| Revision as of 16:58, 22 May 2011 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Statement by Biophys: re to Nanobear← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| = {{-}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} = | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Russavia-Biophys}} | |||
| ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ===Amendment 1=== | |||
| * | |||
| *I ask to review topic ban after one year, as suggested in the original decision by the Committee | |||
| ==== Statement by Biophys ==== | |||
| I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask to lift this topic ban after one year. During this year I followed the rules and was not involved in a single edit warring incident. I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area. | |||
| During first six months of the ban I mostly contributed to the content in allowed areas. However since my first request for appeal was unsuccessful , I realized that it could be insufficient, almost stopped contributing to the content, and took part in different discussions, although this is something I would never normally do. During this time I looked at conflicts in other areas (AA, RI and IP), occasionally commented at AE and other talk pages, and spoke with people who are engaged in disputes in these areas. Yes, it helps to look at other battlegrounds to realize: this is something you do not want to be involved in. It also helps to realize what should be done to avoid the trouble. One could call it a "battleground ]". | |||
| During this time I stayed out of trouble by following several self-imposed rules: | |||
| #Never revert other editors back if they reverted your edits. Start talking to clarify the situation if it is not already clear. Go edit other articles if consensus cannot be found after brief discussion. More advanced stages of dispute resolution (such as RfC) should never be used because they only increase tensions. | |||
| #Do not edit any articles in a state of active editorial dispute between multiple parties. This is waste of time, although occasionally commenting at talk page or making a single compromise edit may be acceptable. | |||
| #Never report other users at AE/ANI. If others started something, try to comment in a reasonable and neutral fashion. Do not comment about users with whom you have a current content dispute. | |||
| #Do not be especially active in any "difficult area". Leave the area for a while at the first signs of trouble. | |||
| Please tell me if you have any additional questions or requests, such as providing diffs to support my statement. Thank you for your time and attention. | |||
| @Nanobear. If "Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways", he will be topic-banned at AE next day, and it will be no one to blame, except Biophys himself. That was my first official sanction by Arbcom, and I am not going to appear here again. Believe me.] (]) 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by other editor ==== | |||
| ===Amendment 2=== | |||
| * | |||
| *I ask do not enact this additional preemptive restriction for the second year. | |||
| ==== Statement by Biophys ==== | |||
| During this year I did not make a single revert that could be interpreted as edit warring. If I start edit warring again, someone will bring me to AE next day. This is obvious. I am asking about this amendment because I want to put all the problems behind, return to normal editorial process and be again "an editor in good standing". I joined this educational project to positively contribute. It was not my intention to become a policy violator. | |||
| ==== Statement by Nanobear ==== | |||
| Before his topic ban, Biophys was one of the most biased and disruptive editors I have ever seen. ''Has he reformed?'' Impossible to know. All we know is that Biophys has made several promises before, but has always broken his promise and resumed his disruptive activities after the threat of sanctions has dissipated. | |||
| During the ] case, the wise ArbCom gave Biophys the benefit of doubt (although Biophys was a core member of the EEML and heavily participated in the group's campaigns.) Soon after this decision, Biophys once again returned to massive disruption, quickly performing over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010. | |||
| This we know. We also know that Biophys is able to edit positively and constructively in non-Russian topic areas, where doesn't have a strong POV - as he has admirably done during his topic ban. | |||
| Should this appeal be granted or declined? I have no recommendation. My only wish is that ArbCom take full responsibility for their decisions and stop looking for scapegoats when things go wrong. In the Russavia-Biophys case, three editors were banned by ArbCom because they reverted Biophys' disruptive edits. One of them, ], has now even left the project, partly because of the topic ban prevented him from participating in the only topic area that interested him, and partly due to Biophys' constant harassment of him. The possibility of Biophys taking yet more editors down with him if released from jail is worrying indeed. | |||
| If this appeal is granted, and Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways, it is the ArbCom we have to blame. And if he doesn't - then we have the ArbCom to thank. ] (]) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by other editor (3) ==== | |||
| {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} | |||
| === Further discussion === | |||
| :''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.'' | |||
| ==== Statement by yet another editor ==== | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012
Redirect to: