Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 11 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

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Biophys

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence. My AE statement is here.

Response to Russavia

Yes, I made reverts in several articles, although many diffs by Russavia are not reverts to any previously existing version. What this is all about? I tried to restore or include important or at least interesting materials sourced to books in several articles, but I was reverted to their preferred versions by users Timurite (sockpuppet), YMB29 (talk · contribs) (an SPA that only conducts edit warring), Saiga12 (talk · contribs) (SPA that only conducts edit warring), Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs) (see below), HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) (currently blocked) and Ellol (talk · contribs) (that's his bias: ). Please examine what they do in this project.

• These articles cover different subjects. That's because I edit many subjects, from Biology and Chemistry to History. But I always fix forged numbers not found in sources or restore important information sourced to books if it was removed by political partisans . I tried to fix just this in the examples by Russavia.

• In one of the articles, I removed a poorly sourced conspiracy theory (a diff by Russavia ) although I am very open to debating this . In another article I fought a vandal: ,,, after explaining everything to him . He responded with threats ("may be we can meet you in Moscow..." ) and incivility ). Another user decided to help him and attack me (edit summary): . No, he is not sock of Saiga12 .

• If I am such an edit warrior, how did it happen that I am currently reverted by every single person to their preferred versions in almost every article mentioned by Russavia? See these "winning" reverts by Ellol, YMB29 and Russavia himself , , , , ? I have "lost" everywhere because I restricted myself to only one (sometimes two) reverts) per day. I also actively debated , ,,,, and asked advice from experienced editors on the "opposite side" ,. But one of those experienced editors was Mikkalai who fought an edit war to "help" YMB29 because he asked him ,, (please see Analysis of Evidence).

• My alleged "edit warring heavily to keep a known Islamist propaganda source". No, , I restored text sourced to U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, GlobalSecurity.org and other good sources. I think Islamist sites can only be used to source claims about themselves , (the category is "propaganda site, rather than a "news agency"), similar to that in many books .

• Russavia tells that I violated our policies by editing on the behalf of a banned user. No, I did not. Yes, I received suggested changes by email from someone who did not tell me any personal information. I looked at the changes, checked the sources, accepted something, rejected a lot, and made the edits. But this is encouraged by WP:IAR. I edited on behalf of this project and not on behalf of anyone else. I confirm that the changes are verifiable and I had an independent reason (improvement of the content) for making them (second paragraph here). These changes did not cause any disruption.

Outing and canvassing to conduct outing by Russavia

Not only Russavia outed me himself (hence his first block by Moreschi), but he incited DonaldDuck, Miyokan, and probably Offliner do the same: Indeed, During this discussion on September 11, 2008. Russavia said this and this about me. DonadDuck and Miyokan responded as follows , . This resulted in e-mail conversation with Miyokan: , , , . Myokan then outed me, and DonaldDuck repeatedly attempted do the same: despite the earlier warning.

Russavia incites others to "battle". Here he tells (at the bottom) that he will invite his "web brigade" (that's his words, I never use this expression) , which resulted in this (see edit summary) . Russavia invited Offliner , LokiiT (immediately after this notice by MBisanz!), and DonaldDuck to attack me. Note that Russavia invites Offliner to re-edit article web brigades in the last diff. Hence Offliner starts reverting me in a number of articles on related subjects (see diffs here), exactly as Russavia asked him. Right now, Offliner continue his harassment campaign off-wiki, while being in constant email communication with Russavia, as you know. LokiiT prefer to work independently . Note also these edits by Mikkalai's socks in the same "web brigade" article ,. Yes, it was Mikkalai who conducted deletion discussion with me on Commons that led to my outing by Miyokan (the link so persistently provided by Vlad).

The behavior of Russavia did not improve when he came back from the editing restrictions which replaced his indefinite ban. He earned his block on 4 December 2009 because he tried to out a group of people . And he is still trying to out one of these users right now (please see this conversation in SPI by User:Igny.)

This AE request was filed by Russavia immediately after coming from his restriction. This is clearly a battleground action based on the evidence above in this section. He asks for two-year ban for me, although I voted to lift his topic ban at AE. First thing he did after filing his AE request was revert of Litvinenko to his preferred version because we had a dispute with him about this article. He submitted this request because he believes he is immune to sanctions .

This AE request was probably prepared by banned Offliner. 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 fragments of continuous text . Indeed, Russavia acts as a representative of Offliner .

Why Russavia attacks me? This is nothing personal . He attacks all Russian editors who do not share his pro-Putin bias .

Outing by Vlad_fedorov

Vlad_fedorov just outed me again, during these proceedings (see Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop, I can not provide the diff for privacy reasons). He did this also previously. In fact, Russavia was possibly inspired by his example . Vlad had created this sock to report, during his one-year block by Arbcom(!) my real life identity to User:Ellol (please see my email to Thatcher). Indeed, Ellol acknowledged later that he knows my name (first line in this translation ).

