Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:56, 6 May 2010

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

Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Hersfold (Talk)

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion on case scope

1) Given comments by User:Shell Kinney, I request that a motion be passed that this arbitration should only deal with disruption in the EE editing post-EEML. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

A good example of this would be - "Editor X has been edit warring about Trees.[diffs to edit warring, 3RR reports, discussions of edit warring] They have been edit warring about Trees for 3 years [brief diffs to old blocks for edit warring, reports of edit warring etc.] Editor X doesn't use dispute resolution. On April 1st, they edited Dogwood 22 times (5 were reverts [diffs]) without ever discussing on the talk page." - stay brief, to the point, keep your evidence full of actual evidence and present things factually rather than emotionally. The more we're overwhelmed with background noise from old issues, the less likely we'll be able to craft useful solutions to the current problem. Shell ^babelfish 05:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not see why this case should be at all related to EEML. Just because two its participants have been previously involved in EEML case? But many other were not involved. All articles and disputes in question are related to Russia or USSR. Why Eastern Europe? I also agree with Colchicum. Only the behavior of members of the list has been examined by the Committee during the EEML case. Thus the motion could make sense only for them. As a practical matter, is it relevant that Russavia has been previously blocked for harassing me? Is it relevant that he invited Vlad_fedorov [1], Offliner [2], Igny, LokiiT [3],[4] and Donald Duck [5] to "deal" with me?Biophys (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completed my evidence section. Can anyone take a look please and decide if we need to include more participants of the case? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As the purpose of this case is to deescalate the battleground, the battleground has to be thoroughly examined from the very beginning in order to identify its causes. Otherwise the issue will be repeatedly relitigated forever. As it is painfully obvious that the battleground started well before the EEML, it is perfectly natural to look for its causes in the past. Furthermore, the scope of the EEML case was on the behavior of only one of the parties here in relation to the mailing list and not on "everyone involved". The pre-EEML individual patterns of disruption do belong here as long as they are not abandoned, and many of them aren't. Colchicum (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for CU on Biophys

2) Given the amount of evidence related to Biophys proxying for banned HanzoHattori, and given that it was discovered in WP:EEML that EEML participant was sharing his account, I move for CU on Biophys to establish whether other users (HanzoHattori) were using his account. It would be helpful to check whether Biophys indeed himself was editing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proxing != socking. Checkuser is not for fishing. Shell ^babelfish 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, even if this is the case, checkuser would show nothing of value. We can see - at most - what computer someone is using, but not who is using the computer. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I did not give my password to anyone, and no one else edited from my account so far. Since the question has been raised, I tried to edit biological subjects from two alternative accounts, ATMH (talk · contribs) and My very best wishes (talk · contribs) to avoid the constant harassment. But I could not do it. To be involved in hiding or deception is something I can not do. There is nothing else to disclose. My very best wishes.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad, whilst I can totally understand why you would be asking for this to be done, it doesn't appear to be within the scope of asking for check-user to be done. Also, as much as I do think that Biophys has been a long-term disruptive editor, I sincerely do not believe he would be stupid enough to lend anyone, particularly someone who is easily banned as Hanzo, his password - his account is too important to him to just throw away like that. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion to allow more space for evidence

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

You've already been told no more than once, so this is quite disappointing. As I tried to explain on User_talk:Amorymeltzer#Arbitration, we do not want or need long explanations from any party. We will review the diffs for ourselves and decide what they mean; we will scrutinize diffs that show more than one revision and look at article histories to ensure we have more than just one side of the story. We really don't care about your back-and-forth and frankly, that's what this case is meant to stop. Just as an example, again, if User:Y says "User:X edit wars [1],[2],[3]", User:X doesn't need to tell us it's not edit warring - we'll check the diffs for ourselves to make that determination; it makes literally no difference that User:Y called it edit warring and User:X disagreed, what matters is what an independent review would call it. Shell ^babelfish 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A suggestion Biophys - if you remove the evidence you presented that is years old, you would have considerably more space. As discussed earlier, unless you're establishing a pattern (which means you have very new diffs as well), old evidence is not going to be much use. Shell ^babelfish 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These length limits are in place to help the Committee review the case and vote in a timely manner. If you need to include more evidence, make your existing evidence more concise and remove any unnecessary responses like Shell recommends. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I thought that allowing more space would be good for the sake of fairness and for convenience of arbitrators. We can not talk in general terms here. Fine, I moved this content: [6]. It includes a lot of important diffs. If you think that helps you and other arbitrators to better study the case, well, this is certainly something for you to decide.Biophys (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I am not sure what exactly do you mean. Most of my Evidence is rather recent. As about this part, yes, it is exactly my assertion that the older actions by Russavia are practically the same as his recent and current actions. Perhaps my diffs with their explanations are not convincing, but that is something I ask arbitrators to examine.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Vlad_fedorov: It would be than more than natural to allow more space for everyone, because frankly I have checked the latest edits of Biophys, but not all since the end of WP:EEML.

Moreover Biophys' evidence in some cases leads to very old edits before WP:EEML, or sometimes his diffs do not show intermediate edits which make his diffs look abosultely different. For example, provided by Biophys diff in Invasion of Dagestan (1999), which doesn't show one intermmediate edit by which Biophys removed properly sourced text and which was marked as a conspiracy appropiately. What Biophys does is effectively reverting one conspiracy, which is not beneficial to his own (not in accordance with his WP:TRUTH, by another one. And he claims in evidence that he "removes poorly sourced conspiracy theory".

However, at the end of the day, I generally against such extention of limit, because it would unappropriately drag out this arbcase by allowing each party to write what think about each other, although arbs, even without these explanations by parties, should themselves analyze it. Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding participation

Russavia has complained to Fut.Perf [7] regarding my contribution to this case page. Not withstanding the question why Russavia chose to request clarification from Fut.Perf rather than directly from the Arbitrators on this very page, it appears that Fut.Perf has taken a legalistic approach to my topic ban and has told me to cease and desist from further posting to this page. I don't know what authority Fut.Perf has over the Committee, since Shell has already responded to my proposals and comments on this page. Nor do I know why Fut.Perf addressed his question to the clerk rather than directly to the Committee as well. So therefore in order to get to the bottom of this, I will directly ask the Arbitrators here if my continued involvement here is permitted. --Martin (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Russavia

A list of all reverts is listed at User:Russavia/Reverts - 67 in total. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the diffs are not reverts to any previously existed versions. Reverts are not prohibited by our policies. However, every editor must follow and enforce WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That's the rule. I worked to enforce these policies in the diffs by Russavia. I failed just like others.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true Biophys. Take for example, [9] and compare it to the lead of the article from September 2008. Since September 2008, several users have attempted to compromise with you on the article, and you have for the most part reverted to a 1.5 year old version of the article. You have done this on other articles such as Alexander Litvinenko in the past as well. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Biophys has proxied

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not convinced this is the case. Shell ^babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Biophys has stated he did not know who emailed him, that he reviewed the material himself before posting and since this doesn't appear to be a pattern, I'm not certain this specific bit rises to the level of needing a finding. Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." So yes, if edits are verified and you feel there's a reason to make them, you can even if the material originated from a banned user. You are required to take responsibility for those edits as if they were your own, i.e. if someone passes you bad information and you didn't check, it's your fault if it gets caught.

