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

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

Scope of this Arbitration?

Can a clerk possibly find out exactly what the scope of this arbitration is? Is it dealing specifically with the AE report? Or anything and everything? Please advise, as I would not want to waste mine and the committees time with dragging up things from the way past. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, should the Evidence section cover only the period of time since EEML case? The both participants have been already scrutinized during this previous case. On the other hand, if I have to answer to allegations made by Vlad_fedorov in your AE request, I must go back in time. Same with many other allegations. And regardless to anything, I will say whatever is necessary to explain why I have been targeted by Russavia. Biophys (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Most important, can I respond only to something posted by others on Evidence page (so far nothing), because the number of different claims in AE request was enormous?Biophys (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the scope be limited to disruption in the EE area since the EEML case. Anything before that should have been brought up during EEML so any continuing disruption in the topic area would be the concern. As far as responding, please keep any response in your own section and brief, if possible limited to your interpretations of the diffs provided or possible diffs that contradict the assertion being made by the other person. Long explanations without diffs aren't terribly helpful. Shell ^babelfish 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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. I'd encourage everyone to re-present what was said during the case request and AE stages, modifying it as needed to keep it within word limits and scope. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. All articles mentioned in AE report are only about Russia/Soviet Union. Since this case was started against me, can I wait for Russavia and others to represent their evidence within word limits and respond to only claims made directly in the Evidence section?Biophys (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You can, however, if there are any other editors in that topic area who you feel are problematic, you're welcome to present that evidence. Please make sure you limit this to recent concerns - for example, your post on the motion Russavia proposed gave diffs from 2008 - we're going to be interested in recent disruptive behavior except in rare cases of a continuing pattern which can be briefly mentioned. Shell ^babelfish 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) is obviously somewhat related to this, ugh, dispute. Some time ago, while he was banned by ArbCom (for his clashes with Biophys, btw, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin), he used his sockpuppet La poet (talk · contribs) to edit-war and, most importantly, to dig out and post a link to a real-life picture of Biohys and his name without the consent of the latter. This campaign of harassment was later continued by Miyokan (talk · contribs), Russavia and the ED staff. The fact that VF is still here, right on these pages, almost boasting his impunity (bwahaha, outing by his sockpuppet during his ArbCom ban came for free), is an enormous blow to the integrity of Wikipedia policies, no matter how recent it is. Now, his recent behavior, albeit not perfect, certainly pales in comparison (everything on earth does). Does this mean that he should not be dealt with? Then I urge you to deal with him in your capacity of uninvolved administrator. Or is it ok to have an example of impunity for outing by a ban-evading sockpuppet for everyone to see as long it is not recent?

Then, look, the case is named Russavia-Biophys for a reason, no? Russavia, one of the parties here, was topic banned from before the EEML case until very recently (the first thing he did upon return was filing the AE request which has resulted in this arbitration). His behavior was not subject to scrutiny during the EEML case, and although there are a couple of recent examples of presumably sanctionable misbehavior on his part which show that he has not changed his ways, he is effectively rendered immune by this suggestion and the arbitration becomes somewhat one-sided (probably that's why he insists on it). Yet he is one of the main protagonists of the battleground and it is impossible to see the whole picture while skipping his behavior. Well, unless one wishes to relitigate this forever. Colchicum (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

An important background to the contentions raised by Colchicum.

• As could be seen here, Biophys had two accounts, one of them (Wikimedia) account, with his real name and information about him on user page.
• He also used both his accounts at image deletion request, pretending to be different individuals both at deletion request and when seeking advice from the administrator in violation of the account policy (Sockpuppetry).
• Biophys asked to delete his real name account, citing not privacy concern, but concern that another user has brought complaint on this to ANI.
• After CU was done by administrators, account Biophys was also blocked indefinitly.

Summing up, Biophys was disclosing his personal information long before, and never was so seriously concerned with his privacy. While, I agree that my behavior was not acceptable and polite in 2008, I do disagree, however, with above dramatic evaluation by Colchicum and his attempts to tie it as justification of POV editing and disruption of his side. Two and half years passed since, but till today I haven't seen any serious attempts to litigate this case. Now, Colchicum, you are clearly following the tactic to shut up anyone who has another POV.

• It very astonishing that you, Colchicum, play here the leading role, while it was you who posted on Vecrumba's talk page a link to a blog of racist, whose average comment is "genetical waste, if someone die it would be a favor to the world", etc., where my personality is both outed and attacked. But I didn't brought it to ANI back in November 2009. And, frankly, I don't care about it right now either. Because the reason that brought me here is Biophys activity on deletion of totally POVed article and his enormous attempts to milk a blood hell out of "coded death threats by Ellol".

• It was not a pleasure for me to see your hostile accusations of disruption 1, 2 on mine and other uninvolved editor comments during DYK nomination for Soviet reaction to the Polish Crisis of 1980-1981, an article which you quickly written from scratch and without getting any feedback nominated to DYK. I would note here, that after our comments you never did anything to the article hence it was left POVed.

• Hinting to us as "freaks and ignorants" was of course very constructive.

• Another brilliant example of you behavior pattern is that when you returned back to WP, you, without any discussion or comments from third parties, totally re-edited Andrei Babitsky article, by shifting POV to exactly opposite of what was.

I especially noticed that your POV'ed addition "However, according to Mario Corti, head of Radio Liberty's Russian service, Babitsky has not shied away from reporting Chechen atrocities and was the first Russian journalist to put the blame for the death of the American disaster relief specialist Fred Cuny on a Chechen warlord." If Babitsky is an employee of Radio Liberty, I don't think that anyone from Radio Liberty would acknowledge his faults, because it would automatically be the faults and unprofessionalism of Radio Liberty". But could you give me a link to any Babitsky article where he depicts and denounces Chechen atrocities? And this issue is raised in many independent Russian publications.

Deletion of opinion of independent military expert Vladislav Shurigin, whose name search alone gives 60,600 results leading to info about him, and who is well-known in Russian blogosphere, you mark as "Gross BLP violation", and you say Shurigin is "nobody"?

Well, I do understand why you are so active here, given that your edits indicate that you are not going to change your behavior after EEML and to discuss or negotiate anything. But, please, at least don't use phrases like "enormous blow to the integrity of Wikipedia policies" and don't waive your red herring, given your own record. I am not an angel, but, unlike you, I want and could discuss NPOVing the articles, something that I seem managed to do in Bereza Kartuska prison.‎ Vlad fedorov (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)