Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk)  Drafting arbitrator: Shell Kinney (Talk)

Additional Comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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.[1] [2]
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". [3]
-YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 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:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin
• Special:Contributions/La_poet
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg#Comments_by_other_users
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Colchicum
• something mysterious
• and, as a fallout of the previous case, a fair number of baseless allegations of EEML conspiracies here and there for the sake of trolling

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to lift/clarify topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Initiated by ellol (talk) at 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ellol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Topic ban of user Ellol
• I appeal to lift my topic ban.

Statement by Ellol

Hello.

6-7 months ago I participated in a messy case (Russavia-Biophys). I feel sorry about that now. I wish to stay away from controversies.

I have no great plans for Wikipedia. But I think I could make some minor contributions to Wikipedia articles regarding Russia's share of the modern aerospace projects, keeping them up to date in view of recent news. I also would like to upload some of the photos of Russia's buildings, publicly requested by user Russavia User:Russavia/Required_photos. I think it would be very important to allow people in the world to see more of the Moscow sights in Wikipedia.

It would be good if my topic ban is lifted. If it's not feasible, please, tell me if I could make contributions about Russia's space projects or upload photos of Moscow.

Regards, ellol (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Biophys

You know my email. If you need to measure raman spectra of your specimens, feel free to contact me. As for the Wikipedia, I decided it's the best to leave it. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Kirill

Hello, Kirill.

Thank you for the reply.

Okey, I get it.

No worries, just I do not want to have my name mentioned in the list of topic-banned users. It's personal.

Regards, ellol (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

As another party of the case I support lifting the ban for Ellol. He must have his second chance, just as everyone else. There is little to comment because he was not especially active during this time. Let's forgive and forget. Let's improve situation in this area. In particular, I would be very much willing to collaborate with Ellol on any subject he wants to collaborate with me. Same should be done by others in this area. Of course I do not insist on any collaboration. Such things must be mutual. I am telling this because Ellol seems to be the only editor who is interested in the same subjects as me, such as human rights in Russia. On the other hand, I never edited favorite subjects of Offliner (Russian military-industrial complex) or Russavia (aviation and foreign relations). So, I have no common interests with them... Biophys (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

• The user formally known as Biophys has been renamed by Nihonjoe to a new name which can be seen in the history, keeping all his old contributions and his existing block log.
• The person who filed the amendment request and signs himself as Ellol is someone who had previous chosen to vanish. I believe he is not eligible to file this request. Since filing here, he has been blocked by User:Avraham. If you check the history of this page you will see what is going on. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As I've mentioned in the other amendment request for this case, the conflicts in this area continue unabated; given the circumstances, I don't think it would be beneficial to have you resume editing on this topic just yet. As far as images are concerned, you're perfectly free to upload them, since the topic ban only prohibits you from editing articles; you'll simply need someone else to add them to the articles for you. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• The filing party has now chosen to vanish from the project, so unless I am missing something, I believe this request can be considered as withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Biophys (talk) at 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 3
• Remedy 4

List of users affected by this amendment

• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Biophys topic_banned
• Biophys restricted - this is a related remedy that may be enacted after the topic ban

Statement by Biophys

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask for review and direction at this point, almost six months since the beginning of my topic ban. During this time I was active, edited in allowed areas, avoided conflicts, and tried to deal with problems noted in your findings of fact [4].

What was my problem? I edited 4,000 different articles (and a lot of them are related to my Russian cultural background) and created 250 new pages. Few my edits caused anyone's objections, but I always returned back to the articles where someone reverted my edits to be engaged in prolonged disputes, edit warring and complaints. It came at no surprise that the trouble happened in a difficult area that has been already a subject of numerous sanctions.

To avoid this problem in a future I am going to leave any article to others and edit something else if a dispute can not be quickly resolved by talking and compromising. It is enough to remove an article from my watch list. I did just that during my topic ban. This helped me to make exactly zero reverts that could be interpreted as edit warring during all this time (a few “undo” are fixes of obvious vandalism problems). Here are a few examples of someone recently reverting my edits [5] [6][7],[8],[9], and I walked away from these articles. Yes, I fully realize that every editor had his reason for reverting my edits, even though I happened to disagree with them and explained why [10], [11], [12],[13]. There is nothing wrong with returning later to these articles. The entire point is to avoid creating the conflicts.

If there is something else I must do, please tell. I could not care less about ethnic and territorial disputes, but I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian [14], German [15] or Korean [16], except that I know Soviet subjects much better. But my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above.

In summary, I only wanted to tell that I am ready to contribute positively in this area. No, I do not feel any rush to return back to difficult subjects, but I am ready to make such decisions for myself. I am asking for an amendment mostly because I feel extremely uncomfortable being a subject of indefinite sanctions [17]. I simply want to be a normal editor again. You issued a good preventative topic ban that helped me to spend my time in the project more productively. But it is no longer needed.

Response to Offliner

Offliner provides this diff. No, I did not really make such promises since they are not included in the final version of my statement [18]. Still, this is something reasonable and involves three different issues.

(1) Yes, I left EEML mailing list.

(2) With regard to edit warring, I thought it was enough to limit myself mostly to 1RR per article per day. That was a serious error of judgment, and Arbcom made it very clear to me that edit warring is totally unacceptable, no matter how frequently one does it. Hence I changed my behavior and was not involved in a single edit warring incident during last six months. But edit warring is only a symptom. The real root of the problem are serious personal conflicts, which is something very much different from debating content disagreements. The only way to avoid the conflicts in this environment is to leave an article (or a disputed part of the article) to your opponent if you can not come to an agreement. That is something I was doing during these six months and will do in the future. This is a serious commitment.

(3) I tried to help by commenting at administrative noticeboards [19] [20], [21], [22], [23][24][25][26](the most recent diffs in reverse chronological order).

The alleged battleground on my part. Unlike some others, I did not file a single official complaint about others to AE, ANI or other similar places for at least a year. Offliner brings here an episode when Colchicum made an AE request about Russavia still stalking my edits. Yes, I get excited when Jehochman, Petri and Russavia started claiming that it was me who actually violated the ban, despite to clarification by Shell. However, Offliner forget that I striked through my comment as soon as realized that it was indeed inappropriate [27], and I did not object to the non-administrative closure of the AE case by Petri Krohn [28]. I regret about commenting anything at all in this case.

Yes, I left a few comments to Vecrumba, Radek and Martintg [29] and [30] (diffs by Offliner). I reminded to Vecrumba about Russian editor who was indefinitely banned, mostly for contributing in irrelevant discussions. I am telling Radek that "winning" is not the goal, and it might be better for him to loose a dispute or two. Is that an evidence of the "battleground" by me?

Response to DonaldDuck

1. "Gaming the system" by moving to other articles and returning back. That's my editing style. I do not like improving articles that are already in a decent condition and prefer moving through a large number of pages to fix most serious problems that can be quickly fixed. As about returning back to the same pages, yes, if this topic ban is lifted, I may return to some of ~1000 articles edited by me in this area and see if they can be improved per NPOV and RS without being engaged in edit warring. If not, I will edit something else.
2. The retirement. Yes, I feel extremely uncomfortable here for a number of reasons, and especially after receiving these sanctions. That's why I ask for amendments.
3. Not being sincere ("What difference does it make..."). Oh, no. I am sincere. I do not want to be a subject of sanctions. Not now, not ever. And I fully realize that any sanctions can be quickly reinstated under the watchful eye of users who edit in this area. Did I do anything on purpose? Yes, I made these comments in "Communist terrorism" article talk page [31][32] [33] to show that I can constructively discuss even the most controversial subjects. But this is just an extreme example. Speaking generally, there is nothing wrong with editing even such articles (if new consensus can be found, that's fine; if not, let's edit something else). Speaking practically, I would certainly avoid any articles in the state of active editorial war [34]. Biophys (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Reply to EdJohnston

Just a few points to clarify the situation.

• This is a review of my editing during last six months, after the topic ban. I had no previous sanctions by Arbcom/AE. I have no interaction ban with Russavia, or at least this is my understanding.
• The problem was not "controversial articles" or "ethnic and territorial disputes". Edit warring had happened in a number of articles on very different subjects, some of which (like Red Banner) are not at all controversial. The problem were my attempts to restore sourced content in a number of articles, no matter what the subject. That is what I addressed in my statement above.
• Yes, I have failed with certain controversial subjects (maybe with 2% of all controversial subjects I edited). Can I handle this better? Please see diffs above when someone reverted me during last 6 months (I repeat them: [35] [36][37],[38],[39]). Each of these cases represents a controversy, and I handled all of them quite well. Of course, the best way to handle a controversy is not to be involved in it at the first place. Hence I simply moved to a different subject as soon as discussion became unproductive.

• I consider EEML case a matter of the past. I unsubscribed and do not have any email or other off-wiki communications with members of the list. Let's put it behind. Yes, I know well all EEML editors and therefore talked with them (diffs by Offliner) and commented about them, just to help them as to any other editor in trouble [40], but especially if I know this editor.

• My discussion with Piotrus ("I feel extremely uncomfortable...") Sure, this is not the issue that led to the topic ban. This is a reason for me to ask for this amendment. I am getting really tired thinking which my edit can be regarded as a topic ban violation. I can not quote any Soviet scientist (like Landau), even on the scientific matters, because that would be a violation of the ban. I can not edit politics of 20th century, because most of that may be related to the Soviet Union or post-Soviet republics. And I stopped editing old Russian history after the AE request by Colchicum about Russavia (the article about Chaadayev). This particular topic ban now creates more problems than helps. That is what I am talking about.

• My talk page ([41]). I am not talking with anyone off-wiki about my experience here. This is for a number of reasons. One of them: I do not want to scare scientists who meet today in Italy to discuss if they want to contribute to wikipedia, among other things [42]. No, I am not attending this conference. In fact, my talk page must be deleted for precisely the same reasons (please consider this an official request).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Petri Krohn

Petri, I do not have conflicts with anyone, you including. Yes, I had them in the past, but I do not have them now. Did I say that I have conflicts anywhere? Did I blame anyone of my own problems? No, I am very much ready to forgive and forget whatever had happened in the past, and I hope all others can do the same. No, It was exactly my point that the conflicts must be avoided at any cost (please see above). Biophys (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Vlad fedorov

Welcome back! Yes, I have a human rights-related bias. No, I have no intention to waste anyone's time. Please see my statement above. I only want to return to normal editing process, which is impossible with an indefinite topic ban. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You tell me: "You always try "to win" at any cost." Yes, perhaps that was a problem in the past. That's why I addressed this problem in my statement. Now I promise to loose any dispute as soon as discussion becomes unproductive to avoid contributing to conflicts. For example, I will leave article Boris Stomakhin to you if we still have any dispute here. If you want to describe an imprisoned journalist as a "convicted criminal ... who call to exterminate other people" (as you say) in his BLP article, then fine, this is none of my business. I thought it was my business prior to these sanctions by Arbcom. Not any more.Biophys (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to The Four Deuces

First book was written by a group of internationally recognized historians and published by the Harvard University Press. What better comprehensive textbook, specifically on the subject of communist repressions in different countries, could you possibly suggest? This is probably the best. Another book, "KGB in Europe", was prepared by a Chair of the History Faculty at Cambridge University. Did you read this book? This is based on a huge number of published sources rather than Mitrokhin's archive. These books are well above the average level of wikipedia sources. How can you claim that books by the best academic experts are "published outside the academic mainstream"?

Reply and questions to arbitrators

@Kirill, I do not understand why I should be held responsible for problematic actions by others. The problems will probably never go away from controversial areas. If I did something wrong during these six months, please tell what it is, and I will try to fix what I can.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, thank you very much for the explanation. Why are you not convinced? If you do not believe my promise not to be engaged in edit warring, then issue me 1RR restriction, as was initially planned. And if I am not engaged in edit warring, on which grounds someone would bring me again to Arbcom? A lot of editors with "patriotic" views edit in this area. Therefore, there is nothing I can do except creating new content on the subjects that do not cause anyone's objections. What's wrong with this? As you know, I always follow WP:RS in this area. Do you mean that the guys will follow all my edits to revert them all, no matter what I edit? If something like this indeed happens, I will simply edit something else (as I said above), rather than be again a subject of your sanctions. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistake twice, whatever my political views might be.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Shell. I made exactly zero reverts that can be interpreted as edit warring during this time. This is a dramatic change in my editing habits. I provided five examples when someone reverted my edits during this time, which did not cause any problems 1,2,3,4,5. In example 1, I left the article and its talk page, because it became a subject of edit warring between multiple parties. In case 2, a discussion was heated, but an editor finally agreed with my argument and himself made changes suggested by me [43]. In cases 3 and 4, we came to an agreement after a brief discussion (3 - another editor suggested that I go ahead and make the changes [44]; 4 - I agreed that another editor is right after looking at the complicated system of relationships between different pages [45]). In case 5 I decided not to make any changes and stop discussion because it fueled an unnecessary conflict and became a subject of AE inquiry filed by Colchicum. What else I suppose to demonstrate?

@SirFozzie. Yes, I understand and share your sentiment. Please tell what should I do to fix the problems, whatever they are. Should I remain in protective custody forever, or it is me who creates danger for others? I can promise not to talk with anyone who edits in this area about anything except improving the content and purely technical questions/requests. Would that resolve the problems? Then fine, I will do just that. In particular, I am going to leave without answer and remove from my talk page comments like this [46]. The only thing I ever wanted was creation of new content. The conflicts may continue to escalate, but I am not going to be involved. I hope you do not mean that I contribute to conflicts by creating new encyclopedic content? Just to clarify, I would be involved in "robust debates" as Ed Johnson said [47] only about improvement of content and only at talk pages of the corresponding articles. Would that be a possible solution of the problem? What else I must do in addition to conflict-free editing?

@Newyorkbrad and Risker. Thank you very much. I have no problem waiting another three months to resubmit this request. Once again, my primary motivation for filing this request was returning to normal editing rather than coming back with vengeance to the conflict area. Biophys (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

You do not want to see me again, as Kirill said. Yes, I do not want this too. Then the simplest and fastest solution would be the following. You remove all editing restrictions, but with the following clause: if I am found guilty by AE administrators of any violation in this area, the indefinite ban is automatically reinstated, without any your involvement. Then, I do not need to make any promises, and you do not need to trust me. If there are any additional recommendations, please tell, and I would be happy to follow. Biophys (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Offliner

I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe Biophys would not return to his old disruptive ways if the sanction is lifted. He has made several promises before (e.g.[48],[49]), but these never caused him to alter his behaviour (see here). Biophys also continued to participate in battleground discussions during his topic ban, defending certain editors [50][51], while attacking others [52][53][54][55][56]. Biophys' battleground mentality is still here, as clearly evidenced by diffs like this and this. Anyway, the sanction says that the topic ban is to be reviewed no sooner than after one year, not now. The ruling was pretty clear here, and modifying it now would make the original sanction look strange, even misleading. Offliner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba and in Response to Offliner

Re: Offliner's reference of an exchange on my talk page here, Offliner's characterization is a complete misrepresentation as I was attempting to work through some conflicts in the topic area in question (and have received positive responses regarding my participation); Biophys' statement was one that I took as asking why I would seek out some area of controversy that is a known battleground (there was a raging Arbcom going on at the time I took interest to the articles in the area of dispute). Observing that there are battlegrounds and offering the observation that an editor might have better places to spend one's time is hardly exhibiting a "battleground mentality." What is a battleground mentality is Offliner always seeming to be the first to show up at these affairs to denounce those who he considers his editorial opposition. I'll spare diffs on his block shopping with regard to myself. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dojarca

I think Biophys is not sincere here. He has a long history of gaming the system, virtuously using the Wikipedia's rules against his opponents. Currently he is involved in a dispute in Communist terrorism trying to re-create this article and push material from a highly biased Black Book of Communism. He cited his topic ban as an obstacle for further discussion about this topic.

Also note that the topic ban imposed on Biophys is very narrow. It does not include Eastern Europe and Communism in general, but only the USSR-related topics. I doubt he is able to contribute constructively in this area judging from previous his contributions.

--Dojarca (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note the Biophys sanction: Biophys is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the arbitration Committee.

