Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Shell Kinney ( Talk) |
Active:
Inactive:
1.Edit warring
Disruptive anon IP edits in Belarus article
Some obviously Balt anon IP comes and inserts one and the same text twice to one article both to History and Politics sections [1], [2]. The content of his message includes "The first people arrived on the territory of modern Lithuania in the 10th millennium BC after the glaciers had retreated and the last glacial period had ended. According to historian Marija Gimbutas, the people came from two directions: from the Jutland Peninsula and from present-day Poland. They brought two different cultures as evidenced by the tools they used". Just for everyone, this anon IP claims that "identity of the Balts formed about 2000 BC"!!!!!!!!
Storyline of alleged edit warring
Now how this text relates to Belarusian politics? First Belarusian politics came from Lithuania? By second edit I remove this highly POV allegation [5]. How territory of Lithuania relates to Belarus? Have arbitrators seen Krivich, Dregovichs, Radimichs, Polochans articles? By what logic these edits reversing explicit vandalism and scientifically unreliable Balt POV pushing by anon IPs are named "reverts"? How Belarusian being Slav people come to be Balt people? Is it invitation from Arbcom for all anonym IP to come to troll Russia History section with claims of Mongoloid descendance of modern Russian people, etc.?
Restoring the prominent caricature on Peace of Riga
[10] is treated as edit war. On which ground? We have discussed this on talk page. I received inputs from both Mr. nonono and Zscout, we reached consensus and I've never been restoring this caricature again. I did something wrong discussing this? I did something wrong by non-reverting this caricature back to the article again after discussion?
My revert is dated March 30. Discussion on talk page finished on April 6. What is the problem?
Have you seen [11] how caricatures are being used by Polish users throughout Soviet related articles?
2.Combative editing.
Very unusual definition in arbcase practice. I've searched arbcom previous cases and found only record of a 12 hr block for combative editing here. The editor was sanctioned like that, and later received this block.
Halibutt, who claims his main interest is history, apparently was aware of the content of this source and was apparently aware that it concerned Volyn and not the whole Kresy. Excuse me, but if you approve and endorse then a style of editing where original sources are distorted intentionally and inserted to Wikipedia?
This edit. After reviewing the history of the article, I would agree that I mistreated there Halibutt. My sincere apologies. As to the facts - my edit was right. Communist party newsletter has no relation to Democratic socialist party.
3.Period of topic ban. Given the above reviewed edits which were taken as decision basis and comparing with others edits, I think my remedy is too harsh.
You are welcome and even encouraged to find an appropriate mentor to work with during your topic ban; showing improvements in editing elsewhere will go a long way towards a return to editing in the topic area. Shell babelfish 09:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish I knew of a mentor off hand to refer you to, but I will be happy to put out some feelers and hopefully if anyone else can make a suggestion they will pipe up here. Shell babelfish 11:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to issue a general enforceable restriction that would make the occurrence of comments such as those [13] [14] less likely? They are not exactly allowed even now, but without an explicit Arbcom restriction it takes a lot of drama to enforce the relevant policies. Colchicum ( talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shell, I'm not sure why Biophys was given a one year topic ban plus a consecutive one year 1 edit per week restriction while the others were only given six month topic bans, when they all have similar edit warring FoFs. There needs to be some symmetry here, as an imbalance may lead to future problems, as we have seen. Perhaps 6 month topic ban + 6 month 1 revert per week all round would be fair. The aim would be to first de-escalate via the topic ban then attempt to get them into the habit of working collaboratively together via the 1 revert rule, rather than comprehensively tar and feather only one of the participants. Drafting some additional/alternate remedies to implement this approach would give the other Arbitrators a convenient set of choices in any case. -- Martin ( talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I realize that one should receive 1RR restriction for edit warring, but what justifies the topic ban? What prevents me from making non-controversial changes in articles and discussions at article talk pages if I ever return to editing later? Was I uncivil or made battleground comments at the article talk pages? Why do you think that such my comment: [15] made to explain this was the "battleground"? No, I am telling YMB29 that I am not accusing him of any wrongdoing. Besides, you are placing an indefinite ban. What exactly are you going to review after a year if I am not editing in the Rusisan/Soviet topic area and I never had any conflicts in other areas? I was never previously sanctioned by Arbcom and followed all official recommendations by Arbcom [16]. Is that really necessary? Biophys ( talk) 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that things have reached this level of sanction because previous attempts did not resolve the problem. You've been adequately warned and promised to stop the disruption before; there's no reason to believe that, absent serious sanctions, you would really stop this time either. This is an opportunity to improve, to consider whether or not you can objectively work in this area given strong feelings and to avoid being removed from editing entirely. If you, or anyone else involved, would like to talk about how to handle difficult disputes, how to edit in areas that you feel strongly about, how to work productively in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems or just how to avoid these kinds of consequences in the future, I would be happy to talk with you about it. In fact, if anyone has Skype, I'm happy to actually "talk" about it - I would much rather see editors be able to resolve things and get back to contributing to this project, however, that's not going to change these current sanctions which I believe are an unfortunate necessity. Shell babelfish 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
