| Revision as of 15:53, 25 May 2011 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →Statement by Vecrumba: P.S. on the requester and allegations← 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|]}} = | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}} | |||
| == 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. 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 too active in any "difficult area". Leave the area at the first sign of trouble. | |||
| I will have no problem with editing in the Russia/SU area based on these principles, and especially #1 ("no editorial conflicts"). This area is a desert, with many neglected or non-existing articles and few active contributors. Yes, there are several flash points, like "communism-terrorism", Baltic republics or "mass killings under communist regimes", but I would be an idiot to start editing them (#2). But it may be too tempting for me to follow #4 all the time. | |||
| Please tell if I must provide any diffs to support this statement. | |||
| ==== 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 the problems behind, return to normal editorial process and be again an editor in good standing.'' I do not care about DYKs, barnstars and other signs of recognition. But it is extremely important for me to have the same ''rights'' as every newbie. It hurts to be declared a permanent policy violator. I can not be very active in this project if I am no longer welcome. That's why I was not really active during last six months since the rejection of my previous request for amendment. ] (]) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== 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) | |||
| :'''Three further points:''' | |||
| :*1. It's interesting that Biophys is appealing that the 1RR restriction which was supposed to come ''after'' the topic ban, is not enacted (please note the slightly misleading wording in his appeal). '''No one needs to edit war''', so why is he asking for the ability? It is not far-fetched to assume this means Biophys plans to return to edit warring once again as he has done previously. | |||
| :*2. It's irresponsible of the ArbCom to release Biophys from his topic ban and then rely on other people to report him if the resumes his disruption. History has shown that everyone who reports an EEML member to a noticeboard is immediately attacked in the harshest possible way - regardless of the whether the report has merit or not. on this page is a good example: it displays all the hallmarks of these personal attacks. I'd like to encourage the ArbCom to study it thoroughly and also look at previous admin board and AE reports to see what kind of problem we're dealing with here. | |||
| :*3. Biophys claims that he stopped tag-teaming but in reality this is not the case. Look at his courting of ]: Mbz1 has had no connection to the EE topic area to the users in it. Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba secretly (related to this ) and was continued by Biophys. After the previous amendment request Biophys tag-teamed at three arbitration enforcement requests: . ] (]) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Piotrus ==== | |||
| -> ]. Seriously, such continued bad faith/harassment (negative comments on one's "opponents") instead of ] is what makes such wiki conflicts persist. If editors leave the project, it is because they are constantly thrown mud at (]). | |||
| This seems quite simple to me. As Biophys sais himself, if he errs again, he will be punished, and likely, with a harsher sanction. That sounds reasonable, and I would not be commenting on that, other than that while everybody deserves a chance, they also deserve ]. Credit where due, WP:AE application of ] I've seen in the past year or so was refreshing. It would be nice if good faith and civility were to be more actively enforced on other arbitration pages, too. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Vecrumba ==== | |||
| I am sorry to see we already have the partisan piling on of unprovoked and baseless personal attacks reigniting past conflicts stemming from an accuser fomenting their own biased POV. This is not a forum to relaunch character assassination{{mdash}}just when I thought at least Nanobear and myself had made some small baby steps of progress. Perhaps one or two truly uninvolved editor (and you all know who you are who DON'T quality) might review Hodja Nasreddin's activities over the past year and provide an unbiased report.<p> | |||
| I regret having to make this point but will: I'm incensed at Nanobear's vituperative blather, this from someone who was banned forever from Misplaced Pages for an off-Wiki attack on an EEML editor and then begged forgiveness to return (granted) and promised to be on their best behavior. Clearly my hopes for some sort of rapproachement with Nanobear in particular (based on recent exchanges) were delusional if this is Nanobear's demonstration of their best behavior. ]<small> ►]</small> 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding Nanobear's "secretly" and related diff, how is that "secret" if there is a public diff available. "Courting?" No, ''public advice''. It's quite obvious Offliner (sorry, as Nanobear is continuing their old ways, I've respected their desire to move on until now) is out to grind the same old axe. I request admins take action which will prevent me from having to read such blatant attempts at block shopping and character assassination in the future.<p> | |||
| Hodja Nasreddi has been scrupulous in their Wiki-related behavior and has not contacted me in any way off-Wiki or on-Wiki to solicit any sort of behavior on my part other than their occasional friendly on-Wiki advice I should get a life. ]<small> ►]</small> 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement mbz1 ==== | |||
| I am saddened by ] comments. All differences presented in that user comments are more than a year old, all of them are referring to the edits made by Biophys before they were sanctioned. | |||
| I believe responding a complex question, if Biophys's topic ban should be lifted, is as easy as responding a few simple questions: | |||
| #Does Biophys have the right to appeal their ban now? The answer to this question is: "Yes" | |||