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

I guess will just have to agree to disagree on this point then. Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my position on the issue clear and you clearly disagree on a number of points. This will be looked at by the other Arbs who may well feel differently. Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Contrary to what Martintg says (possibly in breach of his topic ban), WP:DUCK applies; there is no need to look into any big grand conspiracies. The articles that Biophys edited were on articles which were favourited by User:HanzoHattori, and in some instances Biophys' edits sparked edit warring. To this end, I asked Biophys if he would send the emails to Arbcom in order to verify, and although he has apparently retired, he removed the request with the summary "Removed. Yes, I am gone. All your postings will be ignored.". WP:KISS and WP:DUCK absolutely apply. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Shell, in what regard are you not convinced? Can you please clarify that. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence#Proxying_for_a_banned_user, in particular, Biophys claims he "did not know the person's real name." Interestingly, Biophys does not deny that he knew this person was HanzoHattori. (see Non-denial denial). If it is obvious to me, then it should be obvious to others, for if they simply read the original AE thread. He was previously questioned about it in September 2009. He denied it. He announced to the EEML that a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori was active, but that he wouldn't do anything about it. He also disclosed in EEML email 20090624-0311, that he had previous email contact with HanzoHattori. I asked Biophys if he would send the emails to Arbcom in order to verify, and although he has apparently retired, he removed the request with the summary "Removed. Yes, I am gone. All your postings will be ignored.". It is pretty much clear cut that he has acted as a proxy for a banned user, and would request that you re-read the evidence, for it is all there in black and white, and there is a clear pattern. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Shell, a request for clarification on your part. Is editing on behalf of banned users prohibited or not? If it is, shouldn't an editor get sanctioned for doing it? You mention "having reviewed the edits" as a migitating factor; does this mean that I can just pick a banned user and start making edits on their behalf if I "review" them before posting? Also, is at least 20 identified edits which have obviously been made as a result of editing on behalf of a banner user, not classified as a pattern, moreso, when it can be shown to date back to at the very least September 2009? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, you say the that editing on behalf of banned users is allowed if "the edits are verified and you feel there's a reason to make them". I'm sure you are aware that during WP:EEML several editors (Piotrus, Jacurek, Tymek and Radeksz) were SANCTIONED for proxying for banned editors, although they may well have "verified" the edits and certainly did "feel like there's a reason to make them." Your interpretation of the guideline seems to be different from what was applied in practice by the ArbCom itself.

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

You say that "another explanation might be that Biophys has some of the same viewpoints as the banned user." How does "a similar POV" explain edits to little-known articles where the ONLY major editors are HanzoHattori and his socks? For example this edit. It was made to an article created by a HanzoHattori sock. HanzoHattori is the only one who has made major edits on this article. Moreover, Biophys never edited anything related to Japanese culture or Japanese people before. How does "similar POV" explain this edit? As additional examples, Biophys also edited Tomoyuki Yamashita [10], another article which has seen editing by Hanzo and his socks, and again on a topic he have zero interest in. He then edited Operation Bürkl [11], another article which has seen heavy editing by socks of Hanzo, and again on a topic he have zero interest in - Hanzo on the other hand, who is Polish, edited heavily on Polish-Nazi WWII history. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, what do you want to agree to disagree on here?

The sanctions handed out in WP:EEML for proxying for a banned editor? You do realise that a mitigating factor in my seeking sanctions on Biophys for proxying for HanzoHattori was the results of the EEML which all but deemed that proxying on behalf of a banned user is sanctionable? Given that my report has brought us here, and I am under the possibility of sanctions myself, a firm stance from arbitrators is required. Proxying either is or isn't ok. It is not fair to editors to say it is not ok, and then have a threat of sanctions placed upon the messenger when a violation of that is brought to the attention of admins.

Or do you want to agree to disagree on the fact that Biophys has introduced unsourced material into an article on behalf of a banned editor. Biophys claimed that all edits were verified by him, but this is obviously not the case. You also said yourself that there would be no problem if those edits have been verified. You have been presented with one prime example of where those edits could not have been verified as there are zero sources.

Or do you want to agree to disagree on the WP:DUCKiness of Biophys' edits to articles which have either been created by Hanzo (or his socks), or have seen heavy involvement by Hanzo (or his socks), and which are not within Biophys' interest?

Please also remember that it was yourself who indicated that you only wanted evidence from the post-EEML period, and evidence on my part has been limited only to this. Anyone editing in this area of WP would clearly be able to tell that they are proxy edits. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always edited only on behalf of this project and frequently against my own best interests. I never edited on behalf of any outside employers or parties including HanzoHattori. Period.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disagree. There is no evidence that these alleged emails actually came from Hanzo. The fact is that Biophys' email address was outed with the publication of the EEML archive, so anyone could have sent them.

There is some evidence of the possibly that some kind of scam to entrap Biophys was perpetrated. For example the article Ludolf von Alvensleben, HanzoHattori made two tiny edits way back in 2006 [12] and yet this mysterious emailer allegedly asks Biophys to make extensive edits to this article and these edits are presented as evidence of proxying in the AE case. Why would the real Hanzo bother with this particular article which he has not shown any real interest in the past other than a minor drive by edit? On the other hand, anyone could compile a list of Hanzo contributions and feed requests to an unsuspecting editor. It has been demonstrated that the banned user Offliner is in close email communication with one of the complainants, and there has been no denial of the allegation that this complainant may have presented evidence compiled by Offliner.

