenge by the British media.[5] Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006.[4] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[6] It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.[4]

As one can see, it is neutrally worded, and it involves other information which counters the claims, and it doesn't paint one side over the other. To this end, I posted

gaming of the system
on his part. I revert his deletion.

Biophys then introduces into the article, what he calls in the edit summary "a shorter version instead (undue wieght)". This shorter section read:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[48] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[49]. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds.[50][51][52] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[53]

Note that it is essentially the same BLP violation that I initially removed, and it has omitted anything to do with the claims being called "wild", "unsubstantiated" and "sensational", and also omits information which notes Litvinenko's history of making such "wild", "unsubstantiated" and "sensational" claims. When Biophys does such things, he refers to them as "compromise" versions - anyone editing in this area, that his compromise versions usually involve the massive deletion of information he doesn't like.

Other issues relating to this information was also brought up at

MOS:OPED
. Fortunately, this request for input did receive some input.

Whilst this was going on, I was

I'm chanting as we speak 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

On a related, and somewhat humourous (considering) note, I was preparing this information at

I'm chanting as we speak 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Thank you, I appreciate the detailed background information which gives a much clearer picture of what happened. Again, please do not use this page to argue with each other - state your interpretation (since that's what this section is) and move on. Also, please remember that these back and forth conversations aren't the place to introduce more evidence; Biophys, if you have other claims to make, provide evidence properly first. Shell babelfish 20:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
The above by myself presents a true and accurate reflection of that entire sordid episode. It is necessary to present the entire episode as has been done, because the selective diffs presented by Biophys do not present the reality as it happened, and has happened. Additionally, as a result of this, and other analysis, I will be presenting a couple of proposed findings of fact. But perhaps discussion is needed here. It is clearly obvious to me that Biophys was happy for the inclusion of the accusations so long as there was no counter information, but as soon as that critical information appeared in the article, it had to be removed. This is in essence
I'm chanting as we speak 23:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I said (see above) the following. No, it was me who removed this defamatory claim from the article on the request by Russavia [481], and it was Russavia who repeatedly reinserted it back: [482] [483], [484],[485] (this is his final revert made on 03:07, 13 November 2008 [486]). He did this to support his false claims about BLP violations (see above and here: [487], [488]). Russavia was so obsessed that he repeatedly reverted me in this article, even with "in use" template [489] (see his edit summary: he indeed effectively "blocked" me by starting this arbitration case, and then reverted this article to his version). And he refused to respect the "in use" template when I asked him: [490].

This is all correct and fully supported by diffs. This is our complete discussion: [491]. At the very beginning, Russavia asked this information to be completely removed. I initially objected telling that it was notable and sourced to BBC and other press reports. But after looking in several books, I found nothing and decided that Russavia could be right, and it might be safer to remove the claim [492]. But Russavia restored the claim (see my diffs above) and demanded it to be included. Fine, I agreed with Russavia again and asked him to leave me alone [493], especially since he reverted my edits anyway [494]. But Russavia used this discussion to report me in a very negative light to Kirill and Jimbo. This is defamation, plain and simple. That is why I do not want to be here.Biophys (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be mentioned here, because it goes to the crux of the issue in this respect. When I was blocked for 3RR on the Litvinenko article,
I'm chanting as we speak 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, you disputed your block (two first links). Yes, you frequently edited 18 to 24 hours non-stop from the same account (your 3rd link: [495]). Yes, a checkuser concluded that all your "editing is done from one computer" although he can not "absolutely rule out the idea that there are two people in the same building using the same machine"(your last link [496]). But how this is relevant to the claim about Putin by Litvinenko? Biophys (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The story told by Russavia proves again that Biophys is not a reliable contributor. He can remove some bit of reliably sourced evidence that dramatically changes the whole picture, like a brick in the foundation of a tower (in this case, it's that claims of Putin being a paedophile were called "wild", "unsubstantiated" and "sensational" in British media).
Biophys is not a vandal, any way, but a person with a strong and persistent POV. He can contribute a lot of good text. But you can't ever be sure if some important brick was not tossed away. That's a pain. ellol (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The only significant difference between two versions was essentially this phrase: "A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, in which the author states that Litvinenko was a one-man disinformation bureau, suggests the claim was made with no evidence to support it, and further stated that this claim, and Litvinenko's claim that the FSB was behind the Beslan school hostage crisis, was accepted without challenge by the British media.[5]". But source [5] tells nothing about the pedophilia claim. Regardless, that was an ordinary content dispute. But Russavia created a battle from nothing by complaining to Jimbo, Kirill and numerous noticeboards.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, too often your edits are prone to cause content disputes, and instead of admitting your faults you prefer to claim innocence. Like in the case of Litvinenko's allegation, it's true that the British Newspaper Guardian has written about Litvinenko [497]:
I followed some links in Russavia's story and think his report is correct. ellol (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ellol for pointing out your opinion on this. It is nice to know that at least one user has taken the time to read thru what is what, and see evidence for what it really is. I would appreciate comment on this from arbiters as well. --
I'm chanting as we speak 14:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Another trick by Biophys while edit warring includes adding some reliable info to his POV injection edit. The editor who later has to revert his POV injection, is in pains to revert, and in most cases accidentally and unintentionally forced to delete reliable info, which then substantites claims of Biophys about removal of sourced info. Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Alexander Litvinenko (other issues)

Biophys has continued to supply disinformation into evidence. He refer to this edit as my enforcing my version of the article. This is a fallacy and disinformation, and Biophys would be well advised to explain the whole episode. He hasn't done so, so I will do this.

