User talk:Hodja Nasreddin

Welcome!

Hello, Hodja Nasreddin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 3RR

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Response and questions

Dear Daniel, I know you as a good mediator. I am in a dark here. Could you please explain me the following.

Evidence about what? Am I accused of violating any wikipedia rules? What exactly rules did I violate? I only had private email communications with a number of people. I debated with them some personal questions and politics, and yes, also hobbies, including WP editing and some troubles that I still have here. Is it forbidden? What possibly jurisdiction can ArbCom have over any private email? No one ever warned me that my private email communications can be a matter of inquiry here. Can they? What exactly rules tell about this? Can you give me any link to such rules? I did not do anything to damage this project, even in my private emails. Quite the opposite. Biophys (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved in any outside lobbing or influence groups. I was not recruited by anyone to contribute here. I never was a part of any plot to influence wikipolitics and content. Do not look for any "CAMERAs" here. Biophys (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me guess myself. Alex said at the ANI:

"were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. ... They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies.

Fine. I am waiting to receive any evidence that I personally did or even "conspire" to do such things.

1. I do not remember even mentioning YMB29 or Anonimu in any my emails.
2. "plant their own checkusers". I am sorry, but this is ridiculous!
3. "attempts to out Russavia". How? I am sorry, but I know absolutely nothing about him beyond information he provided himself.
4. "making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts". Yes, I remember Piotrus telling me right here at this userpage: "stick to 1RR, please". What's wrong with this?
5. "nurture special relations with Sandstein" Who? Me? How? By voting against his favorite proposal, as I did?
6. "methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering". Oh yes, I can see many socks around, and do not report them at once, but only when they became too disruptive. Under no circumstances I recommended anyone to create socks, and at least ones communicated with such user and tried to convince him to stop.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this is very strange. Just yesterday, I came to Alex to tell "thank you" for mediating issues in article Litvinenko, and the next day he makes such claims.Biophys (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All those issues about relative guilt or innocence will be addressed in due course by the arbitration case. As the note at the top of the "involved parties" section says, being listed as a party is in no way a preliminary determination about a user's guilt or innocence. Daniel (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I posted my questions to Newyorkbrad as an arbitrator who initiated this case.Biophys (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to imply you were involved in any of this Biophys, but I think it's kind of amusing in light of how many times you've accused me and others of being part of organized groups and government agencies, and even the fact that you created the Web brigades article. I always thought you were just paranoid, but it seems this stuff really does go on (but on the anti-government side). Now the only question is, are they a private group of people with too much time on their hands, or are they on someone's payroll? It's so completely depressing to know that this kind of garbage plagues the most popular information site on the web. LokiiT (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

←Please pardon my butting in. I have no involvement with these issues, but happened to see your question about off-Wiki e-mails at User talk:Newyorkbrad. I think the page you are looking for may be Wikipedia:Canvassing, and specifically section 2.4: Stealth canvassing, which addresses the use of private e-mails. Perhaps you are already aware of this guideline and were looking for something more specific to the particulars of this situation (about which I know little). If so, and if this is of no use to you, then my apologies for cluttering your talk page with it. I hope it will be of some help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. No I did not read this paragraph before. This is about canvassing, which means "sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". That is something I have never done over the email. It helps.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence timeframe

Normally, we only look at new behavior since the last relevant case. Therefore, you should focus on presenting evidence covering late December to present; earlier behavior is presumed to have already been reviewed. Cool Hand Luke 05:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. Them I will simply give a couple of links to previous ArbCom cases where evidence about these users was present but no action taken, simply for background.Biophys (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's appropriate. I asked for that from Deacon, in fact. I'm not familiar with the history of these cases, and I know that some other arbitrators aren't either.

Make sure to put your background and new evidence into different subheadings. Findings in this case will probably only be based on newer evidence. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be a lot of edit warriors, including Russavia, LokiiT, ellol, HistoricWarrior007, FeelSunny, YMB, Offliner and PasswordUsername. No place for background. But this is fine.Biophys (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

You never seemed to have much interest in the 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS until quite recently, then performed a massive edit there. Looking at the article's history, it seems to have been edited substantially prior to that many, many times by a banned user who was once your battle ally. Did you ever edit Wikipedia on behalf of User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji or User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, User:HanzoHattori, or one of his other puppets? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All edits were made by me, as anyone can see from edit history, and I am fully responsible for each my edit, including source checking. I am sorry, but you are late [1]. I am not going to spent all my time bickering here. A couple more statements for ArbCom, and I am out of here.Biophys (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)