In any case, Biophys has confirmed that his changes are verifiable and he had independent reasons for making them. --Martin (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys broken promise

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not certain this is necessary; a finding about edit warring should be enough. Shell ^babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biophys behaviour

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

More likely this will refer to recidivism in general since many of the parties here have had ample opportunity to remedy their behavior. Shell ^babelfish 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Martintg

Proposed principles

Not a battleground

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Disagree Nothing said on who would be the ultimate judge for determining whether something is "advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle". Orwell's Ministry of Truth? I haven't seen any camaraderie or respect from Colchicum. Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Martin (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed findings of fact

1) Russavia in a hostile manner approached Wikipedians prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with him per EEML restriction #11A. [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is a concern here about promoting a battleground mentality, but I don't believe it's limited to Russavia. Shell ^babelfish 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That particular comment may not be a good example, however the evidence shows quite a few times when many of the editors here have been incivil, made personal attacks and in general hurled abuse at others. The persistent edit warring, failure to resolve disputes and POV pushing also contribute to a battleground atmosphere in this area. Shell ^babelfish 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to dig up diffs (some are on the evidence page already) but will provide them if I propose a remedy to this effect. You could start by looking at the number of times you've referred to the content of EEML emails since the close of that case. Shell ^babelfish 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already suggested you review the evidence page where several links have been provided; the accusation is not mine, rather evidence has been provided by other editors that seems convincing. As for continuing to repeat personal information from EEML emails, no, that's not all right. If you needed to demonstrate a pattern and the items were part of the case outcome, you could have easily referred to the case rather than bring up private communications if they were all included as you suggest. Shell ^babelfish 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree I presented evidence on what was, and still is, a likely case of an editor under a topic ban evading their ban by way of an IP. The evidence I presented is clear. What was seen at that thread was WP:EEML participants making all sorts of accusations against myself, in what seemed to me to be an attempt to derail what was likely a case of ban evasion. Note, the evidence I presented all but cleared User:Vecrumba from those accusations. Given Martintg's previous admission of voting anonymously in AfDs, there was evidence available with which to show a likely connection between the two IPs and Martintg. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Russavia repeatedly tried to post other persons' personal information on-wiki (see [14] as well as several records in his block log). In particular, the piece of information on Martintg's whereabouts had been erased ([15] -- 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)) by an admin by the time of Russavia's comments and wasn't available anywhere on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There does seem to be a pattern of using editor's personal information in what could reasonably be seen as an intimidating manner despite requests to stop. I note that Vlad Federov appears to have the same problem. Shell ^babelfish 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large difference between mentioning this information briefly on an SPI as appropriate and using personal or private information as a bludgeon to bring up repeatedly while in disputes. Yes, you can't put the genie back in the bottle but respecting other editors when they try to remove the information is important. There are other examples where you referred to private information related to Martintg, Biophys and other "opponents" from the EEML case. Shell ^babelfish 01:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree The information on Martintg's whereabouts was indeed onwiki. Colchicum has chosen a carefully selected diff above. He should have presented this diff which clearly shows Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne_9#Comments. Additionally it is not WP:OUTING to present evidence of an editor's location, when that editor has themself stated that information in public view, and it was in fact on his userpage for as long as I can remember. When part of legitimate reports such as the SPI (which I didn't even start mind you), evidence such as that can and should be presented. In fact, a previous case for Arbitration confirms what I have written -- Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Outing - quote: Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected. - yes their wishes should be respected, but in the case cited by Colchicum, there is good faith reason to believe that Martintg was evading his topic ban by using IPs, and evidence was presented to clarify this. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Shell: C'mon now, a fair suck of the sausage here. You say that when there is clear evidence of an editor editing on behalf of a banned user that there is no pattern, but here you are saying there is a pattern. A pattern of what exactly? I posted what I did, and straightaway User:Sander Säde (an EEML'er) tries to divert attention away from evidence, which forced me to not only to disclose where information was obtained from, but also how it is clearly not WP:OUTING as claimed. Then we have User:Colchicum, who likes to refer to myself as Ruavia [16] joining in on the fray. Not exactly the most objective people wouldn't you say? Or are you saying that if an editor discloses their location, and places it in public views (onwiki) for all to see for an extended period of time (years), and then removes it at a later stage, that this information can not be used under any circumstance, particularly when there is a good chance that they are violating a topic ban as a result of Arbcom sanctions? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, I am now going to have to ask that you provide evidence of me referring to ANY private information in relation to any of the EEML brigadiers, with the exception of the one time in relation to Martintg. I await your response. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, if you are going to accuse me of something, you need to provide evidence, and not only if you decide to propose a remedy to that effect. You can not make such comments in a hit and run way. Any references I may have made to EEML emails were introduced into evidence during WP:EEML proceedings, by either myself, other editors, or arbitrators themselves, and those references have been made in order to demonstrate a pattern of continued behaviour. Please familiarise yourself with WP:EEML proceedings, and then kindly provide the evidence, or retract your comment above, because you are suggesting that I have used references to evidence introduced into arbitration as a form of WP:OUTING or WP:HARRASS, when that is not the case. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Re Shell comment on disclosing personal info. Shell, you cannot deny that here I was deliberately provoked to explain past events that were raised here by Colchicum, before you confirmed that these events certainly lie out of the scope of this arbcase. I never was receiving any warnings from administrators or Biophys himself about his personal information non-disclosure.