Sockpuppetry and recent personal attack by LokiiT

Stalking and edit war by Ellol

My brief responses with diffs

Must see (HanzoHattori, etc.). I asked Happy-melon by email to remove all outing records onwiki by Vlad, but the records are still there. That's my notice to drafting arbitrator: . Could you also delete my talk page if you do not need it? The reason should be clear.Biophys (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by YMB29

Human rights in the Soviet Union article

Evidence of Biophys' disruption in the article from the EEML case:

After some time since the EEML case Biophys comes back to the article to reinsert his edits from months ago without any discussion, as if nothing happened in the article during the months he was not editing it:

He then inserts more of his old edits and continues to edit war:

Recent attempts to get a discussion going on the issues only got Biophys to discuss the issues for a short time before he again failed to respond and keep the discussion going.

User:Defender of torch, who never edited the article before, blindly reverts to Biophys' version:

The second revert was made less than half an hour after Biophys' last revert and it helped Biophys avoid a third revert that day.

When I asked if he contacted Defender of torch to help him edit war, Biophys said that he does not see anything wrong with off-wiki coordination, and does not care if I do it too.

Red flag and Red Banner articles

Biophys adds a joke to the Red flag article:

Other users tell him that such jokes don't belong in the article:

Biophys reinserts the joke again and adds another one with profanity:

Continues to revert to his jokes:

Then he went over to the Red Banner article to insert the jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit there.

He is told again that the jokes don't seem to have been popular in the USSR and is asked to prove notability:

However he does not provide any evidence of notability and continues to edit war:

-YMB29 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations by Biophys

Biophys claims that I made personal attacks against him... Well this is not the first time he has brought those accusations up and if they were true an admin would have done something about it by now.

As far as socks helping me, if Biophys' editing attracts socks it is not my fault. He had a history with Altenmann and his socks way before they came to the articles I was editing.

An IP that belongs to a recently banned sock also reverted me in support of Biophys , but I did not mention that here since I know that most likely the sock just followed my edits and Biophys did not contact him.

Furthermore, Biophys himself brought the sock master into the editing conflict between us. I only asked him (of course unaware of his socking) to look at Biophys' edit warring and ignoring of discussion after Biophys first asked him and after he already made a commitment to resolve the dispute between Biophys and me.
Implying that I teamed up with a sock master admin against him is a clear example of Biophys distorting the truth in his evidence.

Also I am not sure why Biophys keeps calling me an SPA...

-YMB29 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by LokiiT

• I presented all of my evidence of Biophy's continued disruptive editing here, all of it relevant to the post-EEML situation.

More baseless accusations and WP:BATTLE

I want to note here that once again, just like during the EEML case, Biophys has chosen to use this as a battleground and launch a completely unwarranted, irrelevant and baseless attack on me for unknown reasons. He brought up my sockpuppet case from 2008 (why?) and he makes yet the same completely false and debunked claim that I created this account for sockpuppeting when the sole purpose of this account was to avoid his harassment. I explained this all in detail here. So along with his relentless harassment, stalking, accusations of working for the government, sock fishing, trying to find out my real life identity and spreading lies about me (which is all detailed in the evidence I linked above), he's now claiming that I created this account for the purpose of harassing him, which is just unbelievable that he would say something like that.

Also Biophys mentions something about two IPs (it was actually just one) that came to my talk page with a personal attack, claiming it was an attack on him. But it was actually a personal attack against an admin and had absolutely nothing to do with Biophys. Not only that, but Biophy knows this. It's already been explained. So why is he even bringing it up? Why is he bringing any of this irrelevance up? LokiiT (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Vlad_fedorov

Endless POV WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SYNTH, edit wars, disruptions

Preface April 2007 program statement October 2008 next program.

The years 2009-2010 (note what articles are all about)

• Artyom Borovik, Background - December 2008, Colchicum and Biophys edit war against Beatle Fab Four by injecting POV speculations (POV fork) about Putin childhood in Georgia into this article diff, diff, diff. April 2010, Biophys arrives and injects his POV according to which sources contradict to each other, read both sources with man knowlegeable in aviation to evaluate.

• Anatoly Trofimov, Biophys edit wars, removing source not favorable to his conspiracy. Note, this source is also used in independent article Gerard Batten, position 5, edit wars once again, and and again.

• Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), Biophys doesn't like comment on Goldfarb of Mary Dejevsky (the chief editorial writer of The Independent), diff, diff, then instead of blind revert Biophys tries to disguise its removal diff, inserts (!!!) this again diff, but the next minute removes it claiming BLP violation diff, again blind revert, revert, and revert, these last three reverts are almost 3RR violation, and Biophys self-reverts, even in disambiguation Goldfarb Biophys allows to inject POV (human rights activist).

• Human rights in Russia I don't like it with summary "abstract should summarize content of this wikipedia article, not the report of Gil Robles", self-reverts in 11 minutes (!!!) diff, still doesn't like it and "agrees with someone" diff,

• Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs, having lost on Reliable Sources board discussion on use of terrorist sites as a source (KavkazCenter Thread on RS Noticeboard), arrives and not changes sources to those reliable which are in abundance, but deletes everything diff

• Recruitment never dies diff, note above how Biophys accuses others of canvassing. Five days later new recruit becomes operative diff.

• The way Biophys reaches consensus with other editors: "I insist on (my) version..." "we would ask the outside reviewer", diff

• Redirect most likely under HanzoHattori request http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Victor_Popkov&action=history

• Unproductive attempts to fish socks on disliked editor Saiga12 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lareneg/Archive. Note that Biophys does a thing that he calls outing "this is probably an IP from Germany".

• "There's nothing wrong to create the article on something that doesn't exist" diff

• Nadezhda Krupskaya POV injecting diff, the authors of the claim are Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky as usual.

• Yuri Felshtinsky removing curious claims by Felshtinsky & Co. diff, removing International Herald Tribune source which describes Felshtinsky as an associate of Berezovsky and source from the Herald which indicates the book was financed by Berezovsky,diff, removing the same againdiff, and again (claiming it is rearrangement) diff, and again diff.

• "I despise Islamist propaganda", but They certainly have an editorial oversight, but it matters who was the editor. The site was popular and much better in 1999-2002, if BBC uses this cite as source, why we can not?.

• Citation from Biophys own proof diff "During wars, they also reported losses on the Chechen side, and such reports can be regarded as official reports of losses by the Chechen side (which does not mean that their numbers are the "truth", just as numbers by any other combatants". Aga, KavkazCenter "earned his fame" for statements like "100 munafiks (Russian occupants) exterminated and three mojahideen are wounded".

• Kavkaz Center, revert wars by Biophys on sourcing to KavkazCenter, please do not remove valid refs from WP articles, This is claim about KavkazCenter itself distributing the spam amusing edit summary, right?, another diff. Check it against WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG.

• Biophys appears on RS Noticeboard to defend WorldNetDaily as reliable source despite numerous other editors claiming its inaccuracy. Please note, that majority of authors recognized World Net Daily as not reliable. Biophys used that source at revert in Grozny ballistic missile attack diff, despite previous author properly indicated it is not reliable diff.

• Valeria Novodvorskaya edit wars in pair with Colchicum diff, Colchicum stale reverts diff, diff, diff.

• Stalin Epigram Adding POV summary and adding source from another Wiki. Note in contrast what Biophys has claimed in WP:EEML about removal of links to Wiki. Hmm...

• Dokka Umarov organizer of Moscow metro bombing, POVing lead. Terrorist changed to Revolutionary this is more informative, deletion is sourced to nowhere. along with correction per . "Fair attempt to improve"... by revert to the previous version - diff. 82.160.239.145? Who is it? Hanzo?

• Note the contrast use of term "terrorist" by Biophys, in Revolutionary terror in Soviet Union diff, diff, especially note the that while Biophys adds what he names "background", he doesn't mention White terror, which means article is pure POV.

• January, 2010 Russian apartment bombings Statement by Biophys bombing by FSB agents is a majority view. Compare with preface.

Outing of Russavia by Biophys

• Biophys outed real Russavia identity and address to EEML members diff.

Grey Fox-9589

• Grey Fox-9589 has engaged in soapboxing in pursuit of an anti-Putin point of view.

• Grey Fox-9589 has treated Misplaced Pages as a battleground.

• Formerly known as PeterPredator (confirmed ), he has a history of regular edit warring. He created a new account following a one-week block. Contrary to his claim, the blocking administrators were not informed of an account change, nor of allegations of outing. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is interesting indeed that GreyFox outs Biophys' personal life information just on this same page disclosing the information where Biophys was spending time. This behavior clearly does show the real value and importance of outing accusations.

Colchicum

Colchicum assisted Biophys in WP:revert wars and injection of WP:POVed information Artyom Borovik , Aeroflot, , , , , Russian apartment bombings , , , Valeria Novodvorskaya , , , Soviet Story, Andrei Babitsky , insulted WP:CIV and provoked other editors and greatly contributed to hostile battleground mentality, posted in Misplaced Pages links to attack hate speech pages where WP editors are insulted and outed .

This link, posted by Colchicum, contains such words about editor as "whore" (блядва), degrading Internet-slang word "фофудьеносный" used in Ukrainophobic attacks on the Internet, "ненавистные ублюдки должны быть истреблены вместе со своим поганым родом" (hated bastards should be exterminated with their cursed generation), "россиянского ублюдка" (Russian bastard), etc. and this is not counting my outing..

Summary

Here

Evidence presented by Russavia

Background

• Finding by Shell Kinney from June 2009: "Biophys regularly edit wars"
• 1RR sanction given by Thatcher (now vacated):
• Biophys' (broken) promise to follow 1RR: ("I will also try to stick to 1RR")
• Another (broken) promise during the EEML case: "I apologize for edit warring. I knew that was against the policy... In the future, I will compromise, ask 3rd opinion..."

Edit warring

• After the EEML case ended, Biophys began to conduct massive edit warring again.
• Biophys did over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.

• • Russian apartment bombings (Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article) ,,,,, (3 reverts in 24 hours),,, (again 3 reverts in 24 hours),,,,,,,,,,,,,
  • Battle for Height 776 ,,,,,,,,,,,, (3 reverts in 26 hours),
  • Human rights in the Soviet Union ,,,,,,
  • Red banner ,,,,,,,,,,
  • Red flag ,,,
  • Cyberwarfare by Russian state ,,,, (the last 4 reverts are a 3RR violation),
  • Invasion of Dagestan (1999) ,,,,

Proxying for a banned user

• For the diffs, see the AE thread. No need to duplicate them here, since:
• Biophys has already admitted making edits on behalf of another person.
• Biophys claims he "did not know the person's real name." Interestingly, Biophys does not deny that he knew this person was HanzoHattori. (see Non-denial denial)
• It is highly likely that Biophys knew that this person was HanzoHattori:

1. The proxy edits were all made to articles where HanzoHattori and socks were the main editors
2. Only another WP editor would contact someone and ask to make specific edits
3. The only way this editor could have found out Biophys' email address is to use Misplaced Pages's email feature
4. This will reveal the editor's username to Biophys.

Biophys' retirement tactic

• When Biophys' actions are under investigation, he often "retires", ostensibly to avoid sanctions. (Retired while an AE thread leading to Biophys' 1RR was being investigated),, (Retired during the WP:EEML, when his actions were under investigation by ArbCom),,, (and again),,

• Biophys now knows that this tactic works. Therefore, he has retired again during this case:

Biophys' promises during the EEML case

• During the EEML case, a lot of evidence was presented against Biophys; at least as much as against the now topic banned editors.
• Biophys somehow managed to escape sanctions, probably because of the "promises" and "apologies" he made during the case:
  • "*I apologize for edit warring. I knew that was against the policy. Everyone who edits on controversial political subject should be ready to accept removal of his contributions by others, no matter how well these contributions were sourced. In the future, I will compromise, ask 3rd opinion..."
  • "*I apologize for joining the mailing list."
  • Yet, Biophys continued his secret email correspondence with other editors and even made edits on behalf of a banned user, which was founded to be disruptive in EEML (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Radeksz)

POV-pushing/advocacy

• Biophys mentions this as evidence of battleground mentality on my part. Reasoning for my revert is clearly presented at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Russavia#Alexander_Litvinenko_article and Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Changes_made_to_article, and goes back to April 2009, where I presented a long list of problems with the article, only to have Biophys ignore the entire lot., , , ,

Evidence presented by Ellol

Accusations by Biophys

I believe, that Biophys is an user with an extremely strong POV. One quote of him from the talk page of the Russian apartment bombings — what is a very complicated story itself — sais much about that user:

Of course, I was interested about what law of nature helps Biophys to prove his theories. To do that, I cleaned up his version of the description of the Ryazan incident . Not surprisingly, I found the good old technique "if facts do not fit the theory, the worse for the facts" !

ellol (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re to Biophys

Allegations made by Biophys include a statement about me: He said (after revealing my first real life name in the first string) that he does not want any negative information about Russian government to be included anywhere (translation ).

Biophys lies.

What did I say?

"It's not true, that any critique of the situation in Russia will lead to a positive result. Only adequate critique can lead to a positive result, while inadequate critique can only lead (and leads) to the rise of paranoia and negative image of the U.S., causing a sort of a defense reaction."

That was my point made almost two years ago, in August 7, 2008. I can subscribe under it now as well. But it only sais that I support the truth ("adequate critique") and oppose the lies ("inadequate critique"). Biophys is lying in his interpretation of my speech.

The only mistake I made that time, however, was addressing Biophys as a serious person.

ellol (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My point on Biophys

1) Okey, what's the problem with Biophys? My major point is that it's a person deeply obsessed with the anti-Russia bias.

How does it come? He never lived in the post-Soviet Russia. He emigrated to the United States right from the totalitarian Soviet Union. For the reason that he knew no better than the totalitarian Soviet System, he refuses to admit that anything better can exist in Russia nowadays.

So, the major problem is, that Biophys has tragic memories of the past, a trauma of his Soviet life, which he acknowledges as the only truth. That results in an extremely strong POV, "dark glasses" that he does always wear.

But instead of admitting that his problems exist in his own head, he brings them to the Misplaced Pages.

Proofs? Well, take a read of the Talk:Russian_apartment_bombings, for example.