As for your topic ban, it was held off for quite some time while other things were tried to get you to change your behavior in the topic area. Wikipedia is not therapy - we don't expect volunteers (who have their own things to contribute) to babysit other volunteers who won't get their act together. You've had every possible chance to turn things around, now you can do so while not being a continued drain in the topic area. Hopefully other interested editors can take this time to make some actual improvements without having to deal with all the fighting and reverting. However, this is just my opinion - your suggestions will be reviewed by other Arbs and they can certainly disagree with the topic ban or propose a different remedy should they feel your approach has merit. Shell babelfish 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell, you have used this diff as an example of my battlefield mentality. You may like to note that this particular diff is from January 2009, which is well before the EEML case, and therefore outside the timeline of evidence the committee itself said it would be considering. If this is no mistake, two things in reference to this diff. The message as posted on Offliner's talk page is not an incitement to battle, but rather to discuss issues on the talk page. This particular message was posted to Offliner because he had previously been involved in cleaning up the article. The message itself to Offliner was clearly made out in the open, and even suggested that editors should consider taking the article to AfD yet again. Additionally, this diff and this article was previously entered into evidence at WP:EEML, which one can see at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Web_brigades. Note my comments in that evidence about WP being a battleground. Please review this, and make the necessary adjustments to the PD. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If this was the only diff being used for the finding, your argument would have merit, however there are other very recent diffs which support the finding as a current problem. Shell babelfish 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I propose to decrease the duration of the topic ban in my case to 4 months.
The reason:
In case of the Russian apartment bombings, I reacted to the situation. In that situation, some user attempted to make a conspiracy theory in the given article the majority view: [21] [22] [23].
I understand well that good goals do not justify improper means. However, if you consider the situation, you would see that there was only a constricted set of possible reactions in a time-pressing situation. For example, the edit warring involved a section rewritten by that user. I saw from the context of user's edits that it was a part of the POV pushing plan, but it took me time to thoroughly study his version of the section, and accomodate it noting the troubles: [24] [25].
I did not chose that situation, but against my wishes that situation arose and I had to deal with it. That's why I propose to reduce the term of my topic ban. Regards, ellol ( talk) 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell justifies the harshly asymetrical remedy against Biophys on the basis of recidivism, stating " After five separate blocks, repeated requests to stop edit warring, suggestions at AE and seeing how other cases went that you've been involved in you still did not stop the disruption". Yet examination of the other parties block logs one finds that Biophy's behavior is certainly no worse, yet he gets a far harsher remedy:
Vlad fedorov' block log:
YMB29's block log [26]:
Biophys' block log [27]:
As far as I can tell, while Biophys has been involved in some prior ArbCom cases, he has not received any formal sanctions (i.e, past committees have examined his behaviour and found no real sanctionable behaviour) and has fully complied with all ArbCom recommendations such as not interacting with Commodore Sloat, unsubscribing from the EEML and not fueling the unhelpful speculations, and there are no recorded AE violations. Can Shell explain this apparent inconsistency? -- Martin ( talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Biophys' behavior cannot be compared in terms of blocks... This is just misleading.
Also I have four blocks, not five (one was removed right away), and three of those are because of Biophys' reverting and tag teaming in one article. -
YMB29 (
talk)
15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Personal_information_and_communications Shell mentions this diff.
Can someone please explain to me what personal information I have posted? And who exactly I am supposed to have been intimidating?
Please be aware that this diff is in relation to the ultra-secret ban of User:Offliner, which he appealed, in which he blew holes thru Arbcoms super-secret allegations against him, yet the committee refused to recognise those holes. The only people that I could be even remotely be seen as intimidating is the committee itself, and if the committee is intimidated by my involvement there, then so they should be, because User:Offliner was clearly made the scapegoat for material appearing on another site, and it is based purely upon circumstantial evidence, when there was evidence on the other site that indicated that what Offliner wrote in his appeal was 200% correct.
But unlike normal practice, the Committee is not being held to account for their actions in this case, citing privacy.
Did any of the Committee see this diff in which Giano stated "Anyone who wants the missing link just email me." Can I ask where is Giano's ban for being in possession of the material, and making it available for publication on the other site. For all the Committee knows it was Giano who made it available on the other site. Hell, it could have been Giano himself who posted it on the other site. Or it could have been any of the 100 editors who had EEML case pages on their watchlist, in order to catch this diff.
Giano, I am not at all insinuating that you did do this, but bring this diff into view in order to show that instead of looking at all available evidence, the committee has simply thrown darts at who they think is the likely suspect. 2 + 2 ≠ 5.
