HistoricWarrior007 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 485: | Line 485: | ||
===On the Russavia Ban=== |
===On the Russavia Ban=== |
||
I believe that the reason Russavia made the comments that enabled Ol'Factory to ban him, was because Russavia was constantly provoked by the e-mail team, and even banned by their resident administrator. Thus the issue here is not Russavia's final action, but the reason that Russavia committed his final action. We are all human. We all err. A single error should not be the reason that a person gets banned. Russavia made a bad post, after being provoked by the e-mail group, that Sandstein used to get him banned for 6 months. Here is the comment: "''In his edit notice at [94], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D.''" When a Russian user posts a smiley on the end, ahh heck, when any user posts a smiley on the end - that means they are kidding! A six month ban for such a comment, considering the previous provocations against Russavia, and considering that the article in question, is trying to promote a film that shows "how similar Soviet States was to Nazi State" (because we all know it was the USSR and SS going around and committing the Holocaust, or so the film's hypothesis alleges). Russavia wanted to include a Dyukhov, someone who wrote a critique of the film, while the e-mail group wanted to marginalize Duykhov, and anyone critiquing the film, because "if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making the argument" is apparently a valid tactic to use on Wikipedia. For this, Russavia received a six month ban from Sandstein, which led Russavia to make the comment that was used by Ol'Factory to impose an infinite ban on Russavia. I don't see this as neither fair, nor just. |
I believe that the reason Russavia made the comments that enabled Ol'Factory to ban him, was because Russavia was constantly provoked by the e-mail team, and even banned by their resident administrator{{fact}}. Thus the issue here is not Russavia's final action, but the reason that Russavia committed his final action. We are all human. We all err. A single error should not be the reason that a person gets banned. Russavia made a bad post, after being provoked by the e-mail group, that Sandstein used to get him banned for 6 months. Here is the comment: "''In his edit notice at [94], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D.''" When a Russian user posts a smiley on the end, ahh heck, when any user posts a smiley on the end - that means they are kidding! A six month ban for such a comment, considering the previous provocations against Russavia, and considering that the article in question, is trying to promote a film that shows "how similar Soviet States was to Nazi State" (because we all know it was the USSR and SS going around and committing the Holocaust, or so the film's hypothesis alleges). Russavia wanted to include a Dyukhov, someone who wrote a critique of the film, while the e-mail group wanted to marginalize Duykhov, and anyone critiquing the film, because "if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making the argument" is apparently a valid tactic to use on Wikipedia. For this, Russavia received a six month ban from Sandstein, which led Russavia to make the comment that was used by Ol'Factory to impose an infinite ban on Russavia. I don't see this as neither fair, nor just. |
||
===More to come=== |
===More to come=== |
Revision as of 06:20, 21 September 2009
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Sandstein
- Reposted here from the case talk page as suggested by Daniel.
I was first made aware of the (alleged) existence of this mailing list in the WP:ANI thread of 17 September 2009, and have not seen the supposedly leaked archives.
I have not participated in any off- or onwiki coordination related to Eastern Europe in general or administrative actions in this area in particular. I am not aware of any attempts, as has allegedly been the purpose of this mailing list, to exert any sort of influence upon me (except of course that I have received several onwiki and some e-mail reactions to administrative actions I took with respect to the topic area).
My administrator and arbitration enforcement actions in this area are all based solely on the requests made and evidence presented on the administrators' and arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and this will continue to be the case. Sandstein 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Ellol
User Russavia was unfairly topic-banned
First of all, what are the facts. Russavia was topic-banned for 6 months by Sandstein [1] for addressing a member of the Eastern European Mailing List (Marting) in a not generally appropriate manner.
Later, the topic ban was extended by Sandstein for infinity after this Russavia's comment at Russavia's talk page: [2].
Given the new evidence about the Mailing List, the situation looks so.
Russavia told to a member of the Mailing List a single sentence that was treated by the admin as WP:BATTLE (though it was marked with a smile, and could be normally treated a joke). As far as I know, it's a rather harsh decision even without the current evidence.
But given the evidence we have now, I assert that Russavia was not in the situation of the ordinary Wikipedia user-to-user discussion. Instead, he addressed the people acting as a single united team with certain ideological settings. Generally, we see the Wiki relationships as person-to-person ones and insist that people need to stay civil. But in this case, Russavia was confronted by a team.
I had to stand in some situations against edits by users from the Mailing List, and I can say it's a highly unpleasant feeling, when it looked that I don't talk to real alive people, but the wall that behaved regardless of what I do. It looked like the world around was against me. And it looked that I am wrong merely for having a different opinion than the other people -- who as I see now actually teamed against me. So I understand perfectly well what Russavia could feel.
What happened later is what I can't understand at all. Russavia's ban was extended merely because he posted a comment on his own talk page! What does it mean -- he could not even express his opinion about what's going on, at his own talk? How can this be possible?
I strongly propose the Arbitration Committee to review the situation with Russavia's ban, that looks for me very much unfair, especially given the new evidence.
Admin Sandstein shouldn't be let to keep sanctions on Russavia
I see that he made an unjustified decision to ban Russavia even without the evidence we have now. But what strikes me is that Sandstain continues to insist now that his decision was correct: [3].
I am afraid, that now he might be merely proving that he was right that time, as it may matter for his future and current Wikipedia career.
I believe that he is not an uninvolved person to this case. I strongly propose not to leave Russavia's case on behalf of admin Sandstain, who must be suffering from the conflict of interests.
Evidence presented by Durova
After taking a couple of days off it isn't very much of a surprise to see this dispute at arbitration, but it is startling to discover the way it arrived and shocking to see myself compared to a cockroach. If any good can arise from this unfortunate situation let's hope it will be to see WP:CIVIL resume its former significance at this website. For those who prefer name-calling, Usenet is thataway.
