Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:::You can, however, if there are any other editors in that topic area who you feel are problematic, you're welcome to present that evidence. Please make sure you limit this to recent concerns - for example, your post on the motion Russavia proposed gave diffs from 2008 - we're going to be interested in recent disruptive behavior except in rare cases of a continuing pattern which can be briefly mentioned. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
:::You can, however, if there are any other editors in that topic area who you feel are problematic, you're welcome to present that evidence. Please make sure you limit this to recent concerns - for example, your post on the motion Russavia proposed gave diffs from 2008 - we're going to be interested in recent disruptive behavior except in rare cases of a continuing pattern which can be briefly mentioned. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Well, {{user|Vlad fedorov}} is obviously somewhat related to this, ugh, dispute. Some time ago, while he was banned by ArbCom (for his clashes with Biophys, btw, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin]]), he used his sockpuppet {{user|La poet}} to edit-war and, most importantly, to dig out and post a link to a real-life picture of Biohys and his name without the consent of the latter. This campaign of harassment was later continued by {{user|Miyokan}}, Russavia and the ED staff. The fact that VF is still here, right on these pages, almost boasting his impunity (bwahaha, outing by his sockpuppet during his ArbCom ban came for free), is an enormous blow to the integrity of Wikipedia policies, no matter how recent it is. Now, his recent behavior, albeit not perfect, certainly pales in comparison (everything on earth does). Does this mean that he should not be dealt with? Then I urge you to deal with him in your capacity of uninvolved administrator. Or is it ok to have an example of impunity for outing by a ban-evading sockpuppet for everyone to see as long it is not recent? |
|||
Then, look, the case is named Russavia-Biophys for a reason, no? Russavia, one of the parties here, was topic banned from before the EEML case until very recently (the first thing he did upon return was filing the AE request which has resulted in this arbitration). His behavior was not subject to scrutiny during the EEML case, and although there are a couple of recent examples of presumably sanctionable misbehavior on his part which show that he has not changed his ways, he is effectively rendered immune by this suggestion and the arbitration becomes somewhat one-sided (probably that's why he insists on it). Yet he is one of the main protagonists of the battleground and it is impossible to see the whole picture while skipping his behavior. Well, unless one wishes to relitigate this forever. [[User:Colchicum|Colchicum]] ([[User talk:Colchicum|talk]]) 08:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:01, 8 April 2010
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Hersfold (Talk) |
Scope of this Arbitration?
Can a clerk possibly find out exactly what the scope of this arbitration is? Is it dealing specifically with the AE report? Or anything and everything? Please advise, as I would not want to waste mine and the committees time with dragging up things from the way past. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- More specifically, should the Evidence section cover only the period of time since EEML case? The both participants have been already scrutinized during this previous case. On the other hand, if I have to answer to allegations made by Vlad_fedorov in your AE request, I must go back in time. Same with many other allegations. And regardless to anything, I will say whatever is necessary to explain why I have been targeted by Russavia. Biophys (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the scope be limited to disruption in the EE area since the EEML case. Anything before that should have been brought up during EEML so any continuing disruption in the topic area would be the concern. As far as responding, please keep any response in your own section and brief, if possible limited to your interpretations of the diffs provided or possible diffs that contradict the assertion being made by the other person. Long explanations without diffs aren't terribly helpful. Shell babelfish 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with my colleague. Let's put particular attention to the allegations surrounding the AE report, since that's what brought this case; again, though, keep it limited to disruption that has occurred since EEML (don't go back in time), and any other disruption in the EE area since EEML can and should also be included for consideration. I'd encourage everyone to re-present what was said during the case request and AE stages, modifying it as needed to keep it within word limits and scope. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining this. All articles mentioned in AE report are only about Russia/Soviet Union. Since this case was started against me, can I wait for Russavia and others to represent their evidence within word limits and respond to only claims made directly in the Evidence section?Biophys (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can, however, if there are any other editors in that topic area who you feel are problematic, you're welcome to present that evidence. Please make sure you limit this to recent concerns - for example, your post on the motion Russavia proposed gave diffs from 2008 - we're going to be interested in recent disruptive behavior except in rare cases of a continuing pattern which can be briefly mentioned. Shell babelfish 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) is obviously somewhat related to this, ugh, dispute. Some time ago, while he was banned by ArbCom (for his clashes with Biophys, btw, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin), he used his sockpuppet La poet (talk · contribs) to edit-war and, most importantly, to dig out and post a link to a real-life picture of Biohys and his name without the consent of the latter. This campaign of harassment was later continued by Miyokan (talk · contribs), Russavia and the ED staff. The fact that VF is still here, right on these pages, almost boasting his impunity (bwahaha, outing by his sockpuppet during his ArbCom ban came for free), is an enormous blow to the integrity of Wikipedia policies, no matter how recent it is. Now, his recent behavior, albeit not perfect, certainly pales in comparison (everything on earth does). Does this mean that he should not be dealt with? Then I urge you to deal with him in your capacity of uninvolved administrator. Or is it ok to have an example of impunity for outing by a ban-evading sockpuppet for everyone to see as long it is not recent?
Then, look, the case is named Russavia-Biophys for a reason, no? Russavia, one of the parties here, was topic banned from before the EEML case until very recently (the first thing he did upon return was filing the AE request which has resulted in this arbitration). His behavior was not subject to scrutiny during the EEML case, and although there are a couple of recent examples of presumably sanctionable misbehavior on his part which show that he has not changed his ways, he is effectively rendered immune by this suggestion and the arbitration becomes somewhat one-sided (probably that's why he insists on it). Yet he is one of the main protagonists of the battleground and it is impossible to see the whole picture while skipping his behavior. Well, unless one wishes to relitigate this forever. Colchicum (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)