Revision as of 10:58, 5 May 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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. They have been edit warring about Trees for 3 years Editor X doesn't use dispute resolution. On April 1st, they edited Dogwood 22 times (5 were reverts ) 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 05:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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 , Offliner , Igny, LokiiT , and Donald Duck to "deal" with me?Biophys (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

 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 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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 ,,", 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 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 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 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• 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 20:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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: . 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)

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)

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)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Russavia

Proposed principles

Proxying

1) Wikipedians 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring

2) Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NPOV is important

3) All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all majority and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Biophys has engaged in edit warring

1) Biophys has engaged in massive edit warring, conducting over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biophys has proxied

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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 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 particular interest in the past? On the other hand, anyone could compile a list of Hanzo contributions and feed requests to an unsuspecting editor. It is a fact 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)

Biophys broken promise

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:

Analysis of evidence

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 , and one of them was involved in vandalism with numbers .

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

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

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

Battle for Height 776 was reverted to the more complete version with compromised numbers of losses . 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)

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 . 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)

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

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. So I hope you are not implying that I was teaming up with him against you. -YMB29 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Articles involving Ellol

Situation with Russian apartment bombings was more complicated (please see my explanation of this to Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise . 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:, . The dispute was "won" by Ellol who reverted page to his version , because I followed 1-2 RR.

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by parties:

Re to Ellol. My "contributions were ultimately agreed on"? What? Just to start from something, this is my version of introduction: . Please compare with your (current) version: 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)

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 .Biophys (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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. .

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, just I want to show you who are you dealing with. ellol (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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

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)

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)

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

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)

I just wanted to point out that you have a different concept of what an "independent newspaper" means. Perhaps it has a different meaning in Russia. Anyway the issues raised at this arbcom about this article are mostly content related and not disruption, that's what I tried to say. If there was edit warring it was from both sides, but since it was accomponied by a lot of discussion maybe it wasn't. Grey Fox (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Okey. Just to note, that I have no different notion of "independent media". Technically I see no difference between a media outlet owned by Berezovsky and a media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch. If private ownership of media is the way media operate nowadays, that's not the problem of Russia. Surely, there are the media like BBC which is technically owned by the whole society of the U.K., but that's more an exception, rather than a rule. ellol (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Other articles mentioned by Russavia

Invasion of Dagestan (1999) and Cyberwarfare by Russian state. I believe we made just a few reverts in the both articles. In the first of them, User:HistoricWarrior007 (who is currently banned) restored his favorite version because I followed 1-2 RR, and we came to consensus in the second .Biophys (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: