Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ARBRB)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)Drafting arbitrator: Shell Kinney (Talk)

Case Opened on 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Case Amended (by motion) on 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Case amended (by motions) on 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]


Statement by Sandstein[edit]

On March 15, Russavia made a voluminous request for arbitration enforcement against Biophys (permalink of the current state of the thread), alleging that Biophys has engaged in extensive edit warring and proxy editing for banned user HanzoHattori. Biophys denies this and claims that he is being harrassed. The AE request has received no uninvolved admin input for eleven days. While it may have at least some merit prima facie, its scope makes it appear to be ill-suited to be processed under AE procedures. As proposed in the AE thread, and with the concurrence of another uninvolved admin, I am closing the AE thread and am procedurally referring the request to this Committee so that it may be properly disposed of instead of disappearing into the AE archives without comment. Please evaluate whether it should be made the subject of a case, dismissed or otherwise dealt with. (For clarity's sake, I am making this request solely as a procedural matter in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator processing an AE request.)  Sandstein  07:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys[edit]

This is my AE statement:[1]. The case was brought by Russavia, immediately after coming from his editing restriction. As you probably know, I had nothing to do with his restriction and voted to lift it. I believe this AE request was only posted by Russavia but prepared by blocked Offliner (talk · contribs). The request was created as a long list of short and clear statements with bullets: [2], exactly as EEML evidence by Offliner: [3]. All statements by Russavia are made in a very different style, with large pieces of continuous and contentious text [4]. Note that text of his AE request was prepared in advance and copy-pasted as a whole by Russavia to his user talk sub-page (User_talk:Russavia/AE).

Russavia (or possibly Offliner) brings two unrelated issues:

  1. I made reverts in several articles, although not as many as Russavia claims. All of them were fully explained and debated at the article talk pages (like here: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9]), and I made only one (sometimes two) reverts per day. I was also looking for the 3rd opinions of people like User:Alex_Bakharev, who are not "on my side" [10].
  2. I made a number of improvements in a different set of articles. These improvements are noncontroversial and did not cause anyone's objections or disruption. Yes, I made some of the changes because someone else suggested to make them by email. The mailer did not tell me his name or any other personal information, but his country of origin is almost certainly Russia. He is not necessarily HanzoHattori, although he suggested to correct favorite articles by HanzoHattori. I checked the sources and can answer any specific questions about the improvements I made. That was fully consistent with our policies, in particular WP:IAR. There was no disruption involved. Some of these articles were later corrected by users who watch my edits, but I fully agree with their changes.
Re to Jehochman about this. "Why edit for somebody else?" Right. I did not. I edited on behalf of this project and not "on behalf of somebody who emailed me". But you should keep in mind that "editing for someone else" is allowed in this project because we have paid editors who work "for somebody else" simply by definition.

To summarize, there is little here beyond a few reverts by me and several other users. I am ready to work together with any of the users involved, as should be clear from the "Proposed conflict resolution" in my AE statement [11] (although I can also avoid doing anything with them as suggested by SirFozzie).

Statement by Russavia[edit]

In response to the request by KnightsLago below, I will defer to the summary provided at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jehochman. As to the provision of diffs, this has already been done at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive58#Biophys. To get this within the limits of this page, take Jehochman's statement, and add to it the diffs from the AE page, and there is my statement at this stage. Anything else will have to wait (and likely go unanswered) as I have too much on my plate in real world over the coming days. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/1/0/1)[edit]