So this application should be dismissed based only on the previous decision, because Biophys currently has no right to request the review of the ban.--Dojarca (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DonaldDuck

As far as I remember from my contacts with Biophys, he was very experienced in gaming the system. One of his tactics was moving from his battleground topic area temporalily, only to avoid sanctions, and restart his battle later. He several times declared retirement from Wikipedia during his arbitration cases (recently he asked to delete his userpage to remove traces of this multiple retirements). This recent comment by Biophys: "Besides, what difference does it make if someone follows the rules because he is now a different person or because he does not want to be a subject of sanctions?" gives reason to suspect that Biophys has not really changed his outlook, and only active sanctions keep him from returning to his battleground activity. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Biophys states, "I may have a bias related to human rights issues, no matter if the victims were Russian, German or Korean". Yet in all cases the perpetrators were Communists. He also states, "my edits usually describe mainstream majority views and are referenced to books by the best experts, as in the diffs above". But the sources used include the Mitrokhin Archive, The Black Book of Communism, and The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, all of which are controversial books published outside the academic mainstream (although the Black Book was later republished by the Harvard University Press). A lot of conflict could be avoided if there were tighter restrictions on sources used, as for example in WP:MEDRS. In a Climate Change case, an editor was "prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media...without first clearing the source ...."[57] A prohibition of that nature to all editing on these articles could be helpful. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

As long as the person says he will abide by the rules, and does abide by the rules, there is no reason to iterate accusations that one does not believe him. This applies no matter what the topics are, nor what biases are seen by those who know the "truth" on any topic. And, as always, I find draconian punishmnets to be quite counter-effective. Collect (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• Remedy 1

Statement by Martintg

I was involved in the original Russavia-Biophys case, after Russavia continually brought complaints against myself and others forced me to act. Subsequently Russavia was restricted from interacting with former EEML members and this remedy has been remarkably successful, freeing him from the incentive for stalking for violations and allowing us to contribute in a more collegiate environment. This kind of interaction ban does not prevent people from working together on the same topic because it allows for necessary dispute resolution born out of legitimate content dispute, as interpreted by the admins patrolling AE. But it stops the perpetuation of the battleground as it forces people to either work together or ignore each other by taking away the easy option of block shopping. Therefore I request that this interaction restriction be extended to a couple more people.

When User:Offliner accuses Biophys of "battleground mentality", he doesn't come here with clean hands. As I recall, Offliner was previously involved in the harassment and outing of Biophys that was perpetrated by Russavia. Offliner was recently site banned for six months for engaging in the most extreme battleground behavior of posting a link to a freezepage of material he knew to be soon oversighted. Just recently he launched yet another Arbitration enforcement case against Vecrumba [58] in conjunction with User:Petri Krohn. Petri Krohn has also been site banned by both the Committee and the community. Note that Krohn launched a bogus SPI case, and both of them have involved themselves in continuing their battleground having involved themselves in another recent failed AE request against myself[59].

Just as the Committee has grown tired of seeing the same old names over and over again, I am tired of it too. Very tired. We all want to move on. Except that Offliner and Petri Krohn seem to be stuck in the battleground headspace of 2009. Their ugly tactics are not constructive and have no place in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no attempt on their part at building a collegiate environment let alone engage in productive discussion, unlike other editors who have expressed such a willingness to work together. As univolved BorisG stated in regard to Offliner's latest AE case, this needs to stop.

Therefore I ask the ArbCom to amend Remedy 1 to:

• "Russavia (talk · contribs), Offliner (talk · contribs) and Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

--Martin (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Shell, sorry perhaps I didn't articulate this clearly above: an associated interaction restriction is related to Biophys' original request. With any relaxation of Biophys' topic ban, as they would not like such an outcome, it is highly likely either Offliner or Petri Krohn would agitate some kind of action or pile on into any future dispute involving Biophys, if their recent track record indicated above is anything to go by. Note that User:Dojarca appears to be associated with Petri Krohn, having proxied for him in the past, I would check his edit history, one of his first edits after an eight month absence was to comment here. Offline co-ordination? --Martin (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ed, Biophys has good cause to feel uncomfortable editing something like Pyotr Chaadayev. To any observer this indeed is unambiguously outside the scope of "articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics", how can anyone seriously argue eighteenth Century Russia is a "former Soviet Republic". Yet we have Petri Krohn arguing precisely that, not only here but back in August on WP:AE when he claimed that Biophys broke his topic ban here and in support to this claim Petri Krohn provided this astonishing argument here. This explemifies why an interaction ban is necessary, boards like WP:AE is the battleground, not the article which just serves as the pretext. This needs to end. --Martin (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another statement by Biophys

I personally do not have any problems with debating anything at all with Petri, Offliner and Russavia if needed. I would even suggest lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself, rather than imposing new bans. Biophys (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re to Martintg [60]. Just to clarify, I talked only about my topic ban. If I "feel uncomfortable" editing any article, I will not edit it. That's not a problem. Biophys (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

I'm commenting here as an uninvolved admin. Recently some cases have been filed at WP:AE involving Eastern Europe, so I've had to study the record of some of the EEML editors. Here are my impressions about User:Biophys and on the wisdom of lifting the topic ban imposed on him due to the Russavia-Biophys case in May, 2010.

His multiple retirements are curious. His lack of talk page archiving is a problem for any admin who wants to check out his record. He apparently has a sincere interest in improving Russian articles, but his interests do include a lot of cutting-edge hot-button topics where controversy is inevitable. In many cases he has handled the controversy poorly. (Note the first four blocks in his block log, from early 2007, where he clashed with Vlad Fedorov repeatedly). By joining the EEML mailing list he exhibited bad judgment. Due to the many troubles in Eastern European topics, it would be understandable if Arbcom were to gradually crank up the sanctions in those cases where lighter measures have not stopped the editing problems. The WP:EEML case was closed in December 2009. The submissions in the Russavia-Biophys Arbcom case date from mid-2010 and they don't reflect well on Biophys.

In a recent posting on his talk page BIophys stated "I feel extremely uncomfortable knowing that someone is looking over my shoulder to report me on AE if I quote Landau or Pyotr Chaadaev." He must surely be aware that this is not the type of issue where he got into trouble in the past. He did not get into edit wars for quoting the 18th-century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadaev. Since Chadaev did not live in a country called the Soviet Union, he is not included in the topic ban anyway. If Biophys wants to work on culture or science related articles that connect to the Soviet Union, and may be covered by his ban, let him present the list for Arbcom's review here. I'd also suggest that Arbcom request him to set up talk page archiving, though not mandate it . I would not favor lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Biophys, and suggest that Arbcom limit the present request to matters concerning Biophys. The wider picture would need a separate request. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been negotiating with Biophys at User talk:EdJohnston#Your statement to see if he would agree to a revised ban that would still limit the problems that the Arbs saw previously. Though his good faith is evident, I don't see that he has agreed to anything that would address the problem. I recommend declining this request for amendment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Biophys has agreed to automatic archiving of his talk page, and I have set that up. So I struck out that part of my recommendation above EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Biophys has gone back to routinely removing posts from his talk page, even innocuous ones. So I gather he is still very concerned that people outside the wiki will be following his activities here. Under these conditions, it's hard to recommend his return to editing contentious articles about the Soviet Union. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Biophys

You're right about the interaction ban. Russavia is prohibited from "commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case.." per WP:ARBRB#Remedies but you are not banned from interacting with him, at the present time. This is because only the editors that were sanctioned by name in WP:EEML were banned from interacting with Russavia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn

The way I read the the decision "Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics" would cover anything to do with Russia. Biophys's areas of conflict seem to be communism and the Putin administration.

I would support a narrowing of the topic ban to exclude pre-revolutionary Russia – including her Empire – and other non-political topics. (Note, that in the Soviet Union everything was political.)

An absolute minimal wording for a topic ban for some EE problem editors would be that they should not introduce "any content (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal." As Biophys clearly has a conflict with modern Russia, this wording would not be sufficient. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As a result of Martintg's latest comment I am withdrawing my statement. I cannot see any reason why he had to drag my name into this case earlier and yet again make even more accusations. I am in no way involved with Biophys and have only communicated or commented on him in an earlier WP:AE case.

Under the present circumstances I see little other ways out of this than reopening EEML and permabans for its members.

Martintg, I ask you remove or strike out your comment. If you do that, I will strike out this comment and restore the previous one. As for now I am not even going tho comment on the Pyotr Chaadayev / David Satter issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vlad_fedorov

Biophys, you know very well that your problem is your bias. The hardest bias I ever seen here in Wikipedia. You are not neutral editor. Nothing has really changed since 2007. Your repeated attempts to game the system failed. Just let's return to Stomakhin. So was he really innocent, dissident, prisoner of conscience? You tried to delete repeatedly his paranoid fascist calls to exterminate all Russians, just to see that phrase return to the article again - Boris Stomakhin. You tried to spam the article with undue weight account of so-called human rights defenders, just to support your personal POV. Just compare the current article with your so highly insisted version after you kicked me out of WP with the help of your "friends". Even without me the article returned to what I wrote about him, and even "worse". What was the point of your holy crusade against me, then? Even now, you, most likely, do not understand the point I try to make. You are blind. You just waisted everyone's time here. That is the point. Vlad fedorov (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Biophys Biophys, please do not confuse here anyone about your so called "human rights" bias. I am the winner of international humanitarian law moot court competition organized each year by the International Red Cross Committee - just to let you have some understanding about my "bias" too :-). But I do differentiate, like most of people, between convicted criminals like Boris Stomakhin who call to exterminate other people just because they have some nationality (and Stomakhin failed to sue Russia in ECHR - because he knows he would fail there) and people who really suffered for nothing and who need protection. My problem not was your POV, but the way you pushed your POV in Wikipedia. You always try "to win" at any cost. You were the first who reported me for the violation of 3RR, although you might want to look into the article history to make sure you did it too. Instead of trying to reach an agreement, you suggested me to leave this article, suggestion which you disguised under "you do not edit the articles which were started by me". This is not the way to resolve the disputes. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Biophys. Biophys, your statement demonstrates clearly that you, unfortunately, haven't changed your mind - If you want to describe an imprisoned journalist as an international criminal in his BLP article, then fine, this is none of my business. I thought it was my business prior to these sanctions by Arbcom. Not any more. You just can't free yourself of these disguised accusations of owning the article and appeals that you defend "the light side" against the dark one. You were deleting statements of Stomakhin claiming they were inappropriate for WP, not me. My interest in Stomakhin article was to present clear sourced facts that Stomakhin was imprisoned not by KGB intiative, but by the intiative of old opposition party woman and only second time application was successfull, and to publish his original statements for people to evaluate independently of Biophys or me. This is in sharp contrast to your claims of KGB conspiracy theory, right? You do not respect opinions of other people which are supported by many reliable sources and you still push your agenda in WP. This is your biggest personal problem. When I graduated from Oxford, I understood that I don't need anymore to prove anything to anyone. Unfortunately, although you are older than me, you just never grew to this point. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I'm assuming this can be archived soon? NW (Talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should probably not take any action at this time, but I would be willing to reconsider this matter in three months' time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Same as Brad. Statements if any should focus on this narrow issue only, not the broader topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Disappointed that it came down to the same faces in the same ways. I think that under other circumstances, this would have a broader chance of success, I think the level of conflicts would continue to be escalated if we took action in this request. SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Is it possible to please get some views from those familiar with Biophys's editing who were not involved in any of the previous cases? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• This really should stay focused on the amendment made by Biophys; if there are other issues that need to be addressed, please open a separate request. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • While I don't see anything in the past six months that's incredibly worrisome, I also don't see anything that leaves me feeling that Biophys would be successful returning to this topic area. After two cases where problematic behavior was found, I would like to see clear evidence of a major change in the way Biophys approaches editing in difficult topic areas where he has a strong viewpoint. Shell ^babelfish 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• In light of the ongoing problems in this area, I see no reason to modify the sanction on Biophys at this time. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Biophys: I am not convinced that you would be able to edit in this area without becoming involved in conflicts similar to those for which you were originally sanctioned. I have no desire to see you brought before the Committee yet another time. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Newyorkbrad; I am not prepared to move at this time, but would be willing to reconsider in 3 months. Risker (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Clerk note: The permalink to this request is here. AGK [•] 15:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (April 2011)

Initiated by YMB29 (talk) at 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy #8 - YMB29 topic banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• YMB29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• YMB29 is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. [61]
• End the topic ban.

Statement by YMB29

It has been almost a year and I stayed away from editing. Can the topic ban end now?

About editing outside the topic

I did not edit outside the topic because I only edited on the topic before and I did not know until recently that admins look at that.

If editing outside the topic is so important then why was not this made clear when the case was decided? I understood the ban as a restriction that would be lifted if I don't violate it and stay out of trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

Thanks for your objective reaction. You were also the only arbitrator who understood my situation and suggested a less severe ban. [62] [63]

As for what I would do differently, I guess I won't get into edit warring even if a user does nothing but that. If I again encounter a user who does not want to discuss and compromise, I will keep trying to get an admin or other users to help, even if that will take long and be frustrating.

If you want me to gradually return to editing on the topic, maybe I could for now be limited to a few edits per week and/or no reverts of others? -YMB29 (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin

I guess thank you for providing diffs of me trying to make the wording in articles more neutral and accurate ("reinterpreting" is better than misinterpreting), adding sourced information (don't know where you got that I don't give new sources...), and requesting sources for statements. If you want diffs of me significantly expanding articles here are some examples: [64] [65] (forgot to login but that was me)

If anything problems with you discouraged me from getting more involved in editing Wikipedia and making more of such edits. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Risker

Why are you so concerned? It is not like I did anything terrible. Again, one of the arbitrators did not even think that I deserved such a long ban. [66] I am in this situation because of a conflict with one user who is still topic banned (and who is trying to keep me topic banned now). With others I have always been able to resolve disputes. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Russavia

I am aware of what that user is trying to do but just felt I had to respond to some accusations since the arbitrators might look at that. As for editing the topic you suggested, I think it is too late now for this amendment, if only I knew about editing outside the topic ban requirement before... -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Shell

When I asked you in late February about me having to edit outside the topic you did not give a clear answer and did not answer me about opening this request. [67] So after some time I decided to try making a request. -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Thryduulf

I've never been involved with this case or topic area, but it seems to me that the spirit of the resolution was that YMB29 should stay away from this troublesome topic area for a significant period of time, which he has done. I see what all the arbitrators are saying, but I think Newyorkbrad has got the right attitude here, and YMB29's response to his statement is along the same lines I was thinking. So, as a way forward I would like to propose the following:

• YBM29 is permitted to a maximum of 20 edits per week with no more than 10 edits per week to any one page.
• All of these limits shall apply only to non-talk pages that fall within the scope of the original topic ban
• These limits are to be seen as maximums not an entitlement or target
• YMB29 is encouraged to contribute constructively in one or more topic areas that are clearly unrelated to those covered by the topic ban
• YMB29 works with 2-3 volunteer mentors, approved by YMB29 and the Arbitration Committee, who will assess his contributions across all topics and namespaces
• If and when YMB29's mentors are happy with his contributions they will, in discussion with YMB29, gradually relax the above editing limits, subject to the following
  • The first relaxation shall be no sooner than 1 month after the enactment of this amendment, but this is not an automatic entitlement
  • There shall be a minimum of 2 weeks between each relaxing of editing restrictions, but this is not an automatic entitlement
  • The mentors may introduce tighter restrictions, including talk page restrictions, at any point they feel necessary
  • The mentors may not widen the scope of the topics covered without the consent of the Arbitration Committee
  • Each change in editing restrictions shall have a specified commencement time
  • When considering altering restrictions, the mentors shall take into account the expressed opinions of involved and uninvolved editors but shall not be bound by them unless there is a very clear consensus.
  • The mentors may not remove all restrictions without the consent of the Arbitration Committee
  • All changes to the restrictions shall be logged at an appropriate page or section of this arbitration case (to be specified)
• After a minimum of three months or at any time thereafter YMB29, with the agreement of his mentors, may apply to the Arbitration Committee for a complete release from the restrictions. Any rejected request may set a minimum time before another application will be considered.
• If YMB29 exceeds any of the limits applicable at the time the provisions of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Enforcement shall apply
• If YMB29 stops cooperating with his mentors they may request the Arbitration Committee reimpose the original complete topic ban.
• If at any time YBM29 and his mentors agree that this agreement is not working, they may jointly request a change in moderators and/or another amendment.
• If after one year this agreement is still in force and YMB29 has not been completely released from editing restrictions, the Arbitration Committee shall review whether it should continue or be replaced with something else.

I don't expect this to be perfect, so I anticipate changes (e.g. not everything may be necessary, and/or I may have missed something). The essence is that YMB29 agrees to an editing restrictions and to work with mentors to gradually ease the restrictions.

I have deliberately not mentioned a narrowing of the topic ban (e.g. if YMB29 is seen to be doing fine on some aspects of the topic but not others) as I don't know whether this should be within the powers of the moderators or should only be done by application to the arbitration committee.

I unfortunately do not have the time to volunteer to be one of the mentors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

Yes, the purpose of indefinite sanctions issued in many recent cases was to make sure that editors can improve. This is different from issuing a ban for a fixed period of time. Nevertheless, I believe that any editor with a good record of content contributions must be given second chance, as I said about another participant of this case [68]. I would encourage YMB29 to provide five to ten best diffs showing how he creates or significantly expands any articles during last three years (I could not find anything). That would be an important argument in his favor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since he is not responding, I can simply provide all most recent contributions by YMB29 that were not edit warring, requests to sanction other editors, or minor edits: [69],[70], [71], [72] [73]. Note that he never gives any new sources, but only "re-interprets" sources already in the articles. That is what he did in other articles as well. To put it in a certain perspective, I must tell that Vlad_fedorov ( another participant of this case) significantly expanded at least four pages several years ago. For example, this text was a good faith contribution by Vlad, and I only moved it from another page. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29. Thank you for providing two your best diffs. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Russavia. I commented as the only person who closely interacted with YMB29 in the past. All others (User:Isarig, User:Kostan1, User:Altenmann and User:Boris Novikov) are currently inactive. I neither support nor object this request. I only suggested to look at his editing record, which I thought was a perfectly legitimate suggestion. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Commenting on the policy debate. This is an important debate because such sanctions were given in many recent cases including "Climate change". I think it was a perfectly legitimate idea to follow real life justice model: giving certain time to the violators, but allowing them to return earlier if they show good behavior. At the same time, I do believe that your recent decisions include one problematic approach. Here it is: giving an indefinite time to first-time violators who made a significant contribution to the project based on their editing record (I am talking about many recent cases; "first-time" means they did not receive previously any official sanctions by Arbcom). That is something you might wish to reconsider. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

YMB29, may I make a suggestion. The fact that an editor has chosen to covertly attack your presence on WP right here at this request should be ignored by yourself. The whole point of the attack being made as it was is to try and provoke you into a response which you should not be making.

As it is, your request will likely be approved (as it is as this point in time) perhaps with a 1RR restriction for a year. This is something which if implemented on yourself should also be placed on other editors when they come to have their requests looked at.

Having said that, why don't you use this opportunity, right now to go and expand some articles on Russia pre-1917? Your topic ban never stopped you from editing pre-1917 Russian articles, did you know that? Why not use this opportunity to show that you can do what some arbs are doubting you are capable of? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

This is a question about enforcement of Motions 1 and 1.1 at AE. The admins at AE would need guidance on how to handle any possible future complaints. The decision that YMB29 is requesting an amendment to is WP:ARBRB, which does not provide any discretionary sanctions. So if YMB29 does not follow the expected standards after the lifting of his topic ban, it is not clear what to do. Motions 1 and 1.1 defer to 'related decisions' for enforcement. Can we assume that the related decisions would be WP:DIGWUREN? It is not at first sight obvious that WP:DIGWUREN#Locus of dispute covers the entire Soviet Union, which is what YMB29 was specifically banned from under WP:ARBRB. This is not necessarily a problem if the Committee thinks that DIGWUREN is sufficient to handle anything likely to go wrong in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Oh what the hell, give him a chance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's been enough witch hunting and bad blood. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Without seeing editing outside the topic to give us a baseline to have trust that previous editing issues would not reoccur, I think it's a rather difficult path to have to be trod here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Just noting that Shell advised you in February that it would be "difficult to determine if you've resolved the problems that led to the topic ban" without edits outside the topic area. –xeno^talk 20:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• I guess my instinctive reaction to the request isn't quite as negative as my colleagues'. If an editor had been totally banned from the project altogether in one of our decisions, he would have been allowed back in a year, so it's hard to say that an editor who received a lesser sanction than that shouldn't be allowed another chance to contribute in what is obviously his primary area of interest. That being said, it is certainly more difficult for us to conclude that the problems with the requester's prior editing will not recur if he's allowed back, so I would invite more input from the requester about what he would do differently this time around, and perhaps suggestions about restrictions that could be imposed to allow a more gradual return to editing instead of lifting the topic-ban altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless something new comes to light, I will propose a motion in the next couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have proposed motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to allow this request, given that 6 months was the minimum, and now almost a year has passed. Given the previous concerns included edit warring, I think we should stipulate a 1RR/day restriction for 12 months. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• I share the earliest respondents' concerns, but I support Phil's middle ground of 1RR for 12 months in lieu of the existing topic ban, along with a quick return to the topic ban if civility or non-edit warring problems resurface. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• While I can understand the positions of some of my colleagues about returns to editing, the fact that you have made no attempt at all to participate in the project for the past year does not bode particularly well for your ability to return to editing in this contentious topic area. I am willing to consider a 1-RR restriction, or even an editing throttle; however, I'm not really persuaded that your editing philosophy has changed over the past year, and I am concerned that you will find yourself indefinitely topic-banned fairly quickly. Risker (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Per three previous - 1RR caveat for 12 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Per above, 1RR/12 months.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• While the lack of outside-scope edits is a bit bothersome, I think the 1RR restriction proposed above serves as a good measure to pair with lifting the ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Motions

Motion 1

Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of six months. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

Since there are 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Proposed, per discussion above. I think that six months is an adequate duration for the 1RR limitation, given the availability of discretionary sanctions governing this topic-area if necessary, both before and after the six months expire. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Per discussion above. PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
4. This seems reasonable. I do not understand any rationale that would make all such topic bans permanent; a conditional return seems preferable, and six months is more than enough time. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Cannot support, YMB29 has not shown that he can edit in a collegial manner that would give me confidence that he would edit within Wikipedia's norms and procedures. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Provisional oppose. I'm reluctant to start a new motion on this with so few voting so far, but if this were a 1RR/12 months, I'd happily support. Perhaps NYB would consider this as a copy-edit?

   I cannot accept this as a copyedit because I think the terms of my motion are fair, per my comments above; however, I am proposing 1.1 as an alternate to expedite deciding this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

3. The whole point of moving from topic bans of arbitrary length to those that require evidence of changed behavior was to remove the guesswork and keep from trying to decide who was "worse"; since we have no information to go on, I'm not comfortable going back to guessing. It's also telling that despite talking with me about this in late February, YMB29 made no effort to resolve this concern, or in fact, edit at all - inability to respond to and act on feedback does not bode well for heavily disputed areas where an editor has already shown issues. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Per Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Lacking detailed background in the case, and really not having time to get up to speed, I'm going to defer to the arbs who are familiar with the matter. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2. As per Jclemens, I don't have the background knowledge of this one to make a judgement. If any motion reaches the point at which one vote will be decisive, I'll make the effort to fit in the time to understand the background here, but otherwise this is better decided by those people familiar with the original incident. – iridescent 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion rejected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Clerk note) Motion not implemented. AGK [•] 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion 1.1

Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternative per above. For me, second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
2. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
3. My concern here is that this editor is in effect a single purpose account, focussed almost exclusively on the area of conflict, and with a history of disruption. I would not support such an editor returning unhindered purely on the basis of time served but in this instance the restrictions are probably tight enough should problems develop.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Substantially, per Roger Davies. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Equal to #1. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per rationale above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Same problem. Shell ^babelfish 08:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per my abstention in 1. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2. If he manages to go a year without being removed from the topic area again, then he is probably good to go; however, I remain concerned that an editor who shows no interest in any other area of the project, and has demonstrated sanctionable behaviour in the past, gives us little to go on when it comes to longterm predictability of good behaviour. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Per my comments above. – iridescent 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion approved. (With three abstentions, the majority is 6.) Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Clerk note) Motion implemented. AGK [•] 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion 2

An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Since there are 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. YMB29 has suggested above that he was not aware that the Committee would take his editing in other topic-areas into account in deciding whether to terminate his topic-ban in his core area of interest. In several recent decisions, we have expressly stated this in connection with topic-bans we have imposed on other editors, and I think it would be worthwhile to make it a general policy going forward. The words "among other factors" are important because, while a good editing record in other areas is helpful when we evaluate a request for amendment, I do not wish to suggest that it an inflexible or mandatory requirement (as our action in this case shows). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Shell made him aware in February, (which was not followed up on) and I do think it should be mandatory that they show that they can edit in a collegial fashion before a topic ban is removed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes, with a copy-edit (adding "or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise") as indicated. Please revert if you don't agree and I'll set it up as an alternative motion,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   No objection to the copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk)

7. I greatly prefer this option to guessing whether or not a problem is resolved. We decide cases based on evidence and require evidence for AE sanctions and most case amendments; I can't see any logical reason that removing sanctions should be a protected class of amendment exempt from showing evidence. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Support, with the copyedits. — Coren ^(talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per my abstention above. The fact that this case is here in the first place implies that it's somehow atypical, so a motion regarding standard custom & practice is potentially misleading, but again I defer to those with knowledge of the background to this particular case. – iridescent 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion approved. Clerk to archive and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Clerk note) Motion implemented. AGK [•] 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (June 2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Hodja Nasreddin (talk) at 14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 3
• Remedy 4

Amendment 1

• Biophys topic_banned
• I ask to review topic ban after one year, as suggested in the original decision by the Committee

Statement by Biophys

I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption and ask to lift this topic ban after one year. During this year I followed the rules and was not involved in a single edit warring incident. I was never reported to noticeboards and received no blocks and no warnings, even though I occasionally commented at AE and debated with people who edit in conflict areas (AA, RI and IP). I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area.

During this time I stayed out of trouble by following several rules:

1. Never revert other editors back if they reverted your edits. Start talking to clarify the situation if it is not already clear. Go edit other articles if consensus cannot be found after brief discussion. More advanced stages of dispute resolution (such as RfC) should never be used because they only increase tensions.
2. Do not edit any articles in a state of active editorial dispute between multiple parties. This is waste of time, although occasionally commenting at talk page or making a single compromise edit may be acceptable.
3. Never report other users at AE/ANI. If others started something, try to comment in a reasonable and neutral fashion. Do not comment about users with whom you have a current content dispute.
4. Do not be too active in any "difficult area". Leave the area at the first sign of trouble.

• I will have no problem with editing in the Russia/SU area based on these principles, and especially #1 ("no editorial conflicts"). This area is a desert, with many neglected or non-existing articles and few active contributors. Yes, there are several flash points, like "communism-terrorism", Baltic republics or "mass killings under communist regimes", but I would be an idiot to start editing them (#2). Let me emphasize: I have absolutely no hard feelings with regard to anyone who edits in this area including participants of this case. I also feel very comfortable talking with anyone who wants to discuss content matters or avoiding anyone who does not.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

Amendment 2

• Biophys restricted
• I ask do not enact this additional preemptive restriction for the second year.

Statement by Biophys

During this year I did not make a single revert that could be interpreted as edit warring. If I start edit warring again, someone will bring me to AE next day. This is obvious. I am asking about this amendment because I want to put the problems behind, return to normal editorial process and be again an editor in good standing. I do not care about DYKs, barnstars and other signs of recognition. But it is extremely important for me to have the same rights as every newbie. It hurts to be declared a permanent policy violator. I can not be very active in this project if I am no longer welcome. That's why I was not really active during last six months since the rejection of my previous request for amendment. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

response to Nanobear

I would like to remind that subject of this discussion is only review of my behavior during last year. Whatever had happened before (some diffs are dated 2007) belongs to drop the stick. But none of my recent comments violate any policy. The diffs to examine my alleged "mindset" are taken out of context and therefore do not support your assertions, but my "mindset" is not really relevant, as long as I follow all rules, and no one officially complained about my comments during this year, including AE administrators.

My behavior is impossible to predict? Oh no, I am very much predictable when it comes to sanctions or even recommendations by Arbcom. In fact, I followed exactly three previous recommendations (even if they did not mention my name or were not included in final decision): not talking about certain subjects, not communicating with Commodore Sloat and unsubscribing immediately from EEML, and I respected this sanction by editing in allowed ares and not being involved in any edit warring. If "Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways", he will be topic-banned at AE next day, and it will be no one to blame except Biophys himself. That was my first official sanction by Arbcom, and I am not going to be sanctioned again. Believe me. Yes, I certainly admit making a lot of mistakes in the past. But can we just WP:FORGIVE and drop the stick please, just as I am trying to do?

response to DonaldDuck

Yes, I probably should not be editing these articles, but two first diffs are minor Geography/Ethnography edits, 3rd diff is about a British historian (this diff includes nothing about Russia), and 4th diff is about work by a former Russian scientist in US (the edit includes nothing about Russia).

response to Paul Siebert.

Thank you for your last words. There is no such thing as EE Mailing List for almost two years, or at least I know nothing about it. I do not have off-wiki communications with any former members of the list. I have no interest in struggling or creating alliances with people previously involved in EE disputes. Yes, I would be involved in this subject area. Yes, I agree with you that constant references to the EEML are hardly polite and civil. But then why constantly make these references?

Statement by Nanobear

Before his topic ban, Biophys was one of the most biased and disruptive editors I have ever seen. Has he reformed? Difficult to know, although there are worrying indications that Biophys is planning to revert to his old ways after the ban is lifted.

What information do we have to judge this appeal?

Previous promises. We know that Biophys has made several promises before[74][75], but has always broken his promise and resumed his disruptive activities after the threat of sanctions has dissipated.[76][77] During the WP:EEML case, the wise ArbCom gave Biophys the benefit of doubt (although Biophys was a core member of the EEML and heavily participated in the group's campaigns.[78]) Soon after this decision, Biophys once again returned to massive disruption, quickly performing over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.[79]

Point-of-view. There are clear indications that Biophys still has his old strong POV. [80] (yes, this is Biophys' "dissident" - a notorious banned edit warrior and sockpuppeteer.) We also know that Biophys' still advocates for the community banned HanzoHattori [81] (HanzoHattori is "best WP editor" according to Biophys[82]) after proxying for him in early 2010. [83][84]

Contributions outside his POV area. We know that Biophys is able to edit positively and constructively in non-Russian topic areas, where doesn't have a strong POV - as he has admirably done during his topic ban.

Should this appeal be granted or declined? I have no recommendation. My only wish is that ArbCom take full responsibility for their decisions and stop looking for scapegoats when things go wrong. In the Russavia-Biophys case, three editors were banned by ArbCom because they reverted Biophys' disruptive edits. One of them, User:Ellol, has now even left the project, partly because of the topic ban prevented him from participating in the only topic area that interested him, and partly due to Biophys' constant harassment of him.[85] The possibility of Biophys taking yet more editors down with him if released from jail is worrying indeed.

If this appeal is granted, and Biophys - once again - returns to his old disruptive ways, it is the ArbCom we have to blame. And if he doesn't - then we have the ArbCom to thank. Nanobear (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Three further points:

• 1. It's interesting that Biophys is appealing that the 1RR restriction which was supposed to come after the topic ban, is not enacted (please note the slightly misleading wording in his appeal). No one needs to edit war, so why is he asking for the ability? It is not far-fetched to assume this means Biophys plans to return to edit warring once again as he has done previously.
• 2. It's irresponsible of the ArbCom to release Biophys from his topic ban and then rely on other people to report him if the resumes his disruption. History has shown that everyone who reports an EEML member to a noticeboard is immediately attacked in the harshest possible way - regardless of the whether the report has merit or not. Piotrus' comment on this page is a good example: it displays all the hallmarks of these personal attacks. I'd like to encourage the ArbCom to study it thoroughly and also look at previous admin board and AE reports to see what kind of problem we're dealing with here.
• 3. Biophys claims that he stopped tag-teaming but in reality this is not the case. Look at his courting of User:Mbz1: Mbz1 has had no connection to the EE topic area to the users in it. Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba [86] (related to this [87]) and was continued by Biophys.[88][89][90] Biophys' teaming with Mbz1 has got to the point that third-party editors are complaining about it. [91]. After the previous amendment request Biophys tag-teamed at three arbitration enforcement requests: [92][93][94][95][96]. Nanobear (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

[97] -> Pot calling the kettle black. Seriously, such continued bad faith/harassment (negative comments on one's "opponents") instead of trying to mend fences is what makes such wiki conflicts persist. If editors leave the project, it is because they are constantly thrown mud at (I've written more on that here).

This seems quite simple to me. As Biophys sais himself, if he errs again, he will be punished, and likely, with a harsher sanction. That sounds reasonable, and I would not be commenting on that, other than that while everybody deserves a chance, they also deserve not to be constantly bathed in mud and feathers. Credit where due, WP:AE application of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen in the past year or so was refreshing. It would be nice if good faith and civility were to be more actively enforced on other arbitration pages, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret that Nanobear in particular has seen this as an opportunity to relitigate and escalate past conflict and accusations of conspiracies and hope that is seen for the unconstructive and disruptive behavior it is and is dealt with appropriately.

Hodja Nasreddin has been scrupulous in their Wiki-related behavior from all I have seen over the past year. Additionally, he has not contacted me in any way off-Wiki or on-Wiki to solicit any sort of behavior on my part other than their occasional friendly on-Wiki advice I should get a life (that is, step away). Any uninvolved review of Hodja Nasreddin's activities will confirm that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, Nanobear has not been active at all editing in the area of contention. His comments here should not be taken as polarization in any topic area (which ergo requires protection from Hodja Nasreddin). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 07:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, I thank you for your willingness to AGF at the outset of your statement. I regret that you saw fit to add speculation clouding the issue at hand. I do not lobby to restrict your editing on a content base inclusive of edits by other editors with whom I believe you share a similar editorial POV. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement mbz1

I am saddened by user:Nanobear comments. All differences presented in that user comments are more than a year old, all of them are referring to the edits made by Biophys before they were sanctioned.