In April 2009, I posted a long list of problems with the

Biophys' ownership of the article
, etc.

The full section is available at

didn't like to see in the article.[498]. Read the talk page section in its entireity please, because it is evident what Biophys was doing on this article, and as usual, he normally uses a year old version of the article which was explained at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko/Archive_3#Biophys.27_continuating_revertion_of_article
.

Completely ignoring the problems on his talk page, Biophys introduces his infamous compromise version. Biophys' compromise versions are a running joke - they always include the mass deletion of material he doesn't like, and nromally includes the reverting to a very old version which omits other's improvements to the article. I revert this, due to the massive problems as explained on the talk page. A month later he introduces yet another compromise version, which again includes the massive deletion of materials he doesn't like and is basically the first compromise version. I revert this and note his compromise version. Two months later Biophys does the same thing. A month later, he does the same thing again, and tries to attribute it to me.

As I was topic banned I was unable to take part at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko/Archive_3#In_search_of_compromise, but let's analyse this, and let's use the version Biophys attributes to me to see how Biophys has big problems with his disinformation presented here into evidence.

and on it goes. Biophys has clearly ignored consensus on the talk page, and in many parts ignored consensus he agreed to.

My edit to the article after the expiration of my topic ban, reintroduces materials into the article that Biophys has wilfully and knowingly removed. I also went thru the article and re-included information which may have been removed in my re-introduction. I also posted at the talk page

I'm chanting as we speak 12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This to my mind reflects a true picture of events on this article, and demonstrate that Biophys has violated so many core policies that it isn't funny. The violations include
I'm chanting as we speak 12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Last version of the article (prior to your recent edits) came as a result of consensus of several users, one of whom was Alex_Bakharev [504]. He is not on my side, he is a highly experienced editor, and he is familiar with the subject. For example, he admitted that your claim about copyright violations was wrong [505], although you claimed this on numerous occasions. Same with your other accusations. But we should not discuss content issues here.Biophys (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet more disinformation from you. When will it stop? If you are claiming that your version was as a result of consensus, why did you 1) remove all information on his moonlighting for Berezovsky? 2) removes sources -- not that the information on when he fled to turkey is always sourced in "my" version, but is always changed back to {{
        I'm chanting as we speak 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
Comment by others:


Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Asking for equal consideration

Speaking about Russavia and myself, none of us was sanctioned during the EEML case, but none of us was a subject of your official amnesty either. It would be fair to consider the behavior of us and everyone else during a reasonable period of time: at least one year or longer. Yes, you may consider certain mitigating circumstances, such as personal attacks against anyone of us, although I realize that the amnesty can only go as far. It's one thing to be involved in prolonged content disputes [506] or reverting edits by tag-team members [507] and vandals [508]. But outing and personal attacks are a different matter.Biophys (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
To my mind this case has two parts: the primary dispute between Russian editors involving conduct in the Russian topic space, and a more peripheral part concerning post EEML conduct of a subset of editors who were involved parties to
WP:EEML
.
The primary dispute really involves Vlad fedorov, Ellol, YMB29, LokiiT, Saiga12 and Biophys, being Russian editors involved in the Russian topic space. Russavia has admitted his role is as a "messenger". Only Russavia, YMB29 and Biophys were involved parties to the EEML case. Unless an Arbitrator steps forward to confirm they personally examined this dispute during the EEML case, issues of this primary dispute were not deliberated upon by the Arbitrators during that EEML case and that case was essentially over before the new crop of Arbitrators were selected (so I am not sure how Shell could assert that such deliberation was conducted, as I recall Shell was rather ignobly given a one week ban from participating in the EEML case prior to becoming an arbitrator). Therefore I don't think this dispute can be seen in terms of the EEML case nor can the incidences referred to in the evidence be discriminated as pre or post EEML, but should be considered on its own merits distinct from the EEML case. I trust that the Committee will examine this primary dispute in full and find the appropriate remedies.
However the peripheral dispute does indeed relate to the EEML and post-EEML behaviour. My involvement here is concerned with this latter dispute. This involves Russavia and his conduct since coming off his topic ban, the manner in which he has interacted with EEML participants under an interaction ban and his pursuit of Biophys and other EEML members constituting battleground behaviour. The allegation that his evidence was in fact compiled by the banned user Offliner notably remains un-refuted. The remedy I am seeking here is a one year interaction ban for Russavia. --
talk) 19:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop&oldid=992227247"