Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence

Should I analyze any Evidence by Vlad_Fedorov? Some is very old. Other looks ridiculous to me (quoting an opinion piece at the article talk page [1], marking people who place family with kids in a gas chamber as "scientists" instead of scientists [2], and so on). Can someone neutral look at his Evidence and advice what should be responded? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you choose to or not to respond to is your choice, and nobody need do your work for you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I responded.Biophys (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another reminder since the evidence has remained rather stable for a bit, if you'd like your proposals for findings or remedies to be considered, please submit those on the Workshop. Shell ^babelfish 00:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI for all those concerned, due to some conflicts with real-life the target date for proposals has been pushed back to the 12th of May. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at the evidence collected here, and I do feel sorry for arbitrators who have to judge all of this crap. It is also like a deja vu all over again for me. I had very much similar experience when editing articles describing various controversial historical events. Events happened, historians documented them, and then came the people with opposite agendas and start interpreting the events and pushing their own versions of what might have happened and what the perpetrators of the said events might have thought and what they meant.

Russavia, Vlad, and ellol versus Biophys Vecrumba and MArtintg. We all get it. Your motives and approaches are beyond reconciliation. For that reason, your interpretations of the diffs are beyond being biased, and as such serve no meaningful purpose whatsoever for the arbitrators. What we need here is an impartial observer who would sieve through all of this crap, and I guess that is what the arbitrators are doing right now. All others can now stop piling more biased interpretations of the events. (Igny (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am a little concerned by the nature of Vercumba's recent additions to the evidence page. Comments such as:

• "If this displeases Russavia, they should not have brought up my name"

• "Again, reminder, had I not been mentioned by name by Russavia as their having "all but cleared"—but not quite, apparently—me of some wrongdoing, I would not be here."

Vecrumba admits that the only reason he's concerning himself with this case is to get back at Russavia. Seems like blatant