I believe responding a complex question, if Biophys's topic ban should be lifted, is as easy as responding a few simple questions:

1. Does Biophys have the right to appeal their ban now? The answer to this question is: "Yes"
2. Has Biophys admitted that the sanctions were fair? Yes, they have. The editor writes in this very request "I would like to apologize for contributing to disruption.
3. Has Biophys demonstrated their ability to contribute constructively to the other areas of the project during their topic ban? The answer to this question, is :"Yes".
4. Has Biophys violated his topic ban ever since they were banned? According to the editor block log, the answer to this question is: "No".
5. Is Biophys promising to behave in a feature? Yes, they do "I promise to follow all the rules in the future, work collaboratively, and do not jeopardize work of other editors who contribute positively in the area."

According to all of above I believe Biophys's topic ban should be lifted. If the members of ArbCom have some doubts (and I see no reasons for such doubts) the editing restrictions could be lifted gradually. For example an editor is allowed to make contributions to the articles discussion pages for 2-3 weeks, then the topic ban is lifted completely, then in a month 1RR is lifted.

Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

response to Nanobear

I was so astonished by your unbelievable assumption of bad faith that at first I even did not know, if I should cry or laugh over it. In the end I decided to laugh. You allege: "Courting him was started in 2010 by Vecrumba secretly [98] (related to this [99])" "Secretly" you say? I guess it was sooo "secretly" that I have never been able to figure out (up to now that is) what that message left on my Wikimedia Commons talk page was about, and who wrote it. So, thanks, for helping me out :-)Now I know that it was Biophys who under an undercover name of "Vecrumba" tried to court me :-)

To members of ArbCom.

I of course know Biophys, but it is not why I am here. I am here because I am a strong believer in giving a second chance to editors. Biophys has been topic banned long enough. At this point declining an appeal only because the editor caused disruptions more than a year ago seems rather as a punishment that topic bans are not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by DonaldDuck

Over the past year, there were some minor topic ban violations by Hodja Nasreddin: 1, 2, 3 4.

Hodja Nasreddin edited constructively in the other areas of the project. But will he behave, if he returns to his old topic area? I have some doubts. I believe, his revert restriction should not be lifted immediately after lifting of his topic ban. It should run for 1 year consecutively with the topic ban, as in original Arbitration Committee decision. --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Paul Siebert

I have had some experience of interaction with many EEML (currently ex-EEML) members, and I have no ground to believe that Hodja/Biophys hasn't learnt due lessons from this case. I do not see any reason for not lifting the sanctions; moreover, I even do not see the need in 1RR/week restriction for Biophys. However, I think that one restriction should probably be considered instead, namely, the prohibition to pretend to be an independent editor when Hodja is acting in concert with other ex-EEML members. Concretely, during last year I found that some ex-EEML members are still acting in concert in some WP articles. Although their actions are quite civil, and they do not go beyond the limits set by the WP policy, we must remember that all of them have strong personal ties, and are probably watchlisting the edits made by other members. In other words, despite the absence of off-Wiki coordination, the team still exist, and the members are still able to help each others even without resorting to on or off-Wiki canvassing. In connection to that, I, as well as some other editors, encountered a problem: when two or more ex-EEML members are participating in, e.g. RfC, I cannot openly declare that the opinions they express are not quite independent, because constant references to the EEML are hardly polite and civil (moreover, since some of them have changed their usernames, to refer to their EEML past can be considered as outing). However, to ignore the fact that their voices are not totally independent is also incorrect, because the failure to take into account this fact may affect the results of the consensus decision. In my opinion, this issue can be resolved if Hodja will be prohibited to participate in RfC where other ex-EEML members already expressed their opinion, unless he is coming up with some principally new viewpoint (in other words, the posts like "Support X" are not allowed, but the posts where a new viewpoint, which contains no repetition of the ideas expressed by other EEML member, or which is based on some new reliable source presented by Biophys, are allowed). Similarly, Biophys should be prohibited to continue a series of reverts initiated by other ex-EEML members if the total length of the chain of these reverts exceeds three. In my opinion, imposing these restrictions would allow us to lift all other sanctions imposed on Biophys previously, and that would allow him to work freely and productively in all areas of his interest.
In addition, in my opinion, the idea that an editor cannot continue a series of reverts started by others when the length of the series exceeds 3 reverts is universal, and I even suggested to add that to policy here. Interestingly, this idea has been supported by one ex-EEML member (Piotrus| talk ), which is a convincing demonstration of Piotrus' good faith, but it has been opposed by two other ex-members of this currently non-existing list. One of those two users was Hodja, and that fact may serve as an indirect evidence that he hasn't completely ruled out a possibility of his participation in future chains of reverts started by his ex-colleagues. By applying the above described restrictions, we would protect him from a temptation to do that (and from being sanctioned for that), and simultaneously will allow to edit relatively freely.
In summary, I support lifting of all sanctions imposed on Hodja previously, however, during his future WP activity he should remember that he cannot be considered as an uninvolved editor when he is acting in concert with other ex-EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Responses to arbitrators

@SirFozzie. If you mean me, then no, I do not have ill-will. I only want to be again an editor in good standing and peacefully contribute in this area. I worked hard towards this goal, and I hope to deserve it. If you mean others, let everyone be responsible for his own actions. In fact, my help is needed in this area. There were several Russian-speaking editors who came for help to my talk page, even during my topic ban [100]. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens. Yes, I know the dangers and who is doing what in this area. Hence I must be very careful. I do not enjoy conflicts and therefore may not be very active in this area, especially if you enact 1RR restriction (almost any two non-consecutive edits in the same article during a week may be interpreted as edit warring and collected to bring them to AE). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg. The most complicated dispute was certainly that one. It was related to this template created by me and significantly improved by Boghog and a couple of other templates. The dispute involved several parties and even outside organizations, although I would rather not discuss details. The matter was beautifully resolved when one of outside labs has improved their software to better fit the needs of wikipedia and other their users [101] (whole discussion). The dispute was about linking wikipedia templates to different external biological databases (PDB and PDBsum). As an outcome of the discussion and the hard work by outside developers, both databases made changes to allow easily runnable queries from wikipedia templates. Now the template links to all three major resources in this area: PDB, PDBe and PDBsum, and there is a much better view of results in the source databases, especially PDBsum. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are looking for. For example here someone reverted my edits. We talked and came to an agreement after discussion. There are other cases like that. The entire point of my strategy (see above) is to avoid creating difficult situations and do not contribute to development of difficult situations. This requires leaving the disputes as soon as discussion becomes unproductive and other parties start edit wars. It goes like that. I made a compromise edit [102] and corrected wrong quotation [103]. Someone is working towards a compromise version [104]? That's fine. I work together with you [105]. And I explain my edits at article talk page [106]. But someone did not listen and reverted to a month old version with misleading edit summary [107] (there was an extensive discussion and no serious objections to my edits)? Good bye. I am not going edit this article. I have had enough. P.S. Obviously, "the most difficult editing situation" is the one where you can do nothing. Yes, that's the one. But it is important to know your limits. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@PhilKnight. I think the 1RR restriction is completely unnecessary based on my behavior during this year (not a single episode of edit warring). Besides, two-year sanctions are questionable. One year is a lot of time. If someone does not get a message during one year, he must be indefinitely banned. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. Yes, I certainly would like to contribute in the area of my current topic ban, as should be clear from my statements above. Thank you and all others for willingness to lift the topic ban and possibly reconsider 1RR restriction at an earlier point. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Xeno. If this matter has been resolved, could we please decide something, for example, along the lines you suggested? Biophys (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As stated above, I assume Bio realizes that stepping out of line will probably be met with a quick hammer and harsher sanctions. I'm open to lifting the ban provided that everyone knows going in what will result if further disruption occurs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds. A) Yes, I agree with David F above me. However, I have concerns that this area is so polarized by past issues that my general thought is that any return to the area is fraught with drama and ill-will, and am wondering if it would be better to leave it in place. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• SirFozzie makes a good point, but fundamentally we must presume that editors are adults who are capable of exercising appropriate self-control. If Biophys wants the fence taken down so he can ride his pogo stick into the minefield... he appears to have adequately met the parameters needed to do that. Wise or not, I don't see any reason we should either stand in his way, nor give him another chance if he blows this attempt to return to the topic area. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hodja Nasreddin, could you provide a brief outline of the most difficult editing situation that you found yourself in during the last 12 months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That dispute was resolved by external changes. Could you describe a content dispute you were involved in where compromise was needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks; that is what I was looking for. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm ok with lifting the topic ban, however I'd prefer to enact the 1RR/week restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Point of order, but it's already enacted. –xeno^talk 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• My inclination at this time is to lift the topic-ban, with a proviso that if problems recur, it can be reimposed at Arbitration enforcement. As for the 1RR restriction, see my comments on the proposed decision at the time it was voted on; my current inclination is to leave the restriction in place at this time, but allow another amendment request to revisit this issue after three months of reasonably collegial editing in the Eastern European topic area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Question to Hodja Nasreddin: I am considering making a motion, but I also see the wikibreak template on your userpage. I assume you would like to keep doing some editing and want us to go ahead with this request, but please confirm that. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm always favorable, in principle, for a good faith return after a sanction. I will support a motion to lift it provided it is clear that the community (and, I expect, the committee) would have little patience for a return to problematic behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• As with the others above, I am willing to support the expiration of the topic ban, but think that the 1RR restriction should remain in place for the time being. I would be willing to revisit the 1RR restriction in six months and would be prepared to lift it at that time provided there is sufficient evidence of problem-free editing in the topic area. –xeno^talk 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As an FYI, the SPI request linked by Nanobear has been closed with no action [108]. Nanobear, please do not frame unproven suspicions as accomplished fact. –xeno^talk 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Support:

1. With a reminder that this activates remedy 4 of that same case ("1 revert per week per article in the topic area"), which remains in force. We can then revisit that restriction in a few months. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Per Coren. I hope that I won't regret this vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Per Coren and Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Mailer Diablo 13:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
11.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

 Clerk note: Motion implemented. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys (July 2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted
2. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [109]

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted and Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
• Amend restrictions to allow interaction between Russavia and Miacek

Statement by Russavia

Both restrictions prevent two-way unnecessarily interacting between myself and Miacek, however, for the betterment of the project, it is necessary that the two of us be able to interact and collaborate onwiki.

Some interactions between Miacek and myself include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I also commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue on the Donavia article after he saw my note on my talk page.

All interactions between the two of us have been cordial, collaborative and consentual, therefore, it makes no sense to have bureaucratic restrictions in place which prevents two editors from interacting for the betterment of the project.

I am asking the Committee to amend the two restrictions to specifically allow interaction between myself and Miacek. And I foresee no reason why the Committee would not agree to this amendment request, as it serves as an example of what editorial interactions in EE topics should be like.

Statement by Miacek

Russavia has informed me of the amendment request and I do support this request. As Russavia has summed up above, the relations between two of us are constructive and there's no need for the clauses. In fact, only yesterday did I realize that it's still forbidden for me to interact with Russavia - my topic ban was lifted in the summer of last year, but the other clauses remain in force. All things considered, I see no reason for restricting our interaction anymore and ask for the clause to be lifted. In fact, I actually look forward to a point in the future when the clause could also be lifted viz-a-viz other ex-EEML members. Miacek 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

I support this request because Russavia and Miacek had no conflicts at the first place. They have always had good relations and share similar political views.

The bans between Russavia and other former EEML members can also be lifted if two conditions are met: (a) the sides did not violate their bans (this is standard), and (b) they demonstrated an ability to constructively edit the same article(s) (not prohibited per WP:IBAN), and especially such article(s) where they had problems in the past. Biophys (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with statement by AGK below. Biophys (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I see no valid reason to keep this restriction in place. - BorisG (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I am an administrator who recently enforced the EEML interaction ban, and who is active in arbitration enforcement, so perhaps my view (for whatever it's worth) would be useful. In my experience, there has not been any problem with contact between Russavia and Miacek, and in this case alone I would be happy to support an exemption being made to the general interaction ban. Having briefly checked the overlapping contribution history of the two users, I see no reason not to go with my general and initial impression. As an aside, in the event that an amendment precipitates similar requests from other editors who are affected by the interaction ban, I would caution against making similar exemptions without fully examining the history of the two users; off-hand, I can think of several editors between whom contact is disruptive to some degree. AGK [•] 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Allowing a few days for any further statements, but tentatively support this request, based on the agreement of both parties that they feel able at this point to interact civilly and collegially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• This seems to be a reasonable request. As the two interaction bans were fairly widely-construed, I see no reason not to narrow them as requested. –xeno^talk 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Have no problem with narrowing as requested SirFozzie (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see any problem with this request. Shell ^babelfish 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Seems appropriate. I know firsthand that wiki-relations can thaw and one can work hand-in-hand with former "sworn enemies" (if such truly exist...) Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Motion proposed below. –xeno^talk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

Support

1. Proposed. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as needed. –xeno^talk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
3. In the interests of collaborative editing, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
10. PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

 Clerk note: Motion implemented. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Tammsalu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• AGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified

Statement by Tammsalu

I am not happy with the way the AGK has handled the above mentioned AE case, where I reported Russavia for breaching his interaction ban, and seek clarification of some issues that have arisen in wake of this.

Background

I was minding my own business editing Occupation of the Baltic states, where I had corrected some obviously POVed piece of unsorted text that made a misleading assertion [110]. Unfortunately before I could add the appropriate reference to support the change, Russavia reverted the text in the very next edit[111]. Because the revert is not permitted per WP:IBAN, and Russavia is subject to an interaction ban, I asked Administrators to take action in an appropriate forum being WP:AE, as permitted by Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. Russavia was subsequently blocked for 48 hours and AGK asked for input from other Administrators if any further action should be taken[112].

However no other Administrator had made any comment despite AGK's request for input while the case remained open during the week, thus most people would construe that no further action was necessary. In fact the case remained open for such a long time that Russavia was able to comment further after his block expired[113], seeking a retaliatory block. AGK duly complies and blocks me, claiming the filing an AE report about Russavia's violation was a breach of my own interaction ban[114].

When I and others subsequently point out that WP:IBAN explicitly permits the reporting of the other party in mutual interaction bans, AGK agrees that my filing of an AE report was not a violation of my interaction ban[115], but then claims this edit[116], made six days after Russavia's ban breaching revert was a violation of my interaction ban.

However it is a general principle that edits made in defiance of a ban should be reverted, Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting discusses this. As Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement states, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns, in this case:

• Maximizing the quality of the encyclopaedia and;
• Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban.

It would just simply be untenable that a breaching edit, such as revert or even a comment on a user talk page cannot ever be undone, not in one week, one month or ever. It would lead to all sorts of kamikaze sanction breaking edits if there was some profit to be derived from that.

I am a long standing editor of Occupation of the Baltic states with 132 edits since March 2007 compared with Russavia's 5 edits since May 2009[117]. My edit of the 17th of June[118], coming six days after Russavia's original breaching edit[119], was not a blind revert but was made in the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, removing the ban breaching edit and adding the two references I was was going to add before the disruption.

An additional issue is that I asked AGK to amend the result of the AE case to reflect his new reason for the block[120], he has not done so.

Points for clarification

Can the Committee clarify whether:

• WP:IBAN permits reporting the other party for breaching a mutual interaction ban, WP:AE being the appropriate forum for such requests for Admin assistance
• In the case that an Administrator has determined that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting

Thanks for your time. --Martin (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston

EdJohnston claims there is no wording in WP:BAN that permits reverting of ban breaching edits, yet this clearly states:

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

Of course regular reverts are prohibited by WP:IBAN, but what AGK and EdJohnston are saying is that, for example, if someone should make an edit in defiance of their IBAN by leaving a comment on my talk page, and I would not be allowed to remove that ban breaching edit from my talk page after the matter has been reported and the other party blocked. In other words, AGK and EdJohston are saying that a long standing editor of an article (132 edits since 2007) can never edit that particular section of an article ever again because the other party (5 edits since 2009) has defied their IBAN by disruptively editing that section, even though the matter has been appropriately reported and the other party blocked for defying their IBAN. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to AGK

AGK raises the issue of "unclean hands", however my revert came six days after I reported Russavia's edit and after it was determined that edit was made in defiance of Russavia's IBAN, so AGK's claim that I came to AE with "unclean hands" is some what misleading because my AE request significantly pre-dated the supposed "unclean" edit. --Martin (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeking your opinion, which has been proven to be wrong in the past, (you confirmed that you had always intended to block me[121], but apparently lacking any evidence you request input from other admins[122], and when that did not materialise, you make up a justification that is contrary to policy[123]; I note that you had closed the AE report[124] without annotating it to indicate your original decision was completely flawed, resulting in a misleading record being archived), but clarification of two issues by the Committee. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, do you understand the meaning of the term "clarification" and how that meaning contrasts with term "action"? Given that you have not amended the original reason (hadn't you read WP:IBAN before coming up with that rationale?) for your block[125] when closing the case[126] that has been subsequently archived, I am entitled to seek definitive clarification on behalf of the community from the Arbitration Committee as to whether filing AE requests reporting breaches of IBANs is itself a breach of IBAN, lest some admin in the future thinks otherwise, as you did in the past. You seem to be challenging my right to seek that definitive clarifcation in the apparent belief that I am seeking some kind of action from the Committee, by continually repeating your viewpoint as if you believe in the power of proof by assertion. My second point of clarification is concerning WP:BAN's policy in regard to reversion of edits made in defiance of a ban. Perhaps if you can drop your apparent self-preservation mode and let the Committee give due consideration and answer these important questions rather than continue in your apparent belief that I am asking the Committee to rule on your admittedly woeful handling of this case, that would be helpful. The Committee's answer will determine whether or not I need to ask for an amendment to the enforcement provisions of the respective ArbCom cases. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question to Shell

Shell, reverting out of the blue isn't identical to reverting an edit in context of an AE report which has found that specific edit presented as evidence had breached the ban.

