This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 1 January 2012 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/2): Decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Greyhood and Putin

Initiated by Gritzko (talk) at 07:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Gritzko, filing party
• Greyhood

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Greyhood notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• spinning of a section at Russian legislative election, 2011 by Greyhood
• discussion at the Talk page
• past story 1
• past story 2
• past story 3 (note the statement by BorisG)

Statement by Gritzko

I see a repeated pattern of tendentious editing by Greyhood in everything that is somehow related to Vladimir Putin. In United Russia he fought to avoid mentioning the "crooks and thieves" story. In Vladimir Putin Greyhood has shown his remarkable persistence in fighting the sentence "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline". Now, when Russia has biggest protests since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fact is kind of obvious, but a month ago Greyhood argued everybody to death, trying to spin obvious facts (e.g. diff, also the section at the talk page). Now, Greyhood does weird things at Russian legislative election, 2011#Statistics. Namely, he cited a blog of a critic. Later, the critic dismissed his claims and corrected his blog post. So, Greyhood removed a link to the original blog and left a link to a short story referring to the uncorrected version of that blog post! After I pointed the trick out, Greyhood started to speculate that the entire section should be removed. My understanding is that he is willfully and skillfully spinning articles in favor of V. Putin who is likely his idol or something. In either case, I think that Greyhood should be banned from any article that has any relation to V. Putin, including Vladimir Putin, United Russia Russian legislative election, 2011 and suchlike.

Regarding RfC. Check the talk at V. Putin and you will see that third parties don't make any difference. Greyhood keeps arguing and arguing even if everything is clear to everybody. My favorite quote from the guy is: "Media like The Econonmist and The Guardian tend to give excessive attention to actions of the marginal Russian political opposition with dismal ratings." That's how to easily dismiss all the media and all the opposition in one sentence. Gritzko (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Greyhood was on the CoI noticeboard exactly because of his activities in the very same article. Reported by Fred Bauder and Malick78, AFAIU. Also Swliv, Itinerant1 and Narking expressed their concerns at the talk page, N1 problem being unjustified deletions made by Greyhood.

There is some stuff at the NPoV noticeboard as well. Gritzko (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

The problem here is essentialy minor content issues, which could easily be resolved on a talk page if all users involved would show more assumption of good faith, more civility and more sticking to Misplaced Pages policies.

• Our recent dispute with Gritzko, which is discussed here, seems to have arisen because I have removed several Livejournal blog sources from the article per WP:BLOGS, and Gritzko doesn't like that. The self-published blogs by non-specialists and not censored by any editorial body is something that is too obviously not WP:RS.
• Gritzko is not entirely correct claiming that I cited a blog of a critic. Weeks ago, before Gritzko was involved, I used an editorial story from a PolitOnline site, which contained a wrapped link to a self-published study, but since the link was wrapped I didn't notice the self-publication. Finer points of that study were reported in the PolitOnline story alongside an expert opinion from a specialist (see the second and third pragraphs at the Russian_legislative_election,_2011#Statistics) and just one line was inserted by me based on a material from a wrapped link rather than from PolitOnline. As soon as a13ean pointed it out to me at Talk:Russian_legislative_election,_2011#Eruditor.ru that the link was wrapped and not related to PolitOnline, I removed it with the content related to that link.
• So Gritzko is totally incorrect when he claims that I removed the link to the blog post because that post was changed. I was not aware of any changes at the point of the removal of the link.
• Furthermore, Gritzko is incorrect when he says "the critic dismissed his claims and corrected his blog post". The "critic" just made an addition to his study discussing the anomalies he could not explain, and tried to explain them applying certain hypothesis, specifying that it is not the only explanation possible. The "critic" didn't dismiss any claims that were published in the PolitOnline article.
• So all what I do is just trying to use better sources and prevent spamming Misplaced Pages with personal blogs' stuff.
• True, I suggested to remove the discussed section at all, because most of the material there is based on amateur studies, not reviewed scientifically and just republished by some media sources due to the popularity of the topic in the blogs. I do not insist on such a removal, that's just a proposal, but if we decide to consider the story notable and encyclopedic, than the proper usage of sources is something that me and most editors would insist on. In fact, my actions seem to be already supported or accepted by users other than Gritzko, who just should read WP:BLOGS and check the situation more closely before accusing other editors in something.

As for our interaction with Gritzko on other articles, such as Putin etc., Gritzko has openly manifested his highly negative attitude towards Russian authorities and ruling politicians. For me personally, such his attitude is OK until he edits within Misplaced Pages rules and engages in constructive and civil discussion, putting the purpose of the encyclopedia above advocating his own political preferences. But unfortunately, Gritzko has shown a lot of incivility, unwillingness to discuss the policies and continuous bad faith assumptions, which is obviously problematic. Other users tried to address the issue at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Gritzko, but seems Gritzko doesn't pay attention for the warning received. Seems like Gritzko is ready to assume bad faith in any user who does not share Gritzko's own highly negative attitude and is active in the articles related to Russian politics, and unfortunately Gritzko is too keen in accusing such users in having "idols", being "fanboys" etc. It is not easy to maintain serious and constructive discussion with a user who has such a negative attitude to the subject and other users. I suggest Gritzko to pay more respect to the encyclopedia and its collaborative environment. GreyHood 22:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

statement by Russavia

this is purely a content dispute and has been noted below there has been no rfc or other such dispute resolution. However, it should be noted that i only last week had cause to file an ae request on gritzko, due to their continual engagement of personal attacks against greyhood, for which they received a digwuren warning. If one looks at the putin, elections and protesta articles and talk pages, one will see that gritzko is an occasional editor, but it is also abundantly clear that he is here to engage in advocacy and also does not assume good faith of other editors. I am making it clear now that if gritzko continues this behaviour i will file another ae request to have him topic banned under digwuren sanctions. Sorry for not linking any of the above as i am on my phone and it is quite impossible. Y u no be Russavia 15:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Master&Expert

I've seen Greyhood around at ITN and have gotten the impression that he does have something of a bias towards United Russia. That said, I'm not convinced anything he's doing is particularly harmful. But even if it were, the issue certainly isn't ripe for ArbCom. Virtually no dispute resolution methods have been tried prior to filing this case. I'd recommend they get a third opinion first, then if the issue remains, consider an RfC regarding the topic. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

• Awaiting statements, but this looks premature in that there has been no RfC held on the topic to invite outside community input into the dispute. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline as premature. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Similar to above, leaning decline, as no evidence of RfC etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• This looks like the front end of a content dispute, unless there's some really OTT behaviour in here somewhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Decline at this time. Please continue to work through the issues using the other forums that have been referred to. See also Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for other forums that may be available, short of arbitration which is a complicated, lengthy process that we save for a last resort. It appears to me that both editors are highly knowledgeable about the subject-matter of these articles. Despite what appear to be differing political or personal views about Russian politics, I hope they can both contribute usefully to our coverage, utilizing high-quality sources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is informal mediation, and if there are more serious problems you could try either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues directly above. Courcelles 02:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. AGK 14:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)