These unexpected developments make a statement necessary. As everyone knows, I have a history with regard to offsite correspondence which I am very sorry for. If there had been any reason to guess that this situation could take a similar direction then I would have avoided it completely. I was not aware that the mailing list existed. The ANI thread about Russavia's topic ban appeared to be at the wrong venue and it seemed like a reasonable thing to agree with the people who had already referred it elsewhere.
Shortly afterward, when a community sanction got proposed, I objected procedurally in order to prevent the kind of difficulties that arose after the Bluemarine case: for a quick refresher browse two noticeboard threads that bookend the problem.[4][5] The main lesson to be learned from the Bluemarine example is that it's best to establish clear lines regarding arbitration sanctions and community sanctions. Months of trouble arose from the lack of clarity in that instance. The Eastern European disputes are bitter and longstanding; a similar problem there would likely be worse.
Both at ANI and here I have no opinion whether the sanctions on Russavia were appropriate or inappropriate; I simply hope to see ArbCom settle the matter and put it to rest.
Until today when this case opened my only offsite correspondence regarding this dispute was a brief gchat with John Vandenberg on 11 September, which I initiated. I mentioned the ANI thread and suggested the Committee might want to look into the problem before it worsened. My final words to him were "It's the type of situation where the cross-accusations tend to accumulate, and ArbCom eventually finds itself mopping a big spill instead of a small one."
Today I received two brief emails from Piotrus and a gchat from Giano, which brought me up to date in a basic way. As the nature of this matter becomes clear please conduct further communications onsite.
Regarding the list emails themselves (which I have not seen nor do I want to), it is currently my understanding that they were obtained via hacking. During the Bluemarine arbitration a computer hacking occurred and the Committee disregarded the information that emerged from it. There are two very good reasons for ignoring hacked information: (1) we don't wish to encourage hacking, and (2) anyone who sinks to hacking is probably not above altering material.
In the Bluemarine case the hacking victim's bank account was also emptied. Durova319 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim
Email archive
Let's get one thing clear: this list is real, and the amount of incriminating material is breathtakingly overwhelming and thickly spread, so much so that despite the huge size of the archive evidence of gross misconduct is obscenely easy to spot. For instance, in the threads entitled "[WPM] [WMP] Molobo ban" (early days of June), it is revealed that Piotrus, Radek, Biophys and others knew and encouraged Molobo's recent socking (for which he was banned for a year by User:Avraham), conspired more puppetry, pondered how to avoid detection in future, and advocated use of proxies. Other such activities are easy to spot. Conspiring to harass and edit-war is so rampant throughout the archive that ironing out the details is almost pointless, and using this User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads along with the archive saves very little time. I will not post many more comments on the archive until it is clear what ArbCom have and have not spotted, what they intend to do, and so on.
Some of these emails should be required reading for future AE admins. Particularly Biruitorul's post on "[WPM] More cabal theory" June 6 2009 and Radek's long post at "Re: [WPM] It isn't over" on June 21 2009, the former concerning the "political" set-up among nationalist users in eastern Europe and the latter on cabaling strategy in general. Read only though if you can take the smack on your faith in human nature, and can protect yourself from future over-reactive cynicism.
My "involvement" and how this was allowed to happen
Two of the users on this list I've been familiar with for years, namely Piotrus and Molobo. I only encountered them because I inadvertently stepped into a nationalist war on a medieval history article (Jogaila), and, after that dispute was settled everything was amicable, until the Lokyz unblock that is. The others I had never heard of until the period leading up to the Piotrus 2 ArbCom hearing, but know now from AE threads. What an experience it has been to have users like Martintg, Biophys, Vecrumba, Digwuren, and others, who I'd barely heard of and never had a dispute with, attacking me on wiki. Back when I encountered them in 2006 (Piotrus and Molobo are the only survivors from that period on this list), they were doing much of this on wiki, at
- Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board (note the top, there is a list of nationalist POV disputes advertised to all members to edit war in "articles needing attention")
(and there after visibly went offline e.g.)
I sought intervention against that board and its activities then,[6] (or see Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01#Aftermath) and nothing would have happened (as I was an inexperienced newbie) were it not for the fact that my concerns were picked up, independently I think, by User:Elonka.
Elonka's good-faithed activity led to her recusing from involvement in the area once she became an admim, yet she was not "involved" beyond trying to ensure good behaviour, while her Polish ancestry made her no more involved than Kirill Lokshin, the Russian architect of most previous ArbCom decisions. Yet the users in question managed to hound her from the area, just as they later hounded me. And as a result, two admins with insight into this matter were made useless to the community, and instead it was left to more naive admins whom this cabal could and have eaten for breakfast. I've had to watch while good-faithed admins like AGK, Ryan Postelwaite, Sandstein, and others were played like pawns in a game they neither understood nor knew they were playing (Thatcher is an exception, and this should be stated). If these admins think I am being unfair, then they should check the emails and note how the cabalists glory and gloat at their expense.
Why have I been unable to do anything? When I brought Piotrus 2 forward, they depicted me as an involved eastern european editor:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Evidence#Tag_team_1:_Russian], where Piotrus listed me as part of a Russian tag team.
- The account User:Koretek was set-up by User:Molobo (as User:Sciurinae has shown since) purely to leave messages on talk pages accusing me of being anti-Polish
I think some of the arbs bought this, sadly enough; certainly that's what the email cabal seem to think (e.g. "Friday, February 06, 2009 5:15 PM"). A frivolous admonition was passed against me as punishment for bringing the case, and since then this "remedy" has been used to undermine everything I've said about this case, whether this was on AE threads (e.g.) or elsewhere.[7] I have also been accused of nursing a grudge against Piotrus (by Piotrus' list pals of course, but sadly also by User:Coren,here soon after a minor dispute I had with him as a clerk, comments which even these mail-listers thought were funny [check the relevant emails]). I was really frustrated at this, but being a little non-networking user/admin I had to accept that this is sometimes the result of trying to protect good wikipedians against abuse. As I said at the time to one of the arbs, ArbCom and the clique around them often inadvertently do more damage to good users than these bad users do.
But if I and Elonka, two admins with AE experience, had freedom in this area, this cabaling would not have had the same effect. I can't speak for Elonka, but I already knew this was happening and stated frequently. As a result I was frequently accused of bad faith and grudge-holding, but my integrity has never been seriously challenged and the plain fact is that I just had more experience and insight. Having no reason to doubt my integrity, there was no reason to ignore me and my experience, as ArbCom did. But if this weren't bad enough, ArbCom had the ability to know itself just by reading the evidence, but did nothing.
You can bring a horse to water, but can't make it drink
ArbCom already had the information to know this was happening, and to know about the character of these users. The Alden Jones incident in question was commented upon in the evidence section of Piotrus 2. Since mine is mostly deleted now, I'll repost the section:
- Shortly afterwards a user came out of nowhere and reverted [8], User:Alden Jones, for which effort he was almost blocked for it.[9] The user has only poor English, no interest in the topic and was only reverting to "support" Piotrus, and most of his edits in the past have consisted of little more than reverting to whatever version of an article Piotrus happens to prefer. Funnily enough, Alden had been inactive for more than three weeks prior to that revert, since his 2 day block for revert-warring (along with Piotrus) on Truce of Vilna. Alden Jones has since effectively revealed that he was sent there by another user; the only other reverter was, of course, Piotrus [10]. Piotrus later left this message Long time after the single revert, but 2 hours after Lokyz' comment there. Use your own judgment here. He has since claimed this is a loving follower, and now I'm just waiting for him to claim that Alden's gaff was the result of his poor English.
The diff, presented above, is here.
Evidence showing beyond doubt that off-wiki collaboration was widespread was presented, here, here, and, among other places, here and here. But, despite this, we got:
- 25.3) There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.
- Passed by 6 arbs to 0.
You can only bring a horse to water, you can't make it drink. Not only was this FoF a bad summary of the evidence, it was also a misleading message (presumably prompted by Piotrus' disingenuous complaints that he was being misunderstood) that told the admin community that the accusations against him were a natural result of the inevitable enmity he encounters by writing lots of articles, and nothing more. I know some of the arbs actually believed this, from a second hand account of private arbitrator comments. That said, this finding was just one of many absurdities showing the arbs hadn't read the evidence and had little but haughty contempt for those who provided it, a haughty contempt that turned misguided opinion of the matter into damaging action.
It was continually shown that Piotrus and his followers were using offline techniques to co-ordinate edit-warring and harass other users; it was continually shown that Piotrus had a disreputable character unbecoming of an editor let alone an admin (evidence the TigerShark-Lokyz IRC incident, or the [Black Book] whose post_Piotrus 2 history can be seen in the emails), yet those punished were the victims, a list including but not confined to User:Irpen, User:Lokyz, and, in a previous case, User:Ghirlandajo. The last, before he left, was statistically Wikipedia's top content contributor! Irpen joined Ghirlandajo after the case in the long list of productive wikipedians who have been driven off the project. They are volunteers and don't need to put up with this kind of abuse if ArbCom, the only body who could have protected them, refused to and instead victimised them. Having a sense of injustice transforms a person remarkably.
What's to be done
Every single remedy and FoF in Piotrus 2 case is outdated and many of them now look not only ridiculous, but positively cruel. The entire case should be declared void. If not, then at the very least victims like Irpen, Lokyz, and perhaps Boodlesthecat, should have their punitive remedies lifted. Ghirlandajo should be praised for his former contributions, and a remedy should be passed urging him that his return to content-editing would be welcomed. And lastly, I, Thatcher, and the few others who now appear in all the ArbitrationEnforcement threads to have credibility should be praised for the effort we've put in and the stress we have endured. The Digwuren case, the plaything of this email list, should similarly be put to the sword and the bad book burned. An all-encompassing new case with a new set of remedies in light of ArbCom's lucky new wisdom should be enacted.
What's more, ArbCom needs to reform itself in certain regards. Beyond the miscarriages of justice, the biggest frustration was the reason these miscarriages happened: the arbs didn't read the evidence, or if they did there was no on-wiki evidence they did, and there was no opportunity to challenge the arbs before they acted. Besides the fact it was obvious to me they didn't from their remedies, there was no participation in any of the workshops, despite the fact the designers knew this was necessary and signaled their intention for this by having separate (in practice almost always empty) arbitrator sections. This is beijg changed anyway if I remember correctly, and if so this is good. That's not the only reason it went wrong though. Just like I said they would, the users in question filled the evidence section with slander and misleading diffs, increasing the workload to overwhelm the arbs ... forcing them to rely more on weak heuristic techniques, such as punishing both sides equally from a sense of "natural justice". At worst, two handfuls of active arbs merely read Kirill's remedies and voted with only cursory glances, trusting Kirill. At best, all of them read the evidence, and few of them understood it, most miraculously coming to the same conclusions as Kirill. All the arbs are intelligent hard working people, but they need to give themselves a chance to avoid normal human frailties which, although safe elsewhere, can be damaging with this kind of power.
Then there's the issue of off-wiki co-ordination. It's not likely that this is the only group, though it is probably the most disreputable and most skilled, and we are very lucky here to have uncovered it. I suggested a while ago on that Arbitration reform thread that admins be allowed to classify the edits of multiple users as one at their discretion (following ArbCom remedies of course, not generally). It wasn't much heeded at the time, being apparently over the top. But with this evidence now, is it really?
Evidence presented by Offliner
Here I present some evidence which I hope will be helpful to ArbCom when investigating the emails. ArbCom should compare the dates of these diffs with emails from the same time perioed, and see if there is something interesting going on in the email list. I will concentrate on editors who according to ArbCom are members of the list.
Members of the secret email list coordinate their edit warring
According to this investigation by Shell Kinney -- which contains further evidence of coordinated edit warring that ArbCom should read -- It is also clear that there are sides and from time to time, editors blindly support those on their "side".
Here are some example incidents about possible team actions which indicate off-wiki coordination:
After having made no edits on the article for a long time, Biophys arrived on 11 September to edit war: [11]
Radeksz arrived on 13 September to edit war in support of the Biophys: [12][13]. Before this, Radeksz had showed no interest in the article's subject. He had only made 1 edit, which also was a revert in support of Biophys: [14] (for this edit, Radeksz was briefly blocked: [15])
Biophys was blocked for edit warring on another article for 31h on 15 September (although he also made 3 reverts in 24h on Russian apartment bombings, and more later) [16]
Radeksz continued to edit war in support of Biophys while Biophys was blocked: [17]
Piotrus arrived on 16 September to edit war in support of the Biophys (Piotrus never edited the article before): [18]
After having made no edits on the article for a long time, Biophys suddenly appeared on 9 September to edit war.[19] He performed a massive revert to an old version. To see why this is a massive revert, observe how Biophys blindly restores a typo ("persecuition"), that had been fixed many times by other editors (as noted on the talk page by Russavia.)
On 15 September, while Biophys was blocked, Radeksz appeared to edit war on Biophys' behalf: [20]
Early June edit warring
In early June, there was edit warring in several articles with several members of the list participating. It seems very likely that there was a "call to arms" on the secret list in early June.
- 3 June. PasswordUsername edits: [21]
- 3 June. Digwuren reverts: [22]
- 3 June. Shotlandiya reverts: [23]
- 3 June. Radeksz arrives (he never edited this article before): [24]
- 4 June. Edit war continues: [25][26][27][28]
- 5 June. Martintg arrives: [29]
- 9 June. Sander Säde arrives: [30]
- 11 June. Radesz continues to edit war: [31]
Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia[32]
- 1 June. Article created by me.
- 1 June. Martintg nominates for deletion: [33].
- 5 June. Article is merged to Human rights in Estonia.
- 6 June. Radeksz arrives to edit war: [34][35]
- 6 June. Vecrumba arrives to edit war: [36]
- 5 June. Criticism by Amnesty International inserted.
- 5 June. Radeksz removes: [37]
- 6 June. Sander Säde arrives to do the same: [38]
- 6 June. Radeksz arrives: [39]
- 7 June. Martintg arrives: [40]
- 7 June. Digwuren arrives: [41]
Digwuren personal attack
Digwuren calls other editors Neo-Nazis (in violation of WP:DIGWUREN): [42] As a result, Digwuren is blocked by Thatcher: [43]
Team members use coordinated action to keep copyvio images
On 11 August, admin User:J Milburn (who is very experienced with image copyrights) nominates several copyvio images for deletion. Example: [44]
At 01:01 on 12 August, Piotrus arrives to accuse J Milburn of disruption: [45]
At 01:42 on 12 August, Jacurec arrives to protest against the nomination: [46]
At 02:09 on 12 August, Poeticbent arrives to do the same: [47]
J Milburn is convinced that the images are copyvio: [48]
See J Milburn's replies here: [49]. Sorry I didn't say this just now, just wanted to add that my head is reeling. I really, really, really can't see why you've turned a simple image cleanup into some kind of war between encyclopedists and deletionists. What are you doing?! Whatever, that image can be decided at FfD now. Seems like an awful waste of time, but it's what you wanted...
It seems very likely that on 11 August, there was a call to arms on the secret list to use team pressure to keep the copyvio images. Especially in light of the extremely fast response time of the team.
Team members are engaged in coordinated attempts to provoke their opponents
At 06:05 on 4 April, Piotrus initiates a move discussion at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655): [50]
At 09:53, Radeksz arrives to support Piotrus: [51]
At 09:56, Digwuren arrives to support Piotrus: [52]
At 15:56, Deacon of Pndapetzim arrives to oppose: [53]
Jacurec, Poeticbent and Loosmark also supported Piotrus.
The resulting discussion is interesting to read. Looks like Piotrus and the team are trying to provoke Deacon into making incivil remarks -- was this coordinated on the secret list?
Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards
Russavia reported to AE (2009-03-20). Commenting against Russavia: Digwuren, Vecrumba, Martintg
Martintg reported at AN3 (2009-04-02). Defending Marting: Colchicum, Piotrus, Biophys
Colchicum reported to An3 (2009-04-02). Defending Colchicum: Digwuren, Martintg
Digwuren reported to AN/I (2009-05-21). Defending Digwuren: Martintg, Colchicum, Radeksz, Vecrumba, Piotrus
PasswordUsername reported at AN/I (2009-06-14). Commenting against PasswordUsername: Radeksz, Piotrus, Vecrumba, Martintg
Biophys reported to AE (2009-06-18) Defending Biophys: Digwuren, Martintg, Vecrumba, Piotrus
Digwuren reported to AE (2009-06-18) Defending Digwuren: Martintg, Piotrus, Jacurek, Miacek, Tymek
Rejected Eastern Europe Arbitration request (posted on 2009-06-19)
On 2 April, 2009, Martintg was blocked for edit warring: [54]. Piotrus arrived -- as usual -- to Martintg's defence: [55]. Biruitorul also defended Martintg: [56]. Dc76 also appeared defensive: [57]. Both Piotrus and Biruitorul use the same argument (Martintg's previously clean block log) -- was this coordinated on the secret list?
Members of the secret email list appear to be involved in stealth canvassing of votes
Most of the members always vote the same way in AfDs. Often editors who never showed any interest in the article's subject will suddenly appear to vote in favour of other members of the group. Especially interesting is the behaviour of Radeksz and Piotrus in the following Russia-related subjects: normally they only edit Poland or WWII related articles, but often they appear out of nowhere to support their friends on Russian articles.
- Putinjugend (nominated on 2008-12-28). Keep: Biophys, Martintg, Digwuren, Biruitorul, Dc76, Hillock65
- Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2009-04-19). Keep: Keep: Biophys, Martintg, Vecrumba, Biruitorul
- Russian influence operations in Estonia (2009-05-02). Keep: Vecrumba, Biophys, Martintg
- Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia (2009-06-08). Delete: Martintg, Digwuren, Sander Säde, Colchicum, Vecrumba, Biophys, Termer, Radeksz, Piotrus, Biruitorul
- Russian influence operations in Estonia 2 (2009-08-02) Keep: Martintg (probably through the ip), Radeksz, Piotrus, Vecrumba, Jacurek, Poeticbent, Biophys
- Communist genocide (2009-08-03) Keep: Piotrus, Martintg, Jacurek, Hillock65, Poeticbent, Vecrumba, Termer, Biophys
- Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings 2 (2009-08-26). Keep: Biophys, Martintg
Piotrus has made unfounded personal attacks
When I filed a report about Digwuren, Piotrus responded by attacking me: I agree with Radek; and I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Wikipedia pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket, hoping something will stick.[58]
I asked Piotrus: Could please provide evidence that I have done such things? When have I harassed Digwuren or started baseless threads about him? I do not recall starting a single threat about him, except this one.[59]
Piotrus refused to provide evidence for his claims, although I requested this repeatedly: [60][61]
When I filed an AE report of Digwuren, Piotrus responded by attacking me: [62]
He also said that my evidence was "extremely poor." However, based on this evidence, Digwuren was blocked and placed on 1RR.
When I filed an AE report of Biophys, Piotrus again responded by attacking me: [63]
Martintg has continued to be disruptive after his 1RR sanction was lifted
Based on this investigation, Martintg was placed on 1RR on 23 June, 2009.[64]
Later, after intense protesting by several editors, the sanction was later lifted by Thatcher for bureaucratical reasons, because no prior warning was given. As a sidenote, it may interesting to ArbCom to investigate the emails of the secret list from this time period.
After his sanctions were lifted, Martintg has continued to be disruptive.
I edited Kuril Islands dispute for the first time on 9 July, 2009: [65]
The next day, Martintg arrived. He never edited this article before: [66]
Martintg started to edit war with me and to insert anti-Russian POV in the article.
Martintg unilaterally moved the article two times without discussing first. As a result, he was warned by an admin: [67]
He then launched a personal attack against me, and attempted the reveal private information about my background: [68][69]
He was then blocked for outing: [70]
Piotrus -- as usual -- arrived to support Martintg's unblock: [71]
I believe this episode was an attempt to provoke me into edit warring or to making incivil remarks. Like I said, Martintg never edited the article before this. The only reason he arrived was because he saw that I had just edited the article the day before.
Martintg has been disruptive in other articles as well. On 10-11 August he broke 3RR at Communist genocide: [72][73][74][75]
Confirmation by William M. Connolley that Martintg broke 3RR: [76]. See this discussion: [77]
Martintg has edit warred at Soviet Story. As a result, he was warned by an admin: [78].
Statement by Lysy
I've been involved in Eastern European topics for years here, took part in many contentious disputes, edit wars etc. and never heard of any mailing list so far. My bias is Polish. --Lysytalk 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Jmabel
I'm remarking here only because I notice User:Biruitorul, whom I've always considered a first-rate and evenhanded contributor, is on the list. Checking the evidence above, the only allegation against him is that he said a user ought not to be blocked for his earlier edits to an article from which he had withdrawn, which sounds reasonable to me in almost any circumstances. Surely it is not a reason for a ban from editing on Eastern European topics, the proposed "remedy".
In fact, I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be the problem here. What is the basis for saying that this particular list of users are involved in a conspiracy? - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Badger Drink
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
A certain meme has already started to spread with regards to this case, stating that the mailing list archive was hacked, then falsified, before being leaked. This meme is catching on through sheer force of repetition, and has already made a sucker out of at least one outside participant above.
At this point in time, the only supporting evidence for this claim is the following line of reasoning: "Certainly nobody from this list would leak its contents with an outsider! The list has been leaked to an outsider, therefore it was leaked by somebody who was not a member of the list! Therefore it was hacked!".
Unfortunately, the premise here (that nobody on the list would share its archive with a non-participant) is completely unverified. Whistle-blowing is hardly a new phenomenon - no matter how gung-ho all members of a group may feel on day one, there's always the chance that eventually, one member will feel disillusioned.
It is my sincere hope that ArbCom not be taken by this smokescreen until substantial, valid evidence is offered to back these claims of hacking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and up to this point there has been no proof of these extraordinary claims of hacking and forgery - no extraordinary proof, no proof at all.
Evidence presented by Atama
I just wanted to post a response to Ellol above. Per Russavia's block log, Sandstein had blocked Russavia for only 2 days. Russavia had violated a topic ban but later agreed to abide by the topic ban, which led to Sandstein removing the block. It was Good Ol'factory who later blocked Russavia for making legal threats, and that block has only been lifted procedurally to allow for comments regarding this mailing list incident. I don't see why Sandstein's block is being objected to, when the current indefinite block was Good Ol'factory's decision. Good Ol'factory made the declaration of the indefinite block on AN/I and approved the temporary unblock. I just wanted to clarify this as an outside observer.
Evidence presented by Biophys
Private emails
I am deeply disturbed that people are reading my private emails without my permission. It is obvious that the emails were stolen and publicly posted by a criminal, in violation of privacy and copyright laws. And it does not matter if the criminal was a member of the group, stool pigeon or an FSB hacker. Using the fruits of the crime means encouraging crime. Next time they are going steal and post emails by Jimbo (or maybe they already have emails of everyone here?).
I thought one can freely discuss anything by email with his friends, including his life, his political views, and his hobbies like WP editing. Now Thatcher tells that anything I said to another WP user can be viewed as an "off-wiki coordination" and forbidden. But how could I possibly knew? Yes, I was reading your instructions about the off-wiki communications with regard to voting fraud. But I never did canvassing. I did not see any your instructions that would prohibit a private discussion of wikipedia affairs. I did not commit any crime or misconduct by entertaining my free speech rights, which I did privately and outside this site.
But the lack of WP instructions is only logical. What jurisdiction can you possibly have over private lives of people outside this project?
Yes, I had some serious reservations about joining this email group, but for a very different reason. In email dated April 27, "no subject" and a couple of others (you suppose to have them if the mails were not tampered), I explained that having editorial conflicts with certain pro-Putin editors may be dangerous (see next subsection). I said in the April's emails that all email conversations made by this group may be intercepted and sent to this ArbCom, by a serious security organization that might back up some pro-Putin users (something that had really happened). Of course this is only going to happen if anyone creates a serious problem for the said pro-Putin users and precisely at the moment of the problem. Therefore, I suggested not to keep archives, although I still have a few messages for my records.
Saying that, I unsubscribed from this news group immediately after beginning of this ordeal and will never participate in such newsgroups again to avoid becoming a target of internet crime. For the record, I do not give anyone permission to post my private emails anywhere at this site. Only I can do it, like here.
Content of my emails
On a number of occasions I discussed wikipedia content, policies and participants, usually explaining who is doing what in this project, in my opinion. That was done outside this project and privately, with no intention of harming anyone, although my opinions were often of critical nature. Under no circumstances I asked anyone to personally attack any users or to be engaged in sockpuppetry or edit wars, although I was sometimes seeking an advice or discussed my troubles with editing certain articles. If there are concerns about any specific emails, I can answer them.
Campaign of threats and outing by pro-Putin users
I have reported to old ArbCom a coded death threat which was made to me by pro-Putin editor ellol. He did it using slang Udaff to make translation from Russian more ambiguous and almost impossible by a non-native speaker. He would be blocked right away because I also reported this incident to the ANI, but User:Alex_Bakharev declared that ellol did not mean it.
Being perfectly aware of this threat, another pro-Putin editor User:Vlad fedorov suddenly reappeared as a sock puppet, User:La poet to evade his one -year block by ArbCom and reported my real life identity to ellol. I send this information with diffs to Thatcher some time ago, but the diff is still sitting right there, and I would appreciate if Thatcher redirected my email to ArbCom if he still has it.
Next wave of outing was initiated by User:Miyokan and supported by User:DonaldDuck and User:Russavia (hence his two-week block by Moreshi), who all know my real life identity and made it clear to me that they know it, and who are strongly pro-Putin editors. I can support this by diffs over the email to ArbCom if needed. I am not sure why they are doing this because I almost never edited article Putin.
User:YMB29 is an SPA who does nothing but reverts
This user made so far only ~500 edits. It is enough to look at his edit history and block log. Just a few examples (note misleading edit summaries): [79] [80] [81] [82]. He was also incivil [83]. The only user with whom he was able to positively collaborate [84] was User:Kostan1, a sock of notorious User:M.V.E.i.
Response to evidence by Russavia
Since no one challenged the first two-week block of Russavia for outing me (15 September 2008), I have to start later. When Russavia came back from the block, I suggested him to live in peace here and suggested an independent editor who was at the moment at the Russavia side to mediate any potential disagreements. But Russavia responded that "Anyone who thinks I would agree to such a thing would have to have rocks in their head" [85]. and mobilized several users for a big "battle" [86], [87]. He called these users "members of a web brigade" [88].
Although this all sounds bad, I only had a serious content disagreement with Russavia in one article (Litvinenko). Here he accused me of BLP violation (see his statement below). This is nothing new, because Russavia repeatedly accused me of this during an unrelated AfD discussion, at the talk page of Kirill, at the BLP noticeboard, and WP:RS noticeboard. After such campaign by Russavia, I decided that it would be safer to remove this information even though it was well sourced. I removed it [89] and reported to BLP noticeboard that the problem has been resolved:[90]. And what Russavia does? He re-inserts this claim back!. I am trying to remove it again because I do not want to be accused of BLP violations: [91]. But he reinserts it back again [92]. Why he is doing this? In order to accuse me again during this ArbCom case?
During all this time, I made an official question/request about Russaiva in only two cases, and Russavia received no sanctions due to any of these requests: (a) a thread about 22 hour non-stop editing started by Piotrus (no, I did not ask Piotrus to start this thread over the email), and (b) an AE request about uncivil comments with regard to Baltic users (no, no one asked me over the email to file this request). Anyone can check this ANI thread and AE request to decide if I acted in a good faith. I believe I provided enough evidence for the AE request, and the concern about his 22 hour non-stop editing, day after day after day, was grounded.
Political censorship of wikipedia by Offliner
This is just a sample of Offliner's work here:
- unilateral deletion of an article
- unilateral deletion of an article and again, and again, and again, and again
- unilateral deletion of an article
- unilateral deletion of an article
- deletion of sources and sourced text in the same article
- removal of sourced text, and again, and again
- indiscriminate deletion of links
- deletion of links to publications by the person described in BLP, and again, and again, with offensive edit summary
- removal of links to commentaries by the person described in BLP, deletion of other sourced information in the same article
- deletion of good links
- removal of good links
- removal of soured and relevant information
- an offensive suggestion by Offliner at my talk page
- Endless block shopping and personal attacks by Offliner [93], [94], [95],but he still believes he never started baseless threads
Suggestion by Óðinn
I urge the ArbCom to check if the User:Petri Krohn has also been the victim of this alleged campaign of harassment, discrediting and provocation. He is currently blocked for a year over a conflict with one of the parties of this case. Óðinn (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by User:Russavia
Harrassment by list members on myself
I have good, and sound, reason to believe that I have been subjected to long-term systematic campaigns of harrassment which involved at first User:Biophys, User:Digwuren and User:Martintg, and later more actively joined by User:Piotrus, and other editors at times. I have no doubts that Piotrus and crew co-ordinated at least one campaign of harrassment on this email list. In November 2008, immediately after I received a block for 3RR (which entailed me removing and then rewording very poorly sourced information in the Litvinenko article surrounding claims of Putin being a paedophile - a WP:BLP violation)[96][97][98][99][100][101] (might I add I am disgusted that nothing ever happened despite raising objections at numerous venues) Biophys asked Tiptoety about his belief that I was sharing my account. He was advised that there was not enough evidence to proceed with any checkuser. Due to other accusations levelled against me, which included accusations that I was employed by every Russian state organ from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the FSB/KGB[102], (instead of just being a conscientious contributor who is here to contribute and improve the project), I demanded a checkuser be run on myself in order to put the matter to rest. Even after the results were confirmed that I am but a single editor, it was continued at the checkuser's talk page. On 23 April (my local times I guess), Piotrus posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account what I thought at the time was posted on behalf of Biophys, as a continuation of what myself and others deemed to be harrassment. Due to Piotrus claiming that he was asked about this subject, and after not being able to find any evidence of any onwiki discussion between Piotrus and any other editors, I assumed there was offwiki communication going on in this regard, and hence asked Piotrus for information, but no name or editor came forward. Logically, one can only assume that this was posted either on behalf of Biophys (and others), or was posted by Piotrus in order to give these editors yet another opportunity to harrass myself onwiki. I am certain that if Arbcom checks emails of dates around 23 April 2009, there would more than likely be discussion on this particular harrassment campaign on their email list, which would thereby prove this campaign of harrassment, and the legitimacy of the emails received.
At the same time, so concerned was I that there was serial harrassment and stalking going on, that on 26 April 2009, I contacted a crat on Commons, in order to have my name and other details removed from File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf and File:Kremlin authorisation-Russian.pdf. I operate a business in the real world, and am setting up another, and due to what was obvious to me at the time was stalking and harrassment, I did not want my name being linked to any accusations of my being connected to Russian FSB, etc, particularly as one of those businesses is connected to what is deemed to be a strategic industry; the nature of which I believe I have made known to Arbcom in emails in the past.
Treating WP as a battlefield
Back in January 2009, Digwuren added information to the web brigades article citing an a previous Arbcom decision. After it was removed by another editor, Digwuren re-inserted it. It was again removed by yet another editor, citing correctly that WP is not a reliable source. Piotrus has instantly reverted. This was again removed by yet another editor. Piotrus has again reverted. At that point, I have reverted, noting discussion on the talk page. Martintg has then reverted me. And I have removed again, after which the article was locked by] User:Vassyana. Discussion took place on the reliable source noticeboard, at which Martintg, Piotrus, Vecrumba, Digwuren and Biophys -- all list members -- argued for it's inclusion, whilst it was evident as per other editors who commented, that it should not be included.
I noted at the time, and with hindsight it was like reading from a crystal ball:
The inclusion of this information into the article, in my opinion, is well co-ordinated continued harrassment of editors by this clique; by linking to the Arbcom they have given readers of the article an opportunity to go and read all the paranoid accusations that User:Biophys has made against MANY editors."
To demonstrate my stance then with current events now; if it is found that these list members have acted in the same fashion as a web brigade allegedly does, i.e. teaming, harrassment, etc, would they object to its inclusion in the article based only on an Arbcom decision. Even under those circumstances I would be removing it for the same reasons as I removed such contentions back in January, i.e. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is it a battleground, and I hope this would be the same of all Wikipedia editors.
Immediately after I was banned under Sandstein's first ban, Biophys has done a massive revert[103] to the Litvinenko article, re-including what I believe is 2 WP:LINKVIO, text which I had verified and changed accordingly, misrepresentation of photos, the same mispelled "Persecuition" and the removal of a huge amount of sourced, NPOV-worded text, to what is often described as a compromise version (code for his favoured version). I posted a long list of problems with the article on the talk page and this basically went unheeded. Offliner, an editor who has long been active on the article and talk pages, and also an editor who had been working with me on User:Russavia/Litvinenko, reverted this, due to the same type of problems. Biophs reverts this. After being unblocked by Sandstein, I have reverted this, pointing Biophys to the talk page discussion. (Note: This edit is one which contributed to me being topic banned from ALL Russian articles). Biophys reverts this. (Note: By this time I had received message from Sandstein on my talk page, and I didn't have a chance to incorporate several minor fixes to the article). Offliner reverts this, again pointing Biophys to the talk page, at which point Radeksz acts in a team like manner and reverts. At this point Alex Bakharev has locked the article, and started a discussion.
Evidence of stalking
- I added information to List of most common surnames after stumbling across an article on RIA Novosti. Several editors, none of whom had edited the article previously soon showed up. Miacek revert. I have re-worded and re-added. Martintg reverts (missing the fact that the referenced article quotes an Estonian media source), I revert, noting the stalking. Digwuren, then starts a talk page discussion at Talk:List_of_most_common_surnames#RIA_Novosti.27s_scope_of_reliability, which is joined by tag teamer Vecrumba in which both editors start attacking the use of Russian sources (a common tactic used by these editors to exclude information from articles). Both editors more interested in creating and fermenting yet another battleground, rather than recognising the source states: "One in every 200 Estonians has the Russian name Ivanov, making it the ex-Soviet Baltic country's most common surname, weekly newspaper Eesti Ekspress reported on Thursday.". Instead of helping to find the Eesti source (I don't speak Estonian), these editors instead stalked myself, obvious tag team, used the talk page as a soapbox and created yet another battle. --Russavia Dialogue 08:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by YMB29
Biophys' stubborn edit warring
From editing the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, I could tell that there was some kind of team work involved. User:Biophys would have some users show up to support him in edit warring and "creating a consensus". User:Bobanni especially would come and help Biophys avoid 3RR, keep his edits to 3 or 2 reverts.
Recent example:
10:36, 10 September 2009 Biophys (Unexplained revert)
10:12, 10 September 2009 YMB29 (Undid revision 312888591 by Biophys (talk) See edit on 15 June 2009 23:46)
20:49, 9 September 2009 Biophys (rv. Sorry, but that was you who started reverts here)
13:13, 9 September 2009 YMB29 (Undid revision 312804016 by Bobanni (talk) See talk. Don't start a revert war again.)
12:22, 9 September 2009 Bobanni (reverting to an old copy is not the Wikipedia way - see talk)
10:53, 9 September 2009 YMB29 (Reverted sneaky reverts by Biophys, made some statements more clear and neutral.)
And then an admin blocked me because I had 3 reverts, but Biophys only 2...
I can understand how the group could have gotten users blocked after purposely making them lose their cool. It was often very frustrating with Biophys. He would act like he was following the rules and knew what he was editing. However, discussing with him felt like talking to someone who pretends to be silly to make you lose your patience. Often he would ask me to list my problems with the article to discuss, but he was unable to follow on with the discussion, continue to revert, and then again ask to discuss the issues...
Some of his comments from discussion:
You act against consensus here.
I will need a couple of days to look into all the issues and find all additional sources.
I have no time right now.
We had a stable version. You came and started making large changes without discussion.
You are welcome to include citation tags if they were accidently deleted.
Please tell what specific problems do you have with this last specific version.
Please do not fight against consensus using blind reverts.
OK, let's start it all over again, one point at a time.
Comments like that were very annoying in the context of him refusing to fully discuss issues and him reverting everything, including [citation needed] tags and sourced info.
Based on Biophys' editing, it is no surprise that he might have been involved in planned actions that were against Wikipedia's rules. He has shown that he only cares about keeping the article how he wants it with his stubborn reverts, which were often sneaky. He would say one thing in the edit summary but would really just revert the article to his version. This was obviously done to mask his reverts. For example, after settling down for seven months, on 15 June 2009 he reverted to his version from 3 Nov. 2008.
19:46, 15 June 2009 Biophys (actually, this is referenced to book by Albats that someone deleted) diff
You can see here that the versions are exactly the same, while his edit summary is nothing about that.
Piotrus defending Biophys
On Sept. 10th, not wanting to get into another long edit war with Biophys and Bobanni, I reported Biophys, specifically his edit on June 15th.[104] The first comment I see to the report was one by Piotrus defending Biophys. Before I could write a response that Piotrus is not impartial when it comes to Biophys (I knew it from here), I am blocked. Another admin blocked me without really looking into what I reported. I have a strong suspicion that Piotrus' comment may have influenced this hasty block.
Furthermore, when Biophys was last blocked Piotrus again defended him and said he would have unblocked him if he would have seen his unblock request (before it was withdrawn) [105]. Also User:Martintg hounded the admin for blocking Biophys.[106]
-YMB29 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Response to evidence by Biophys
I don't know what difference it makes how much edits I have. Maybe I would have more edits if Biophys was more cooperative in that article, since he wasted my time and discouraged me from getting into editing other articles. From the misleading edit summaries Biophys claims I made, only in one I did not mention or imply that I was going to revert (I reverted and added links as part of a compromise). [107] I did reply and explain on the talk page [108], so I was not misleading anyone.
I was not uncivil to him; that was regarding a user citing hate websites in another article over three years ago.[109]
As far as User:M.V.E.i., Biophys already accused me of being his sock and was proven wrong [110] (even though there was not any real evidence to start a checkuser request).
-YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by MBisanz
Authenticity of archives
In June/July I was contacted by two people now alleged to be on this mailing list, the discussions I have since forwarded to arbcom. I have now seen a copy of the mailing list archive on a public website and compared the emails around the dates of these two earlier conversations and do see references that lead me to believe that the archive in general is authentic, since it would require non-public knowledge known only to me and the two other parties to re-create these properly timed references in the archive.
Evidence presented by Good Olfactory
Responsibility for block currently in force against Russavia
I want to confirm what Atama has stated in evidence above. The editing restriction imposed by Sandstein is related to, but obviously not the same as, the block I imposed. I imposed the block for Russavia's extensive wikilawyering and for making an ambiguous legal threat while Russavia was challenging the restrictions imposed by Sandstein in a WP:ANI thread. The block currently imposed on Russavia is the block I imposed. This block has been temporarily lifted with my knowledge and acquiescence so that Russavia can participate in this case. Unless the decision in this case decides otherwise, I expect the block against Russavia to remain in force after the case is concluded.
Was not contacted by any of the parties in this case prior to imposing the block
I was not contacted by any of the parties in this case regarding Russavia's behaviour prior to my decision to impose an indefinite block on Russavia. I have had typical Wikipedia "passing interactions" with some of the parties in the case, but I have never experienced any contact with any of them in which a user has lobbied or otherwise requested that sanctions be imposed on other editors.
Evidence presented by HistoricWarrior007
On the Russavia Ban
I believe that the reason Russavia made the comments that enabled Ol'Factory to ban him, was because Russavia was constantly provoked by the e-mail team, and even banned by their resident administrator[citation needed]. Thus the issue here is not Russavia's final action, but the reason that Russavia committed his final action. We are all human. We all err. A single error should not be the reason that a person gets banned. Russavia made a bad post, after being provoked by the e-mail group, that Sandstein used to get him banned for 6 months. Here is the comment: "In his edit notice at [94], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D." When a Russian user posts a smiley on the end, ahh heck, when any user posts a smiley on the end - that means they are kidding! A six month ban for such a comment, considering the previous provocations against Russavia, and considering that the article in question, is trying to promote a film that shows "how similar Soviet States was to Nazi State" (because we all know it was the USSR and SS going around and committing the Holocaust, or so the film's hypothesis alleges). Russavia wanted to include a Dyukhov, someone who wrote a critique of the film, while the e-mail group wanted to marginalize Duykhov, and anyone critiquing the film, because "if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making the argument" is apparently a valid tactic to use on Wikipedia. For this, Russavia received a six month ban from Sandstein, which led Russavia to make the comment that was used by Ol'Factory to impose an infinite ban on Russavia. I don't see this as neither fair, nor just.
More to come
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.