Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:17, 4 April 2010 view sourceJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Statement by JzG: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 23:15, 4 April 2010 view source Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Statement by IP_User:99.X: refactor to below word countNext edit →
Line 75: Line 75:
My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would '''not''' be: a review of climate science. Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue. My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would '''not''' be: a review of climate science. Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.


I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. My criticism of Lambert & Quiggin has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created ''entire'' articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". '''There is no grey area there either.''' One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Misplaced Pages. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important.''' I have had *zero* content interaction with the users''' and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a ] regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this. I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. My criticism of Lambert & Quiggin has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created ''entire'' articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". .

Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Misplaced Pages he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from ''"Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department"'' ] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An '''undergraduate student''' said, ''"Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo"'' in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Misplaced Pages as, ''"...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department"'' - while notably labeling a civilian, university department chair, non-project participant as a Misplaced Pages sock-master. This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here.

Quiggin, also in his very last edit at Misplaced Pages, has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made directly to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Misplaced Pages. Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that ''specific'' BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin.

I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from my defending ] as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with close associations here, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. ] (]) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:Just to underscore how egregious Quiggin's latest action is, contrast his statement here in this very section at ArbCom in which he ''back-peddles'' on his earlier 'promise' not to edit his enemies BLP's - "''So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly.''" - '''with his very ''next'' edit''' on a BLP subject ''specifically'' named by Jzg in the complaint against Quiggin being discussed here. The contempt and disrespect found in such insincere promises and blatant violations is at the heart of the COI abuse.] (]) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


=== Statement by Lar === === Statement by Lar ===

Revision as of 23:15, 4 April 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
COI edits in respect of living individuals   27 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys   26 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.


COI edits in respect of living individuals

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 15:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by JzG

An anonymous party posted an aggressive series of messages on Jimbo's talk page claiming that two people, Tim Lambert and John Quiggin, editing Misplaced Pages under their own names, were editing biographies in furtherance of off-wiki disputes as alluded to here .

I analysed the edits and summarised them at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations#Editors and contended articles. Although IP99 continued fishing for problem edits and found a few at a new venue one of the individuals he'd named had made no edits at all to the originally stated to be the locus of dispute. It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs. while calling for action against activists, the IP appears to me to be an activist himself, and in calling for a rain of hellfire on the heads of people who have in some cases not edited the articles in question for years, he raises very much the prospect of an equal reaction to his own campaign against named and identifiable individuals via Misplaced Pages.

Example: user John Quiggin (who is John Quiggin) is cited as a source for a particular publication; Quiggin states that Lambert is a co-author but IP99 persistently removes Lambert's name because third-party sources do not identify him as co-author. That seems to me to be petty. There is no dispute that our user John Quiggin is the main credited author and we have no reason at all to dispute his own statement that Lambert is a co-author. Why go to such lengths to exclude the mere mention of a name?

I reviewed the edits about which the IP complained, most of which were long stale (dating back in one case to 2005) and the response to feedback, which in the case of Quiggin is reasonable, in the case of Lambert is robust but not beyond reason, and in the case of the IP is an outright denial that any issues exist other than with Lambert and Quiggin. Another article, John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was thrown in late in the day, user Serenity is a SPA editing that article with a sympathetic POV; the subject is on record as using sockpuppets to boost his reputation in other areas, inviting the inevitable suspicion here.

Based on response to feedback and my judgment of the likely future problems from the three based on their willingness to accept feedback I made the proposals at . I believe that the hierarchy of problems puts Quiggin lowest, as an academic who has made common and elementary errors over the difference between Misplaced Pages and academic publishing, and who seems to have had no difficulty in accepting that; Lambert somewhere in the middle, as a blogger and activist with some issues accepting that his edits may be conflicted or inappropriate; and the IP at the top as a disruptive pursuer of an obvious vendetta per WP:BATTLE.