2) Okey, but what does it lead to? The POV hold by Biophys is so strong that it reflects in his relationships with other Misplaced Pages users who oppose him. He simply treats them as his personal enemies. Not surprisingly, the first users who noted Biophys'es appearance in Misplaced Pages were Russians: me and User:Vlad fedorov. Biophys accused me of making a death threat against him (in reality, I was thrilled to learn how well is Biophys in touch with the post-Soviet reality, and proposed him to translate some arbitrary pieces of post-Soviet slang); he always suspected me of being a KGB FSB agent (in EEML case, he broadcast a message saying that I am the only person who fits a KGB pattern of mind, he suggested that I might be a low-level official in staff department of FSB. What a miserable recollection of the Soviet times when only officials were supposed to have a point of view! ).

However, after that the situation became far more interesting. Some other Wikipedians became interested in Biophys'es affairs. Now it were not the Russians, but people of 100% European/Anglo-Saxon ancesty, User:Offliner and User:Russavia. However, the major pattern of Biophys'es thinking remains the same: opponents are the personal enemies. Notice that he generates a vast amount of accusations against his opponents, and note that most of them prove to be unsubstininated in the end.

ellol (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DonaldDuck

False outing accusations by Biophys

1. I never posted any personal information on Biophys. Please follow the diffs provided by Biophys and check this.
2. What is WP:OUTING? According to Misplaced Pages policy “Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages.” Back in years 2007-2008, Biophys voluntarily posted some personal info on Commons, showing no concerns for his privacy at that time. He can’t claim outing of this particular information, because he had previously voluntarily posted it himself for public use.
3. What is the real reason behind repeated outing accusations by Biophys? (Biophys already made this accusations in EEML case and in at least one off-wiki email to administrator, as far as I know)? Biophys is trying to: suppress any reference to his own sockpuppetry on Commons, get his perceived opponents blocked and avoid sanctions in Arbitration process by claiming organized harassment campaign again him.

Edit warring by Biophys

Federal Security Service (Russia) (April 2009) David Satter (April 2009) Yakov Krotov

Biophys and HanzoHattori

• Biophys advising HanzoHattori sockpuppet how to avoid scrutiny: Please keep in mind that no one suppose to block you without asking checkuser, and checkuser will not make a check unless there are compelling reasons to do so, such as uncivil comments or sustained edit warring .
• Greetings to another HanzoHattori sockpuppet by Biophys.
• Biophys calls HanzoHattori his friend.

This casts some doubt on Biophys claim that he got email with proposed edits from unknown person and did not know if it was HanzoHattori or not.

Evidence presented by Grey Fox-9589

Background

For what it's worth I'd like to point some things out. This Arbitration request shows how great a battlefield EE articles still are. User:Biophys in the past has often attempted to negotiate settlements with some of the 'pro-Putinist' editors but always in vain. His request to get Russavia's sanctions lifted was stupidly naive proven by how Russavia started this request right after they were lifted. This is quite obviously battlefield mentality and the way Russavia is behaving at as well as all other EE articles shows Russavia's intent to continue battle all his wp:EEML opponents. Ironically if I recall correctly all the participants in the EEML were prohibited from interacting with Russavia. Russavia has turned this around by approaching them even when he hasn't interacted with them for a long time. Having experienced editing in EE articles I see nothing has changed. It's virtually impossible to add anything critical of Vladimir Putin or his politics. A large amount of ultranationalist users will do pretty much everything to defend related articles or mess up biographies of Putin's opponents. Biophys has continued editing critical anyway, but because a large amount of critical users have been topic banned (mostly for a year) he is now a minority. Normally more users would show up so let it not be an illusion that the community is turned against him.

Content

I don't think the evidence posted by above users is strong, proving only that editing in EE space is still problematic. Most of it is content related trying to portray Biophys having POV-illness though the users themselves have an extremely determined point-of-view themselves as you can easily see in their edit history. Vlad Federov's evidence fits in with previous accusations of Biophys supposedly supporting Islamist terrorism in Russia (IMO violations of wp:civil) which are ridiculous accusations. From what I recall Biophys isn't Islamist and is mostly interested in the Chechen conflict because 1) it's one of the most important political subjects in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and 2) Biophys has spent a lot of time in the Caucasus region (where the conflicts take place) and is Russian himself. Usually accusations of supporting terrorism can already be made when criticizing human rights abuses in the region by the federal government. Note that many journalists and even human rights activists in Russia have faced charges of "Extremism" or "inciting hatred" for criticizing Russia's part in the Chechen conflict (not to speak of those that are murdered). My point is that it's a common trick for nationalists in Russia to accuse opponents of terrorism. Right now it's done because Biophys has used sources of an Islamist extremist website but as far as I can see they are used with utmost scrutiny and only about themselves. For those not familiar with the Chechen conflict, it would pretty much be the same as condemning an American Misplaced Pages editor for posting an interview of Mullah Omar (Taliban leader) or Muqtada Al-Sadr from a radical Islamist website, a website that’s used regularly in the news / academic publications, and accusing this user of supporting terrorism because he "uses those sources".