Are you saying that if A breaches their interaction ban by, for example, leaving a comment on B's talk page and is subsequently reported and blocked, party B cannot subsequently remove that ban breaching comment from their talk page ever? Don't you think that turns the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, which seeks to dissuade banned editors from editing the relevant area of the ban, on its head by incentivising undesirable behaviour by making such edits sticky? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I see that Russavia has chimed in to my clarification request, which I thought clearing up the two issues would be of benefit for him too, given the fact that he had again reverted[127] my edit[128] within hours of him coming off his own block. But instead he launches in to more polemic.

His continual reference to myself after his block, not only in the original AE case[129], not only a second time[130], but a third time[131], and a forth time in this Clarification request is surely yet another breach of his interaction ban, since WP:IBAN suggests any complaint be made no more than once.

It seems to me that this clarification request has gone as far as it can, so I'm not going to comment further. I'll be filing amendments in due course to update the enforcement provisions of both relevant cases to introduce an additional "Enforcement by reversion" provision with respect to the interaction bans (which is within scope of the WP:BAN policy) in order to solve the problems evident with the current regime. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Russavia reverted Martin, in violation of WP:IBAN and WP:EEML#Interaction ban. I blocked Russavia, which Martin did not contest. Martin then re-reverted Russavia; for this, I therefore also blocked Martin. It is a given at AE that editors with "unclean hands" who request enforcement may also be blocked or sanctioned. I do not see what the issue is here. AGK [•] 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin: I agreed with you that you did not violate the interaction bam by submitting an enforcement request. That is not an issue here. As I have said repeatedly, you were blocked for reverting Russavia. Admittedly, you did not revert until after you filed the enforcement request, but it was a revert nonetheless - and therefore a violation of the interaction ban. Again, I do not see what your complaint is. AGK [•] 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin: But I will give my opinion anyway. I am as entitled to opine on the issue as you are, and as a general matter it is encouraged that the other parties have the opportunity to challenge the reasoning of an editor who is filing for action by ArbCom. Your re-revert was undeniably violation of WP:IBAN. AGK [•] 23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin: Who is Andrew? If you are responding to me, my name is Anthony. AGK [•] 12:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

I believe that WP:IBAN does not allow the action that Tammsalu says is OK. He makes a statement which I can't find support for in policy: "Having found that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting." There is no wording in WP:BAN which supports that either. He might be thinking of the provision of WP:3RR which does not include reverts of a banned editor as counting toward the limit of three reverts. Tammsalu is not allowed to revert *any* edit of someone from whom he is interaction banned, so the fact that such an edit won't count towards 3RR is not of interest. Tammsalu is asking Arbcom to rule on what the policy says, and I think it supports AGK's view of the matter. I would also recommend that Tammsalu change his signature to match his user name, since 'Martin' causes puzzlement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

As User:Tammsalu (aka User:Martintg) accuses myself of disruption, one also needs to know:

1. I did not know that a change in username had taken place, as I was encouraged to forget about the EEML editors - something which I had done.
2. As I did not know that a username change had been made, it is WP:AGF that I was no aware that I was banned from interacting with the editor now known as Tammsalu.
3. I was not blocked for my revert of his edit on Occupation of the Baltic States - it needs to be mentioned that Tammsalu's edit on that article was not adequately summarised in the edit summary.
4. I was blocked for my edits on Russophobia - an article on which discussion on the talk page was occurring, and for which Tammsalu was not involved
5. Immediately after my block, Tammsalu interjects himself on the Russophobia article, thereby all but blocking myself from participating in discussion. It also needs to be noted that discussion was occurring with several editors who are banned from interacting. But Tammsalu's interjection is questionable.
6. Also immediately after my block, Tammsalu makes this edit to Anti-Estonian sentiment. And again, Tammsalu uses the totally misleading edit summary of copy edit.
7. I made substantial edits to the article back in July 2010, and if one compares Tammsalu's edits with the article as it stood last year here, one will see that Tammsalu's edit is no copy edit, but rather a complete removal of all changes I made to the article last year (i.e. a wholesale revert), and has been done by himself as he is now safe in the knowledge that I am now unable to touch a single thing on that article.
8. It is obvious that Tammsalu is intent on continuing with the battleground here on Wikipedia, regardless of what is on his talk page, there is no need to perpetuate the battleground on his part, when there really isn't one.

Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself, and his history of vexatious reporting, it appears that as soon as there was a good faith belief that my revert of their edit was made without knowledge of their change of username, they immediately escalated the issue and reported me for breaking an interaction ban with other editors, when those editors were more than able to report me. This in itself is a dire breach of Martintg's interaction ban, is it not?

I urge arbitrators to look at this for themselves, and comment accordingly. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Sander Sade's comments

1. My reports were never found by Arbcom to be vexatious in nature. This was very clearly stated by Shell Kinney herself in that case.
2. Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination states "Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating." So, who exactly was harrassed, and who were the specific users? Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted basically says it all, does it not?
3. User:Nanobears insertion of material on Russophobia was not unverifiable. (Talk:Russophobia#Aivars_Slutsis_Sl.C5.ABcis) The doctor's name was not wrong - it was merely transliterated from Russian from the source (Slutsis), rather than native Latvian (Slucis).
4. Please read WP:EDITSUMMARY. Misleading edit summaries of "copy edit" should be frowned upon, particularly when it is obvious that an editor has not done a copy edit, but has rather reverted to a year old version of the article, so his edit summary should have been "rv to year old version" rather than "copy edit". It should be noted that the reversion has removed context, re-inserted information which fails verification, and a host of other problems which were fixed with the article. The timing of the edit by Tammsalu also should call into question his motives? Of course, he is now aware that I am unable to change a single thing on that article, because for me to do so will result in a vexatious report being made, and unfortunately, many admins don't want to take the time to look at issues in any great depth to see what is actually happening. And it appears that Tammsalu is now intent on using an interaction ban as a battleground tool to enforce content. This is NOT on. To claim that the wholesale revert was reverting to a "stable" version is misinformation, as there has been no objections to edits on the article in the last 12 months, and it has not been subject to edit wars or anything of the like. It is a provocative revert on the part of the editor, whereby every single edit I had made to the article from 12 months ago has been undone, regardless of the reasons I made the edits, which are clearly explained in both edit summaries and on the talk page.
5. I have created no battleground. I explained that I had no idea that Tammsalu was Martintg, and suggested that the report be dropped and everyone get back to editing. Instead, Tammsalu ignored that, and furthered the BG by reporting Russophobia edits, in which he was not involved, and no other editor had any problem with at the time; Sander Sade was more than capable of reporting, but obviously saw nothing wrong with edit and discussion occurring on the article, except now that this is being brought to the Committee's attention it is all of a sudden a problem. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Tammsalu's comments

This is necessary dispute resolution, not simply a clarification request. As per AGK's comments I have sought the guidance of uninvolved admins (Jehochman and FPaS) on how to approach instances such as that on Anti-Estonian sentiment. Those two admins have not responded, so perhaps the committee can provide guidance on how to approach issues such as this. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. Will anyone on the Committee be prepared to look past the surface and take a little bit of time to actually look at what appears to be occurring. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Estonian sentiment

I have posted a raft of problems relating to Anti-Estonian sentiment at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article. Given the 1) timing of the edit by Tammsalu and 2) fact that all edits by myself to the article 12 months ago have been reverted and 3) the nature of the information which has been removed and/or reintroduced into the article by Tammsalu, from where I am sitting, I can only assume that this is a provocative edit on the part of Tammsalu, perhaps with a bit of battleground furtherance behind it, but done first and foremost because the interaction ban would prevent myself from doing anything substantial on the article as it would be seen as a revert at WP:AE, which I am sure would be taken there if I attempted to touch the article in any substantial way.

I am not going to wikilawyer restrictions as seems to be the case with this very clarification request, but if one uses the very same arguments that Tammsalu is using, I would be well within my rights (according to Tammsalu) to report him to WP:AE for breaking his interaction ban on me, and I would be well within my rights to immediately undo his edit in its entireity. But I shall not do this, because the reasoning is shallow and not really grounded in policy.

However, I would ask the Committee to re-read Tammsalu's initial complaint, and then look at his actions on the above article, and one could likely reach the conclusion that Tammsalu is using the interaction ban in such a way that is pointy and somewhat disruptive to the project as a whole. This opinion is reinforced even further after Tammsalu has used mutual and constructive interactions between Miacek and myself in such a way as to try and have me alone sanctioned.

Perhaps editors could clarify their reasons right here for their edits, so that the committee can reach informed opinion on whether interaction bans are now going to be used as a battleground tool by certain editors, and whether some amendment to cases actually need to be made. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sander Säde

Russavia, very funny.

• "Vexatious reporting" when his report was found actionable by block (btw, wasn't constant vexatious reporting the reason why you got the interaction ban in the first place?).
• Martin's history of "harrassment". Not found by thorough ArbCom investigation, perhaps because there was none?
• Russophobia - as I recall, someone named Russavia repeatedly reverted removal of Nanobear's rather dubious unverifiable material (which, as it came out, was wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor...) in violation of Russavia's interaction ban. That kind of BLP rule-violating reverts are no different from vandalism - and should be treated as such. And somehow Martin is "intent on continuing with the battleground here on Wikipedia" despite you creating the battleground?!
• Misleading edit summaries - I don't see why you keep bringing this up. As a first thing, edit summaries are not even required. Considering the scope of Martin's edits, what should he have written? "Changes to restore stable version and improve the article, namely [this], [this], [this] and [that]..."? "Copy edit" was perfectly acceptable description, especially considering he continued with five more edits to improve the article.

--Sander Säde 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nanobear: a) The doctor was from USA, not Latvia; b) He has allegedly published ads, not article; c) He didn't write in the ad that he would not treat a Russian patient; d) Doctor's name is Slūcis (transliterated Slucis), the professor (or you, as I have not seen the original) obviously mistransliterated the name.

So. What exactly do you claim that was correct about your edit? No typos? Bonus points there. Even the source itself was given partially, without the publisher or ISBN. This is not an acceptable way to edit controversial topics. And yet you dare to claim I "arrived" here reeking "of clear battleground behaviour and harassment"... I don't think any further comments are needed. I am done here and will leave for my well-deserved two-week vacation on the beach. Bye. --Sander Säde 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nanobear

Response to Sander Säde: No, the material I inserted was not "unverifiable" and "wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor" as you claim. What I inserted was this [132]. It is not "unverifiable": the source (which I gave in the edit) is ISBN 9780230614185 (pages 44 and 58), a book written by a Professor of San Francisco University, a notable expert. The name of the doctor is not wrong; it comes directly from source and has the same transliteration as in the source. That Sander Säde has chosen to arrive here claiming that my completely legitimate edit is "wrong in almost every respect" reeks of clear battleground behaviour and harassment by Sander Säde.

About changing usernames: Martintg/Tammsalu seems to have covertly changed his username without notifying ArbCom clerks. His new username is NOT listed at WP:EEML, making is difficult for admins and editors to find the sanctions and warnings Martintg has received. It also leads to misunderstandings such as when Russavia did not know recognise Tammsalu as Martintg and did not know Tammsalu was an EEML member (with whom Russavia is not supposed to interact with), since Tammsalu's name is not listed at Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership. When I changed my username, I immediately informed a clerk (as well as ArbCom) about the change, and my name on the relevant pages was changed: [133]. Why has Martintg not done the same? Did he simply forget, or was it a deliberate attempt to conceal his history of disruption - your choice. Nanobear (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My thoughts are that someone may let an admin know that a mutual interaction ban has been breached, but reverting the edits yourself is a step too far. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Fozzie here; reporting someone is one thing, going on to repeat the behavior yourself is right out. Shell ^babelfish 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope, not what I said at all. This was an article, not your own talk page (where people certainly have more leeway) and this isn't a topic ban or even a one way interaction ban, it's a mutual interaction ban. Reverting a content change after getting someone blocked isn't going to discourage interaction, in fact, it's likely to inflame things further. Shell ^babelfish 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Shell and Fozzie here. Editors should be allowed to let admins know about possible violations of an interaction ban, but that doesn't give one leeway to also possibly violate the terms. In the very least it's unhelpful and in the worst case makes the scenario much worse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with my fellow arbitrators - reporting an infringement of the mutual interaction ban would be ok, but reverting the edit was unhelpful. In this context, I think AGK's handling of the situation was entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Per preceding - don't revert someone you are not allowed to interact with - there are always plenty of admins or other editors around to ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Tend to agree with the above, but my concern is that this position provides a "first-mover" advantage (in terms of article content) for a violation of an interaction ban. Should administrators receiving a report of a violation revert the violating edit (similar to the advice at Wikipedia:PROT#Content disputes)? –xeno^talk 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by EdJohnston (talk) at 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) and Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Russavia-Biophys Remedy 6.3.1: Russavia restricted
2. Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: Editors restricted (as modified by motion)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tammsalu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Martintg)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Russavia notified
• Tammsalu notified

Amendment 1

• The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to discuss with each other or to edit in common.

Statement by EdJohnston

I propose lifting the interaction ban between Russavia and Tammsalu. They are both high volume editors and their usual editing interests may cause them to run into each other on a wide variety of Eastern European topics. There has been prior discussion at User talk:EdJohnston, User talk:Timotheus Canens, User talk:Russavia and User talk:Tammsalu. The EEML interaction bans have been been a recent subject of discussion at Arbitration Enforcement due to the filing of WP:AE:Vecrumba and WP:AE#Vecrumba 2. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has given an opinion that interaction bans don't work so well for people with 'narrowly intertwined content editing interests.' They are more suited for 'people who are locked in purely inter-personal conflict'. If lifting this particular ban works, it might be extended to other EEML editors in the future. If lifting the ban leads to poor results, it is understood that some of the topic bans previously imposed or the interaction ban itself might be restored through discretionary sanctions or by the Committee. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Note that Russavia has left you a response in his section, to the complaint by VM that you wanted an answer to. When I proposed this amendment, I perceived it as a sink-or-swim offer to Russavia and Tammsalu to show that they could interact diplomatically if they were allowed to. If they fail, it is easy to reapply sanctions at WP:AE. If they succeed, then we get some more good content without much trouble. The whole reason for bringing this to Arbcom is the technicality that the interaction ban is from Arbcom itself, so it can't be undone at AE. Please think of this as a low-risk issue, unless there is a pent-up desire within Arbcom to revisit Eastern Europe. I agree that people who have behaved badly in the past in EE are continuing to behave badly. Russavia continues to be the center of more drama than his role warrants. Since Arbcom faced that decision before, and chose to allow major content contributors who were the occasion of turmoil to continue nonetheless. I thought that bridge had been crossed already. Arbcom had a full-length case in which to consider the issue as recently as WP:ARBRB. That case was closed in May 2010. The decision in WP:ARBRB#Remedies was to place some interaction bans on Russavia but no topic bans. There is a certain amount of bad behavior in Eastern Europe that we can't do much about, unless we are willing to issue long-term topic bans to some the people who add most of the content. I will note that Vecrumba is not among the major content contributors, so his role is not so clear. This request is not about Vecrumba, however. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tammsalu

I concur. These Arbcom cases happened up to two years ago now and we have since moved on. There is an inflexion point when interaction bans become increasingly a hindrance to productive content discussion, and we have arrived at that point. Given the trust and good faith EdJohnston has invested in drafting this amendment, I'm sure he will come down on either party like the proverbial ton of bricks should our behaviour disappoint him in the future. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see that so many others have commented here, and raise some issues of the general effectiveness of iBans which should be addressed. However Russavia and I have agreed to bury the hatchet and focus on content, we have communicated offline and there are some topics of mutual interest we want to discuss online, but this interaction ban just gets in the way. While the wider issue of these iBans should eventually be addressed in time, I don't think it should impact or delay particular cases were more jaw jaw, and less war war, is mutually desired. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, given that Russavia has apparently retired, can I undo some of his more contentious edits like this one? He removed some of the tags after I emailed him[134], but now that he is gone how am I suppose to deal with the remaining tags. The whole point of seeking a lifting of the interaction ban was to discuss why he tagged this article, but the whole thing seems moot now. In other words, does Russavia's retirement effectively suspend the iBan in terms of prohibiting reverts? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

The interaction bans do have a net negative effect on editors, if work on content is the number one priority. I edit heavily in all areas relating to Russia, but first and foremost in areas relating to the foreign relations of Russia, and on articles on how it interacts with and how it is seen by the outside world. This is quite a diverse area, and one which it is recognised by other uninvolved editors I do have a positive effect on. For example, or [[135]] from User:Miacek. From time to time, this diverse editing brings me to articles which aren't within my core editing interests, but I am brought to them all the same due to my interests first and foremost. The interaction bans, therefore, can have a negative effect as it can prevent article development, as has been seen.