Offliner admitted to the committee that he used freezepage to make a snapshot of the diff in question, but vehemently denied being responsible for the contents of that diff appearing on another site. In his appeal, Offliner pointed to evidence on the other site which shows editors there were actively keeping an eye on EEML proceedings, and even pointed to the fact that the onwiki diff in question was still available in the logs for a long period of time after actually being oversighted.
Of course, the community doesn't know a thing about any of this, because the committee has refused to be transparent, and in this instance it honestly looks like they have made a mistake. It is reasons such as this that I am vehemently against the death penalty, for even sometimes they do get it wrong.
And my stepping up for Offliner has not a thing to do with anything but ensuring that all editors have "a fair go", and have the opportunity to have a voice, particularly when the committee all but silences them and rids itself of any degree of transparency. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Risker, the diff in question on Giano's talk page was posted before any oversighting was done; not afterwards; as a check of the logs and timestamps will confirm. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell, he hasn't actually. Remember I have all of the emails. I will email you privately to discuss this further if that is ok. That way we can be frank with each other, and show what is what, because it is unable to be done on wiki without posting of diffs which should not be here. However, it does not relate only to the snapshotting of the diff with freezepage. If you look at the clarification even that clearly states:
Links to the archive were subsequently distributed in a public forum, and eventually came to the possession of individuals who used the archived information to harass a Wikipedia editor.
Arbcom have clearly blamed Offliner for the material appearing on that website, and then for people using that information to harrass a Wikipedia editor. That goes beyond the scope of what you say, and backs up exactly what I have stated above. 2 + 2 ≠ 5. Offliner's information in his appeal makes it clear the most likely way that this information found it's way onto the other website. As I say "a fair go" is required, and this is why I am so vocal, and will continue to be so to demonstrate that Arbcom have screwed up here. Perhaps Arbs, in particular Coren, Vassyana and Kirill, can comment on whether what you have stated above is correct or not. And they can then also explain that if this is so, why the clarification went beyond the scope of what you stated above. And that can be posted onwiki, because it will only go to demonstrate exactly what I am saying. This has nothing to do against you personally Shell, but comments (and clarification) from certain arbs themselves clearly do not support what you are saying, and there needs to be an explanation as to why there is this discrepancy, and why this discrepancy had found it's way into the public clarification, which clearly states that Offliner is responsible for information appearing on that site, and also clearly states that Offliner is responsible for alleged harrassment of whichever editor.
Shell, please also refer to your emails to Offliner, because what you are stating in those emails and here is not what has been alleged against Offliner by other arbs, and now have been made public as evidence of guilt on Offliner's part for harrassment that he did not actually enable, nor partake in. Shell, I do hope that you see that I am acting completely in good faith with this, and I believe what I say above demonstrates why "secret trials" are not a good thing. Once Coren, Vassyana and Kirill make their comments above, if I agree to let the matter sit until the end of this case, once the case is over, could I get a commitment from you that you and I can revisit this entire episode and make any necessary adjustments...anyone who is reading this will clearly see that adjustments are required. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The original question also still stands. With my pointing out what I have in relation to this decision on Offliner, I still do not see exactly what personal information I have posted, and who I have allegedly attempted to intimidate with this fighting for a fair go for Offliner. An answer on that is required please, particularly from Arbs who have already voted support which includes this particular diff. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In relation to the 4 topic bans which are proposed, would the committee consider halving the possible return to editing date if the subjects of the topic bans were to seek voluntary mentorship? The mentor could then report to the committee on their progress, etc at the half way point of the topic bans proposed by Shell, and the committee can use this as a guide as to whether the editor is ready to return. If voluntary mentorship is not taken up, the full topic ban period should apply. Any thoughts on that? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the events of the last year, I wonder if such a proposal is fair or wise? Giacomo 22:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sander, have you seen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Improper_coordination?
Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating. Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.
Why are you still assuming bad faith, even now? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
As Colchium said, could you guys tone it down a bit? No need to re-argue the whole case on this talk page. Short and constructive discussions are best at this stage. Suggest actual wordings for alternatives or changes in current wording, and brief reasoning for such changes, and we will consider them. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the three six month topic bans there to balance out Biophys' longer ban? I don't understand the bans.
For me, I don't even make many edits here...
I only had problems with Biophys and mostly in one article.
So could I have even caused enough disruption in the topic area to require a six month ban?
About edit warring, well how could I not revert Biophys if he always reverted me and did not care to discuss the issues? Dispute resolution and notifying admins had limited effect. [30] [31] [32] [33] So what was I supposed to do? How could I not have been upset about his editing. [34] That and me pointing out that Biophys lied and misrepresented sources [35] is battlefield mentality? Surely you did not just take Biophys' words on those diffs without analyzing yourselves? - YMB29 ( talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a copy of an email that I sent to the Committee the other day....and am now posting it here because the Committee prefers for these things to be done onwiki.