Some think that since the IP raised a problem, albeit in inflated terms and often years after the event and without any real effort to help the individuals concerned to self-correct, he should basically get a free pass on his own behaviour. I disagree and I'm not alone in that. Unfortunately at both venues of discussion the matter is stalled due to division along familiar factional lines and the usual argument back to the objective rightness or wrongness of what's being said, rather than focusing on the real issue of editorial behaviour as documented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations. I think it's fair that any further attempts to resolve this dispute will only result in further entrenchment, not breaking of the deadlock.

@Steve Smith: Yes. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
@Lar: Some of this is not climate change so not covered (tobacco, DDT and other issues are involved) Guy (Help!) 19:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm not sure a case is necessary. Leaving aside the depressingly predictable input from climate-change warriors on both sides, there seems to be a fairly sound uninvolved-editor consensus in favor of Guy's proposed resolution here. I don't think we should create a precedent where every administrative action that touches on AGW has to go through ArbCom. Any administrative action against a partisan is bound to be met with vocal outrage from other partisans on the same side. It has ever been thus, and admins are supposed to be able to see past that and gauge actual, non-partisan community feedback on their actions. I think Guy has done that here; let's encourage reasonable administrative initiatives, because that's what the area needs. MastCell  01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Quiggin

I think it's correct to say that this dispute is really about AGW, and, to a lesser extent, other science issues (notably tobacco and DDT/malaria). In editing these and other areas, including economic issues where my own views are somewhat distinct from the mainstream position, I've sought to apply WP:WEIGHT, which, in my interpretation, means giving most weight to the mainstream scientific view. To the extent that apparently authoritative sources have been presented as contrary to the mainstream view, I've investigated them, and, frequently found that they have substantial conflicts of interests (for example, undeclared financial links to the tobacco industry). I've tried to present this information about these sources in a neutral fashion in Misplaced Pages, and have also raised it in other venues (less neutrally, since I admit to having a very negative view of tobacco lobbyists).

I've been advised by Guy and others that this is not the right interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly.

Meanwhile, though, the issue has been used as a basis for personal attacks, including off-wiki attacks by users who are self-identified partisans , and on-Wiki attacks by users who have obvious conflicts of interest themselves (people recruited on 'AGW sceptic' sites, who have engaged in Wiki canvassing on those same sites). .

I'm happy to accept that my interpretation of policy has been wrong, but I'm dismayed that I'm still being attacked for conflicts of interest based primarily on the fact that I have a substantial public profile and can therefore be identified with particular positions, while SPA partisans are being cheered on for attacking me.

Anyway, apologies if all this is tangential to the topic at hand - perhaps it will provide some background on my involvement here.


JQ (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by IP_User:99.X

There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.

I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page.

Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here, it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing. I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.

As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Misplaced Pages. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom.. To the argument that Misplaced Pages had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term.

My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science. Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.

I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. My criticism of Lambert & Quiggin has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". .

Statement by Lar

To Carcharoth, who asks why this hasn't been handled via the enforcement process: As far as I can tell, this has not been brought to the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page, unless I missed it. If it had been it probably would have been handled, and probably close to how Guy suggested at AN. But the admins that hang there don't tend to cruise other areas looking for things, they wait for reports to be filed. Is that the incorrect approach? Does ArbCom wish that mandate expanded? If so please clarify. That said, Guy's proposal at AN strikes me as a good approach and if ArbCom chooses to deal with this by motion I recommend adoption of it. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Thanks for the clarification, I too agree patrolling is not a good idea. I have suggested at JzG's talk that an enforcement request be made. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/1/3)

  • Awaiting statements (and considering whether to recuse), but am I right in thinking that this would be a pretty simples matter not requiring arbitration but for the AGW connection and the attendant polarization? Steve Smith (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I must regretfully recuse. This is close enough to being a global warming proxy case that my recusal policy probably kicks in. As a general statement, I endorse MastCell's call for reasonable administrative initiatives, with the emphasis in this case being perhaps on "initiative". Steve Smith (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements, with the request that the statements focus on recent problems (i.e., since the editors in question first were advised of the concerns that have been expressed), if any, rather than primarily historical ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, in this area, I'm not sure that anything short of draconian measures taken by the Arbitration Committee (or, possibly, the Arbitration Committee allowing administrators to take draconian measures in this area), such as restricting all the "usual suspects" from the topic area to eliminate the disruption, will work here. I think everyone should just back away and stop trying to push Doomsday here. (this is what I think in the general area of GW, not specifically this case, but the fact we're seeing more and more cases get brought here in this area concerns me) Leaning towards accepting, with the caveats above, but waiting for more statements/follow ups. SirFozzie (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also looking for a bit more information, but as SirFozzie says, this seems to be a reoccurring issue and we may need to look at it again. Shell 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept; this isn't a new problem, nor is it likely to solve itself without — as SirFozzie says — draconian measures. The problem lies in carefully identifying what is the minimal set of such measures likely to bring the problem under control and that cannot be done without a case to examine the evidence. — Coren  16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline (or deal with by motion). If partisans battling over this is preventing consensus from forming, then we can simply pass a motion banning those who are battling over this from editing the articles in question, and restricting them to the talk pages only. There is no reason to ban the IP editor from commenting on talk pages, just ban then from editing the articles. I am genuinely puzzled here as to why admins are holding off from enforcing things under the community-imposed article probation that applies to this area. Partisans battling at a noticeboard is not a reason to avoid admin actions. Simply explain clearly who you think the partisans are, discount their opinions, and assess the consensus of uninvolved editors. But don't try and assess who is involved or not - ask people themselves to state what they see as their own level of involvement when starting such a thread, and discount any opinions where people fail to state whether or not they are involved in the topic area (i.e. silence should be taken to mean people are involved and refusing to admit it). Oh, and any admin acting in this area should also state the level of involvement and history they have in this area - if people commenting and taking actions in this area cannot answer simple questions like: "do you edit a lot in this topic area?" or "do you find yourself involved in a lot of disputes in this topic area?", then you will just have the usual suspects rehashing the same old arguments. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • To Lar: waiting for reports to be filed is the correct approach, but I would suggest someone does file a report at the page you indicated, as any resolution there is likely to be faster than any resolution here. Maybe ask Guy if he would consider refiling there? Hopefully Guy or whoever takes this on will take all the comments here into account (not just the ones they agree with). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 06:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Sandstein

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

Statement by Jehochman

The evidence is notable in that it shows:

  1. Biophys has been editing tendentiously for a long time. They have been involved in many edit wars and show no sign of stopping.
  2. Biophys admits making edits on behalf of somebody who emailed them. This is not the first time something like that happened, and Biophys is fully on notice not to do that.
  3. Grey Fox-9589 asserts that HanzoHattori was a great editor, and there's nothing wrong with editing for them. (Biophys, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.)

Why edit for somebody else? If somebody emailed me proposed edits, I would tell them to make the edits themselves. Looking at the whole picture of disruptive editing, proxying for a banned user, past arbitration cases, past enforcement sanctions against Biophys, I think that an indefinite block is appropriate for violations of long term edit warring, disruptive editing and proxying for a banned editor. I am willing to apply the block myself as a policy enforcement action. For the moment I am going to wait for outcome of this discussion. Jehochman 11:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the clerks need to be stricter about arbitration participants who incessantly tweak their statements. People should say whether a case is needed or not, the reasons why or why not, and then shut up. This page is not for arguing the case. Such behavior should be prevented by whatever means are necessary. It is disruptive to present other participants with a constantly moving target. Jehochman 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

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

Russavia (or possibly Offliner) brings two unrelated issues:

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

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

Statement by Grey Fox-9589

I'll reply to User:Jehochman since he's quoted me. I've said that User:HanzoHattori was a good editor (great is over the top) and I didn't see anything wrong with watching the articles he has created. This does not mean I believe HanzoHattori isn't supposed to be banned. I was not aware User:Biophys was still in contact with HanzoHattori and that he's made editing suggestions. This was probably a wrong action by Biophys. Personally I think that Biophys wasn't aware of wrongdoing, because otherwise he would not have openly admitted making several edits on behalf of HanzoHattori's suggestions (has he? now I'm not sure). I understand that Biophys can be sanctioned over this, but I believe an indefinite ban is far too strict.