And, anyway, there is certainly a problem in case were editor who previously was disclosing his personal information, but suddenly without any public warning starts to enforce his confidentiality. The same case is with Marting, who having written virtually anywhere in WP information about were he resides (including wikipedians meeting in Australia pages, etc.), suddenly starts to accuse everyone of outing.

If you accept possibility of such mind change, then you inevitably should acknowledge the same pattern with Colchicum, who posted in WP a link leading to harrasment page, where in addition to harrasment I was outed.

In total let's face the facts of last 5 months: Biophys hadn't stopped edit warring, edited for banned editor, Radeksz violated his ban, Marting by commenting here repeatedly violated his ban after warning, Marting most likely attempted socking, Colchicum came here to support his buddy by provoking other editors (see his contribution activity), Birutorial most likely violated his ban. Conclusions? Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

A more general interaction ban might be helpful on this case since these same editors do seem to keep having problems interacting. Shell ^babelfish 22:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree I have not been involved in contentious areas of editing for many months. Partly due to my "Russia" topic ban, and since the expiration of that ban because I have been working on various other things. Having said that, since the beginning of WP:EEML I have been keeping an eye on the email list members, in particular those who have been sanctioned. They have been sanctioned for a reason. As an editor who is now in good standing, there is no sound rhyme nor reason why I should not be able to raise issues relating to this area. I have come across several editors violating their topic ban, and if what Colchicum proposes is put into force, this is akin to shooting the messenger. If editors didn't edit war and didn't proxy for banned users, there would be no need for involvement from myself. I reported User:Radeksz for violating his topic ban, and rightly so. He jumped into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(4th_nomination) (in violation of his topic ban), not to offer any constructive criticism, but to engage in a personal attack against another editor by referring to him as a WP:DICK. This is after he called another editor an arsehole, and was warned not to leave aggressive messages related to topics from which he is banned. I did not start, nor did I participate in, the AfD discussion. I have only just had to report another EEML editor under a topic ban for violating that topic ban since January. Clerks and admins are not keeping an eye on problem editors and possible violations of Arbcom sanctions, so basically, don't shoot the messenger, shoot those editors who refuse to abide by their topic bans and continue their behaviour. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Russavia has openly admitted stalking his opponents in hope of finding incriminating edits, going even as far as trying to paint vandalism reversions (as specially allowed by ArbCom) violations of ArbCom remedies. In another case he managed to file an arbitration enforcement request even before the user in question refreshed his watchlist, literally in minutes. Possibly it is currently banned Offliner, who does most of the stalking, as several of the reports are in a very different style (amusingly, including the enforcement request which started this case, accusing Biophys of proxying for a banned user...), and Russavia has openly proxied for him in other situations.

I think that stalking EEML members has become an obsession for Russavia, creating more than strained editing atmosphere, and seriously damaging Wikipedia. Like Shell said, a more general interaction ban could be a good solution.