In relation to:
I was going to post this on the workshop talk page, but have decided to send it to the committee by email in order for it not to create a pretence for involvement by an editor I do not believe is involved.
"Quote: I am not going to comment on the block itself as I played no part in it being applied. I'll leave that to FPaS and arbiters to decide. But I will say this. My comment here was not an accusation towards Vecrumba, and if anything shows that I do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground, because I do not believe that Vecrumba was sockpuppeting. If one looks at the SPI, I have not raised any information in regards to another editors suspicion of sockpuppeting on the alleged part of Vecrumba and Martintg, on Vecrumba himself, and my mentioning of Vecrumba's name in my comments on the workshop is to demonstrate that I am not out on a vengeful search for justice as is being pushed by some editors in this case; perhaps the comment could have been made clearer. I easily could have turned the SPI into a battleground in order to seek "vengeful justice" on Vecrumba, but because I am not here to engage in battleground mentality, I did not do that. In relation to this case, I do not believe that the mere mentioning of an editors name is grounds for an editor to get involved, even moreso when that mention has zero malice or anything untoward behind it in relation to that editor. So much so, I have not, nor will I, respond to a single thing that Vecrumba has said in this case, because to do so may be seen as encouraging/baiting Vecrumba to break Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted by interjecting himself into issues where there is no dispute between us. I did the same thing in relation to comments made in relation to myself at the SPI. As I will not participate in the artificial manufacturing of disputes, I will not responding to any posts or information presented by Vecrumba in this case, as I will not be legitimising his interjection and participation in the case by way of a self-manufactured dispute."
I was also going to post a note on the workshop talk page advising that I have sent Arbcom an email in relation to this issue, but have also decided against this, again in order not to seen to be giving encouragement to editors who wish to treat Wikipedia as a battleground.
Only after the sending of that email did I notice the vile personal attack on myself by Vecrumba, which has now been removed.
Hello Committee
You are in receipt of an email from me in relation to Vecrumba. What I wrote in that email stands, for I will not be responding to anything by Vecrumba on the arbitration pages.
Only just now have I had realised that Vecrumba posted this...I was totally oblivious to it earlier.
I am sorry, but how many times must I have to put up with such nonsense.
I will now state for the record for the umpteenth and FINAL time:
It is funny that there are three editors in particular with whom I have great rapport and an excellent collaborative relationship, yet all three hold wildly different views from myself on political issues - those editors being User:Alex Bakharev, User:Ezhiki and User:NVO. Our interactions are always respectful and within the spirit of WP:FIVE. Perhaps this is because we are actually here to help build an encyclopaedia, and not to engage in advocacy. Comments I received from Ezhiki, when I raised an issue about the time the EEML started, continue to this day to stick in my mind - read them for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ezhiki/2009#Can_you_provide_some_assistance_here_please
In the past, editors have escaped any form of sanctions by supposedly staying on the right side of the line, e.g.:
Now look at the current case:
is posted, where I question Biophys' yet again linking to a letter I wrote. This leads to:
and plenty of others parts of the case pages where I am clearly being linked to supposed "Russian government interest in Wikipedia". What the hell ever happened to assumption of good faith?
Did it ever dawn on these editors that I requested the permission from the Kremlin because their materials are an important part of Russia -- much the same as the White House is to the US. Did it ever dawn on these editors that the Kremlin responded with the permission they did because of the issues that I raised in the letter (in regards to licencing discussions on commons which related to the Kremlin's stated usage policy), and because of how I presented the request that they saw how important editors on Wikipedia regard their materials?
Unlike at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys these editors are no longer staying on the right side of the line and they are no longer keeping promises they made 18 months ago. Therefore, in keeping with my not commenting on the case pages in order not to encourage/bait editors to breach their topic bans, I would like the committee to consider the following:
Now that this is now out onwiki as suggested, I am requesting the Committee to discuss amongst themselves this, and seek further input from the community. This is especially even moreso relevant due to his continued battleground behaviour and soapboxing on his talk page at User_talk:Vecrumba#Blocked_2 after being banned for 3 weeks. His 3 week ban was for the violation of the topic ban commenting on myself, and also for commenting on EE topics from which he is topic banned. Nothing has been said nor mentioned about Vecrumba's continual battleground behaviour and continually soapboxing and denigration of other editors contributions to this project. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In reference to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted I will be restricted from commenting on other EEML cabal members. However, Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted only extends to those editors who were sanctioned. As the committee has not shown any evidence that any reports of topic ban violations I have made in anything but good faith, and have also not shown any evidence that those reports were malicious, or anything like that, it seems very odd that this leaves the door for other cabal members to comment on myself, particularly when they have been combative (such as Sander Sade in the SPI and here on the case pages). In the spirit of fairness shouldn't there be an amendment which extends Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted to all EEML cabal members? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Shell Kinney ( Talk) |
Active:
Inactive:
1.Edit warring
Disruptive anon IP edits in Belarus article
Some obviously Balt anon IP comes and inserts one and the same text twice to one article both to History and Politics sections [1], [2]. The content of his message includes "The first people arrived on the territory of modern Lithuania in the 10th millennium BC after the glaciers had retreated and the last glacial period had ended. According to historian Marija Gimbutas, the people came from two directions: from the Jutland Peninsula and from present-day Poland. They brought two different cultures as evidenced by the tools they used". Just for everyone, this anon IP claims that "identity of the Balts formed about 2000 BC"!!!!!!!!