What I am concerned about is the battlefield mentality of the users requesting for arbitration. As his block log shows Russavia was blocked before for herassment of Biophys. Russavia has been closely watching edits by Biophys and waited for a misstep by Biophys just to get him sanctioned. I'm certain of this because Russavia has never been much involved with the articles HanzoHattori created. Right after Russavia's sanctions were lifted he filed this arbitration request. I don't believe we should reward this type of behaviour. Grey Fox (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

re vlad_fedorov: I created a new account because my other was outed, there was no secrecy involved and administrators were aware of this change. The quote is from a video game just like this username. I have no idea how discussing old blocks of mine are supposed to be of any influince on this case which isn't about me. In fact you all have a long record of blocks, more than biophys. Grey Fox (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by YMB29

I have encountered other users on wiki who I don't agree with, but the difference with Biophys is that he ignores discussion and tries to sneak in his edits anyway he can.

I am not going to repost everything I wrote in AE and AN3 before, but the main thing is that Biophys has continued to use off-wiki coordination to help him edit war, after the EEML case. User:Defender of torch never edited the Human rights in the Soviet Union article before coming twice to revert to Biophys' version.
Later Biophys more or less admitted to asking him: Yes, that's my personal opinion: we should encourage communication in this project, no matter how people do it (over the phone, by email or using body language). No one should be punished for "canvassing".
-YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

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

Statement by vlad_fedorov

1. Regarding, this latest edit of Biophys. The more detailed background of what happened in May 2007 is here.

In sum, Ellol decided to test if Biophys who left USSR long time ago is really proficient in modern Russian slang and life. He, probably not appropriately to the end, combined few very often used phrases and asked Biophys how he understands it. Biophys was in edit war then with Ellol, and he immediately used this situation to gain advantage and claimed it was personal attack, although administrator Alex Bakharev found it was not any attack.

Even more, though it was not attack, Ellol apologized and said he is hoping for cooperation. But all Russian editors since then know that Biophys has no knowledge of real life in Russia.

One more thing I suggest regarding this. Let us officially establish that Biophys claim about "coded threats" is false. We do have lots of Russian editors in WP who may evaluate independently message by Ellol.

2. Grey Fox is un autre nom of Pietervhuis, who having large block log (6 blocks in total) over Chechen and Russian articles for edit warring, back in September 2009 changed his username to PeterPredator and abandoned his account. He reemerged as Grey Fox-9589 with first edit summary "A cornered fox is more dangerous than a jackal".

3. Re outing accusation. Biophys, this red herring, just like in case with Ellol whom you harass here, is not outing. I haven't been attributing anything to you. And one free tip for you, please read Outing policy once more and think about your first edits in WP. Maybe you would remember something. This has already been presented by you in WP:EEML case. You again try to divert the attention from the issue that is a reason of AE request against you and of this ARB request. Maybe you would comment on your arbitration with Commodore Sloat? Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Colchicum

An expository note:

Colchicum (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/0/2)

  • Awaiting Russavia's statement; I would specifically like to see the AE request summed up within the words limits on this page, with differences of alleged inappropriate conduct. KnightLago (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh. I was thinking about saying something about how the area would be so much cleaner and happier, if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist... but I'm not sure that this is actually possible. Thinking of possible ways to resolve this.. another Arbitration case seems likely, but I don't know if it will actually resolve the issue, short of taking very draconian measures. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept I reviewed the behavior of several editors involved back in June of 09 and it doesn't seem like improvement has been made. If the admins at AE think this is too complex, then I think we need to open a case, examine the behavior of everyone involved and decide what specific sanctions will move us toward deescalating the dispute in EE areas. Shell 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept Per Shell. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept; this is still a battleground, and little to no improvement is to be seen in the past months. — Coren  16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline as a case, but accept as a clarification with the possibilities of motions with a narrow scope restricted to Biophys and Russavia. I am not sure why this was filed as a new case rather than a clarification. Also, the current name is not that of a request - it would make more sense as the title of a clarification. If this is accepted, someone will need to come up with a proper name for the case. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)