Edit Warring

I can't comment much on supposed edit warring because I don't want to check all diffs and timestamps myself but it should be obvious that the edit warring isn't one-sided. So far all users above (except one) accusing Biophys of edit warring have a much larger history of edit warring than Biophys as well as a lot more blocks for edit warring (some having barely survived a permaban). Biophys has been blocked twice for edit warring of which one was wp:3rr. If he did indeed edit-war recently I think it would be unfair for him to become the scapegoat of post-EMML strictness by giving him strong sanctions. I'm also pretty sure that some of the above users have been edit warring since EEML. Note that User:Ellol has been edit warring extensively on Russian Apartment Bombings and User:YMB29 has been on Human rights in the Soviet Union and Red Banner with both of them making 3 reverts within 24 hours as well. Both articles are now used to portray Biophys as the edit warrior.

Outing

Outing should not be taken lightly. Russavia was blocked for outing Biophys and another user permabanned. Vlad federov has just now posted a link containing Biophys personal details again despite knowing that users had been banned for doing so. I can't imagine that this is now suddenly going to be tolerated. I'd like to point to . Please note that some of the outed users have even received death threats outside Misplaced Pages, just to understand how serious this is.

Conclusion

All in all, please don’t judge Biophys alone in this case because it was started against him. During EEML only the EEML members were judged / sanctioned but I believe in this case the users requesting arbitration should be judged too. Thank you for your time.

Evidence presented by Vecrumba

A concerted effort to ban Biophys by willful misrepresentation of his activities

The question has been asked, what is this really all about? The question has been asked by Mr. Fedprov, why have I not denounced Biophys' violations of WP policy? I will attempt to provide an answer.

Let's go back to why this procedure was ever opened, it was per Russavia's litanic AE request against Biophys. Personally, while I always kept tabs on Biophys' edits, I tried not to get involved because of what I considered contentious POV and Russia-protectionist pushing by other editors. Frankly, I don't think I've ever fully recovered from the paid propaganda pushers at Transnistria. Be that as it may, I started at the top of Russavia's original evidence, contending Biophys's disruptions at the apartment bombings article. I apologize for the blow by blow filling in the gaps between Russavia's diffs, you will see why that was necessary. (Link to Russavia's original request available per Sandstein's opening to this action.)

Massive edit warring at Russian apartment bombings

Not dealing with evidence prior to 2010 (May, 2009,September, 2009)

Alleged 2010 revert war (Russavia's original diffs numbered, intervening and not provided by Russavia as bullets):