  • Awaiting statements, and maybe a flash of brilliant insight. Steve Smith (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Awaiting Russavia's statement; I would specifically like to see the AE request summed up within the words limits on this page, with differences of alleged inappropriate conduct. KnightLago (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept - I guess more draconian measures may be necessary. This has to stop. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh. I was thinking about saying something about how the area would be so much cleaner and happier, if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist... but I'm not sure that this is actually possible. Thinking of possible ways to resolve this.. another Arbitration case seems likely, but I don't know if it will actually resolve the issue, short of taking very draconian measures. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Accept, and retitle appropriately (EE followup?) (Russavia-Biophys). SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept I reviewed the behavior of several editors involved back in June of 09 and it doesn't seem like improvement has been made. If the admins at AE think this is too complex, then I think we need to open a case, examine the behavior of everyone involved and decide what specific sanctions will move us toward deescalating the dispute in EE areas. Shell babelfish 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept Per Shell. RlevseTalk 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept; this is still a battleground, and little to no improvement is to be seen in the past months. — Coren (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline as a case, but accept as a clarification with the possibilities of motions with a narrow scope restricted to Biophys and Russavia. I am not sure why this was filed as a new case rather than a clarification. Also, the current name is not that of a request - it would make more sense as the title of a clarification. If this is accepted, someone will need to come up with a proper name for the case. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Biophys, could you count up how many times you have edited or changed your statement? Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept as there are a number of concerning allegations being thrown about, there doesn't seem to have been improvement in this area, and all of it needs to stop. I can also draft this case, although I'd welcome assistance with that from another Arb. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept per consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) 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.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorial process[edit]

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

3) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

National and territorial disputes or similar conflicts[edit]

4) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally. They should take this natural tendency into account while they are editing and participating in talkpage discussions.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

5) 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.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Recidivism[edit]

6) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus is user conduct on articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User conduct in this topic area[edit]

2) Several editors in this topic area have engaged in poor behavior over a prolonged period of time, including gross incivility and personal attacks and abuse directed toward other editors, tendentious editing, persistent edit-warring, failing to cite reliable sources or relying excessively on partisan sources, and failing to respect consensus. The effect of these editors' conduct has been to produce an ongoing battlefield mentality and to drive other, more neutral editors away from related articles.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Russavia[edit]

Battlefield mentality[edit]

3) Russavia (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [12], [13], [14], [15]

Passed 7 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal information and communications[edit]

4) Russavia has used the personal information or private communications of other editors in a manner that could reasonably be understood as intimidation. [16], [17], [18], [19]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Biophys[edit]

Battlefield mentality[edit]

5) Biophys (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [20], [21]

Passed 7 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

6) Biophys has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence#Edit_warring

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov[edit]

Personal information[edit]

7) Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) has used the personal information of other editors in a manner that could reasonably be understood as intimidation.[27], [28], [29]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

8) Vlad fedorov has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Combative editing[edit]

9) Vlad fedorov has often exhibited a combative approach to editing and to engaging with other editors. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ellol[edit]

Battlefield mentality[edit]

10) Ellol (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [41], [42]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

11) Ellol has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [43], [44], [45], [46]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

YMB29[edit]

Battlefield mentality[edit]

12) YMB29 (talk · contribs) has contributed to an ongoing battlefield mentality in this topic area. [47], [48]

Passed 7 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

13) YMB29 has been involved in repeated edit wars in the topic area. [49], [50], [51], [52]

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

Russavia restricted[edit]

1) Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Russavia admonished[edit]

2) Russavia is admonished for posting personal information or communications of other editors.

Passed 7 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Biophys topic banned[edit]

3) Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by motion on 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Biophys restricted[edit]

4) Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year. This restriction will run consecutively with the topic ban.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov topic banned[edit]

5) Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, Vlad Fedorov may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov admonished[edit]

6) Vlad fedorov is admonished for posting personal information of other editors.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ellol topic banned[edit]

7) Ellol (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, Ellol may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 7 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

YMB29 topic banned[edit]

8) YMB29 (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, YMB29 may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 7 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Amended by motion, per the next sub-section. AGK [] 14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"YMB29 topic banned" remedy vacated by motion[edit]

M1.1) Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of [this decision] is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

Motion carries 7 to 2 (with 3 abstentions). See here for voting. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [] 14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors reminded[edit]

9) Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked. In the event of repeated violations, the maximum block may be increased gradually up to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 8 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Case amendments[edit]

1) By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Passed 11 to 0 on 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2) By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

Passed 10 to 0 on 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.