Storyline of alleged edit warring
Now how this text relates to Belarusian politics? First Belarusian politics came from Lithuania? By second edit I remove this highly POV allegation [5]. How territory of Lithuania relates to Belarus? Have arbitrators seen Krivich, Dregovichs, Radimichs, Polochans articles? By what logic these edits reversing explicit vandalism and scientifically unreliable Balt POV pushing by anon IPs are named "reverts"? How Belarusian being Slav people come to be Balt people? Is it invitation from Arbcom for all anonym IP to come to troll Russia History section with claims of Mongoloid descendance of modern Russian people, etc.?
Restoring the prominent caricature on Peace of Riga
[10] is treated as edit war. On which ground? We have discussed this on talk page. I received inputs from both Mr. nonono and Zscout, we reached consensus and I've never been restoring this caricature again. I did something wrong discussing this? I did something wrong by non-reverting this caricature back to the article again after discussion?
My revert is dated March 30. Discussion on talk page finished on April 6. What is the problem?
Have you seen [11] how caricatures are being used by Polish users throughout Soviet related articles?
2.Combative editing.
Very unusual definition in arbcase practice. I've searched arbcom previous cases and found only record of a 12 hr block for combative editing here. The editor was sanctioned like that, and later received this block.
Halibutt, who claims his main interest is history, apparently was aware of the content of this source and was apparently aware that it concerned Volyn and not the whole Kresy. Excuse me, but if you approve and endorse then a style of editing where original sources are distorted intentionally and inserted to Wikipedia?
This edit. After reviewing the history of the article, I would agree that I mistreated there Halibutt. My sincere apologies. As to the facts - my edit was right. Communist party newsletter has no relation to Democratic socialist party.
3.Period of topic ban. Given the above reviewed edits which were taken as decision basis and comparing with others edits, I think my remedy is too harsh.
You are welcome and even encouraged to find an appropriate mentor to work with during your topic ban; showing improvements in editing elsewhere will go a long way towards a return to editing in the topic area. Shell babelfish 09:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish I knew of a mentor off hand to refer you to, but I will be happy to put out some feelers and hopefully if anyone else can make a suggestion they will pipe up here. Shell babelfish 11:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to issue a general enforceable restriction that would make the occurrence of comments such as those [13] [14] less likely? They are not exactly allowed even now, but without an explicit Arbcom restriction it takes a lot of drama to enforce the relevant policies. Colchicum ( talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shell, I'm not sure why Biophys was given a one year topic ban plus a consecutive one year 1 edit per week restriction while the others were only given six month topic bans, when they all have similar edit warring FoFs. There needs to be some symmetry here, as an imbalance may lead to future problems, as we have seen. Perhaps 6 month topic ban + 6 month 1 revert per week all round would be fair. The aim would be to first de-escalate via the topic ban then attempt to get them into the habit of working collaboratively together via the 1 revert rule, rather than comprehensively tar and feather only one of the participants. Drafting some additional/alternate remedies to implement this approach would give the other Arbitrators a convenient set of choices in any case. -- Martin ( talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I realize that one should receive 1RR restriction for edit warring, but what justifies the topic ban? What prevents me from making non-controversial changes in articles and discussions at article talk pages if I ever return to editing later? Was I uncivil or made battleground comments at the article talk pages? Why do you think that such my comment: [15] made to explain this was the "battleground"? No, I am telling YMB29 that I am not accusing him of any wrongdoing. Besides, you are placing an indefinite ban. What exactly are you going to review after a year if I am not editing in the Rusisan/Soviet topic area and I never had any conflicts in other areas? I was never previously sanctioned by Arbcom and followed all official recommendations by Arbcom [16]. Is that really necessary? Biophys ( talk) 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that things have reached this level of sanction because previous attempts did not resolve the problem. You've been adequately warned and promised to stop the disruption before; there's no reason to believe that, absent serious sanctions, you would really stop this time either. This is an opportunity to improve, to consider whether or not you can objectively work in this area given strong feelings and to avoid being removed from editing entirely. If you, or anyone else involved, would like to talk about how to handle difficult disputes, how to edit in areas that you feel strongly about, how to work productively in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems or just how to avoid these kinds of consequences in the future, I would be happy to talk with you about it. In fact, if anyone has Skype, I'm happy to actually "talk" about it - I would much rather see editors be able to resolve things and get back to contributing to this project, however, that's not going to change these current sanctions which I believe are an unfortunate necessity. Shell babelfish 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