1. Revision as of 03:51, January 26, 2010, an expansion of content, the main point being to emphasize the bombings being the launching nexus for what became the Second Chechen war; I went through all article diffs since the start of January, this is a fresh addition, no warring. The only active editor I recognized on the article was HistoricWarrior007, since banned as a multi-sock-puppeteer. (N.B., HistoricWarrior007 was one of the editors attacking me at EEML.)
   • Revision as of 20:13, January 26, 2010, tagged by now-banned HistoricWarrior007
   • Revision as of 12:42, January 27, 2010, Ellol reverts Biophys to what they describe as the (prior) "neutral" version
2. Revision as of 04:17, January 31, 2010, Biophys reverts to HistoricWarrior's version, that is, Biophys' version but still tagged as POV, requesting discussion at talk
   • Revision as of 09:57, January 31, 2010, Ellol reverts, labeling Biophys' version "conspiracy theory" (actually, Biophys' version indicates speculation in the press regarding Russian secret service involvement PLUS that responsibility was claimed by a previously unknown terrorist group)
   • Revision as of 05:41, February 15, 2010, HistoricWarrior007 corrects grammar
   • Revision as of 01:12, February 20, 2010, Biophys moves some content to a more appropriate location, no change—note, this is NOT Biophys' version
   • Revision as of 01:16, February 20, 2010, Biophys resections some headings, no change to content (still NOT Biophys' version)
   • Revision as of 04:15, February 20, 2010, Biophys removes speculation (section titled "A possibly related event") about a bombing a year later.
   • Revision as of 04:17, February 20, 2010, Biophys moves some text within a section to improve continuity (no change to text)
   • Revision as of 04:22, February 20, 2010, Biophys inserts section ("Statements about GRU involvement in Buynaksk") asking why it was removed, note, this is NOT content inserted by Biophys at the start of this chain (that is, Biophys is not reinserting his content piece-meal)
   • Revision as of 04:26, February 20, 2010, Biophys adds a bibliography of books and movies, fiction and non-fiction, regarding the apartment bombings
   • Revision as of 04:36, February 20, 2010, Biophys improves section titles
3. Russavia's "evidence" diff ostensibly substantiating a chain of reverts and edit warring, oops,  FALSE , 7 intermediate versions not shown, hardly part of a pattern of reverts, in fact, it's painfully clear Biophys is attempting to work within the bounds set by the reverts of other editors. The actual single-change diff versus 4:36 above is:
   Revision as of 04:39, February 20, 2010, Biophys removes an article section, citing it as a POV fork of Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings—which a check of the text versus the article would confirm as a fair assessment, the purpose of the article here being the event, less the theories
   • Revision as of 11:10, February 20, 2010, Ellol does a mass revert to "last version by Historic Warrior", this is a bit of a misnomer, as it is to the version where HistoricWarrior007 corrected grammar, it's otherwise Ellol reverting to the version prior to Biophys's first edit (i.e., the same version Ellol reverted to earlier except for HistoricWarrior007's grammar change
   • Revision as of 15:15, February 20, 2010, Biophys reverts Ellol's blind revert to the last copy in progress—recall, that is STILL not Biophys' original insertion
4. Russavia's diff (matching the above) claiming 3 reverts in 24 hours— FALSE 
   • Revision as of 15:59, February 20, 2010, Ellol reverts a second time
   • Revision as of 16:03, February 20, 2010, Biophys proposes an intermediate version, that is, what Ellol reverted with some changes (not a revert)
   • Revision as of 03:58, February 21, 2010, Biophys reinserts the bibliography of books and movies, fiction and non-fiction
   • Revision as of 04:09, February 21, 2010, Biophys edits down that section, actually making it less controversial (removing observations about confiscations, prohibitions against showing certain films, etc.)
5. Russavia's diff, this time skipping the last 3 versions, claiming reverting— FALSE —when Biophys has been compromising, the actual single-edit diff is:
   Revision as of 04:23, February 21, 2010, Biophys again removes the POV fork, "see talk," rest left as was
   • Revision as of 04:52, February 21, 2010, a bot reference fix
   • Revision as of 13:09, February 21, 2010, Ellol reverts to Biophys' intermediate version
   • Revision as of 16:33, February 21, 2010, Ellol fact-tags a paragraph and adds a bit of content (Romanovich, dead or alive?)
   • Revision as of 16:34, February 21, 2010, grammar edit by Ellol
   • Revision as of 16:36, February 21, 2010, a bit more on Romanovich by Ellol
   • Revision as of 16:36, February 21, 2010, pesky paren's fix by Ellol
   • Revision as of 17:01, February 21, 2010, Ellol inserts claim by Yulia Latynina
   • Revision as of 17:03, February 21, 2010, pesky brackets this time by Ellol
   • Revision as of 17:04, February 21, 2010, noted purposefulness of Berezovsky re: Latynina, by Ellol
   • Revision as of 17:04, February 21, 2010, Ellol adds year and
   • Revision as of 17:05, February 21, 2010 corrects grammar
   • Revision as of 18:24, February 21, 2010, dab by Ulric1313
   • Revision as of 01:27, February 22, 2010, by Biophys, appears to be an edit that did not go through (only a blank line difference despite comment)
   • Revision as of 01:32, February 22, 2010, Biophys removes "Conspiracy" before "Theory", still a theory after all; adds reference to Felshtinsky's and Probylovsky's conspiracy theory
   • Revision as of 01:38, February 22, 2010, Biophys restores the earlier lost (before this thread all started) GRU involvement in Buynaksk section
   • Revision as of 01:49, February 22, 2010, section titling by Biophys
   • Revision as of 01:55, February 22, 2010, by Biophys, Ware repeated twice, "analysts" swapped for "scholars" and
   • Revision as of 01:56, February 22, 2010, consolidated by Biophys
   • Revision as of 01:58, February 22, 2010, Biophys adds support of FSB involvement section to complement Criticism section
   • Revision as of 02:02, February 22, 2010, Biophys adds statement by John McCain
   • Revision as of 02:04, February 22, 2010, Biophys shortens section title
   • Revision as of 02:12, February 22, 2010, bot reference fixes
   • Revision as of 02:21, February 22, 2010, Biophys adds more detail on Felshtinsky's and Pribylovsky's allegations based on Johnson's Russia List information (BTW, David Johnson is a highly respected Russia analyst and publishes a nearly daily compendium of highlights of Russia-related news and analysis)
   • Revision as of 02:23, February 22, 2010, minor involvement edit by Biophys
   • Revision as of 03:05, February 22, 2010, paragraph formatting by Biophys
   • Revision as of 03:06, February 22, 2010, Biophys moves Markov to analyst section
   • Revision as of 03:10, February 22, 2010, blank line formatting by Biophys
   • Revision as of 03:11, February 22, 2010, Biophys tightens up quotation of source
   • Revision as of 03:13, February 22, 2010, incomplete addition of brackets by Biophys
   • Revision as of 03:22, February 22, 2010, reorganization and clean-up of claims and denials
   • Revision as of 03:30, February 22, 2010, more edits on claims and denials by Biophys
   • Revision as of 03:31, February 22, 2010, Biophys, fix spelling of name
   • Revision as of 03:34, February 22, 2010, Biophys creates/adds a chronology of events
   • Revision as of 03:55, February 22, 2010, more bot reference fixes
   • Revision as of 04:52, February 22, 2010, edits to investigations, etc.
   • Revision as of 04:53, February 22, 2010, spelling, typos by Biophys
   • Revision as of 04:58, February 22, 2010, minor correction to who said what
   • Revision as of 05:09, February 22, 2010, content editing by Biophys on investigation and claims
   • Revision as of 05:20, February 22, 2010, Biophys adds quote with sourcing (transcript pointer)
   • Revision as of 05:25, February 22, 2010, readability editing (events and citations unchanged)
   • Revision as of 05:26, February 22, 2010, Biophys improves attribution
6. Russavia's diff leading up to the point above, presented as evidence of reverting/edit warring, oops, 28 intervening versions ommitted?, the only reason Russavia picks this is to call the sum of anything/everything Biophys does AFTER a revert by Ellol a "revert", just keep adding a big red  FALSE  after every diff Russavia provides as "evidence"—in fact, choosing a diff as compared to the Ulric1313's dab in the middle of nowhere (i.e., not adjacent to or a prior edit by Biophys) serves only to keep Ellol's name out of the diff, as if there are other editors who have also taken up the mantle of battling Biophys' presence
   • Revision as of 13:01, February 22, 2010, Ellol mass reverts to "last version by Ulric1313," citing "POV pushing" (i.e., "I don't like it."), again, a bit of a misnomer (pattern?) as it's Ellol reverting to Ellol's last version, just with Ulric1313's dab
   • Revision as of 15:25, February 22, 2010, Biophys reverts Ellol's revert asking why all changes need to be undone?
      