As per Carcaroth's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions, I am focussed on content, and am willing to collaborate with all editors who are sick of the battleground in the EE area. I'm more than happy to support this amendment, though I would like to be sure that the amendment only allows interaction about the content and not comments about the editor. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments by 2 arbs

Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!

It is the interaction ban which has caused everyone, including the uninvolved, to focus on winning debates like those. I want to get back to content, and discussing content. Consider my contributions even whilst these issues are ongoing; I continue to work on content, both on WP and on Commons.

I won't comment on the allegations raised by Radeksz/Volunteer Marek here, but there are a few useful elements to be found in there. For the most part, please refer to my statement above, where I have supplied a link to an uninvolved editor who believes that I am obviously a positive influence on articles relating to the Estonia-Russia relationship, and also supply information relating to myself and User:Miacek.

I agree that these interaction bans aren't working well while we continue to work in overlapping topical areas. Refining or removing select interaction bans, such as is being requested here, are a way to look forward (for the optimistic among us) or the last vestige of hope (for the pessimistic among us). It was never the intent of Arbcom to use interaction bans as a way to stop editors from working on content; the intent was to get editors to stop commenting on other editors. Only by way of having editors refocussing on content, instead of concentrating on the editors themselves, can editors in this general topic area who want to look forward are able to.

Additionally, for example, from here, it is an offence for me to comment on arbitration matters relating to EEML members, and hence the reverse is true as well. Rather than asking me what I think of an editor's statements, given this and this, perhaps the committee should indeed consider whether an editor's insinuations about my editing and my motives is appropriate. I don't think Tammsalu would be too pleased about Marek's, Vecrumba's and Piotrus' continued interjections into subjects which do not constitute legitimate dispute resolution for them (all are under interaction bans with myself), given that Tammsalu and I are trying to negotiate a way to move forward collaboratively in this area, and concentrate on content.

I have taken Carcaroth's words in for many, many months now (refer to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions), and I believe that Tammsalu is committed to also focussing on content, rather than editorial motives and other petty rubbish, so this is the most pertinent thing that the committee should be looking at; who wants to look forward, and who wants to stay engaged in a battleground. I have been in the former for a long time. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to Committee

It is disappointing that this amendment request has not yet received the attention it deserves. Having said that, Tammsalu and myself have discussed the interaction ban, and we have both agreed, given that the "dragging of feet" by the Committee is only hindering our ability to work on articles which are of mutual interest, that we agree to interact with one another so long as content is the focus. Interactions between ourselves are already taking place on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States, and although there is a difference of opinion on some things, the interactions are mutual, and are constructive; not unwanted and destructive. Interaction bans were never meant to stop collaborative editing, and this an example of such. Tammsalu and I, jointly, would like to ask that the Committee attend to this amendment as soon as possible, possibly they can peruse our recent interactions to see if our joint request is not without merit, and that the interaction ban as it stands now is "technically" hurting our ability to act collaboratively, something we have both agreed to do. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Response in relation to EdJohnston

Under construction

Response in relation to Volunteer Marek

Under construction

Response in relation to Piotrus

Under construction

Response in relation to Vecrumba

Under construction

Response in relation to Biophys

Under construction

Harrassment during this amendment request in relation to dealing with conflict of interest editors

Under construction

Request to the Committee

There are quite a few issues here which need to be dealt with here. I will be collating some diffs and the like for your review, and will post something here in the next couple of days. I trust that committee will give me the time to respond, because it is obvious that you want to look at the entire area, rather than just Tammsalu and myself being willing to try and move forward in this area. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by your username Volunteer Marek

I have been peripherally involved in this latest bruhaha, mostly as a commentator and a observer who is also under an interaction ban with Russavia, hence, as an editor who is affected by how these interaction bans are interpreted. I have not been involved however in any of the specific edits or reverts that provoked these AE requests.

It's been somewhat frustrating to get people to listen here but my sense of it is that the situation was/is getting dangerously close to a replay of the battlegrounds that raged in 2008/2009. Why? Obviously I have a personal opinion on the subject but I think Sander captures it quite well here [136] and he's much better than I am at avoiding strong language. To summarize the situation in my own words though, here's what happened:

• Two months or so ago, Russavia began making edits to a number of articles which generally have not been of interest to him, but which are of interest to editors he has an interaction ban with - i.e. mostly articles concerning the Baltics.
• A few of these edits constituted outright violations of the interaction bans and as a result he got a well deserved block for violating his interaction ban [137].
• Despite this, about a month ago (around the time of Shell Kinney's resignation from AC) he accelerated this practice and this led to the current spate of AE requests and counter-requests.
• The AE requests and counter-requests got bogged down in a discussion of what does or does not constitute a violation of the interaction ban, as well as the standard mutual accusations of "personal attacks" (honestly, not much more than criticisms of another editor's editing practice - it's not like anyone's momma was called any names or nothing).
• Still, the wishy-washy nature of how these interaction ban violations were dealt with only inflamed the situation. They invited reciprocal AE requests in kind and allowed for more gamin of the interaction bans.

Throughout this episode, Russavia's defense has been that the provocative edits he has made (on articles created, or heavily edited by the people he's supposed to avoid) are "content edits", hence exempt from the interaction ban. Well... ok, if you're gonna go by the letter of the law rather than the intent, which is to separate these warring parties. You can mess with another editor by explicitly criticizing them in procedural discussions such as AN/I or AE (which the interaction ban clearly prohibits), or, if you really don't like them, you can mess with them by fucking with their articles and just trying to make their life difficult on Wikipedia (the basic example here is of Russavia nominating Martin's article for AfD, or of slapping up Baltic-related articles with nasty POV, etc. tags). Russavia basically has been busy gaming the latter loophole.

I have an interaction ban with Russavia. I don't want anything to do with him and I would also very much appreciate it if he, per his ban, stayed far away from me as well. But it is this last aspect which really concerns me here. Russavia seems to think that he has found a loophole in how interaction bans work which allows him to renew and carry out the battlegrounds of two years ago, while still pretending to observe the interaction ban. In this particular episode he has very much been the harasser not the harasee - none of the editors on the "opposite side" went and tried to edit articles or topics that Russavia primarily spends his time with (aviation, embassies, etc.). Hell, none of them even touched RUSSIA related articles. I don't know, maybe he's trying to get some kind of payback for perceived slights from two years ago, but honestly, that's not just not very helpful. I just want to make sure that this doesn't spill over further.

Bottom-line is that I actually think this proposal is ill-advised. These editors are under an interaction ban for a reason. A good reason to remove the interaction ban would be if there was evidence that they have managed to forgive and forget each other's trespasses and are now ready to work collaborative together. But just the opposite is the case!!!!!! - they (mostly Russavia, with undue language from Vecrumba as a response) are trying to renew the battles of old. Their support for this amendment (on both sides) appears to be motivated by the fact that the interaction ban stands in the way of them "going at it again" and they're just itching for some old fashion Wiki war.

What - and please, show me something specific - have any of the parties involved done to deserve the relaxation of the ban? Where is the evidence of collaboration? Of cooperation? Where has one of them said something nice to another? The only argument seems to be that the interaction bans are "old" (yes, but still useful) and that they impinge upon content creation (bullshit, for the most part, when not pursuing personal grudges these editors edit completely different topics). They basically want to go at it again and thus the thrust of this request.

My sense of it is that the topic area of Eastern Europe over the last two years has become a lot more friendly and cooperative, editing-wise. One piece of evidence for this is that we've managed to avoid a "Eastern Europe" related ArbCom case for the past two years, whereas before 2009 they were essentially perennial. And I do strongly believe that the interaction bans played a significant role in improving the atmosphere here. Now editors can focus on content creation, useful gnomish tasks, vandal clean up etc. rather than wasting their time on useless distractions like AE, AN/I or AbrCom cases (be honest, your job's at its best when there's the least to do). Let's not go back to where it was before.

So:

1. Decline the proposed amendment as stated (or else I'll be here in a few months saying "I told you so")
2. Clarify the nature of the interaction bans in precise terms or...
3. ... convert the interaction bans into topics bans (which are much less easier to game) which will accomplish the same thing. This would involve topic-banning Russavia (and friends) from topics which they do not usually edit but which they occasionally stray into just to kick up some trouble - Baltics, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus. And banning Martin and Vecrumba from topics which they do not usually edit but which they might (hypothetically) go into just to mess with Russavia - aviation, diplomatic relations, Russian space program. If you'd like these topic bans could be "narrowly construed".
4. Impose a general injunction on ALL editors involved in the EEML and the Russavia-Biophys case from filing AE requests on each other for a period of at least six months. AE is supposed to be for enforcing ArbCom decisions not making a mockery of them. People are expected to act like adults. If they engage in this "he pushed me first!" "no he pushed me first!" "I pushed him but he's not supposed to report it because of the interaction ban!" crap then just take that playground away from them.

Ay, it's a mess I know. As I wrote this I started to loose hope that this area remains relatively calm. Too many loopholes... Put your finger in the hole in the levee please. Not put a bigger hole in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm a minority in my opinion here. Anyway, I've played my Cassandra role, so I don't really have anything else to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Colchicum - yeah I saw that, and yeah, it's a violation of his interaction ban, but whatever - I just figured it was another provocation and hence not worth bothering about. Anyway, it seems that now Russavia has retired so the whole point of this amendment is moot. Right? Is there any reason to lift an interaction ban between editor A, and editor B, if B has "retired"? Volunteer Marek  01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

First, if my comment here violates my interaction ban with Russavia, please let me know and I'll self-revert. My understanding of an interaction ban was, until recently, that editors under it are not allowed to comment on one another. I tried to get a clarification here, but if the discussion produced one, I am still not seeing it, instead it raised some questions about the scope of the i-bans that I have not thought of before, and my last comment and question there have not seen any reply for two days (and either way, it was mostly me and VM speaking to one another, without much input from the admins). In either case, I am not going to comment on Russavia, but on interaction bans in particular.

As I stated three days ago [138] (again, no response was given), I think that the interaction bans can and perhaps even should stay, but that they should be clearly limited to discussing others, not to editing content. As I explained in my model of wiki conflict, the problem is not (never was) content disputes. Those were never a significant problem in the EE area; sure there was an occasional revert war or canvassed vote stacking or such, but the primary problem was that editors who were unable to win content disputes (lacking reliable sources, etc.) started a campaign of harassment. As VM notes, this continued through several arbcoms, which in vain tried to address content issues, till interaction bans finally narrowed down on the real problem by putting an end to certain editors being able to comment on others. As a proof of that, note that despite all topic bans and such having expired, there are no more any revert wars or disputed votes in the EE area; all that remains is the occasional (and now, growing) attempts to "get the other editor" through some arcane violations of wiki rules (the rules, in this case, being the imprecisely worded interaction bans).

Thus, some potential loopholes have been found and are apparently being tested. This is worrying; I for one have no desire to return to the stressful period of few years ago, and the recent rise of AE activity and related discussions, like this one, is giving me a bad deja vu feeling.

Again, as VM notes, I see no indication that certain editors have learned to forgive; in fact I see indications of a contrary mentality (the proverbial grudge being unburied, and the sound of an old axe being regrind).

At the same time, the murkiness of interaction ban is doubly worrying. Consider this edit, where an editor under an i-ban with me has added a template to an article I've created and significantly expanded. Now, I don't believe that it was in bad faith, and I wouldn't necessarily even remove it, but I'd like to comment on it on article's talk - yet this raises some potential red flags. Should editors under i-bans be be expected to check history of all articles we edit to see if an editor under an i-ban has edited it? As somebody who sometimes edits dozens or even hudrends different articles per day, I think this would be ridiculous. At the same time, if the answer is no, this creates a loophole that can be easily gamed - according to some interpretations of an i-ban, I cannot revert or even discuss this template, because it was added by an editor whom I am supposed to "not see" on Wikipedia. I can see this spiraling as we template one another older articles, add controversial categories or adjectives, or make edits to articles that we think would be interesting to the other party, to try to bait them into making edits to them, or just wait for it, and report it to AE... a near perfect ground for radicalization, scary, scary, scary. And totally unnecessary, as I said, in the past, editing the content and discussing it was never an issue, what was, was when some gave up on that and started discussing others, in an attempt to chase them off Wikipedia. This cannot, should not be allowed to repeat itself.

As such, I'd strongly urge the ArbCom to clarify or amend the interaction bans so that they permit editing of content and discussing it, including interaction with editors under i-ban, with the very, very strict note that those editors are not allowed to discuss one another other, because they most apparently have not learned how to say anything about one another that isn't a more or less clearly veiled personal attack (criticism). In other words, I believe than an editor who has a mutual i-ban with me should be allowed to edit the same articles I do (and vice versa), up to an including tagging and AfD them, provided I have the right, just like every other editor, to revert them and discuss their edits (but not themselves!) on talk (i.e. saying "the template added to the article is/isn't fine because policy blah blah" would be ok, but saying "because editor X who added it is biased and evil" would not be allowed, and treated like a reportable i-ban violation). An exception could be added allowing the editors to say nice things on one another (this is the era of WikiLove promotion, after all, and perhaps enough sugar talk will sooth the old wounds, eventually). You could also see this as forcing a very strict and scary interpretation of PA/AGF and such with regards to editors under an i-ban, to ensure they never, ever comment on one another again - but without the need to worry about what they do in the mainspace (if they start edit warring, well, 3RR or AE should be able to handle it).

VM raises the idea of topic bans; my problem with that is that they would prevent potential good content creation. At the very least, editors should not be banned from areas they have never edited, or have edited rarely, but uncontroversially, just because the other party to the i-ban "staked their claim first". Only areas in which their edits have contributed to battleground creation should be considered. Perhaps, few editors should be banned from nominating Estonian articles for AfD. Anyway, please think more scalpel, less nuclear sanctions. We have a pretty decent mid-level sanctions - the i-bans - already; they just need clarification.

So in the end, I hope that you'll allow the content creators to work in peace, without having to worry about a battleground atmosphere that can arise when otherwise good editors give in and start commenting on (attacking, harassing, stalking, whatever) others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Am I alone in finding the number of "issues" involving Russavia et al to be, if anything, increasing? I would suggest that all of the involved editors be instructed to finally drop the "but he was in the EEML" arguement from any noticeboard, that they be instructed to be exceedingly cordial in all posts which impact any other editors, and that they be individually and corporately barred from making noticeboard postings seeking enforcement actions against each other, or participation in any such actions in which they are not specifically and directly involved. This, as one may note, is effectively a ban on any interactions other than polite ones specifically aimed at improving articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the interactions between Russavia and Off2riorob concerning "libel tourism" and related topics at the Berzovsky article are again showing a rather ill-suited combat mode on Russavia's part. [139], [140], [141] (with its content of Of course, now, I expect for you all to rush over like good little battlegrounders, and remove it from that article, and then use the same argument of it not being in that article. lol. showing quite clearly the combat mode being used there. I suggest that the result be less than favourable to such a mode on Russavia's part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Russavia is making multipe noticeboard posts, accusations of 3RR violations etc. with such colorful edit summaries in some edits as [142] FUCK OFF, which may be an indication of a need for "vacation by motion" on the part of the committee. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

To Volunteer Marek's point,

• we have Russavia's provocative AFD already discussed (and over which Russavia has filed an AE request against me labeling my objective expression of disappointment a personal attack)
• in the midst of these various proceedings we have
  • request to delete and article critical of myths including those perpetrated by the current Russian administration, the article had not been touched in 17 months and Russavia posted no concerns on talk
  • a lengthy diatribe invoking charges of "black propaganda" regarding Putin's infamous "dead donkey ears" comment on the territorial dispute with Latvia, charging "hoax"—while technically not incorrect (the citation of two items to the one source was in error and the original site is no longer available), the "dead donkey's ears" comment was certainly no hoax and the constructive action would have been to correct, not delete; see full discussion thread
    • only after my pointing out no hoax, Russavia did a partial restoration but leaving out Putin's colorful statement as potentially confusing to readers
      • only after my pointing out that the manner of delivery of a message is as significant as the message, he indicated no objections to restoring the quote if covered in a suitable source (he objected to Forbes, which put a rather Mafia-esque spin on the ears)
        • that said, no blood was shed (anticipating my point on rules of engagement below)
  • and now we have wholesale removal of a source widely cited in WWII related articles on Wikipedia, regardless of its "self-published" nature (it is fully annotated regarding original sources), and promise to delete content unless new sources are found; it is coincidence that the article in question paints a sorry picture of the Soviet attempt to wipe out the last bit of Latvia not occupied by the Red Army, where Stalin threw in division after division to their slaughter—whereas Soviet historiography regarding the Courland Pocket pretty much states it was insignificant and was bypassed, the German divisions there being hemmed in. Given widespread use of the source elsewhere, the appropriate action would be to involved outside editors at the appropriate forum discussing reliable sources. I expect, however, the citations will be re-populated over the coming weeks.

To the more general point of disruption escalating in the topic area, we now have Vlad Fedorov, who once exclaimed that my ignorance in international law was legendary, returning to WP after nine months of inactivity to file an AE in the topic area he is otherwise banned from. You can follow the discussion thread on EdJohnston's talk.

But, back the topic at hand, we are presented with the contention that Russavia, who is a prolific (creating content) editor elsewhere, in the realm of Baltic topics inimical to the Soviet legacy, can only manage to be prolific at deleting content when insuring the quality of content intersecting the Baltic-Soviet/Russian relationship and is forced to rely on editors who should be banned for months, if not permanently (myself, I'll spare the diffs) to come up with links to the Russian President's web-available archive. (And perhaps it is only myself that finds this particularly ironic, given Russavia's fluency in Russian and my abject lack of same.) This is an odd form of cooperative editing in the Baltic et al. arena, but if it is deemed to be constructive and in no way provocative on Russavia's part after due consideration of his editorial choices and timing, then I am certainly glad to abide by the rules of editorial engagement being established here. As I've indicated, I've never had any issue debating Russavia, Nanobear, Vlad Fedorov, or any other editor on sources.

I concur that the only way forward is to have a means for editors who create content co-exist and co-contribute. Artificial barriers lead only to unintended consequences. Interaction bans have shown themselves to be tools for conflict, not conflict resolution. They only work (my experience) where one or the other editor/side completely disengages from any participation in the area of conflict. Where there is conflict, I do suggest that self-moderation in discussing deletion of content first, as opposed to deleting content and posting "I deleted X..." would go a long way toward an empirical show of good faith as opposed to professing to pursue particular behaviors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Colchicum

There is no harm in letting Russavia and Tammsalu interact, if they both wish so. I very much agree with the concerns voiced by Volunteer Marek, however. There are other people under mutual interaction bans with Russavia, editing in the same topic area as Tammsalu, who are less than enthusiastic about the possibility to interact with the former. So, I'd say, lift that particular ban with the understanding that the other interaction bans are still in place and testing their limits (and edits by Russavia to articles concerning the Baltics may be construed as such) will not be tolerated anymore. Perhaps lift the interaction ban in exchange for topic bans for Russavia from Latvia, Estonia and Poland and for the other party from aviation and Russian embassies/foreign relations, with the exception of Latvian, Estonian and Polish aviation and Russo-Latvian/Estonian/Polish relations, narrowly construed, as a testing ground for both parties to improve communication, for the beginning? Colchicum (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Russiavia allowed to comment on Volunteer Marek, Vecrumba and Biophys? [143]. The lifting of these topic bans are not even being considered, and a comment on a partisan user's talkpage is certainly not an instance of necessary dispute resolution, no matter how broady the latter is construed. Colchicum (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Novickas

I strongly support this amendment. It looks to me like a small but promising step forward. How could two editors agreeing to discuss only content be wrong? The earlier Miacek-Russavia bilateral relations amendment is working out, is it not? Volunteer Marek seems to think Tammsalu and Russavia will get into interpersonal conflicts again and that this will be a burden on the system – to forestall that possibility, can you add a clause to the effect that a single complaint from either party in this regard, made at any administrator’s talk page, is grounds for revoking the amendment, without any more ado? VM asks for evidence that they’ve said something nice about each other; that’s asking too much, committing to content-only discussion is enough. The broader issues raised by VM about the scope and effectiveness of interaction/topic bans are IMO best discussed in a wider venue. This is just about two editors and their particular interaction ban. They seem be in agreement about it, judging from their recent discussions at Tammsalu's talk page [144]. Novickas (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Note regarding Russavia

[145] states that Russavia is "Retired." Per what appears to be normal procedure, I suggest this request be closed, that Russavia be reminded that "retirement" is not to be taken lightly, and that any alternate personas used to evade any bans or sanctions shall be dealt with quite severely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this constitutes an obligation on his part to retire. It is entirely up to him. Nor do I believe that he will indeed retire. Ban evasion is prohibited, but it's another matter, independent of any retirement, and I haven't seen evidence that he is going to resort to it. Colchicum (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• At first glance this request seems reasonable, but let's allow a couple of days for additional statements, including from Russavia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Russavia's endorsement is noted, but so are Volunteer Marek's points. I will want to look into this whole area more closely, which will have to wait until after the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We've had less input here than I expected, as it happens. Volunteer Marek's points have a certain amount of merit overall, but I think that lifting this particular interaction ban is probably safe if both users are agreeing to it. Perhaps lift it for a trial period (three months?) and evaluate then? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I, too, would like to see a satisfactory reply from Russavia to what Volunteer Marek has asserted. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• The allegations made by Volunteer Marek are of great concern; and, given Russavia's refusal to comment on them, I'm forced to conclude that he does not intend to dispute their veracity. In these circumstances, I fail to see why we should reward what appears to have been a successful attempt to game the terms of the interaction bans by lifting them; if anything, we should be tightening the terms to explicitly prohibit the use of such underhanded tactics. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• @Russavia: my colleagues above indicated (some weeks ago, and yesterday) that they would like to see your response to the statement by Volunteer Marek, so your suggestion of feet-dragging on the part of the committee rings a little hollow. –xeno^talk 15:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that Russavia has signaled their retirement and not edited since, I think that this request can probably be closed as moot. –xeno^talk 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Considering the events of this request; I think it's best if we leave the interaction ban in place for now. SirFozzie (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
2. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Biophys_topic_banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly (Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Hodja Nasreddin

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
• I would like the interaction ban to be reciprocated, which would prohibit Biophys from interacting with myself, and commenting on myself.

Statement by Russavia

Berezovsky

• I was active on the Boris Berezovsky article.
• There was an strong concern from numerous editors that Kolokol1 (talk · contribs) has a COI with the subject[146][147] and is whitewashing the article of much negative information[148][149][150][151][152][153]
• In response I was accused of working for the Russian govt [154]
• Kolokol was told not to make such accusations lightly[155]
• More accusations followed, and COI admitted[156]
• Another warning[157]
• Another accusation[158]
• I respond to the accusations and again raise the COI[159]
• Another accusation - fellow traveller is equivalent to useful idiot[160]
• Biophys enters on Kolokol1's talk page[161] and again links to these accusations from almost 3 years ago by another user. His words insinuate that i was responsible for the editor being banned -- in actuality the editor was eventually banned for abusive sockpuppetry.
• Biophys has used that diff in different discussions concerning myself in the past, and it is used to insinuate that I am not an Australian Russophile, but rather KGB, FSB, MID, MVD, etc, etc. Excuse me for not supplying specific diffs where he has done this, I don't keep such records. If diffs are indeed required, I will either find them, or remove this.
• Such accusations have been found in the past to be without merit
• The Committee refused 3 years ago to do anything in relation to Biophys and such accusations, as he
  • 1) Promised never to do it again
  • 2) Stayed on the right side of the line
• Use of such diffs by Biophys does not stay on the right side of the line, and only cements a particular mindset with other editors in regards to editors whom accusations are levelled against

AE request

• On 25 October, I made this edit
• Biophys has never edited the article before, nor has he ever used the talk page
• 24 hours later he posts this on the talk page
• 3 hours later he posts this on my talk page
• Biophys then appears at Talk:Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT#Comment; another article he has never edited before
• I respond and tell him to stay away from my talk page
• Biophys returns to my TP
• I post this
• I am advised of AE request
• AE request here
• I raise different issues in the request, including hounding and misrepresentations on the part of Biophys
• Biophys states he made the request because no-one would - i.e. no-one else saw major problems, nor was watching
• The following of others contributions was found to be unhealthy by the Committee
• This echoes what I stated at WP:ARBRB; which saw me being placed with an interaction ban
• FPaS considers placing a mutual ban on Biophys under other sanctions[162]
• Other admins refused to even look at this problem

Statement by Biophys

This request was brought by Russavia to challenge actions by AE administrators [163].

Aeroflot (second amendment)

• On September 24, I made this edit in Aeroflot. This is a legitimate edit. That was not revert of previous edits by Russavia. I tried to restore some of my previous edits in several articles, and this is one of them.
• Same day Russavia reverts my edit [164] in violation of his i-ban. But I never reverted his edit back since then.
• I remind Russavia that he violated his ban and ask him to self-revert [165]. He apparently refuses.
• Same day Russavia invites Igny for help. His comment is clearly a violation of his i-ban [166]. Igny comes to comment at talk page of Aeroflot.
• On October 13, I ask other users what they think about my edit: [167].
• No one responded. Only Russavia responds [168], in a violation of his i-ban, again. He tells: "I really don't care if I am banned from interacting with you Biophys." He also refers to me as "WP:RANDY"
• Same day he invites Giano for help against "WP:RANDY". His comment is a violation of his i-ban [169].
• Russavia demands on AE to sanction me for my edit in Aeroflot. In response, I explained that he is very welcome to edit this article, and I am not going to interfere [170],[171].
• In response to my good faith suggestion, Russavia files this Amendment request and asks to topic-ban me from editing this article.

In summary, Russavia asks to sanction me for a single legitimate edit, one that he already reverted a month ago in violation of his i-ban.

Berezovsky

Here Russavia asks to sanction me for a single comment (everything else are claims by Kolokol1 who I never knew before): a month ago I saw that Russavia and Kolokol1 accused each other of COI and asked Kolokol1 that he should not make such accusations [172]. Kolokol1 replies: "Thank you for the warning", and so on [173]. To convince Kolokol1, I told him about another Russian-speaking user who was banned soon after making similar claims. Yes, I gave him a couple of diffs with examples of questionable COI accusations from my talk page (one of them was about myself). Yes, the user I refer to was banned on ruwiki precisely for making that kind of claims, but I am using him only as an example. After having this conversation, Kolokol1 never made any improper accusations about Russavia. Neither did I. I only tried to help Kolokol1. Now I am puzzled that Russavia interprets this as harassment.

My discussion with Kolokol1 was not anything special. In a number of cases, when I saw editors in trouble (e.g. on ANI), I tried to help them by giving an advice, for example here and here, but I could provide a lot more examples.

AE request

Please see my statement in AE request. I always followed all sanctions and advice by Arbcom and believe that others should do the same. It was clear that Russavia did not obey his interaction bans almost a month ago, but that only involved him reverting my edits in the area where he is a good contributor. Therefore, I simply left him the article in question [174] and did not report anything at the moment. However, he later started doing the same with other contributors. I provided Russavia an opportunity to self-revert after his other violations prior to reporting him to AE. I thought that would be only fair, but he now considers this as an evidence of wikihounding. I tried to explain it here. Most important, that was a legitimate report about systematic violations of editing restrictions. The guilty party was decided by AE administrators.

I believe this entire story is about the refusal of Russavia to follow his i-bans. When the amendment to lift the Russavia-Martin ban was close to rejection by Arbcom, he first decided to retire, but then came back to openly violate his restrictions. As follows from his letter to Arbcom and other statements (e.g. here), he also has problems with at least seven users (including Collect, Colchicum, Off2riorob and Kolokol1), and the problems are taking place in a wide range of subjects, from Poland and Baltic republics to Russia (Berezovsky and Aeroflot). However, I have nothing to do with these problems. I only made a legitimate edit in Aeroflot more than a month ago, and I brought a legitimate request to AE.

No, I did not follow edits by Russavia to cause his distress, I did not revert a single edit by Russavia anywhere, and I did not accuse Russavia of anything except violating his i-bans. My only interest here is that everyone must follow their editing restrictions. But I am not opposed to lifting all i-bans or whatever. Yes, you probably need another remedy. You had already six AE discussions about i-ban violations by Russavia only during this year [175], [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] (and it came to the point when people simply do not want to enforce your sanctions [181]), one standing arbitration request, one standing clarification request, and already second amendment request related to this (and Russavia promised two more amendments in his letter). But that does not concern me because I am not going to be involved in any future AE/ANI/AR discussions in this area [182]. Enough is enough. Biophys (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The message

Yes, I feel myself partly responsible for the bad situation in this area. That's why I am still trying to help. What should be done to improve the situation?

• Rule #1. Everyone must respect their editing restrictions.
• Rule #2. Drop the stick. Do not bring old issues. Do not blame others of COI. Do not cry "EEML!" at every corner. Do not think that others are your enemies. Do not bring requests without merit just to "get even" (like this amendment, sorry).
• Rule #3. Do not edit war. Do not struggle with the same people in the same articles for years. Yes, you can try to edit anything. Yes, you can discuss your edits. But if people happened to strongly disagree about something, then what can you do? Go edit something else. And if you can not peacefully edit, then do not edit.

No, this can not be done by administrators. This can only be done by us. Do I follow these rules? Do others? This is up to Arbcom. Biophys (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses to arbitrators

@SirFozzie. After looking at this comment, I better understand the question. (1) Yes, I agree that in general if someone systematically violated his i-ban, you probably do not have another choice but to issue him a topic ban or worse. (2) Yes, the ownership of articles and using fabricated complaints to get rid of a content opponent is unacceptable, generally speaking. In this amendment request Russavia asks to remove me from editing this article. Surprisingly, he is using his own violations of his i-ban to force me out of "his" topic area, even though I did nothing illegal. It was he who reverted my edit. But you should not topic ban Russavia from any aviation-related areas where he is a good contributor. I made just a few edits in Aeroflot during all these years, so I would rather leave this article to him, just as I said before [183]. Please note that I did not submit AE request when Russavia violated his i-ban restriction in Aeroflot [184], but only in connection with his i-ban violation with regard to Vecrumba. Why? In part because I am not so much interested in this subject, and gladly leave it to Russavia.

Consider two mutually i-banned users A and B. A reverted edit by B in an article. B reports the incident to AE. That had happened many times. Does it mean that B uses the interaction ban as "a blunt force instrument" to force A out of topic area? Now consider a situation when B has no i-ban, but asks A to self-revert and do not report him to AE after first violation. Is that something sanctionable?

What should be done with "difficult areas" in general? I think you took care about this already by creating discretionary sanctions. I think the current team of AE administrators is highly competent, and they have already i-bans, topic bans and site bans to their disposal. What else can you possibly do? Probably only this: dismiss amendments that dispute decisions by AE administrators, unless there are very obvious and serious reasons for you to intervene. But what would be a valid reason for your intervention in such cases? That could be a statement by one or several AE administrators that they can not deal with a problem or your remedy is not working. Then you have to look who was exactly the problem according to them [185]. It does not mean that an AE administrator was necessarily right. One very common situation is that user A has been engaged in systematic violations of his editing restriction. If that happens, I think it serves as a proof that you actually made a correct restriction. How this should be enforced? This is also standard: the sequence of blocks of increasing duration. No need to invent anything special.

@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. I do not see how my discussion with Kolokol1 about his problems at ANI can be interpreted as inflaming the situation. Kolokol1 did not make any comments about Russavia since then. I do not think it would be appropriate to report Kolokol1 to AE because he was reported already to ANI and COI noticeboards. It is noteworthy that ANI discussion resulted in no action against Kolokol1. On the other hand, I probably should not talk at all with any editors who are in conflict with Russavia (like Kolokol1), because that will eventually lead to Russavia filing a complaint about me later (two months later in this case). That was wrong. I am sorry.

I do believe that Russavia is an Australian businessman, and I never said that he was not. Why did I use this diff? Just because I needed a diff where someone made a similar claim and end up site banned. Did I use this diff before? No, I do not remember using it anywhere (Russavia tells: "Biophys has used that diff in different discussions". If he can remind what discussions he is talking about, I might be able to check it myself. Please note that discussion in old arbitration case mentioned by Russavia [186] was not related in any way to Russavia whatsoever). Giving wrong diff, making a single edit in Aeroflot... These charges look so petty to me... Yes, I realize that Russavia does not like the one-sided i-ban. Then let's remove it (please see amendment 3). Yes, I mean it. If Russavia does not want to talk, I will not talk with him. If he wants to discuss something (e.g in Aeroflot), then I feel very comfortable discussing any content issues with him, although I would rather avoid him. Please note that Russavia has no problems with discussing content issues [187]. Biophys (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret that at this point I just see this as a cynical attempt by Russavia to expand their fiefdom of article ownership and institutionalize their ability to indulge their whims of drive-by disruption on the assumption that any mutually i-banned editor can't do or say anything subsequently once Russavia has touched an article without being slapped by Russavia with an i-ban violation enforcement request. I've already explained elsewhere how i-bans should work to promote constructive behavior, but the abject lack of interest and discussion regarding that has been, frankly, appalling. "Metrics drive behavior." As long as the status quo rewards disruptive behavior and does nothing to promote collegial behavior, the WP:MESS will continue—not just limited to the Soviet legacy et al. Really, if you're all so jaded and poisoned that all anyone considers anymore is who to WP:WHACK and for how long and have given up on how to promote collegial behavior in areas of contention, you should resign from admin/ArbCom duties. I've been suggesting for years how to promote collegial behavior, how to disarm antagonists, and apparently no one gives a damn, just rolling out the usual tired self-righteous pontifications on nationalists, SPAs, etc.

Apologies I got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

The irony is that Russavia and I have been able to interact cordially, however, any attempt to do so is currently banned and what we have is this crap instead. ...Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

Same response on proposed amendment #2, that being an outright request for article ownership. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do find myself having to comment further on Russavia's allegations of stalking and harassment. As I recall, Russavia was topic banned from the topic area of contention before, however his "enemies" were gracious enough to not object to Russavia's editing articles broadly in scope but outside the area of contention, allowing for his topic ban to be relaxed. That past graciousness is now repaid with drive-by content deletions (previously discussed in prior et al.) and a personal double standard where he (falsely) decries poor conduct in others which he himself has been practicing for years in the area of contention. (The classic stalking of my Aspic edit and lecturing me on behalf of ArbCom diff is available if need be.) I regret to conclude that, at least as of now, granting Russavia anything when there is no actual conduct on the part of any other editor which needs to be addressed while ignoring his obvious disruptions will only beget more of the same. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie, I can go find my recent suggestion for i-bans in one of these recent mish-moshes. Short version, i-bans should only mandate that

• editors not address each other specifically; interacting on content editing it or discussing is permitted as long as the discussion is not personalized
• editors not discuss the other editor anywhere, in any way, either by name or as an identifiable member of a specific group

There is no reason editors who are i-banned cannot coexist on articles. Moreover, if that interaction is prohibited, the i-ban just becomes another tool to be used to game the system to own articles in spaces where there is a limited number of editors:

• get there first with a provocative POV edit; i-ban grants owenership where other i-banned editor cannot do anything about it, or
• accuse good faithed reports of ban violations as being said gamesmanship, i.e., the wrongdoer blaming the messenger.

Really, the answer is not to escalate punishments, that only increases the payoff for editors who prefer to eliminate their editorial competition through antagonistic tactics.

For example, Russavia and I have managed to interact without the Earth stopping spinning. What is lacking is not tools to censure, restrict, or otherwise punish editors, what is lacking is the will to CHOOSE to believe WP is not poisoned and to CRAFT and enforce sanctions in a manner which promotes collegial behavior.

Lastly, mandatory one week blocks not subject to appeal for every use of FUCK, SHIT, etc. in addressing an editor or situation. If you want a more collegial environment, start with good manners. Psychological studies have shown that "blowing off steam" does NOT blow off steam, it only further inflames future behavior. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was working on something completely unrelated to WP and ran across some of my advice I wrote sometime back for dealing with our offshore India services providers. It would seem to apply here (and probably to everyone):

Also, being confrontational or forceful does not produce quicker or better results. Politeness, praising positive accomplishments, and not hurrying will earn you respect and go much further.

Best, Peters PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Greyhood

Links provided by Russavia clearly indicate the following issues:

#1 Biophys using against Russavia the strange situation, when Russavia is prohibited to interact with Biophys, but Biophys is not prohibited from interaction with Russavia. From a point of view of someone who doesn't know much about EEML, the EEML-related sanctions and the previous history of Biophys-Russavia relations, such a non-balanced situation with interaction bans might look like if Russavia had done something wrong in his past interaction with Biophys and was i-banned for that, while Biophys had done nothing wrong and was not i-banned. But of course this is not the case: in fact Biophys had received a tougher sanction, having been topic-banned from the area which caused disputes with Russavia. At that moment such a solution resolved the problem, practically excluding Biophys-Russavia interaction, and the mutual interaction ban was not necessary or important then. But after some time had passed, the ban was lifted from Biophys since it was thought that he would change his editing practices for the better. Russavia's sanction was left intact, however, which led to the present situation of injustice of non-mutual interaction ban. Biophys received a non-deserved interaction advantage over Russavia, while Russavia received a non-deserved drawback.

That wouldn't be a real problem, though, if Biophys had avoided interaction with Russavia and didn't used the situation for his own editing advantages. But he came to an article such as Aeroflot, which he was previously topic-banned from, which is at the core of Russavia's editing interest and expertise, which he knew was watched by Russavia and was recently significantly edited by him. That was OK up to that point still. But Biophys restored without pre-discussing an old problematic edit discussed and removed long ago, waited until Russavia reverted it, asked of self-reverting, and insisted on reverting even after Russavia was supported by other editors. When on a different article Russavia reverted Vecrumba (another strange non-mutual topic ban, especially given Vecrumba's claim they were able to interact cordially before the ban), it was not Vecrumba, but for some reason again Biophys who reminded of the interaction ban on the talk page of the article (which seems he didn't edited before). OK, that wasn't nice, however formally Biophys had a right to do so. But then he made quite an unnecessary move looking provocative. As if to make things even less nice on purpose, Biophys posted not only to the article talk, but right onto Russavia's talk page as well, asking for-self-revert via the link. In this situation 1) if Russavia answers Biophys, whether politely or not, he violates the interaction ban again 2) if Russavia doesn't answer Biophys, Biophys has an additional argument against Russavia (that Russavia was warned about the revert). When Biophys was told not to post on Russavia's talk, he still did unnecessarily post one more time, as if to purposely enrage Russavia even more (the emotional reaction of Russavia was quite clear before that). Biophys made an AE request against Russavia and Russavia was blocked.

I understand Russavia very well: from his perspective especially, the series of actions by Biophys looked like a strategy of making provocations, gaming on undeserved non-mutual i-bans, sanctioning Russavia for their violations, and interrupting Russavia's editing of certain articles. I hope Biophys didn't really mean all that, but he should understand that his actions might be seen as provocative even by uninvolved editors, like me, and from Russavia's positions and with the background of past problems, those actions were sure to be taken for gaming the system and hounding.

#2 Biophys reproducing old insinuations against Russavia, while at the same time being sensitive about old attack material against himself. I don't find such a position exactly nice. Biophys and many other editors, including non-EEML editors, find it inappropriate to provide links to some old attack pages, but at the same time Biophys provides links containg old insinuations against Russavia to new editors. If he just would have warned against similar insinuations in present, without providing the links, that would be different. But he did it in the way as if on purpose to resurface the old attack stuff.

Thoughts on solution. Biophys seems to agree to withdraw from further direct communication with or commenting on Russavia. Basically this is very close to voluntary i-ban, and as Biophys is ready to accept that anyway and that wouldn't harm him, better make it formal admin-approved ban, so as to exclude the possibility of gaming the system in principle. Another solution, on the contrary, would be to allow Russavia freely interact with Biophys and other EEML members making them fully equal in editing, but given the level of existing mistrust between them, aggravated by the recent events, seems this is not an option. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• Wikipedia:ARBRB#Biophys_topic_banned
• Biophys topic banned from all articles relating to Aeroflot, broadly construed. This would also include BLP articles such as Viktor Ivanov and Boris Berezovsky. It may be appropriate, given past history to consider topic banning Biophys from all Russian BLP articles, broadly construed. This ban to be set with no expiration, but rather to be lifted only upon onwiki appeal to the Committee.

Statement by Russavia (2)

Aeroflot

• In mid-September, I began to introduce rewritten information and an expansion of Aeroflot[188]
• The Boris Berezovsky article issues interrupted this (as detailed above)
• As part of the discussion on the Berezovsky talk page, I posted this.
• Almost immediately after that, Biophys makes this edit to the Aeroflot article.
• The edit is almost identical to an edit from September 2009[189]
• This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this.
• Note The information that Biophys has re-included into the article, includes reference to Aquarium (Suvorov); a fictionalised autobiography. As noted on the talk page, it is a novel.
• Including negative information based upon a novel into any article is IMO forgivable only on the first occasion.
• The information also includes a WP:BLP violation, in that it notes that Viktor Ivanov is in the FSB hierarchy, thereby implying that his position at Aeroflot is connected to his position in the FSB; ignoring that he is also involved in other business and is also involved in politics.
• Biophys has a long history of reintroducing information into articles which has previously been removed. This case is full of such examples.
• Given the short time frame between my post on the Berezovsky talk page and Biophys' return of two year removed information into the article, it is fair to assume that he did this due to my post on the BB talk page
• Biophys knew I would be 1) unable to remove it or 2) discuss it -- for all intent and purpose it would be left in the article, even as I was going to continue with rewriting it.
• I revert his addition
• I post this on the talk page
• I implore that Arbs read the entire section, as it is evident that Biophys attempted to use the interaction ban as a weapon to sideline myself from the article entirely
• Biophys posts this[190] - he uses the interaction ban card to try and lock me out of conversation
• This is posted on another user's talk page, asking for advice on what I should do in relation to the situation as it was at the time (e.g. accusations against myself coming from numerous editors). It was not an invite nor even a call for help on the Aeroflot article, but a request only for advice.
• Another editor, aside from Igny, agreed with the removal of information.
• Immediately after the appearance of User:Collect on the talk page, given his misrepresentations against myself, I had enough and retired
• It was my intention to leave enwp entirely, but returned after a week/week and a half and made it clear I wouldn't be hounded from the project.

Comment by Biophys

Perhaps this needs additional response.

1. "Aquarium" by Suvorov (especially English edition) provides a lot of factual detail, including plan of GRU headquarters.
2. Info about someone being an FSB member and Aeroflot chairman is not a BLP violation. Those are simply official places of work. Yes, there is an implicit conjecture here, but this is a conjecture made in a source, not by me.
3. I explained to Igny already why I made an edit in Aeroflot and several other places [191]. I forgot about this information removed from Aeroflot by Vlad Fedorov, but it came to my mind after talking with Kolokol1. Russavia tells: "Biophys knew I would be unable to remove it". Yes, this is true. I absolutely did not expect that he will remove this information (as he did). I simply wanted my contributions be placed back in the article, and perhaps improved by other regular contributors. Biophys (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 3

• The remedy of the Russavia-Biophys case is amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Hodja Nasreddin. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to discuss with each other or to edit in common.

Statement by Biophys (2)

I propose lifting the interaction ban for Russavia with myself. No, I do not enjoy interactions with Russavia, and I am not looking forward editing any articles together with him. I will also stay off talk page of Russavia as he recently requested [192], unless he changes his mind. However, if we happened to edit the same article (like Aeroflot), we must be able to discuss the changes. At least, Russavia will not claim that I am using i-ban against him. I do not. Biophys (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Biophys was allowed to return to this topic area after an appeal. Arb comments are at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4

Please note Biophys has again retired. As evidenced in the initial case this is often done by Biophys to escape scrutiny and sanctions. This request should be allowed to continue regardless. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I removed "retired" notice from my talk page and made a few edits because I do not want my retirement to be seen as "tactics". Biophys (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC) However, it does not mean that I am going to stay, especially after this battleground amendment. Do I look like someone who is happy to participate in the project? Biophys (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can all editors please advise when they are done with editing their "statements". I will be responding to some of the inaccurate assertions presented herein, and when doing so, one wants to be able to be able to respond without editors making changes. For example, Biophys admits making edits to an article that I was involved in expanding and rewriting at the time, because he knew I would be unable to remove nor even discuss it. If that is not evidence that Biophys is using the one-way interaction ban as a battleground tool to lock an expert out of an article (me being an aviation journalist for a five year period with a speciality in the Russian and ex-Soviet aerospace industry), then I don't know what is. People might not like the characterisation, but it is classic WP:RANDY. For me to respond at some time in the future, only to have this removed by an editor is going to makes things harder for the community to follow and those who are actually involved to respond to. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please see my comment above. Telling that addition of relevant and sourced information is an attempt to "lock an expert out of an article" sounds like WP:OWN to me. However, the complete revert of my edit and requesting the topic ban afterwards is indeed an attempt to remove another editor from the article, and the continuing WP:OWN by Russavia. Biophys (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I also object to Russavia distorting my words ("Biophys admits making edits to an article ... because he knew I would be unable to remove nor even discuss it."). No, I said that I made this edit because I wanted this contribution to be included, at least in some form [193], and I discussed this edit with other people who were not under interaction ban [194]. Biophys (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, can Biophys advise us all when he is done changing his statements; he has made that announcement once already after being requested to do so, and he has continued to change statements. It is somewhat annoying. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

David Fuchs, I will attempt to provide diffs of where that diff has been used in the past. Not sure if there is going to be an easy way to do it, without having to go back thru a multitude of postings, so if one can bear with me whilst I attempt to find them that would be appreciated. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

David, I spent about 15 minutes looking at various contribs, and I must say that I got bored very quickly of trying to find the diff in question. I know it has been used previously (either as a direct diff or as a link to the entire discussion), as I do remember raising the issue as to why Biophys insists on simply linking to the accusations, rather than explicitly telling such editors that there is no evidence of such things. The problem in finding it is also compounded due to many people not archiving their talk pages, but rather wholesale blanking or removing posts, making it near on impossible to find, unless one is willing to trawl through thousands of contributions and diffs, and frankly I obviously have much better use of my time. So I will leave it up to the Committee whether they take me at my word on that, or whether I remove the assertion (as I said I would). Either way, the fact that diffs from years ago are still trotted out on discussions about editors (instead of on content) shows me that there is still problematic behavioural patterns there. Anyway, please advise. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Statement by Collect

An "O Cataline" moment on the arbitration pages? This is not the best place to seek bans on such wondrous bases as "he retires to avoid it" considering a recent block and [195] a request for an unblock because he was still complaining at AE, [196] with edit summary can someone deal with this shit - stay away from my talk page doesn't mean come back and post yet again - GO AWAY) which shows a possible civility concern, [197] showing a rather cargumentative nature about me daring to call myself "uninvolved" in a case where I was actually uninvolved (and where he edited my post to change it to "involved"), [198] his own one week "retiremenet" and all in a short period of time. I rather think Russavia should simply be told to stay away from routine posts to ArbCom and to let things quiet down a bit. And have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) By the way, he did not give me the courtesy of a note that he accuses me here of "misrepresentations. Again - simply telling him to have a cup or two of tea should work, I sincerely hope. Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Colchicum

Quousque tandem abutere, Russavia, patientia nostra? The idea that the mention of Viktor Ivanov's FSB affiliation, not in the least contentious, is a BLP violation is just ridiculous. I have a hard time trying to believe that Russavia is even serious here. The rest of the request is probably of similar quality and needs very careful research and scrutiny before placing any sanctions on anybody. Well, everybody here has probably learned by now that his allegations should never be taken at their face value. Also note that per the same reasoning Russavia himself should at the very least be topic-banned from all things Baltic and Polish. Supporting evidence abounds, but I can point it out specifically if anybody doesn't know what I mean. As to the retirement tactics, Russavia himself temporarily "retired" in September, shortly after this [199], which would most certainly yield him a lengthy block otherwise. Colchicum (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this" – and there was nothing even remotely similar to a consensus in that discussion. Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) was there instead, if you know what I mean. In fact, I see absolutely no valid reason why Biophys shouldn't have edited Aeroflot. His edits might be a bit controversial, but certainly nothing to worry about too much, and his interest in that topic predates the imposition of the interaction bans. And then Russavia effectively declares that he willfully violated his own interaction ban and expects this to be taken lightly? Hmm. The more I read this proposal the more it looks like at least one of us has lost touch with reality. Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My first thought is: "What actions can be taken here to resolve this contentious area?". Folks, you don't want to know what my first ANSWER to that thought is, but I think some might know, considering my thoughts on areas that generate case after case, amendment after amendment, issue after issues.

• However, I have a question, and I want honest answers here. If you were in our shoes, and had no "horse in the race", what actions do you think we should be taking to resolve this topic areas? I don't want "Sanction Users X, Y and Z". No names allowed, please. I want to know if you think complete interaction bans are necessary, going back to a topic ban setup to forcibly remove users from this area, or even harsher measures? SirFozzie (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I am not inclined to drop any interaction bans in this request (the amount of back and forth here does not give me any confidence whatsoever that it will resolve anything), but as I said on the related clarification request, if there are issues dealing with people using interaction bans to attempt to lock others out of editing, the interaction bans can be converted to a topic ban.. SirFozzie (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Russavia, if you could dig up further examples of Bio linking to the accusations, that would be appreciated. To Biophys, I would like to know what such comments are necessary--given that they have been determined to have no merit, it really serves no purpose to bring it up. In areas like this if you feel there are violations of sanctions, going in and enflaming the issue is not an effective use of anyone's time--notifying AE or similar venue is better, as you point out--is there really no one else looking at Russavia's edits? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Given that Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs) has retired, I'd suggest that this can be archived. Obviously, if he decides to resume editing, we can take another look at the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.