As for your topic ban, it was held off for quite some time while other things were tried to get you to change your behavior in the topic area. Wikipedia is not therapy - we don't expect volunteers (who have their own things to contribute) to babysit other volunteers who won't get their act together. You've had every possible chance to turn things around, now you can do so while not being a continued drain in the topic area. Hopefully other interested editors can take this time to make some actual improvements without having to deal with all the fighting and reverting. However, this is just my opinion - your suggestions will be reviewed by other Arbs and they can certainly disagree with the topic ban or propose a different remedy should they feel your approach has merit. Shell babelfish 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell, you have used this diff as an example of my battlefield mentality. You may like to note that this particular diff is from January 2009, which is well before the EEML case, and therefore outside the timeline of evidence the committee itself said it would be considering. If this is no mistake, two things in reference to this diff. The message as posted on Offliner's talk page is not an incitement to battle, but rather to discuss issues on the talk page. This particular message was posted to Offliner because he had previously been involved in cleaning up the article. The message itself to Offliner was clearly made out in the open, and even suggested that editors should consider taking the article to AfD yet again. Additionally, this diff and this article was previously entered into evidence at WP:EEML, which one can see at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Web_brigades. Note my comments in that evidence about WP being a battleground. Please review this, and make the necessary adjustments to the PD. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If this was the only diff being used for the finding, your argument would have merit, however there are other very recent diffs which support the finding as a current problem. Shell babelfish 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I propose to decrease the duration of the topic ban in my case to 4 months.
The reason:
In case of the Russian apartment bombings, I reacted to the situation. In that situation, some user attempted to make a conspiracy theory in the given article the majority view: [21] [22] [23].
I understand well that good goals do not justify improper means. However, if you consider the situation, you would see that there was only a constricted set of possible reactions in a time-pressing situation. For example, the edit warring involved a section rewritten by that user. I saw from the context of user's edits that it was a part of the POV pushing plan, but it took me time to thoroughly study his version of the section, and accomodate it noting the troubles: [24] [25].
I did not chose that situation, but against my wishes that situation arose and I had to deal with it. That's why I propose to reduce the term of my topic ban. Regards, ellol ( talk) 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell justifies the harshly asymetrical remedy against Biophys on the basis of recidivism, stating " After five separate blocks, repeated requests to stop edit warring, suggestions at AE and seeing how other cases went that you've been involved in you still did not stop the disruption". Yet examination of the other parties block logs one finds that Biophy's behavior is certainly no worse, yet he gets a far harsher remedy:
Vlad fedorov' block log:
YMB29's block log [26]:
Biophys' block log [27]:
As far as I can tell, while Biophys has been involved in some prior ArbCom cases, he has not received any formal sanctions (i.e, past committees have examined his behaviour and found no real sanctionable behaviour) and has fully complied with all ArbCom recommendations such as not interacting with Commodore Sloat, unsubscribing from the EEML and not fueling the unhelpful speculations, and there are no recorded AE violations. Can Shell explain this apparent inconsistency? -- Martin ( talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Biophys' behavior cannot be compared in terms of blocks... This is just misleading.
Also I have four blocks, not five (one was removed right away), and three of those are because of Biophys' reverting and tag teaming in one article. -
YMB29 (
talk)
15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Personal_information_and_communications Shell mentions this diff.
Can someone please explain to me what personal information I have posted? And who exactly I am supposed to have been intimidating?
Please be aware that this diff is in relation to the ultra-secret ban of User:Offliner, which he appealed, in which he blew holes thru Arbcoms super-secret allegations against him, yet the committee refused to recognise those holes. The only people that I could be even remotely be seen as intimidating is the committee itself, and if the committee is intimidated by my involvement there, then so they should be, because User:Offliner was clearly made the scapegoat for material appearing on another site, and it is based purely upon circumstantial evidence, when there was evidence on the other site that indicated that what Offliner wrote in his appeal was 200% correct.
But unlike normal practice, the Committee is not being held to account for their actions in this case, citing privacy.
Did any of the Committee see this diff in which Giano stated "Anyone who wants the missing link just email me." Can I ask where is Giano's ban for being in possession of the material, and making it available for publication on the other site. For all the Committee knows it was Giano who made it available on the other site. Hell, it could have been Giano himself who posted it on the other site. Or it could have been any of the 100 editors who had EEML case pages on their watchlist, in order to catch this diff.
Giano, I am not at all insinuating that you did do this, but bring this diff into view in order to show that instead of looking at all available evidence, the committee has simply thrown darts at who they think is the likely suspect. 2 + 2 ≠ 5.
Offliner admitted to the committee that he used freezepage to make a snapshot of the diff in question, but vehemently denied being responsible for the contents of that diff appearing on another site. In his appeal, Offliner pointed to evidence on the other site which shows editors there were actively keeping an eye on EEML proceedings, and even pointed to the fact that the onwiki diff in question was still available in the logs for a long period of time after actually being oversighted.
Of course, the community doesn't know a thing about any of this, because the committee has refused to be transparent, and in this instance it honestly looks like they have made a mistake. It is reasons such as this that I am vehemently against the death penalty, for even sometimes they do get it wrong.
And my stepping up for Offliner has not a thing to do with anything but ensuring that all editors have "a fair go", and have the opportunity to have a voice, particularly when the committee all but silences them and rids itself of any degree of transparency. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Risker, the diff in question on Giano's talk page was posted before any oversighting was done; not afterwards; as a check of the logs and timestamps will confirm. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Shell, he hasn't actually. Remember I have all of the emails. I will email you privately to discuss this further if that is ok. That way we can be frank with each other, and show what is what, because it is unable to be done on wiki without posting of diffs which should not be here. However, it does not relate only to the snapshotting of the diff with freezepage. If you look at the clarification even that clearly states:
Links to the archive were subsequently distributed in a public forum, and eventually came to the possession of individuals who used the archived information to harass a Wikipedia editor.
Arbcom have clearly blamed Offliner for the material appearing on that website, and then for people using that information to harrass a Wikipedia editor. That goes beyond the scope of what you say, and backs up exactly what I have stated above. 2 + 2 ≠ 5. Offliner's information in his appeal makes it clear the most likely way that this information found it's way onto the other website. As I say "a fair go" is required, and this is why I am so vocal, and will continue to be so to demonstrate that Arbcom have screwed up here. Perhaps Arbs, in particular Coren, Vassyana and Kirill, can comment on whether what you have stated above is correct or not. And they can then also explain that if this is so, why the clarification went beyond the scope of what you stated above. And that can be posted onwiki, because it will only go to demonstrate exactly what I am saying. This has nothing to do against you personally Shell, but comments (and clarification) from certain arbs themselves clearly do not support what you are saying, and there needs to be an explanation as to why there is this discrepancy, and why this discrepancy had found it's way into the public clarification, which clearly states that Offliner is responsible for information appearing on that site, and also clearly states that Offliner is responsible for alleged harrassment of whichever editor.
Shell, please also refer to your emails to Offliner, because what you are stating in those emails and here is not what has been alleged against Offliner by other arbs, and now have been made public as evidence of guilt on Offliner's part for harrassment that he did not actually enable, nor partake in. Shell, I do hope that you see that I am acting completely in good faith with this, and I believe what I say above demonstrates why "secret trials" are not a good thing. Once Coren, Vassyana and Kirill make their comments above, if I agree to let the matter sit until the end of this case, once the case is over, could I get a commitment from you that you and I can revisit this entire episode and make any necessary adjustments...anyone who is reading this will clearly see that adjustments are required. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The original question also still stands. With my pointing out what I have in relation to this decision on Offliner, I still do not see exactly what personal information I have posted, and who I have allegedly attempted to intimidate with this fighting for a fair go for Offliner. An answer on that is required please, particularly from Arbs who have already voted support which includes this particular diff. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In relation to the 4 topic bans which are proposed, would the committee consider halving the possible return to editing date if the subjects of the topic bans were to seek voluntary mentorship? The mentor could then report to the committee on their progress, etc at the half way point of the topic bans proposed by Shell, and the committee can use this as a guide as to whether the editor is ready to return. If voluntary mentorship is not taken up, the full topic ban period should apply. Any thoughts on that? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the events of the last year, I wonder if such a proposal is fair or wise? Giacomo 22:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sander, have you seen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Improper_coordination?
Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating. Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.
Why are you still assuming bad faith, even now? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
As Colchium said, could you guys tone it down a bit? No need to re-argue the whole case on this talk page. Short and constructive discussions are best at this stage. Suggest actual wordings for alternatives or changes in current wording, and brief reasoning for such changes, and we will consider them. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the three six month topic bans there to balance out Biophys' longer ban? I don't understand the bans.
For me, I don't even make many edits here...
I only had problems with Biophys and mostly in one article.
So could I have even caused enough disruption in the topic area to require a six month ban?
About edit warring, well how could I not revert Biophys if he always reverted me and did not care to discuss the issues? Dispute resolution and notifying admins had limited effect. [30] [31] [32] [33] So what was I supposed to do? How could I not have been upset about his editing. [34] That and me pointing out that Biophys lied and misrepresented sources [35] is battlefield mentality? Surely you did not just take Biophys' words on those diffs without analyzing yourselves? - YMB29 ( talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a copy of an email that I sent to the Committee the other day....and am now posting it here because the Committee prefers for these things to be done onwiki.
In relation to:
I was going to post this on the workshop talk page, but have decided to send it to the committee by email in order for it not to create a pretence for involvement by an editor I do not believe is involved.
"Quote: I am not going to comment on the block itself as I played no part in it being applied. I'll leave that to FPaS and arbiters to decide. But I will say this. My comment here was not an accusation towards Vecrumba, and if anything shows that I do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground, because I do not believe that Vecrumba was sockpuppeting. If one looks at the SPI, I have not raised any information in regards to another editors suspicion of sockpuppeting on the alleged part of Vecrumba and Martintg, on Vecrumba himself, and my mentioning of Vecrumba's name in my comments on the workshop is to demonstrate that I am not out on a vengeful search for justice as is being pushed by some editors in this case; perhaps the comment could have been made clearer. I easily could have turned the SPI into a battleground in order to seek "vengeful justice" on Vecrumba, but because I am not here to engage in battleground mentality, I did not do that. In relation to this case, I do not believe that the mere mentioning of an editors name is grounds for an editor to get involved, even moreso when that mention has zero malice or anything untoward behind it in relation to that editor. So much so, I have not, nor will I, respond to a single thing that Vecrumba has said in this case, because to do so may be seen as encouraging/baiting Vecrumba to break Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted by interjecting himself into issues where there is no dispute between us. I did the same thing in relation to comments made in relation to myself at the SPI. As I will not participate in the artificial manufacturing of disputes, I will not responding to any posts or information presented by Vecrumba in this case, as I will not be legitimising his interjection and participation in the case by way of a self-manufactured dispute."
I was also going to post a note on the workshop talk page advising that I have sent Arbcom an email in relation to this issue, but have also decided against this, again in order not to seen to be giving encouragement to editors who wish to treat Wikipedia as a battleground.
Only after the sending of that email did I notice the vile personal attack on myself by Vecrumba, which has now been removed.
Hello Committee
You are in receipt of an email from me in relation to Vecrumba. What I wrote in that email stands, for I will not be responding to anything by Vecrumba on the arbitration pages.
Only just now have I had realised that Vecrumba posted this...I was totally oblivious to it earlier.
I am sorry, but how many times must I have to put up with such nonsense.
I will now state for the record for the umpteenth and FINAL time:
It is funny that there are three editors in particular with whom I have great rapport and an excellent collaborative relationship, yet all three hold wildly different views from myself on political issues - those editors being User:Alex Bakharev, User:Ezhiki and User:NVO. Our interactions are always respectful and within the spirit of WP:FIVE. Perhaps this is because we are actually here to help build an encyclopaedia, and not to engage in advocacy. Comments I received from Ezhiki, when I raised an issue about the time the EEML started, continue to this day to stick in my mind - read them for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ezhiki/2009#Can_you_provide_some_assistance_here_please
In the past, editors have escaped any form of sanctions by supposedly staying on the right side of the line, e.g.:
Now look at the current case:
is posted, where I question Biophys' yet again linking to a letter I wrote. This leads to:
and plenty of others parts of the case pages where I am clearly being linked to supposed "Russian government interest in Wikipedia". What the hell ever happened to assumption of good faith?
Did it ever dawn on these editors that I requested the permission from the Kremlin because their materials are an important part of Russia -- much the same as the White House is to the US. Did it ever dawn on these editors that the Kremlin responded with the permission they did because of the issues that I raised in the letter (in regards to licencing discussions on commons which related to the Kremlin's stated usage policy), and because of how I presented the request that they saw how important editors on Wikipedia regard their materials?
Unlike at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys these editors are no longer staying on the right side of the line and they are no longer keeping promises they made 18 months ago. Therefore, in keeping with my not commenting on the case pages in order not to encourage/bait editors to breach their topic bans, I would like the committee to consider the following:
Now that this is now out onwiki as suggested, I am requesting the Committee to discuss amongst themselves this, and seek further input from the community. This is especially even moreso relevant due to his continued battleground behaviour and soapboxing on his talk page at User_talk:Vecrumba#Blocked_2 after being banned for 3 weeks. His 3 week ban was for the violation of the topic ban commenting on myself, and also for commenting on EE topics from which he is topic banned. Nothing has been said nor mentioned about Vecrumba's continual battleground behaviour and continually soapboxing and denigration of other editors contributions to this project. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In reference to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted I will be restricted from commenting on other EEML cabal members. However, Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted only extends to those editors who were sanctioned. As the committee has not shown any evidence that any reports of topic ban violations I have made in anything but good faith, and have also not shown any evidence that those reports were malicious, or anything like that, it seems very odd that this leaves the door for other cabal members to comment on myself, particularly when they have been combative (such as Sander Sade in the SPI and here on the case pages). In the spirit of fairness shouldn't there be an amendment which extends Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted to all EEML cabal members? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)