     An examination of article talk shows Ellol describing Biophys' changes as "emotional stuff" (???). Biophys asks what the problem is on talk, followed by the article revert above. Ellol responds; that said, I see nothing "emotional" in Biophys' content, indeed, it would be a disservice to the reader to NOT indicate (as Ellol advocates per the example provided) that the bombings were officially and quickly blamed on Chechen separatists. (i.e., "I don't like it.")
      For those keeping score, it is: Ellol, revert #1, Biophys revert of revert #1
      
7. Russavia's diff leading to the point above, accusing Biophys of "(again 3 reverts in 24 hours)",  FALSE , this was Biophys' first revert
   • Revision as of 15:44, February 22, 2010, Ellol reverts again, citing POV pushing, Ellol revert #2
   • Revision as of 23:01, February 22, 2010, Biophys starts on a compromise, removing a section of content (partial revert, note tagged "in use"), while tagged "in use":
     • Revision as of 23:05, February 22, 2010
     • Revision as of 23:10, February 22, 2010
     • Revision as of 23:13, February 22, 2010, note Biophys invites addition of chronology from RU WP
     • Revision as of 23:16, February 22, 2010, Biophys notes no direct evidence of FSB involvement
     • Revision as of 23:17, February 22, 2010, Biophys notes speculation as conspiracy theory in title
     • Revision as of 23:27, February 22, 2010, Biophys trims support for government involvement/conspiracy
     • Revision as of 23:31, February 22, 2010, Biophys, Tkachenko added
     • Revision as of 23:59, February 22, 2010, in use untagged, net effect (as opposed to if Biophys had reverted a second time) provided by this diff

This concludes reviewing the presentation of false evidence against Biophys contending multiple violations of 3RR policy, my apologies to Mr. Fedorov that I have nothing to denounce regarding Biophys, who has been doing the best he can within a structure bounded by Ellol's severe ownership issues regarding the article.

Furthermore, in Russavia's construction of "evidence," it has been empirically demonstrated that Russavia considers a "revert" any accumulation of work Biophys does on the article:

• subsequent to a revert by Ellol (unless apparently convenient to appear to show other editors being "reverted" as well), and up to the
• next revert by Ellol, heedless of any acts of compromise, indeed changing of content toward Ellol's POV for compatibility, et al. by Biophys.

It's taken a full day's worth of work just to sift through this much evidence. I can keep going just on this one article; however, I've satisfied myself that the problem here is Ellol's ownership of the apartment bombings article and Russavia pitching in to attempt to remove Ellol's editorial counterbalance. Considering it took a whole day just to rifle through the portion of diffs (falsely) contending multiple violations of 3RR on the part of Biophys, I can't imagine how much time Russavia spends preparing this stuff, he is apparently a one man army.

Biophys has done nothing wrong here. For his troubles working on improving content he has been set upon like some plague to be eliminated by means of what I can only perceive as willful misrepresentation of Biophys' actions.

Again, reminder, had I not been mentioned by name by Russavia as their having "all but cleared"—but not quite, apparently—me of some wrongdoing, I would not be here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.