--Sander Säde 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

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

Articles involving Saiga12, YMB29 and Mikkalai

I was indeed involved in edit warring in articles Red banner, Human rights in the Soviet Union and Battle for Height 776. My opponents were Saiga12 (talk · contribs) and YMB29 (talk · contribs) who made very few edits in the project, most of which are disruption or reverts (please check their edit history). Contrary to all our policies, they removed huge pieces of perfectly sourced content [17] [18], and one of them was involved in vandalism with numbers [19].

Moreover, one of them issued me a threat telling that "may be we can meet you in Moscow..." [20] and resorted to other incivility [21]. User:YMB29 did the same, launching a series of personal attacks [22],[23], [24], [25].

To add insult to injury, Mikkalai played a complicated game in these articles, pretending to be a neutral editor who created compromise versions [26], only to revert himself using one of his socks, Timurite, to a version he really wants [27] or intervene in "Human rights" as Dzied Bulbash [28][29].

Two first articles were "won" by YMB29 who reverted them to his preferred version [30], [31] because I followed 1-2 RR.

Battle for Height 776 was reverted to the more complete version with compromised numbers of losses [32]. Later on, a suspicious Revan2338 (talk · contribs) came to edit war (a sock of Saiga12?). How about blocking someone like him on spot? Biophys (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Vlad below. It was me who substantially expanded "Human rights in the SU" article from the stab level, and I do include information you are talking about [33]. As about the "Battle for Height 776", that was my last expansion of content which is not identical to any previous version. The same with many other edits declared "reverts" by Russavia.Biophys (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to YMB29. You tell: "I hope you are not implying that I was teaming up with him [Altenmann] against you." Yes, I do. You asked him to appear on your side in the both articles: [34],[35], [36]. I explained to you my edits in Red Banner: [37]. And remember that WP is not censored. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You keep on saying that your edits are perfectly sourced, and so no one has the right to modify or revert them? Sourcing is one thing and we know that you can source your edits, but as mentioned by others you have trouble with WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:Notability, WP:NPOV...

How many times can you make the same personal attack accusations against me? Where exactly do you see a personal attack in your diffs? Me saying that you misuse sources (and providing evidence of that) or warning you that I will report you to an admin are not examples of personal attacks...

As for Altenmann/Mikkalai/Timurite/Dzied Bulbash, funny how you yourself brought him to our editing conflict. [38] So I hope you are not implying that I was teaming up with him against you. -YMB29 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I asked Altenmann to look at your behavior thinking he was an honest admin, but this was after you already called him to the article and he protected it. You were not bothering to discuss anything and I wanted to get the article unprotected. So your accusation is ridiculous. -YMB29 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you did not explain what was asked of you in Red Banner. Reverting POVed jokes is not censoring... -YMB29 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment By Vlad_fedorov. Just face value. Please, note that in this Biophys' "piece of perfectly sourced content" the links to losses of Chechen militants are to Islamist propaganda website Kavkaz Center, and in non-Biophys version - to US Military site. This "piece of perfectly sourced content" removed essentially contends that criminalization of speculation is equal to Red terror, a notion related to Russian Civil War, but not to USSR which was established after Civil War. Nothing is said in this POVed text about price control in USSR and why it was important. Nothing is said how speculation affected the governmental price control. Just the text from opinionated Pipes and Albats projecting Red Terror on USSR without proper evaluation of White Terror. WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:ADVOCACY, and left long time ago by Biophys WP:NPOV.

Red Banner obscenity and disruption. I am not convinced by Biophys that antisemitic jokes about Rabinovich is a "huge piece of perfectly sourced content", or that this perfectly sourced obscene anecdote which says "What a whore! How many times I told her: Do not fuck on the Red Banner!" is a perfect addition wo WP. In each case there is no notability. On pretty much the same contention, Biophys could come to Ronald Reagan and insert many many Russian anectodes about that old daddy, or to Israelis and Chukchi people. Biophys are you really gonna do this?