| #Has Biophys admitted that the sanctions were fair? Yes, they have. The editor writes in this very request . | |||
| #Has Biophys demonstrated their ability to contribute constructively to the other areas of the project during their topic ban? The answer to this question, is :"Yes". | |||
| #Has Biophys violated his topic ban ever since they were banned? According to the editor , the answer to this question is: "No". | |||
| #Is Biophys promising to behave in a feature? Yes, they do | |||
| According to all of above I believe Biophys's topic ban should be lifted. If the members of ArbCom have some doubts (and I see no reasons for such doubts) the editing restrictions could be lifted gradually. For example an editor is allowed to make contributions to the articles discussion pages for 2-3 weeks, then the topic ban is lifted completely, then in a month 1RR is lifted. | |||
| Thanks.--] (]) 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;response to Nanobear | |||
| I was so astonished by your that at first I even did not know, if I should cry or laugh over it. In the end I decided to laugh. You allege: "Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba secretly (related to this )" "Secretly" you say? I guess it was sooo "secretly" that I have never been able to figure out (up to now that is) what that message left on my ''Wikimedia Commons'' talk page was about, and who wrote it. So, thanks, for helping me out :-)Now I know that it was Biophys who under an undercover name of "Vecrumba" tried to court me :-) | |||
| ;To members of ArbCom. | |||
| I of course know Biophys, but it is not why I am here. I am here because I am a strong believer in giving a second chance to editors. Biophys has been topic banned long enough. At this point declining an appeal only because the editor caused disruptions more than a year ago seems rather as a punishment that topic bans are not.--] (]) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by DonaldDuck==== | |||
| Over the past year, there were some minor topic ban violations by {{u|Hodja Nasreddin}}: , , . | |||
| {{u|Hodja Nasreddin}} edited constructively in the other areas of the project. But will he behave, if he returns to his old topic area? I have some doubts. I believe, his revert restriction should not be lifted immediately after lifting of his topic ban. It should run for 1 year consecutively with the topic ban, as in original Arbitration Committee decision. --] (]) 04:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === 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.'' | |||
| ====Responses by Biophys==== | |||
| @Nanobear, Piotrus and Vecrumba. I would like to remind everyone that subject of this discussion is only ''review of my behavior during last year''. So far, I have seen only one phrase about that by Nanobear. He said: ''"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."'' So far so good. Whatever had happened before my sanctions is not really relevant. If you have any issues with each other, please go debate them elsewhere. I do not have any current disputes, alliances or off-wiki communications with any of you, and whatever had happened in the past belongs to ]. | |||
| @Nanobear. My behavior is impossible to predict? Oh no, I am very much predictable when it comes to sanctions or even recommendations by Arbcom. In fact, I followed exactly three previous ''recommendations'': not talking about certain subjects, not communicating with Commodore Sloat and unsubscribing immediately from EEML, and I respected this sanction by editing in allowed ares and not being involved in any edit warring. 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 be sanctioned again. Believe me. Yes, I certainly admit making a lot of mistakes in the past. But can we just ] and ] please, just as ? | |||
| :@Nanobear. Your diffs about my alleged "tag-teaming" . First, let's discount all diffs made by other users. I did not ask anyone on-wiki or off-wiki to do anything. As about my own statements, all of them are appropriate. Did I demand sanctions for anyone? No, quite the opposite. After receiving topic ban myself, I developed a kind of passion to users who are in trouble, and I tried to help by advising them to do the right thing and by commenting about them. That's why I talked with several people in Race-Intelligence area, two people who had a trouble with Chinese subjects, one "problematic" user in AA area, two people who came after having problems/sanctions at ruwiki, and several people in IP area. Tag-teaming? Sure thing, I also talked with (and about) other people who I knew previously. ''But no one really complained about my comments except Mbz1 ''. When she complained, I removed my comment and stopped commenting about her immediately. ] (]) 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @Mbz1. Yes, I realize that topic ban was well deserved, necessary, and even helped me to spend my time in the project more productively. Yes, an 1RR restriction for a few months could be an option. ] (]) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| @DonaldDuck. Yes, I probably should not be editing these articles, but two first diffs are minor Geography/Ethnography edits, 3rd diff is about a UK controversy of British historian (it tells nothing about Russia), and 4th diff is about work a US scientist in US (it tells nothing about his work in Russia). ] (]) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by yet another editor ==== | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| *As stated above, I assume Bio realizes that stepping out of line will probably be met with a quick hammer and harsher sanctions. I'm open to lifting the ban provided that everyone knows going in what will result if further disruption occurs. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm of two minds. A) Yes, I agree with David F above me. However, I have concerns that this area is so polarized by past issues that my general thought is that any return to the area is fraught with drama and ill-will, and am wondering if it would be better to leave it in place. ] (]) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012
Redirect to: