Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)  Drafting arbitrator: Shell Kinney (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. Coren
4. Kirill Lokshin
5. KnightLago
6. Newyorkbrad
7. Risker
8. Rlevse
9. Roger Davies
10. Shell Kinney
11. SirFozzie
12. Steve Smith

Inactive:

1. FayssalF
2. Mailer diablo

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

FoF's and remedies for Vlad fedorov

1.Edit warring

Disruptive anon IP edits in Belarus article

Some obviously Balt anon IP comes and inserts one and the same text twice to one article both to History and Politics sections [1],[2]. The content of his message includes "The first people arrived on the territory of modern Lithuania in the 10th millennium BC after the glaciers had retreated and the last glacial period had ended. According to historian Marija Gimbutas, the people came from two directions: from the Jutland Peninsula and from present-day Poland. They brought two different cultures as evidenced by the tools they used". Just for everyone, this anon IP claims that "identity of the Balts formed about 2000 BC"!!!!!!!!

Storyline of alleged edit warring

• March 25. Anon IP injects the same text twice throughout the article [3],[4] in History and (!!!!)Politics section.
• March 27. By first edit I remove anon IP claim from Politics section. Obviously good decision. Nation descendance history is hardly relevant in this Section.

Now how this text relates to Belarusian politics? First Belarusian politics came from Lithuania? By second edit I remove this highly POV allegation [5]. How territory of Lithuania relates to Belarus? Have arbitrators seen Krivich, Dregovichs, Radimichs, Polochans articles? By what logic these edits reversing explicit vandalism and scientifically unreliable Balt POV pushing by anon IPs are named "reverts"? How Belarusian being Slav people come to be Balt people? Is it invitation from Arbcom for all anonym IP to come to troll Russia History section with claims of Mongoloid descendance of modern Russian people, etc.?

• April 3. The same anon returns and injects his POV again [6].
• April 18. He returns again [7] to push his Baltic theory.
• April 19. Another Balt IP comes and vandalises the article [8]
• April 26. Another editor agrees that this first anon IP text is irrelevant to Belarus article and removes this text. [9].

Restoring the prominent caricature on Peace of Riga

[10] is treated as edit war. On which ground? We have discussed this on talk page. I received inputs from both Mr. nonono and Zscout, we reached consensus and I've never been restoring this caricature again. I did something wrong discussing this? I did something wrong by non-reverting this caricature back to the article again after discussion?

My revert is dated March 30. Discussion on talk page finished on April 6. What is the problem?

Have you seen[11] how caricatures are being used by Polish users throughout Soviet related articles?

2.Combative editing.

Very unusual definition in arbcase practice. I've searched arbcom previous cases and found only record of a 12 hr block for combative editing here. The editor was sanctioned like that, and later received this block.

• I agree that my commentaries in these subjects that were since the opening of English Wikipedia almost exclusively covered by Polish editors might be treated as combative. However, all articles related to occupation by Pilsudski Poland of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine are written almost exclusively from Polish POV. And you cannot deny that most EEML members were the main contributors and the main guardians of the current POV in these articles. Halibutt came to Belarusian Peasants' and Workers' Union after my edits in Polonization, apparently trying to learn more about the events which I developed significantly, sourced almost exclusively to Google books (which are considered by Polish editors (Piotrus) as neutral), and cited modern Belarusian history textbooks.

• Halibutt in bad faith inserted numerous fact tags, although the whole paragraph was sourced to Kastiuk History of Belarus, "Ekoperspektiva", Minsk, (2006), ISBN 985-6598-12-2, ISBN 985-469-149-7 for Volume V, v.V. Here is Belarusian academician Kastiuk http://nasb.gov.by/rus/members/academicians/kostyuk.php, there is this 6 volume Belarus history mentioned, I could scan the respective pages of this work and send to anyone at request.

• I accept qualification of this my edit as combative. Apologies. But... This was opinion of Polish historian and I correctly indicated that. Moreover, someone who inserted this opinion distorted its original meaning. And I correctly indicated that this Lady was writing about Volyn and not the whole Kresy. Anyone who reads Polish may study the original source http://www.caw.wp.mil.pl/biuletyn/b28/b28_6.pdf. The book of this Lady is named "OSADNICTWO WOJSKOWE NA WOŁYNIU W LATACH 1921-1939 W ŚWIETLE DOKUMENTÓW CENTRALNEGO ARCHIWUM WOJSKOWEGO" which explicitly states that the work concerns Volyn exclusively!!!

Halibutt, who claims his main interest is history, apparently was aware of the content of this source and was apparently aware that it concerned Volyn and not the whole Kresy. Excuse me, but if you approve and endorse then a style of editing where original sources are distorted intentionally and inserted to Wikipedia?

• I also cannot completely and unreservedly accept this edit as combative, because every single entry is sourced appropriately and most of the entries lead to exact pages of Google books where anyone interested could recheck these facts. None of Halibutt arguments are acceptable. I don't need to make photos of every Orthodox Church demolished by Poles in Interwar Period. I don't need to bring in there a separate source for each Church demolished.

This edit. After reviewing the history of the article, I would agree that I mistreated there Halibutt. My sincere apologies. As to the facts - my edit was right. Communist party newsletter has no relation to Democratic socialist party.

3.Period of topic ban. Given the above reviewed edits which were taken as decision basis and comparing with others edits, I think my remedy is too harsh.

• From my start in Wikipedia I was confronted by Biophys, later when he joined EEML, I was confronted with EEML members. Of course they are more experienced, of course they are more nice prima facie because they are in Wikipedia for a long time. Look at how long my blocks were in comparison with those of EEML members. David Gerard gave me 1 month block. Arcom - 1 year total ban.
• I do contribute to Wikipedia. I am currently trying to contribute more in small Belarusian community articles. There are so few Belarusian articles were belarusian views are presented. Belarus article is constantly being subject of anon vandalism and disruptive POV injections. Who would benefit from my ban?
• Consider banning me from specific articles if you want.
• Resuming my edits I was trying not to engage in massive total edit wars, I evaded as long as possible contraversial articles Battle for Height 766, Russian apartments bombings, Human rights in the Soviet Union, Human rights in Russia.
• What do you want me to stop doing? Colchicum sends me links to pages where people like are called "whores" and you do nothing. But when I try to make a sense out of Belarus you say I edit war.
• Maybe it's time not just to throw out the baby with the water, and just appoint a good experienced mentor who would help me indealing with the editors who are of the opposite POV? Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not those are the best examples, it is clear that you frequently have problems with edit warring. Many of your reverts are because you disagree with the POV or other non-vandalism reasoning - those are not the types of edits that should be handled by simple reverts. Discussion is key to resolving the ongoing problems experienced in the area and is something that is seriously lacking at this time.

You are welcome and even encouraged to find an appropriate mentor to work with during your topic ban; showing improvements in editing elsewhere will go a long way towards a return to editing in the topic area. Shell ^babelfish 09:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shelly, many people in this case have problems with edit warring. I don't agree that I have edit warred in my recent edits, combative attitude provoked - yes, but not stupid edit warring. The problem is that people unfortunately are not influenced by discussions and there was a lot of discussions with Biophys and Colchicum for example. My edits after previous arbitration haven't ignited conflicts between users, like in Biophys case. I tried to discuss with Colchicum, but received "ignorants, freaks, Holocaust deniers" in return. I tried this with Biophys to no avail. I haven't been reporting incivilties by Polish users about "taking medication" to ANI [12]. I don't want you treat this like a show off, but consider that I wasn't so combative in the end. Biophys would have reported people for less that this. I haven't been reporting Colchicum during EEML and after its closure for his incivilties and was forced to do so only after he showed up in this arbcase. Won't you agree that I demonstrated good will in those cases?

I haven't participated in those long protracted edit wars in Litvinenko, Bombings, etc. articles. I guess, Private International Law or International Public Law would hardly be contraversial subjects, because lawyers throughout the world have common sources and authorities and because these articles (thank you God) are edited mostly by lawyers. However, Soviet Union related articles would stay POVed. What I need is experienced adviser who would teach me to deal with other editors and editing in Soviet Union related contraversial articles. Which is unlikely in view of your decision. I predict that my edits in Law-related areas wouldn't be contraversial. But at the expiry of topic ban I again won't be experienced enough in editing in Soviet Union related articles. And again this wheel would be turning. You cure the symptom not disease in my case. Sanctions are not punitive but preventive, right? Look at my edits - I discuss a way lot more than before Stomakhin arbcase. Maybe I just need guidance?

Shelly, 6 months topic ban is disproportionate to edits presented, given the behaviour of the editors who interacted with me. At least, consider that NPOV, DUE WEIGHT are considered as pillars of Wikipedia. You let Colchicum go free despite unsourced POV pushing, incivilties, and battleground mentality?

At least, please, advise me very experienced mentor who has very rich knowledge of editing in contraversial areas. Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that the topic bans here are not based solely on edit warring - they are the result of various poor behaviors in the subject area that the participants haven't changed despite having many chances to do so. I would agree that your combative behavior is of the most concern, the occasional edit wars are secondary. Especially in heated areas, collaboration with others and civility go a long way.

I wish I knew of a mentor off hand to refer you to, but I will be happy to put out some feelers and hopefully if anyone else can make a suggestion they will pipe up here. Shell ^babelfish 11:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

General restriction?

Is it possible to issue a general enforceable restriction that would make the occurrence of comments such as those [13][14] less likely? They are not exactly allowed even now, but without an explicit Arbcom restriction it takes a lot of drama to enforce the relevant policies. Colchicum (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, WP:DIGWUREN and WP:AE are still there. Colchicum (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Remedies

Hi Shell, I'm not sure why Biophys was given a one year topic ban plus a consecutive one year 1 edit per week restriction while the others were only given six month topic bans, when they all have similar edit warring FoFs. There needs to be some symmetry here, as an imbalance may lead to future problems, as we have seen. Perhaps 6 month topic ban + 6 month 1 revert per week all round would be fair. The aim would be to first de-escalate via the topic ban then attempt to get them into the habit of working collaboratively together via the 1 revert rule, rather than comprehensively tar and feather only one of the participants. Drafting some additional/alternate remedies to implement this approach would give the other Arbitrators a convenient set of choices in any case. --Martin (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions are based on considerably more than simple edit warring, though the sheer bulk of consistent edit warring did figure in to the additional revert restriction. The bulk of evidence shows Biophys to be uncooperative, incivil and disruptive in this topic area. He does not appear to recognize his bias and is still battling things from 3 or more years past despite having the issue reviewed multiple times. His edits outside this topic area do not seem to experience the same problems, thus the topic ban rather than a full site ban. If he can show that he's able to recognize the problems and resolve them after a time, an amendment request could be made to return to the area with appropriate restrictions, but we've not seen anything during the case to indicate that Biophys even acknowledges these issues. Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If bulk of evidence shows uncooperativeness and incivility, shouldn't there be a FoF to reflect that? Checking through the original AE report and all the evidence and workshop pages, I don't see any explicit complaint or evidence of incivility against Biophys. As far as bringing things up from 3 or more years ago, this was done here in context of the current case, Biophys was defending himself. Are you suggesting that Biophys is being sanctioned for the way he presented his case? If so, there should be a FoF in that regard too. --Martin (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sanctions and support them as appropriate in measure compared to past sanctions given to editors that have a record of problematic edits and more specifically an appropriate response to the long term uncollabortive editing. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What record are you referring to Flo? Vlad Fedorov has two significant ArbCom sanctions on record, Biophys hasn't any, yet he receives the greater sanction here. Shell claims the "bulk of evidence" shows Biophys to be uncooperative and incivil, if so, why no FoF in that regard? Looking through both the AE report, and the evidence and workshop here, there does not appear to be any indication of incivility. As for being "uncooperative", certainly that charge could be levelled equally at his opponents as they obviously don't cooperate with him, but Biophys has certainly shown cooperation in regard to ArbCom recommendations in the past, such as not interacting with Commodore Sloat. --Martin (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We get it - you think the other side is worse. Basically Martin this behavior needs to stop here for everyone involved, including you. This is a last chance for many involved to avoid a site ban. If anyone continues, you can expect to see further restrictions. Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth Shell, I've never said I think the "other side is worse". What I have said was that I believe Biophys' behaviour was no worse than the other side given the identical FoF and was illustrating the inconsistency of the remedies in light of your initial response. You alluded to other significant factors beyond these FoF and I asked if that was the case why were these other reasons not represented as additional FoF to support the remedies. I don't see what the issue is in seeking a full account of your reasoning. Even one of Biophys' opponents asked for an explanation of the bans: "Are the three six month topic bans there to balance out Biophys' longer ban? I don't understand the bans". In any case, this seems moot now given that the majority of Arbitrators have now voted. --Martin (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin, while you may not have come out and said it, various comments make it clear that there is an "us against them" mentality going on here. This applies to you as well as pretty much everyone involved in this case. Biophys has demonstrated several years of problematic behavior in this area; he certainly didn't listen to me when I reviewed the area more than a year ago and made strong suggestions about everyone's involvement and where it would lead. Please review the evidence for yourself and see the breadth of things presented - perhaps you didn't consider that some of the more general findings refer to Biophys's behavior as well. In this case, some of the other editors have at least showed some improvement from earlier problems and in every case, ArbCom is going to review these bans before releasing them due to the persistence of this problem. Shell ^babelfish 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans

I realize that one should receive 1RR restriction for edit warring, but what justifies the topic ban? What prevents me from making non-controversial changes in articles and discussions at article talk pages if I ever return to editing later? Was I uncivil or made battleground comments at the article talk pages? Why do you think that such my comment: [15] made to explain this was the "battleground"? No, I am telling YMB29 that I am not accusing him of any wrongdoing. Besides, you are placing an indefinite ban. What exactly are you going to review after a year if I am not editing in the Rusisan/Soviet topic area and I never had any conflicts in other areas? I was never previously sanctioned by Arbcom and followed all official recommendations by Arbcom [16]. Is that really necessary? Biophys (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of "non-controversial" changes seems to be a bit out of touch with the community at Wikipedia. You have significantly added to disruption in the topic area through edit warring, lack of discussion, incivil comments and fostering a battleground mentality (for example, refusing to drop issues from as many as three years back). You don't seem to understand which behaviors are a problem right now since you feel you followed all of the previous advice; the time off is a chance for you to review your behavior or even engage an experienced mentor to help you understand what is expected when editing in difficult areas. Shell ^babelfish 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I obviously did not follow all advice from WP administrators, especially with regard to edit warring, but I followed all official advice from Arbcom to me (not talking with/about Commodore Sloat and unsubscribing from the EEML [17]). Could you please tell what exactly are you going to review later? You tell to Martin above: "If he can show that he's able to recognize the problems and resolve them after a time...". Well, I edited a lot in the area of Biology and Chemistry and might wish to return there. But I never had any problems in those areas, so it will be nothing to resolve. Do you mean that it will be enough to demonstrate lack of conflicts during editing in other areas? That's easy. As about a mentor, yes, that would be great. If you think I need some help to edit in this area, I would highly appreciate any help. Maybe that is needed rather than the topic ban? Yes, that instead of the topic ban would be great. Biophys (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not having problems in areas that already weren't problematic isn't going to be enough - you've already been able to edit productively and collaboratively for some time in other topics. I can't speak for the folks that will be on ArbCom when the ban comes up for review, but it's going to take showing some understanding of your biases and problems editing in that topic, the ability to avoid battling with the other "side" and that you're going to be able to monitor your own behavior, like being able to let things go or walk away rather than create endless arguments and ill will. Shell ^babelfish 11:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest the following. I abandon my current account because of the outing and the defamatory off-wiki posting. I start editing from a new account under 1RR restriction in the Russia/Soviet Union area, after reporting this new account to Arbcom. You appoint any trusted and totally uninvolved administrator (for example, Jeepday, DGG, Lars or Nishkid64) as my "controller". He/she review my edits any time of their choosing and either warns/advises me or imposes the topic ban restriction at his/her discretion if problems arise. Would that be working?Biophys (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that scenario is not an option. While editors are able to start new accounts for privacy or decide to vanish entirely, there are some limits to what you may do if you decide to start another account. See WP:CLEANSTART for details. The sanctions could obviously be worked around for the sake of privacy, but one of the things the community feels strongly about is that you do not enter the same discussions or disputes without disclosing that you are the same editor that was in these disputes before. This precludes the ability to start over for privacy and re-enter the disputed topic area.

It's also worth pointing out that things have reached this level of sanction because previous attempts did not resolve the problem. You've been adequately warned and promised to stop the disruption before; there's no reason to believe that, absent serious sanctions, you would really stop this time either. This is an opportunity to improve, to consider whether or not you can objectively work in this area given strong feelings and to avoid being removed from editing entirely. If you, or anyone else involved, would like to talk about how to handle difficult disputes, how to edit in areas that you feel strongly about, how to work productively in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems or just how to avoid these kinds of consequences in the future, I would be happy to talk with you about it. In fact, if anyone has Skype, I'm happy to actually "talk" about it - I would much rather see editors be able to resolve things and get back to contributing to this project, however, that's not going to change these current sanctions which I believe are an unfortunate necessity. Shell ^babelfish 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two different questions here. First, you are telling that all topic bans are essentially indefinite, if I understand correctly. But I do not really see how it would hurt the project if we have this topic ban for me delayed, with a trusted administrator watching my edits and applying the ban at the moment of his/her choosing if problems arise (while I am also under 1RR restriction). The second and separate question is about my account. The outing and the defamatory postings are a fact. I would therefore request a different account. If such request denied, then it will be up to me to decide if I ever want to edit in wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that all topic bans are indefinite. In this case, they are and the community feels strongly that editors should not start new accounts, unlinked to the old, and start editing in the same areas/disputes. This has to do with transparency, accountability, not giving the appearance of additional support for a position and not being able to hide behind a new account and bother the same editors.

As for your topic ban, it was held off for quite some time while other things were tried to get you to change your behavior in the topic area. Wikipedia is not therapy - we don't expect volunteers (who have their own things to contribute) to babysit other volunteers who won't get their act together. You've had every possible chance to turn things around, now you can do so while not being a continued drain in the topic area. Hopefully other interested editors can take this time to make some actual improvements without having to deal with all the fighting and reverting. However, this is just my opinion - your suggestions will be reviewed by other Arbs and they can certainly disagree with the topic ban or propose a different remedy should they feel your approach has merit. Shell ^babelfish 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"As for your topic ban, it was held off for quite some time." What are you talking about? I was never officially sanctioned by Arbcom [18]. I had previously only one official recommendation from Arbcom addressed directly to me (not talking with/about Commodore Sloat), and I strictly followed this recommendation. I also unsubscribed from the EEML, which was your general recommendation. No, I had no second chance, and therefore ask for a second chance. You also talk about a "community opinion", but I was never a subject of community sanctions, and I do not really know about this opinion. My best guess would be that most people are doing something else and do not really care about me. Biophys (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

After five separate blocks, repeated requests to stop edit warring, suggestions at AE and seeing how other cases went that you've been involved in you still did not stop the disruption - this is what I meant about a topic ban being held off for quite some time. Shell ^babelfish 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not realize that someone is watching to issue me an indefinite broad topic ban. If I only knew, I would left my compromised account long time ago, would not edit controversial articles and avoid reverts. Actually, I am a rational person who would never hits his head against the wall, just as I left web brigades forever, followed all official Arbcom advice to me, and allowed many others in this case to revert articles to "their" versions. That's why I am confident that such proposal [19] would really work. Biophys (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... What was the purpose of repeated poking Russavia's eyes for "EEML brigadiers", when Biophys just above voluntarily names the group a "web brigade" and none of its members (Martintg, for example) protests Biophys definition? I mean, if a man calls himself Batman, why other people can't call him Batman? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• In response to a request from Biophys on my talk page, although these topic bans are indefinite until reviewed, and I'm not likely to be on the committee at the point the proposed one-year topic ban of Biophys is reviewed, I am prepared to state here that I will (as a non-arb) participate in any such public appeal (if I am around when it takes place), and add my support (by e-mail if needed) for it being lifted if Biophys's editing in other topic areas has been productive, and he has shown a recognition of the need to change the way he conducts himself in this topic area. This is what I would personally be looking for, and the same applies to the other topic bans as well (which can be reviewed in 6 months from the closing of the case). Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for response! I still believe this project is worth participation and do not want to burn the bridges. If I resume my editing here, I am going to follow the following strategy: (a) no talking about anything except article content; (b) if any content disagreements can not be quickly resolved by talking, I will simply walk away from the article and edit something else. Is that what expected from me? However, I can not edit from my current account because of the outing and off-wiki posts. Should I officially ask for permission to open a new account and report it to Arbcom?Biophys (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent strategy. Of course for (b) you could consider using dispute resolution options like article RfC or even mediation, but that's completely up to you - if you think that talking is your limit and further processes will end up causing trouble then certainly, it's better to walk away. Let me talk with the other Arbs about your interest in abandoning your account name and see what the consensus is. Shell ^babelfish 13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

After discussing your request to change your account name on the list, there were serious concerns about the request, namely because unless you intend to never edit in the disputed area again, it's likely that creating a new account would do more harm than good. We've seen it happen time and time again - if you edit the same areas you were before, especially when those areas are heated, editors will go to extreme lengths to figure out what your old account was, possibly link them together and may handle things more poorly as a result of feeling that you are trying to hide something. The consensus was that your request would not lead to the results you desire (being left alone) and would likely cause you more difficulties than you have at this time. Shell ^babelfish 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I would ask to consider the following alternative options. (1) I open a new temporarily account to be used during the coming year for editing outside the disputed area. If, after a year, I still want to edit in the area, the both accounts could be merged or explicitly linked together. (2) I open an alternative account for editing only in the areas of natural sciences, literature and arts. However, any edits on political subjects or history (which could be a matter of the conflict and scrutiny with regard to the topic ban) would be done from my current account.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the answer, as I said, was no. Since you are not an editor in good standing and since the problems are long standing despite multiple chances to reform, you do not currently have the option to restart under a new account name. Shell ^babelfish 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting here to agree with Shell (and others) on this. One thing I will say, Biophys, given your username you clearly have an interest in editing science areas. I think it would be easily possible for you to quietly edit mostly in science areas for a year and show what you are capable of there. Will you at least consider that? If you want guidance on what areas would be suitable, I'm happy to talk about that with you. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I can edit science only from an anonymous account. Did you notice this my statement at workshop [20]? I tried to open two alternative account to edit science rather than political subjects. The reason: a serious scientist who edits at your site is viewed by his colleagues as an idiot. They may be wrong, but that is what they think and tell about my "adventures" here. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're now suggesting that you intend to open another account despite being told not to, please note that you will likely be sitebanned if you do so. Shell ^babelfish 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that opening of a new account by an editor under restrictions should be done via arbcom-l, and with their approval. I only explained one of the reasons that prevents me from using my current account after the outings and the off-wiki posts.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell. Then let me also ask about the topic area covered by the ban. If I understand correctly, I would be able to edit any articles that are not directly and obviously related to the Soviet Union and former Soviet republics. For example, I can edit articles like terrorism, arms traffic, Lion Feuchtwanger, Cayman Islands, Middle East affairs, and Swan Lake ballet, altough each of them might have at least some remote connections to the Soviet Union/modern Russia (everything is related to everything). However, I obviously should not edit something like "arms traffic by Russia", although I can edit Russian history prior to the year of 1922 when Soviet Union has been created. Biophys (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Most important is that you should not introduce any material related to "Soviet Union and former Soviet republics" into any article irrespective of the topic of the article. For example, adding or removing a category related to one of the former Soviet republics to any article would not be permitted whether or not the article is directly about the Soviet Union and or the former Soviet republics. The point is to stop you from editing about the topic anywhere because it gets you into trouble. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Stale diff being used in PD

Shell, you have used this diff as an example of my battlefield mentality. You may like to note that this particular diff is from January 2009, which is well before the EEML case, and therefore outside the timeline of evidence the committee itself said it would be considering. If this is no mistake, two things in reference to this diff. The message as posted on Offliner's talk page is not an incitement to battle, but rather to discuss issues on the talk page. This particular message was posted to Offliner because he had previously been involved in cleaning up the article. The message itself to Offliner was clearly made out in the open, and even suggested that editors should consider taking the article to AfD yet again. Additionally, this diff and this article was previously entered into evidence at WP:EEML, which one can see at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Web_brigades. Note my comments in that evidence about WP being a battleground. Please review this, and make the necessary adjustments to the PD. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The other diffs were more current and that one shows that clearly this is a long standing problem. When reviewing the evidence and involved editor's contribs, it became clear that some of these problems had existed for years and despite many chances to change their behavior, most hadn't. There's an "us against them" mentality here that's set two groups of editors so firmly against each other that they don't seem to realize when they are being inappropriate. Shell ^babelfish 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly with this Shell. If you look at the diff, it is advising an editor who had been active on the article, that there was a problem with the article, and that if he is interested that he should take a look at it, and discuss the issues on the talk page. I also made note of taking it to WP:AFD, due to it really not being a notable concept, a lot of what was in the article was, and is, WP:SYN. This is in contrast to those editors who were actively disrupting the article, claiming consensus when there was none, knowingly inserting material when they know it isn't a reliable source, and worse of all, co-ordinating edit warring on the secret mailing list. You, yourself, stated at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Scope_of_this_Arbitration.3F "I would suggest that the scope be limited to disruption in the EE area since the EEML case." One of your colleagues stated "I concur with my colleague. Let's put particular attention to the allegations surrounding the AE report, since that's what brought this case; again, though, keep it limited to disruption that has occurred since EEML (don't go back in time), and any other disruption in the EE area since EEML can and should also be included for consideration." The committee itself set the groundrules, and it is now using a diff from January 2009 to demonstrate that I have been disruptive on Wikipedia since January 2010. It makes absolutely zero sense, and given the information set by Arbcom, I again respectfully request that this diff be removed from the PD. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of the diff. The specifically problematic parts were "The [[User:Biophys|article owner]] has again reinserted all that information which is not relevant to this Russian conspiracy theory, and now [[User:Martintg]] is [[WP:TEAM|playing the team game]]...it seems this is going to happen every other month when the owner of the article decides to re-include everything again."

If this was the only diff being used for the finding, your argument would have merit, however there are other very recent diffs which support the finding as a current problem. Shell ^babelfish 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I propose to decrease the duration of the topic ban in my case to 4 months.

The reason:

In case of the Russian apartment bombings, I reacted to the situation. In that situation, some user attempted to make a conspiracy theory in the given article the majority view: [21] [22] [23].

I understand well that good goals do not justify improper means. However, if you consider the situation, you would see that there was only a constricted set of possible reactions in a time-pressing situation. For example, the edit warring involved a section rewritten by that user. I saw from the context of user's edits that it was a part of the POV pushing plan, but it took me time to thoroughly study his version of the section, and accomodate it noting the troubles: [24] [25].

I did not chose that situation, but against my wishes that situation arose and I had to deal with it. That's why I propose to reduce the term of my topic ban. Regards, ellol (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At this stage (if it passes) it is unlikely that your proposed topic ban will be reduced, but it will be reviewed at the 6 months point if you request that then. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a reply. Is it implied that I shouldn't request raising my topic ban after 6 months? ellol (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What the remedy says is that the earliest you can ask for the topic ban to be lifted is after 6 months. You should feel free to make that request at that point but not before (it will be six months from the close of the case). The decision on whether to lift a topic ban will likely depend on whether the editors that are topic banned: (a) avoid breaching the topic ban during the six months, and (b) have contributed productively elsewhere without getting into edit wars and other combative behaviour. Also, if the editors return to that behaviour after the topic bans are lifted, the likely result will be a longer topic ban reimposed or a complete siteban. What arbitrators will be looking for is changed and improved behaviour. The topic bans are a chance to learn how to edit productively with others in a different topic area - they are not merely a "time out". Primarily, what is needed is to understand that there are ways to handle disputes that don't involve edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ellol (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent remedies

Shell justifies the harshly asymetrical remedy against Biophys on the basis of recidivism, stating "After five separate blocks, repeated requests to stop edit warring, suggestions at AE and seeing how other cases went that you've been involved in you still did not stop the disruption". Yet examination of the other parties block logs one finds that Biophy's behavior is certainly no worse, yet he gets a far harsher remedy:

Vlad fedorov' block log:

• 5 blocks for BLP violation, edit warring and incivility of increasing duration: 24hrs, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month
• 1 six month Arbcom ban
• 1 one year Arbcom ban

YMB29's block log[26]:

• 5 blocks for edit warring and incivility, max duration 48 hrs

Biophys' block log[27]:

• 5 blocks for edit warring and ANI drama, max duration 31 hrs

As far as I can tell, while Biophys has been involved in some prior ArbCom cases, he has not received any formal sanctions (i.e, past committees have examined his behaviour and found no real sanctionable behaviour) and has fully complied with all ArbCom recommendations such as not interacting with Commodore Sloat, unsubscribing from the EEML and not fueling the unhelpful speculations, and there are no recorded AE violations. Can Shell explain this apparent inconsistency? --Martin (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1) WP:EEML. "Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban." Ok, Shell permitted Martin to defend himself regarding SPI etc, but participating here twice already re Biophys sanctions is out of the scope clearly. Vecrumba elaborated on edits of Biophys, Martintg here elaborates on Biophys bans... And that's the second time that Martintg on that talk pages crosses beyond the reasonable boundary of his ban limitations. These EEML bans are a joke or what?

2) I guess your friend, Piotrus could explain you a lot on why Biophys received so mild sanctions untill WP:EEML. You may follow each thread at ANI or 3RR on Biophys to learn it independently. Vlad fedorov (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Last time I checked, Asia wasn't Eastern Europe. Also, since he was being mentioned in evidence, I specifically gave him permission to comment (despite the Russavia interaction ban) so long as his edits stayed within acceptable limits.

2) This is exactly the behavior that needs to stop, immediately. Any further snide comments or fighting about this dispute on the Arb case pages will lead to an immediate block. Shell ^babelfish 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Biophys' behavior cannot be compared in terms of blocks... This is just misleading.
Also I have four blocks, not five (one was removed right away), and three of those are because of Biophys' reverting and tag teaming in one article. -YMB29 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Who am I intimidating? The Committee?

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Personal_information_and_communications Shell mentions this diff.

Can someone please explain to me what personal information I have posted? And who exactly I am supposed to have been intimidating?

Please be aware that this diff is in relation to the ultra-secret ban of User:Offliner, which he appealed, in which he blew holes thru Arbcoms super-secret allegations against him, yet the committee refused to recognise those holes. The only people that I could be even remotely be seen as intimidating is the committee itself, and if the committee is intimidated by my involvement there, then so they should be, because User:Offliner was clearly made the scapegoat for material appearing on another site, and it is based purely upon circumstantial evidence, when there was evidence on the other site that indicated that what Offliner wrote in his appeal was 200% correct.

But unlike normal practice, the Committee is not being held to account for their actions in this case, citing privacy.

Did any of the Committee see this diff in which Giano stated "Anyone who wants the missing link just email me." Can I ask where is Giano's ban for being in possession of the material, and making it available for publication on the other site. For all the Committee knows it was Giano who made it available on the other site. Hell, it could have been Giano himself who posted it on the other site. Or it could have been any of the 100 editors who had EEML case pages on their watchlist, in order to catch this diff.

Giano, I am not at all insinuating that you did do this, but bring this diff into view in order to show that instead of looking at all available evidence, the committee has simply thrown darts at who they think is the likely suspect. 2 + 2 ≠ 5.

Offliner admitted to the committee that he used freezepage to make a snapshot of the diff in question, but vehemently denied being responsible for the contents of that diff appearing on another site. In his appeal, Offliner pointed to evidence on the other site which shows editors there were actively keeping an eye on EEML proceedings, and even pointed to the fact that the onwiki diff in question was still available in the logs for a long period of time after actually being oversighted.

Of course, the community doesn't know a thing about any of this, because the committee has refused to be transparent, and in this instance it honestly looks like they have made a mistake. It is reasons such as this that I am vehemently against the death penalty, for even sometimes they do get it wrong.

And my stepping up for Offliner has not a thing to do with anything but ensuring that all editors have "a fair go", and have the opportunity to have a voice, particularly when the committee all but silences them and rids itself of any degree of transparency. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Risker, the diff in question on Giano's talk page was posted before any oversighting was done; not afterwards; as a check of the logs and timestamps will confirm. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Offliner has mislead you about the genesis of his block, it relates solely to the freezepage and his subsequent distribution of a link to that freezepage. No conspiracy theories, no other sites and no additional reasons. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shell, he hasn't actually. Remember I have all of the emails. I will email you privately to discuss this further if that is ok. That way we can be frank with each other, and show what is what, because it is unable to be done on wiki without posting of diffs which should not be here. However, it does not relate only to the snapshotting of the diff with freezepage. If you look at the clarification even that clearly states:

Links to the archive were subsequently distributed in a public forum, and eventually came to the possession of individuals who used the archived information to harass a Wikipedia editor.

Arbcom have clearly blamed Offliner for the material appearing on that website, and then for people using that information to harrass a Wikipedia editor. That goes beyond the scope of what you say, and backs up exactly what I have stated above. 2 + 2 ≠ 5. Offliner's information in his appeal makes it clear the most likely way that this information found it's way onto the other website. As I say "a fair go" is required, and this is why I am so vocal, and will continue to be so to demonstrate that Arbcom have screwed up here. Perhaps Arbs, in particular Coren, Vassyana and Kirill, can comment on whether what you have stated above is correct or not. And they can then also explain that if this is so, why the clarification went beyond the scope of what you stated above. And that can be posted onwiki, because it will only go to demonstrate exactly what I am saying. This has nothing to do against you personally Shell, but comments (and clarification) from certain arbs themselves clearly do not support what you are saying, and there needs to be an explanation as to why there is this discrepancy, and why this discrepancy had found it's way into the public clarification, which clearly states that Offliner is responsible for information appearing on that site, and also clearly states that Offliner is responsible for alleged harrassment of whichever editor.

Shell, please also refer to your emails to Offliner, because what you are stating in those emails and here is not what has been alleged against Offliner by other arbs, and now have been made public as evidence of guilt on Offliner's part for harrassment that he did not actually enable, nor partake in. Shell, I do hope that you see that I am acting completely in good faith with this, and I believe what I say above demonstrates why "secret trials" are not a good thing. Once Coren, Vassyana and Kirill make their comments above, if I agree to let the matter sit until the end of this case, once the case is over, could I get a commitment from you that you and I can revisit this entire episode and make any necessary adjustments...anyone who is reading this will clearly see that adjustments are required. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Original question still not answered

The original question also still stands. With my pointing out what I have in relation to this decision on Offliner, I still do not see exactly what personal information I have posted, and who I have allegedly attempted to intimidate with this fighting for a fair go for Offliner. An answer on that is required please, particularly from Arbs who have already voted support which includes this particular diff. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up on loaded questions if you don't understand why your question hasn't been answered. In particular, your "question" presupposes a number of assertions which are outright false. — Coren ^(talk) 10:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And would you care to make it known right here, and right now, which assertions are outright false? It is not a loaded question. I speak pretty good English Coren; I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. There is no loaded question. If you dispute something that I have written, then point it out...in the name of openness. Remember, it was the Arbitration Committee who decided to hold a secret trial in the first place, so I can only assume that it is easier to claim that something is a loaded question and not answer it, because to answer the question as has been written will show something that you do not wish to be shown.

Let's look at for example, the clarification that you posted, in which Offliner is clearly being found guilty of being responsible for the appearance of information on another website, and is also being found guilty of being responsible for harrassment that an editor allegedly received as a result of that information being posted on that site. How did the wording of that clarification come about? Is it your opinion Coren, and your opinion only? Or was that clarification formulated as a result of discussion amongst committee members and a majority consensus? If as a result of a majority consensus amongst arbs, who voted in favour, against, and abstained? And in relation to the last part of the clarification as noted above, what evidence is this based on?

The initial ban notice from Vassyana stated "Members of the Arbitration Committee have verified technical evidence indicating that you posted the material." It is unclear from this 1) what technical evidence and 2) posted what exactly? Is it only in relation to the snapshot of the diff with freezepage? Or is it in relation to the appearance of information on "that" website? Offliner offered ownership, without prompting, of the snapshot. But after being confronted by Kirill with accusations of him also being responsible for its appearance on "that" website, that is where any admissions by Offliner ceased, and he repeatedly asked for what the "technical evidence" was, only to be told by Carcharoth that Offliner bears some responsibility for the information being disseminated, and that requests for the evidence to be shown to Offliner have been denied as being "moot" - this would be called a kangaroo court in RL. Yadda yadda yadda.

Proposed amendment to topic bans

In relation to the 4 topic bans which are proposed, would the committee consider halving the possible return to editing date if the subjects of the topic bans were to seek voluntary mentorship? The mentor could then report to the committee on their progress, etc at the half way point of the topic bans proposed by Shell, and the committee can use this as a guide as to whether the editor is ready to return. If voluntary mentorship is not taken up, the full topic ban period should apply. Any thoughts on that? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Halving may be too much, but arrangements such as you suggest would probably be looked upon favorably at the point the topic bans were brought to ArbCom for review. It would be best, though, for such arrangements to be established independent of the ArbCom case, as otherwise it has the appearance of being forced on people. For example, don't come asking here whether xyz is an appropriate mentor or not. Part of the process is people learning for themselves who is a good mentor and demonstrating their own judgment, rather than being micromanaged. Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, given the lack of differentiating editor FoF, I'm still trying to get my head around why Biophys has a 12 month review period while the others have six. Could you provide a rationale? --Martin (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the reasons Shell has provided. With regard to your block log analysis above, if there are continuing problems with the other editors you compare Biophys to, then this should become apparent at or soon after the point of their reviews. If any of the editors sanctioned in this case return to problematic conduct after their topic bans expire, then much sterner sanctions will likely follow. I would suggest that rather than arguing over length of topic bans, that the editors sanctioned here try and get their head around how they are going to change their conduct and maintain that change and not slip back into previous conduct. Each successive arbitration case in this topic area has brought us closer and closer to this point. For other EEML and EE editors not sanctioned here (and all the other cases as well), the general warning applies. I know old habits die hard, but committed and lasting change is what is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to object here except two things. First, the decision is so unfair (agree with Martin). I only aksed for an equal consideration of sides [28]. Was it? Second, this is painted as yet another nationalistic conflict (Principle 4). No. Did I ever had disputes with anyone here over the "territories"? Speaking logically, I must be on the Chechen side. No. This is outrageous.Biophys (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Russavia. Let's face reality. This area has a disproportionally small number of active editors. If you really care about development of the content, you should accept this proposal, whoever those mentors could be (say, Alex_Bakharev in my case if he agrees).Biophys (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• • At least in part, it is the edit warring and constant bickering between the various factions that is keeping other editors away from this topic area. So, if the disruptive editing is decreased, then hopefully over time more editors will come to this topic.

• • I'm not in favor of using mentors because you all are experienced editors that understand policy, and you all don't have any obvious underlying language barrier or communication disorder that is the main problem. From my review of the situation, the issue is topic specific for the most part so I think a topic ban is the most appropriate remedy. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • Re to FloNight. Thank you for the explanation. I believe my edits in this area were good and sourced, and my talk at the article talk pages was civil and mostly on the subject. But if you do not want me to edit, I have no problems with that. I would be very happy to see new good and neutral users coming to this area (please check how many of them will come to the Russian apartment bombings and Litvinenko in a year from now). Unfortunately, I am rather pessimistic. If you want me to edit in other areas, I need a permission to create a new account, because I can not edit from the current account for obvious reasons (I hope Shell will let me know about this some time later).Biophys (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Russavia admonished

Bearing in mind the events of the last year, I wonder if such a proposal is fair or wise?  Giacomo  22:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The defence of provocation doesn't appear to work in EE space, as it may have presumably done for the areas you work in. The Arbitrators appear to be keeping the EE space on a tight leash and come out swinging with the ban hammer on a fairly regular basis. Whether that results in improved content in EE space is an open question, given the limited numbers of competent editors remaining. You only need to compare your record with the participants here, you have a very, very long block log and been involved in countless ArbCom cases, RfCs, etc, yet you are still around. In EE space, 5 entries in a block log and involvement in a couple of ArbCom cases (though unsanctioned) is sufficient to earn an indefinite topic ban. --Martin (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am delighted to hear that the Arbs are keeping "EE space on a tight leash" that seems very sensible. Was I using "provocation" as a defence? Was I even defending? You obviously feel that "defence" is needed and likely. The Arbs appear to think that one sledgehammer will crack all nuts (no pun intended); sadly, with those beyond the age of 5 such measures don't work and only serve to breed further resentment and touble. Therefore, without some deeper understanding and exploration, the problems here look set to run and run - don't they?  Giacomo  08:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Giacomo usually only gets in trouble for chronic incivility which is measured against consistent high value content contribution. In contrast, EE (as a whole) suffers from incivility, edit-warring, improper co-ordination, outing, battleground behavior, rules lawyering, harassment, boundary pushing, bad faith accusations, using DR as a weapon and gaming the system... among other things. The sheer range of bad behavior, combined with the volume of users involved and the utter lack of hope it will get better means they need to come down harder against offenders even if they don't have a large block history (especially considering the area's history of user's using sophisticated methods of evading censure). As for provocation as a defense... well, both sides have provoked the other countless times already so which provocation is valid and which just gets added to the pile? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, hence my comment about the inapplicability of provocation as a defense as implied in Giacomo's original question. In regard to disruption "measured against consistent high value content contribution", that didn't help Piotrus one iota. I guess some are more favoured than others. --Martin (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus's offenses were not civility-related; they had to do with his decisions to use an inappropriate mailing list, tag-team edit war, misuse his administrator status in content disputes and the like. I think you know this. I, for one, would applaud anyone who sanctions much more heavily for content violations like these than for incivility, especially in this craphole that EE-related articles on Wikipedia have become. Not to say incivility is anything acceptable, but when people prioritize content policies over conduct, I can say something is right on Wikipedia for once. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

However Piotrus received only a one year topic ban for all of that, while an indefinite topic ban with minimum 12 month review plus a 12 month 1 revert per week restriction is being proposed for Biophys here. Biophys has not received any significant sanction in the past, while for example Vald Fedorov has had two significant ArbCom sanctions yet Vlad receives a shorter six month review and an admonishment. I asked Shell why[29], she states "The bulk of evidence shows Biophys to be uncooperative, incivil and disruptive in this topic area", yet when the evidence is checked there is nothing in regard to incivility while uncooperativeness and disruption could equally be levelled at his opponents. I get the impression that Biophys is getting a harsher sanction not so much for any behaviour that is worse than that exhibited by his opponents, but for the fact of his past membership to the EEML. --Martin (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I received only one Arb sanction. Cool down, Martintg, please.Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about incivility or me (Wikipedia's joint favourite pre-occupations), but about honesty. Russavia was grossly wronged and victimised, yet rather than acknowlege this, and try to understand why he is less than happy, the Arbcom are going to ignore it and its moral duty to Russavia. When one is ruled by individuals who have lost sight of their moral obligations, then one has a problem and Wikipedia currently has a problem. The motions concerning Russavia are insult to him from a body that cannot be bothered to address the proplems poroperly. For Russavia, it's rather like going to the police because one is angry at being robbed and then arrested for being stupid enough to be robbed.  Giacomo  09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could stop with the "Russavia was grossly wronged and victimised" meme already? That is such an utter nonsense. No one cared enough about Russavia. Sure, he was in a group which edit-warred to insert/keep bad and biased information, but unlike, say Offliner, Shotlandiya or PasswordUsername, he wasn't directly inserting the material. Even EEML ArbCom case had not a single arbitrator FoF about the claimed harassment - and the one-sided editing restriction came only to be when Russavia et al loudly complained everywhere, pushing the meme. --Sander Säde 09:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Russavia was no more grossly wronged or victimised than anyone else in EE. You only need to look at my block log to see that I was subjected to a contrived ANi report by Russavia's colleague Offliner, resulting in an indef block, only to be overturned. Note that we know Russavia's identity and personal details, but none of us ever stooped to post his details here or on any external site, as has been done with our details. Russavia was blocked for two weeks as recently as December 2009 for posting a link to page he knew would be oversighted, a link which you yourself have offered to others: "Anyone who wants the missing link just email me". --Martin (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, there is no point in you arguing this over and over again. Giano is of couse wrong here, as Russavia started to contribute to "an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area" in August 2008 at the latest, and no amount of unhappiness would entitle him to post private information anyway, but you'd better ignore this discussion. There is nothing to gain here. Colchicum (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sander, have you seen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Improper_coordination?

Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating. Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.

Why are you still assuming bad faith, even now? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As Colchium said, could you guys tone it down a bit? No need to re-argue the whole case on this talk page. Short and constructive discussions are best at this stage. Suggest actual wordings for alternatives or changes in current wording, and brief reasoning for such changes, and we will consider them. Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't beleive at this stage the Arbcom is prepared to consider any changes. So I am certainly not going to waste my time proposing any. In an case, it was for the Arbcom to propose sensible and considered proposals before posting those guaranteed to belittle and inflame and then en masse voting for them. There seem to be some very raw nerves here - that alone should be posing some questions and giving the arbcom something to consider. The Arbcom might also like to belatedly consider that once a group of editors have acted in an underhand and diseputable way and the trust has gone, that confidence and trust never return, and with very good reason. I shall withdraw from this strange debate and leave you wallowing here backing away from the obvious solution.  Giacomo  13:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So your initial post here wasn't a suggestion for a change? "Bearing in mind the events of the last year, I wonder if such a proposal is fair or wise?" If not, what was the point in posting that? To stir things up some more? Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, it was to make the Arbs think! Do they have that gift? One can but live in hope.  Giacomo  18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Droll humour indeed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Droll is not one of my many talents. I am not here to do your job for you Carcharoth, you are quite capable of knowing right from wrong and forming a new motion. I'm not part of this case and am not greatly concerned what happens here (hardly my field of editing - is it?), but like most people, I hate to see the wronged slapped down so viciously and wantonly - which is why I am here. Russavia could have handled things differently - most victims (I am told feel that) - yet, only on Wikipedia is the victim punished! Is that droll enough for you Carcharoth?  Giacomo  19:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• How does openly offering to disseminate private oversighted information: "Anyone who wants the missing link just email me" qualify you to preach to the Committee on knowing right from wrong? --Martin (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to remember what the mising link contained, but I know one thing for certain; it would have contained a lot more than your egocentric personality assumes!  Giacomo  20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of bans

Are the three six month topic bans there to balance out Biophys' longer ban? I don't understand the bans.

For me, I don't even make many edits here...

I only had problems with Biophys and mostly in one article.

So could I have even caused enough disruption in the topic area to require a six month ban?

About edit warring, well how could I not revert Biophys if he always reverted me and did not care to discuss the issues? Dispute resolution and notifying admins had limited effect.[30][31][32][33] So what was I supposed to do? How could I not have been upset about his editing. [34] That and me pointing out that Biophys lied and misrepresented sources [35] is battlefield mentality? Surely you did not just take Biophys' words on those diffs without analyzing yourselves? -YMB29 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that dispute resolution and notifying admins doesn't always seem to work (though you may need to look more closely at the reasons for that, including what you were told at the time), but that doesn't justify a continued edit war: "well how could I not revert Biophys if he always reverted me and did not care to discuss the issues". That is the attitude that leads to never-ending edit-warring, page protection and blocks. The solution is to topic ban the edit warriors and find other people willing to discuss things without edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I did all I could to get Biophys to discuss. Several times I listed all of the statements we were disputing like an idiot, so that we could come to an agreement on each, but this was mostly ignored by Biophys. [36] [37] [38]

What else was I supposed to do? I got the feeling that the admins don't care unless it is a case of 3RR violation or socking, especially after this. I was getting ready to post a request against Biophys but then I saw the request that led to this case.

I still don't understand where the disruption that deserves a six month ban is. I can maybe understand a ban on editing the article or a short overall topic ban, but six months... Please explain. -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So this case is closed without any explanation for this? -YMB29 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba

This is a copy of an email that I sent to the Committee the other day....and am now posting it here because the Committee prefers for these things to be done onwiki.

---

In relation to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Vecrumba_blocked

I was going to post this on the workshop talk page, but have decided to send it to the committee by email in order for it not to create a pretence for involvement by an editor I do not believe is involved.

"Quote: I am not going to comment on the block itself as I played no part in it being applied. I'll leave that to FPaS and arbiters to decide. But I will say this. My comment here was not an accusation towards Vecrumba, and if anything shows that I do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground, because I do not believe that Vecrumba was sockpuppeting. If one looks at the SPI, I have not raised any information in regards to another editors suspicion of sockpuppeting on the alleged part of Vecrumba and Martintg, on Vecrumba himself, and my mentioning of Vecrumba's name in my comments on the workshop is to demonstrate that I am not out on a vengeful search for justice as is being pushed by some editors in this case; perhaps the comment could have been made clearer. I easily could have turned the SPI into a battleground in order to seek "vengeful justice" on Vecrumba, but because I am not here to engage in battleground mentality, I did not do that. In relation to this case, I do not believe that the mere mentioning of an editors name is grounds for an editor to get involved, even moreso when that mention has zero malice or anything untoward behind it in relation to that editor. So much so, I have not, nor will I, respond to a single thing that Vecrumba has said in this case, because to do so may be seen as encouraging/baiting Vecrumba to break Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted by interjecting himself into issues where there is no dispute between us. I did the same thing in relation to comments made in relation to myself at the SPI. As I will not participate in the artificial manufacturing of disputes, I will not responding to any posts or information presented by Vecrumba in this case, as I will not be legitimising his interjection and participation in the case by way of a self-manufactured dispute."

I was also going to post a note on the workshop talk page advising that I have sent Arbcom an email in relation to this issue, but have also decided against this, again in order not to seen to be giving encouragement to editors who wish to treat Wikipedia as a battleground.

---

Only after the sending of that email did I notice the vile personal attack on myself by Vecrumba, which has now been removed.

---

Hello Committee

You are in receipt of an email from me in relation to Vecrumba. What I wrote in that email stands, for I will not be responding to anything by Vecrumba on the arbitration pages.

Only just now have I had realised that Vecrumba posted this...I was totally oblivious to it earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence#Russavia_behaves_as_if_a_paid_pro-Russia_position_propagandist

I am sorry, but how many times must I have to put up with such nonsense.

I will now state for the record for the umpteenth and FINAL time:

• I AM NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT!
• I AM NOT A FORMER KGB OFFICER!
• I AM NOT A CURRENT FSB OFFICER!
• I AM NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES!
• I AM NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY! (although I'd make a good diplomat....really....lol)
• I AM NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE!
• I AM NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT!
• I AM NOT PAID TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA ON BEHALF OF ANY "INTEREST" GROUP!
• I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE WEB BRIGADES!

• I AM A RUSSOPHILE!!!! - I say it loud and I say it proud. I am someone who has deep interest and respect for the history of Russia, it's people, it's culture, it's language, it's vodka (lol), etc. There really is no other nation on earth like it. There is no crime in being a Russophile, except maybe in the UK (read your history books people..."crime" of course being a joke)
• I AM HERE TO HELP BUILD AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA - the first pillar of WP:FIVE
• I AM HERE TO BRING OBJECTIVITY TO THE PROJECT - the second pillar of WP:FIVE
• I AM HERE TO EDIT IN PEACE AND LET OTHERS EDIT IN PEACE - the fourth pillar of WP:FIVE

• I AM SICK AND TIRED OF CONTINUALLY HAVING MY MOTIVES FOR MY PRESENCE ON THE PROJECT, AND MY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROJECT, BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION IN SUCH WAYS.

It is funny that there are three editors in particular with whom I have great rapport and an excellent collaborative relationship, yet all three hold wildly different views from myself on political issues - those editors being User:Alex Bakharev, User:Ezhiki and User:NVO. Our interactions are always respectful and within the spirit of WP:FIVE. Perhaps this is because we are actually here to help build an encyclopaedia, and not to engage in advocacy. Comments I received from Ezhiki, when I raised an issue about the time the EEML started, continue to this day to stick in my mind - read them for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ezhiki/2009#Can_you_provide_some_assistance_here_please

In the past, editors have escaped any form of sanctions by supposedly staying on the right side of the line, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys

Now look at the current case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Workshop_proposals_needed

is posted, where I question Biophys' yet again linking to a letter I wrote. This leads to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence#Russavia_behaves_as_if_a_paid_pro-Russia_position_propagandist

and plenty of others parts of the case pages where I am clearly being linked to supposed "Russian government interest in Wikipedia". What the hell ever happened to assumption of good faith?

Did it ever dawn on these editors that I requested the permission from the Kremlin because their materials are an important part of Russia -- much the same as the White House is to the US. Did it ever dawn on these editors that the Kremlin responded with the permission they did because of the issues that I raised in the letter (in regards to licencing discussions on commons which related to the Kremlin's stated usage policy), and because of how I presented the request that they saw how important editors on Wikipedia regard their materials?

• These editors are assuming bad faith on the part of myself for my requesting of these materials (a real issue because it is continuing the EEML battle).

• These editors are assuming bad faith on the part of the Kremlin for granting us usage of these materials. I'm not here to defend the Kremlin, so they can do so all they want, but when they do, the inclusion of my request is almost always included as part of that bad faith, so it is in essence a double bad faith assumption on myself.

• These editors continually use this request of mine to attack both myself, my motives, and my contributions to the project.

• These editors continually insinuate that having this resource available to us is a negative thing for the project, in that it's just Russian propaganda. Well of course it is a form of "propaganda" (it's a government resource), but I see no denigration by these editors over the inclusion of US government resources on Wikipedia (for that is also "propaganda"), so their negative attitudes should be discounted in their entireity.

Unlike at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys these editors are no longer staying on the right side of the line and they are no longer keeping promises they made 18 months ago. Therefore, in keeping with my not commenting on the case pages in order not to encourage/bait editors to breach their topic bans, I would like the committee to consider the following:

• Proposed FoF: User:Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering regarding Russavia and potential efforts to undermine Wikipedia.[39][40]

• Proposed FoF: User:Vecrumba has previously been warned[41] and twice sanctioned for breaking the interaction ban with Russavia and his EE topic ban[42][43][44]
• Proposed FoF: User:Vecrumba has continued to engage in battleground behaviour and using Wikipedia as a soapbox, in addition to engaging in personal attacks, inflammatory speculation and fear-mongering regarding Russavia and potential efforts to undermine Wikipedia.[45]
• Proposed remedy: User:Vecrumba is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.
• Proposed remedy: User:Vecrumba is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia.

---

Now that this is now out onwiki as suggested, I am requesting the Committee to discuss amongst themselves this, and seek further input from the community. This is especially even moreso relevant due to his continued battleground behaviour and soapboxing on his talk page at User_talk:Vecrumba#Blocked_2 after being banned for 3 weeks. His 3 week ban was for the violation of the topic ban commenting on myself, and also for commenting on EE topics from which he is topic banned. Nothing has been said nor mentioned about Vecrumba's continual battleground behaviour and continually soapboxing and denigration of other editors contributions to this project. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. What can I say? To Arbs: please enact the remedy "Russavia restricted" as soon as possible. I don't see this rant serving any sort of constructive purpose. To Sander, Martintg and others: don't reply. So much for my input. Colchicum (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Colchicum, I see plenty of constructive purpose. Vecrumba has been continually disruptive, has continued to use Wikipedia as a battleground (even after his topic ban), has used Wikipedia to soapbox for his own advocacy, and has continued to denigrate the contributions of others to this project. I have had a gutful of it, and so has the community. It has nothing to do with myself, but everything to do with the individual editors who can not, and will not, abide by their topic bans. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Support the motion. ArbCom should apply measures to stop that crap.Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And the first (and the only) thing needed to stop this "crap" is for Russavia to stop commenting on them. Colchicum (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You put the cart before the horse. Why shouldn't the editors contain themselves and not to throw bandwagon incivilties? Especially after WP:DIGWUREN.Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I mentioned on IRC, there was no evidence presented and no workshop proposals that referred to Vercrumba at all. It's a bit late in the game (even when the email was sent) to bring in another editor now, especially when that editor was already blocked for the infraction. However, given the reminder in this case, if editors continue to be a problem in this topic area, someone could request an amendment. Shell ^babelfish 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that anything could be considered by the committee right up until the final whistle, so to speak? Or is this a total fallacy? OK, whatever, if the committee wants to totally ignore this so be it, but I will let this post of mine be a statement for the record. The next time that anyone, and I don't care who in hell they are, even so much as insinuates in a remotely derogatory fashion that I am a Russian propagandist (or remotely similar), or am editing on behalf of anyone but for myself, I will see too it that they are raked over the coals for it, and I will lobby hard for them to be site banned. Are we all now reading off the same page? Good. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss whether more is needed, however, it's not likely to be tacked on to this case at such a late stage. Something may pass as a motion or amendment given the seriousness of the problem here. Shell ^babelfish 18:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: If I understand him correctly, Russavia made two claims: (a) Vecrumba accused him of WP:SOAP and (b) someone accused him of WP:COI. With regard to the second claim, I do not see anything supported by diffs. However, I do believe that Russavia intimidates other users using outing and litigious complaints, as was already stated during this case [46] [47]. That is what I mean in the diff he provided [48] (here are the diffs quoted by me in the last diff [49], [50]). Biophys (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential problem with restrictions

In reference to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted I will be restricted from commenting on other EEML cabal members. However, Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted only extends to those editors who were sanctioned. As the committee has not shown any evidence that any reports of topic ban violations I have made in anything but good faith, and have also not shown any evidence that those reports were malicious, or anything like that, it seems very odd that this leaves the door for other cabal members to comment on myself, particularly when they have been combative (such as Sander Sade in the SPI and here on the case pages). In the spirit of fairness shouldn't there be an amendment which extends Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted to all EEML cabal members? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You could restrict yourself to commenting on content and not the contributors. And before you or anyone else gets upset, that applies to more than just you. It should apply to everyone, and it is one of the ways to deal with the fractured relationships and loss of trust in this area. Refocus on the content. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)