Re Biophys. Biophys, you are showing us your edit in "Human rights in the SU" dated February 10, 2007 to prove something done by you in 2009-2010? Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles involving Ellol

Situation with Russian apartment bombings was more complicated (please see my explanation of this to Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise [39]. In my opinion, User:Ellol stalked and blindly reverted me in several pages. He started every day from reverting whatever I did ignoring all my compromise solutions. See: February 20,February 21,February 22,February 23. He also reverted me in other articles at the same time:[40], [41]. The dispute was "won" by Ellol who reverted page to his version [42], [43] because I followed 1-2 RR.

I avoided "blind" reverts to previous versions of this articles, extensively debated all disagreements [44],[45],[46],[47],[48] and asked an advice from an administrator who was on the "opposite side" [49]Biophys (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Ellol

Your comment is simply to say, that your move to push through your POV was not supported by a party like in the case of Wikipedia Mailing List. However, you started pushing your view through, and did up to 20-30 reverts to your version. (Technically, you tried to contribute a little while making another reverts.) You attempted to resist your POV at the talk page, but after you were run out of arguments you stopped responsing.

The dispute ended, because

1) I provided the compromise version of the introduction, which suited all sides.

2) Your persistent attempts to insist on your version of the "Ryazan Incident" ended when I agreed to your version but found that you have omitted one important fact (the firing tests were done, and the fake explosives did not explode), supported by the up-to-date newspapers.

However, all of your contributions were ultimately agreed on, despite the cases where you attempted to remove valuable information. In fact, you won the case.

ellol (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Re to Ellol. My "contributions were ultimately agreed on"? What? Just to start from something, this is my version of introduction: [50]. Please compare with your (current) version:[51] And everyone can easily see who made last reverts to "his" version (see my diffs above). I never tried to remove any valuable information from this or other articles, but I objected diluting articles with large quotes that totally duplicate another content that was already present in the article, like you did here.Biophys (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ellol. "virtually all reverts you attempted to remove evidence that the fake explosives found in the Ryazan incident did not explode at firing tests". What? The episode when FSB allegedly tested at the firing range something they declared to be "sugar" was described in books, and I am fully aware of it (see my comment here). Therefore, I only moved this thing around, but did not remove it [52].Biophys (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was not the FSB, but a service of the city. 2) They tested the faked explosive, and it did not explode. This thing is referenced down to the primary source, a most influential independent Russian newspaper Kommersant. [53].

“

В Рязани в отличие от других городов обезвреживанием бомб занимаются не специалисты ФСБ, а муниципалы. ... Килограмм вещества, изъятого в доме, взрывотехники вывезли на свой полигон, расположенный в семи километрах от города. Там они попытались подорвать его с помощью детонатора, также изготовленного из охотничьего патрона, но взрыва не произошло.

”

Your Russiphobic secondary sources, obviously, are lying. Surprised? Why do you think Edward Lukas is commonly recognized as a Russophobe? Do you think it's because he helds an unfavourable but plausible view of Russia? Like hell, not. He is a Russophobe, because he lies, like you could see right now.

And IMHO, you should acknowledge to yourself, that you took the side which lied. Providing false evidence is one of the mortal sins. Consider that if you are a believer. ellol (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted a publication in Russian newspaper immediately after the bombings. It tells that testing of the substance was conducted by the local police rather than by the FSB. It does not look like a serious contradiction. Regardless, calling a reputable journalist Edward Lucas a "Russophobe" and a lier is hardly an appropriate argument.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It tells that testing was conducted by a municipal service -- one which is ran by a city. Looks like several miners/ explosive experts employed by the city?

2) It tells that 1-kg sample of the substance was detonated with a hunting cartrige like the one found in the sacks, and no explosion occurred.

Please, do not mistake cause and effect. Cause is that secondary source (a book by Lucas) contradicts the primary source (Kommersant). This is the argument why we cast serious doubt on the secondary source by Lucas, why we can't use it. The effect is that Lucas is a Russophobe and a liar.

Okey -- how many lies do you usually have to count to call a person a liar? The single one can be always ascribed to a terrible mistake, whatever. For me, the approppriate count is 3. If a person lies in 3 different places, it's enough for me to call him a liar. Would you like me to show you two more lies in a book by Lukas ? This would have no effect on Wikipedia, just I want to show you who are you dealing with. ellol (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Biophys. Your point of view can be described as radical. However, my compromise version of the introduction fully reviews the point of view that you support, while viewing it only as one of possible viewpoints. It's more support than you would get while working with almost every Wikipedia editor. You are extremely lucky that you have me as an opponent.

Contrary to what you are saying, in virtually all reverts you attempted to remove evidence that the fake explosives found in the Ryazan incident did not explode at firing tests, what seriously compromises the conspiracy theory. [54]

ellol (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Grey Fox-9589:

Ellol Kommersant was owned by Berezovsky in 1999 who at that time was close to Vladimir Putin so I doubt how reliable your 'primary source' really is.

As for the discussion page, I agree with neither your nor Biophys' viewpoint on the bombings. One thing I do know and that's that alleged FSB involvement in these bombings have been mentioned by hundreds of books, academic publications and the highest quality newspapers worldwide. The newspapers always show both views and never draw their own conclusions and that's what the article should look like too. Therefore both views should be presented and the reader should be the one to draw their own conclusions. I see neither you or Biophys trying to do that. Biophys was wrong with trying to present the FSB involvement as a 'majority view' and what I've seen you do is attempting to riducule the view of FSB involvement, for example by constantly referring to it as merely a conspiracy theory both on talk and the article page itself. I don't want to go through all the effort to find more disruptions as my hopes of that article ever becoming readable are slim. Grey Fox (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then try to fix this article yourself (I am going to run away). But you have already tried and could not. And that was not because of me.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No and that wasn't my point. Grey Fox (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Fox, you assume that a newspaper owned by a person translates the point of view indicted by its owner. That's a terrible mistake in your logics, which renders all of your viewpoint senseless.

However, you drastically misunderstood my point of view. Imho, the issue of apartment bombings is highly important. That's why I have always spoken so and continue to: folks, please, add more of the factual information which would prove or disprove the conspiracy theory. I have said it like five times already to Biophys which can be tracked on talk pages. I think, this proves that I have no particular interest in this topic. ellol (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 : No objections, of course, if the Arbitrators should wish to allow him to participate here. However, I don't see Shell's reactions on this page as automatically constituting such a permission, as there is no indication Shell was aware of the restriction at the time she gave those responses (I generally don't assume Arbs know by heart who is under which kind of restriction at any given moment). Martintg is under a topic ban covering all Eastern European articles ''and process discussions'' regarding them, and under an interaction ban regarding Russavia ''except for "legitimate and necessary" dispute resolution''. In my reading, this bars him from commenting on disputes beetween Russavia and any third party, especially when that dispute is related to their editing of Eastern Europe articles. Of course, Martintg would be free to make comments directed at resolving disputes he himself has with Russavia owing to interactions that were initiated by Russavia himself, but Martin's comments on this page don't seem to fall in that category.
 : Unless and until instructions are given by the committee to the contrary, I see this as an enforceable application of the existing restrictions, and would expect Martintg to refrain from further postings here. I leave it to clerks and arbs to decide how to deal with the comments and threads already posted. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 09:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
+::I have no idea what your relationship is with Russavia, given he previously attempted to canvas your support in an earlier dispute with the Committee[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=355323855], however I thought it was the Clerk's role to enforce order on these ArbCom pages, not admins passing by. Why Russavia asked you and not an Arbitrator, who knows. First you say I am free to make comments directed at resolving disputes I myself have with Russavia owing to interactions that were initiated by Russavia himself, then you then state I should refrain from further postings here. Which is it to be? Your premature involvement here effectively hinders my attempts at developing a case aimed at resolve that dispute I myself have with Russavia. Is that your intent? --[[User:Martintg|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 10:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 ==Proposed temporary injunctions==

Revision as of 10:56, 6 May 2010

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion on case scope

Motion for CU on Biophys

Motion to allow more space for evidence

Request regarding participation

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Russavia

Proposed principles

Proxying

Edit warring

NPOV is important

Not a battleground

Proposed findings of fact

Biophys has engaged in edit warring

Biophys has proxied

Biophys broken promise

Biophys behaviour

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Martintg

Proposed principles

Not a battleground

Harassment

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Colchicum

Proposed findings of fact

Proposed remedies

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Articles involving Saiga12, YMB29 and Mikkalai

Articles involving Ellol

Other articles mentioned by Russavia

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion