Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence/Russavia

Evidence of the existence and purpose of this cabal
Throughout the 3,402 emails there are plenty of accusations that myself and many other editors, whom they deem to be their "enemies", are members of some cabal that they have dubbed the USSR Forever Cabal. There is no existence of any such cabal, and there will be no evidence as no such cabal exists now, in the past, or in the future; at least I am not aware of such a cabal, I am not a member of any such cabal, and I would never be a member of such a cabal. List members dispute that they are a cabal, although on the list, they clearly recognise that they are a cabal, and this is evidenced by the frequent use of terms such as "our cabal". In ''20090803-2153-[WPM] HELP!! Radek _ Piotrus_ Tymek and others.'' Dc76 states the main purpose of the group is "to prevent pro-Soviet propaganda through WP". But I have no doubt in my mind, that this actually means the prevention of any POV which doesn't fit their own agenda. Take for example, Tymek's suggestion that WP should only utilise the writings of western historians. I clearly responded to Tymek that we should be preventing ALL POV and attribute it appropriately. There is also no reason why a historian connected with the Russian Academy of Sciences should be excluded, but any anti-Russian source can be included. This goes against WP:NPOV in a major way, and has nothing to do with whether individual editors agree with Soviet/Russian views, etc on things - which for information, I don't believe a lot of the Soviet propaganda either, but it is notable for inclusion on WP. The other purpose of the list seems to be drawing up lists of enemies, some of whom they stalk and harrass onwiki, and hound into a corner in order to get them to be uncivil, so that they can report and get rid of them. Apart from the stalking on myself presented below, another example is 20090913-0218-[WPM] Lokii - to Vecrumba where Radeksz suggests that they push LokiiT in order to get him to make what they perceive to a personal attack, which they can then report him on. The cabal was also created in order to allow list members to edit war as a group (undetected) in order to ensure that their group POV was the most prevalent, whilst creating a WP battleground in which their opponents could be culled by way of the group acting as sockpuppets and meatpuppets. This is made explicitly clear by Piotrus in 20090908-1810-[WPM] Russavia going nuts on Soviet Story in which he states that it is important that cabal members should make edits, even if they would be reverted by their perceived wiki enemies, as this could used as evidence by this cabal of their opponents POV/revert mentality/edit warring. Piotrus goes on to state that the cabal shouldn't be worried about reverts, as this is precisely why the group was formed in order for them to WP:TEAM, WP:GAME and meat puppet on Wikipedia, and furthermore suggested they make up a list of articles which their wiki enemies have supposedly taken over and take them back.

So in short, the group exists in order to WP:HARRASS and WP:STALK editors, enforce their own WP:POV, WP:TEAM and WP:GAME WP policies, processes and general standards of conduct, engage in WP:NOTADVOCATE, and a host of other things which go against the very collegial nature of Wikipedia, which in turn has only increaed the nature of WP:BATTLE that is evident in this area, and which many editors such as myself would like the project to be rid of.

Persistent sock/meat puppet accusations
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) (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, (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 Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191 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.

The outing and harrassment of myself was further enforced in my mind when Biophys posted this on Digwuren's talk page in March, with the comment, "Please read it. I am not going to comment anything further.". On 17 April Biophys included a link to the document on Commons in his userspace; ostensibly as proof of his unfounded accusations that I am employed by the FSB or some other organisation, and am a paid editor, as part of some web brigade. It was in searching for the discussion on Digwuren's talk page that I stumbled across the AN thread; a thread which was allowed to run for two days without my being aware of it. This was an obvious set up by these editors to continue with their campaign of outting and harrassment of myself.

Response to denial by Piotrus
Piotrus asserts that the thread that he started was not harrassment. An uninvolved editor clearly thought it was, starting a subsection on this very assertion. In fact, throughout the entire overall thread there are numerous uninvolved editors and admins who saw it as continued harrassment. Now bringing this back to this case, between "20090422-1543-[WPM] Important categories at CfD" and "20090427-2055-[WPM] Attack on Russavia" there are numerous emails discussing this very subject. Some of the emails predate Piotrus' posting of the ANI thread, and the rest postdate it, and all are around the time of the actual thread. The emails see discussion and plotting by Piotrus, Biruitorul, Biophys, Digwuren and Martintg. All of whom appeared at the ANI thread. In "20090422-1935-[WPM] Important categories at CfD" Piotrus mentions that he has posted the thread, and that it may be useful in this groups campaign to harrass myself, and provides a link to the ANI thread started by himself. In "20090424-0205-[WPM] Russavia", Piotrus reposts the link and advises the team that they are missing a good opportunity to harrass myself further. In "20090424-1635-[WPM] GFDL", Biruitoral claims, blazenly, that any accusations that they make against myself, even if knowingly false, would only help the team. The rest of the emails involve discussions on meatpuppeting, sockpuppeting, discussion of my real life identity, and also discussions on how list members could mess with my real life identity and my real life business. This indicates that my gut feeling back in April on removing my name from files on commons was spot on, as even my paranoia which lead to me removing my name from two commons files was discussed in emails from those dates. Given the email posted by Biophys, with links to previous discussions on this subject, and the fact that it was noted in some of those links that the constant accusations of myself sharing my account with others could be deemed to be harrassment, Piotrus is not credible when he states that his posting of this thread on behalf of Biophys, and in order to further harrass myself, is not harrassment.

Additionally in 20090428-0510-[WPM] China_ Digwuren discusses the harrassment on myself by the web brigade. Digwuren states that open harrassment of myself is not a good idea, as the "maddening aspects" of it would be reduced by myself deciding who is behind it. He also states that anonymous harrassers very rarely show up at AN/I threads (my note: my harrassers did show up indeed didn't they), and he goes on to say that if I can plausibly claim that my opponents harrassed me (my note: I have known about the harrassment, and have clearly shown evidence of this, since November 2008) that future DR actions or arbcom will give credence to the idea that my opponents are wrong doers who are worth punishing. In 20090428-1957-[WPM] China_ Piotrus states that Digwuren has a good point, and explains that this is why his position on the thread that he started was now "100% "damage control"", in what he stated was an attempt to torpedo any attempt to create a consensus that Biophys was stalking. In the same email Piotrus also "highly advise(s)" other members of the web brigade to post at the thread that he started to strongly oppose that idea.

In 20090427-0647-[WPM] Attack on Russavia_ Biruitorul states that they should create temporary meatpuppet accounts to harrass me onwiki, but leaving various messages on my talk page, such as "warning: Russavia is actually a team of KGB propagandists team". He also states that he would like to see myself being driven mad by unseen and unknowable forces, the same way as the hero in a Shakespearean tragedy.

It is now obvious that Piotrus is not credible in this situation, especially as it can now be shown that he lied when he stated "This thread was not started by Biophys, nor was Biophys the editor who contacted me with the question that led me to start this thread in the first place, so the entire "stalking by Biophys" accusation is pure libel/slander/harassment in itself."

List members are stalking and harrassing myself

 * I will let this diff speak for itself, except the part of my edits being so full of POV that one has to stalk me to fix this.
 * In 20090113-0105-[WPM] Weird reaction by Russavia, Martingtg answers a question from Digwuren, concerning Martintg's recent placing of the recent patrollers usebox on his userpage. Digwuren asks Martintg if this was part of a potential adminship campaign by Martintg. Martintg states that he placed the userbox on his userpage only as a defensive measure against WP:STALKING allegations, in case any of the mud should stick. This is an obvious admission by Martintg that he has, as I have long known and suspected, systematically stalked my edits.
 * Martintg and Digwuren are warned by User:Jehochman to stay away from my talk page. Digwuren mentions this in 20090321-1545-[WPM] Jehochman's latest move in what he describes as Jehochman pretending that Martintg and Digwuren are harrassing me. At this thread on my talk page I refer to my serial stalkers Martintg and Digwuren. Typically, and we have seen this before, Digwuren claims this is a baseless accusation. This was posted at a time where Digwuren and Martintg were turning up on many articles that I was editing, and which they had never edited before.
 * In 20090323-2215-[WPM] Why would two people share Russavia's accoun Martintg makes note that I was checkusered in November (it should be noted after I demanded that it be done to stop baseless accusations). Given this, he would also have been aware that it was deemed to be delving into harrassment at that stage.

Discussions relating to stalking/harrassing myself in real life

 * In 20090615-1727-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ Piotrus states that he would be against the above due to it crossing into real life harrassment of myself (as if onwiki harrassment isn't enough), but seems to suggest that an anonymous tip could be given to the Australian security services detailing that I am some sort of Russian spy.

Further evidence of stalking and harrassment

 * Yes, I have been claiming harrassment for the last 10 months, because the web brigadiers have stalked and harrassed myself. There is already a proposed finding of fact that covers this type of behaviour from the web brigade.
 * 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, 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. In 20090130-2021-[WPM] Advance warning_ a possible conflict point created Digwuren directs editors to the talk page discussion he started and states that its possible the so-called cartel will see it as an attack on reliability of Russian media in general, and may take it further. Vecrumba then appears on the talk page as per the above, and they both engage in soapboxing against the use of using any Russian sources; this is very common for both of them.
 * Yes areas of interest can overlap and thus coming into contact on articles. Martin noted that here. He this response from me, where I addressed his stalking on the list articles (see below). I also asked Martin and Digwuren to stay away from my talk page, so that I could cool down, because their stalking was peeving me off. Digwuren continued to troll and I told him a second time to go away. Which was followed by continued trolling by Martin, to which I asked him a second time to go away from my talk page. After telling you them that their stalking of me was getting on my nerves and that I would be going to WP:AE to get some assistance, I started User:Russavia/AE. Biophys makes note of it not long after I created it, I let Biophys know that he has proven my point, and here is the admission that editors are stalking me. I didn't get around to filing the request straight away, but as a "head them off at the pass" type action, Biophys then goes to AE enforcement using my response to trolling as evidence. In response to that, admin User:Jehochman noted "If a user is getting overheated, the civil thing to do is leave them alone on their own talk page, not continue posting in order to provoke an outburst that can then be reported at WP:AE. It looks like a user has lost his cool after been pressed (or trolled)." He also stated: "If the complaint was not partially overblown, I might have placed some sort of restriction on Russavia. I loath my administrative services being gamed. It is clear that several editors were pressing Russavia on his own talk page, stoking the fires in an effort to get him banned. I won't be a party to that. Russavia, you need to clean up your act. If you continue to take the bait, many administrators will be happy to ban you."
 * On 13 January 2009, Martin announces to the group that he has added Recent Change Patrol userbox to his userpage as a defensive measure against any stalking allegations by myself, and that he wouldn't want any mud to stick.
 * Perhaps Martin can tell us how he and other editors came to arrive at List of most common surnames? Funnily enough, this was discussed on the email list by yourself and Digwuren. In this article they removed the verifiable information that the most common name in Estonia is Ivanov, and then Digwuren and Vecrumba tried to game the use of sources on the talk page.
 * Perhaps Digwuren can tell us all how he arrived at Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Georgia) and does a plain revert without an edit summary (It should be noted that I was creating and cleaning up foreign affairs categories at that time).
 * Perhaps Martin and Biophys can explain this. Also, just note, that there are still issues on the talk page that are unanswered by both editors.
 * Perhaps Martin and Biophys can explain this history. You will notice that Biophys has not only stalked to that article, but has ignored the edit summaries completely in a case of a total lack of good faith. Then note Talk:NATO–Russia_relations - Biophys' saying that he will check the sources later; after doing a blind revert like he did, shows that he was simply stalking and being tedious.
 * Martin can also explain List of countries and capitals in native languages, List of official languages by state, List of official languages. One will also note that it was myself who indicated the disputed status of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, Taiwan, etc. Martin and Digwuren just came to POV-push and remove Abkhazia and South Ossetia because of their own POV. Refer to List of sovereign states for what is basically consensus on how to present states on WP.
 * Perhaps Martin and Digwuren can explain The Economist article how they all appeared there as a gang.
 * Perhaps Biophys can explain this. Not only did he stalk me there, but he also claimed it had been "debated" before. No it had not. He stalked my edits there, and did this only to be tedious.
 * The email list discusses edits such as this that shows that editors are stalking my edits. In response to Martin's email to the list on 13 January 2009, no I was not losing my marbles, the editor in question who I reverted was a banned sockpuppet (User:Koov), and that edit of mine was adding back in the template that I removed with my revert of Koov's sock removing the |asia part of the template. User:EdJohnston can attest that I have actively reported socks of Koov to him, as he is familiar with their modus operandi.

Suggestions that there was intent to harrass other editors

 * In 20090910-0238-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! User:Vecrumba suggests that if User:Offliner continue to question User:Sandstein in relation to the email that Vecrumba sent Sandstein, that the group should take the angle that Offliner is acting as my proxy.
 * In 20090912-1303-[WPM] Sandstein may need support Digwuren states that they should express disappointment in Ezhiki, given Ezhiki's questioning of the extent of the topic ban placed upon myself by Sandstein. In 20090912-1749-[WPM] Sandstein may need support Digwuren suggests that they should not blame User:Ezhiki outright, but to keep him away from questioning my ban with the threat of blame.

January incident
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.

The evidence for this can be found in 20090112-1447-[WPM] ArbCom as RS_ also Russian media in which Digwuren announces that he has entered the information into the article. In 20090113-0209-[WPM] ArbCom as RS_ also Russian media Piotrus points list members to the reliable sources noticeboard, makes mention of battling, and implicity invites list members to join the discussion on the noticeboard, in order to push for including Arbcom decisions as a reliable source.

More recent battleground created by email list members
In 20090915-1859-[WPM] We brigades_ Internet operations by Russian Piotrus asked the list if he is the only one interested in this article; this is a clear invite to participate in meatpuppetry, and edit warring. In 20090915-2143-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian Radeksz suggests that another member of the email list should perform a revert on this article. In 20090915-2223-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian User:Jacurek says that they should perform a revert on the article now, so that they can ensure that any WP:3RR report is not in vain. In 20090916-0100-[WPM] We brigades_ Internet operations by Russian Piotrus informs the list that someone should revert an editor on the web brigades article, with an explicit warning list members to watch their 1RR. The target of this was User:Ellol, whom they wanted to take to WP:3RR. Given this evidence, it is obvious that the email list have not acted as individual editors, and as such their reverts on this article should be regarded as ones which are performed by a single editor, and as such they have as a group breached WP:3RR as a collective group.

Alexander Litvinenko article
Immediately after I was banned under Sandstein's first ban, Biophys has done a massive revert 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.

In 20090909-2347-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Biophys states that he needs assistance in enforcing his reverts in this article. In 20090910-0004-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Radeksz states that he will keep an eye on the article, but won't act right now in case it is seen as a provocation which could be used by the non-existent USSR Forever cabal to get one of them banned in retaliation for myself. In 20090910-0012-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Martintg agrees that they should be careful, so not as to get sucked into some vortex of wikidrama. In 20090910-0018-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Biophys states that they can get around all of this, by having another user make a minor fix to the article, in order to make it harder to revert, and claimed that no sane admin would object to this. In 20090910-0021-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Radeksz funnily enough suggests that someone would try to get someone on the "Litvinenko said Putin is a paedophile" line, and that they should make sure that it is sourced the hell out of, then there is no cause for complete. The reason this is funny, is that it was myself who sourced the hell out of it, and made it NPOV in the first place, only to see Biophys reinsert the poorly sourced version (see diffs below). In20090915-0449-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian  Biophys directs list members attention to this edit. Immediately after this post, Radeksz reverts making the false claim of consensus. It is obvious that Biophys reverted to his months old version, and Radeksz was making false claims in order to help enforce this, despite there being no consensus for Biophys' massive removal of sourced, NPOV information from the article. In 20090910-0218-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Vecrumba states that he would visit the article in a few days, only to avoid them appearing opportunistic on this article.

Some article history
It should be noted that my issue is not the existence of the accusation, but that the accusation was presented as fact, rather than an allegation, and that it was almost entirely sourced to sources closely linked to Litvinenko, which does not have an established history of fact checking. I remove BLP violating text, with a note on making it NPOV. Biophys reverts, saying there is nothing wrong with it. I remove the section again whilst an NPOV version is worked on on the talk page. It is important to Biophys that this information is present in the article for some reason. Once I have reworded the BLP violation, an uninvolved admin has expressed this opinion that it is no longer a BLP violation (link on talk page link above). But Biophys, who so vehemently was in favour of its insertion, is all of a sudden against its inclusion, and takes it out of the article completely. The only reason I could see is that it contained information which was critical of this guy's accusations. I have reincluded it into the article, noting that Biophys himself argued to have such an accusation in the article. Again consider the reason for him now wanting it out. Biophys again removes the information. And it has finally been reinserted by myself in its non-BLP violating, NPOV form. Now here is where it get's interesting. Biophys again removes the section, then instantly reverts himself, and then incredulously instantly reverts back to his preferred BLP violating version, ostensibly in order to make a shorter version, without any criticism of Litvinenko -- this is often referred to on the talk page as his compromise version (see below). Of course, I have removed the BLP version reinserted by Biophys. From thereon in, it is edit such as this which Grey-Fox and Biophys attempted to game by claiming it wasn't a reliable source (see above links to the RS noticeboard). I tried my damndest to get Biophys to understand what was wrong with his version, and did seek outside intervention, but I was left to my own devices, trying to get this through to editors who wished to write a respectful article (WP:NOTADVOCATE again]]).

It should be noted that Biophys' compromise version is somewhat one of two running jokes on WP amongst editors in this area; for it entails him removing any information which doesn't pertain to his own POV, and will often involve reverting to an old version of an article which excludes edits by other editors; for example Russian apartment bombings as is detailed in evidence by another user, he reverted to a year old version. It is for this reason, and actions on other articles, that myself and other editors believe that Biophys is using wikipedia to engage in advocacy of an often fringe point of view, to the exclusion of other POV, which is against policy.

Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)
This was a very contentious article, in which the fact that it is called the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist became a matter of contention, and in which was proven that User:Martintg has committed a gross violation of WP:V, and was backed up by Vecrumba, Biophys and Digwuren. At Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park), one will note that an editor (with sources quoted) has said: "The reason is simply that I've come to the conclusion that for now the sources can only with certainty be used to include the name in relation to the much smaller monument with its tombs, in the center of Berlin: Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten). see these references: [5], [6]. Apparently Beevor, who is the source for the second link, also refers to the monument in the center of the city, i.e Tiergarten." At Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park), another editor has re-inserted the epitaph, citing the same sources. After a discussion in which Vecrumba attempted to turn the article into one on the war itself....more to come....

In 20090628-2315-[WPM] Offliner barnstaring Shell Kinney_ Biophys brings attention to his edit here, even though it is shown on the talk page as failing verification in all ways. After being reverted by BeatleFabFour, Biophys again reinserts the information. This was again reverted by BeatleFabFour, which was then reinserted by Digwuren, with the laughable edit summary of "Restored sourced material. At what point does WP:V kick in?" This was finally reverted by PasswordUsername. Both PasswordUsername and BeatleFabFour mentioned the talk page discussion in their edit summaries, but this was completely ignored by those two editors, as it seems it was more important to have in the article the epitaph "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". --Russavia Dialogue 09:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't cooperate with Ru[[Image:Schutzstaffel SS SVG1.1.svg|14px]]avia
I place a message on User:Digwuren talk page asking him if he is able to take a photo of the Russian consulate in Tartu. User:Colchicum posts a message to Digwuren stating "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia." An admin alerts Colchicum to this and Colchicum replies  "No apologies from me, feel free to block if you wish. I don't really care much about blocks, DYKs, barnstars, fame and so on. For sure this wouldn't cause me "to pop a blood vessel or two". I did what I did, and a spade is a spade. It is not clear what you would prevent with this, though." Colchicum has a history of such incivility, including referring to User:HistoricWarrior007 as User:HystoricWanker:


 * Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 : "# Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 6:53 pm, 10 March 2009, Tuesday (6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+9)
 * Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 : "* Comment The Hwanker is back at canvassing :) Colchicum (talk) 12:47 am, 9 June 2009, Tuesday (3 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+8)"

The first time Colchicum called him a WANKER, the editor posted this User_talk:Colchicum/Archive. (Trollfest is what Colchicum named it to). No apology from him there either.

List members acting as sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets
There are many instances of email list members using the list as a call to arms in order for them to stack votes according to their own editorial POV. It is plainly obvious that apart from the harrassment of their so-called enemies, a major function of the group was to enable the group to force thru their POV by sheer numbers, thereby creating false consensus. Example of this include:
 * 20090912-1939-[WPM] Help needed on Anonimu-initiated move reques is a call to arms to list members by Biruitorul to Communist Romania. As has been noted at on the talk page, there was a rapid succession of votes by members of this list, inluding Biruitorul himself, Biophys, Radeksz, Dc76 and Tymek. Vecrumba, whilst not voting, did make comments on the talk page. Please note, that this is a current move request, and editors are aware of this arbcom now taking place. --Russavia Dialogue 10:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After posting this message and seeing votes come in, in 20090913-1833-[WPM] Re Anonimu - thanks!, Biruitorul sends a congratulatory message to the list thanking them for their meatpuppeting. --Russavia Dialogue 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In 20090326-1736-[WPM] Unimportant_ but pertinent AfD Biruitorul comments that a "Canadian dolt" is stopping consensus from forming, and that the group has ways to get around that. The AfD in question is Articles_for_deletion/Albanian-Moldovan_relations, and one would notice that both Digwuren and Martintg have come to the AfD.
 * In April after Martintg was blocked by WMC for edit warring, in 20090402-2239-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Piotrus tells Martin that he shouldn't do more than 2 reverts in a day, and if more reverts are required he should either ask on the list or via IM (perhaps Gadu-Gadu?). In 20090402-2314-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Martin says that yes, he should avoid getting into edit wars, which is followed up in 20090402-2358-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin by Piotrus reinforcing that of course Martin shouldn't worry about edit warring, as all Martin has to do is to IM Piotrus and ask for a revert. In 20090403-0013-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Martin then suggests that editors post messages on his talk page in support of himself. In 20090403-1015-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin, Martin thanks Piotrus, Biruitorul and Dc76 for the messages that they left on his talk page in response to his request, and stated his belief that it helped convince WMC to lift the block. In 20090403-1312-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Digwuren notes that once editors use up two reverts, that they should then "call in reinforcement". He also notes his observation that when edit history looks like a checkerboard of two editors edits that administrators like to blame both editors, but when there is one editor against several others, administrators tend to think that the single editor is the one editwarring.
 * In 20090804-0059-[WPM] AfD Martintg points editors to Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination). Not long after he posts this to the list, Sander Sade, Piotrus, Tymek, Poeticbent, Biophys, Vecrumba and Jacurek all post their votes inline with each other. As a result of this cabal's voting, the article was kept.
 * In 20090830-1820-[WPM] Bobanni'd move disruption Piotrus mentions the contributions of a particular editor, and tells editors to go to the talk pages of any moves that the editor has proposed and vote oppose, to stop any of the moves succeeding.

Piotrus: the uninvolved admin

 * In 20090916-0206-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian Biophys invites Piotrus to unblock him after Biophys breached WP:3RR. This is after Piotrus says that he would have unblocked Biophys and after an objection to Piotrus utilising his tools in relation to Biophys is raised, Piotrus claims he is not involved in regards to Biophys.

Creation of a cabal admin/checkuser

 * At User_talk:Biruitorul, User:Tavix suggests that Biruitorul should run for adminship. In 20090407-1548-[WPM] Biruitorul for RFA Digwuren notes this, and suggests that due to their unfounded suspicions that I stalk him and Martintg, other list members could vote safely, and that he planned to vote at the very end of the process. In 20090407-1621-[WPM] Biruitorul for RFA Piotrus agrees with the idea of voting, and that he would WP:CANVASS amongst Polish editors to get them to vote in support of Biruitorul. In 20090407-1631-[WPM] Biruitorul for RFA User:Miacek also agrees that he would make a good admin. In 20090407-1807-[WPM] My RfA Biruitorul thanks them for support, but says that he wouldn't run for admin at that time.
 * In 20090606-0919-[WPM] Project CheckUser _ more admins Piotrus discusses what can only be described as a major abuse of trust, in the creation of this groups own check user. He suggests that a group member should use their right to vanish, and then embark on becoming an admin, and then eventually a check user. He discounts two users due to their ban history, and then goes on to suggest several group members who could be likely candidates for adminship in the future. He doesn't go into details in this email why their own checkuser would be required, but given the nature of the mailing list it is pretty obvious that it would have entailed the breach of the community's trust and the breach of the privacy of any editor whom they deemed to be an enemy.

Several list members actively broke general sanctions
Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia is still under active sanctions. In 20090407-2342-[WPM] Template deletion alert Martintg alerted the list that their beloved template'' was up for deletion. This was the second time this template was up for deletion, this is the first. What the template looked like can be found at User:Russavia/Notpropaganda. Martintg in both discussions claimed that the template was humourous, and others joined in the chorus and sang the same tune, but it was obvious that it was created in order to prevent editors from bringing differing POV to the articles on which it was placed, and this is a theme of the entire email list. Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia states "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." During this discussion I removed the template and replaced it with controversial only to have it replaced, in direct violation of the general sanctions on these articles, at Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany. It is plainly obvious that throughout these TfD discussions, and elsewhere that some of these editors, particularly Vecrumba do not get the concept of verifiability, not truth. We present all sides of an issue, and let our readers decide. The web brigade is asking how have their actions affected anything on wiki? Things like this template turn potential editors away from WP, as it is overly confrontational, and does not make for collegial editing, if one has to conform with the brigades point of view.

Using WP as an avenue to slander living people
In 20090331-0910-[WPM] Historical revisionists navibox_ Digwuren in true form of someone who is here only to POV-push and engage in advocacy, suggests creating a navbox template to go along with Category:Historical_revisionism_(political). He asks if it is going to be possible to defend such a template against the cartel, and also notes that an advantage of having such a template is that due to connecting links, although it would take time, Google would begin to link people such as Johan Backman and Alexander Dyukov with other well-known historical revisionists such as Miguel Serrano, David Irving, and Harry Barnes. This can only be described as using WP as a battleground to commit libel against public figures. In 20090331-1938-[WPM] Historical revisionists navibox_ Piotrus agrees to the templates creation. Once Digwuren had completed the templates creation, it looked like this. Martintg and Digwuren have then actively edit warred in order to commit BLP violations by the inclusion of certain people

Unfair accusations against other admins
Several list members have brought into question the abilities, motives and actions of several admins with whom I regularly have discussions with on WP; namely User:Alex Bakharev and User:Ezhiki. I respect both editors, not because they are admins, but because like myself they are both here to help build an encyclopaedia. Nothing more, nothing less. Insinuations have been made by GreyFox that Ezhiki has intervened on behalf in disputes. This is false. In fact, I did ask Ezhiki for assistance once to do with the stalking and other things which I have presented as evidence. Not because I wanted him to gang up on other editors, but because I regard Ezhiki as totally neutral and uninvolved in most things, he often gives good advice and the like. He tells me when I my editing is good, and he also tells me when I am being a WP:DICK. I respect that. Since Ezhiki is currently in Cyprus on holiday, he likely will not be able to respond here, nor do I believe he even wants to, and I will not be asking him to or forcing to. But I quote something that he wrote to me on his talk page on the one occasion I asked for assistance:

"I realize this is not the kind of response you expected, but please try to understand why I decided not to help. In the beginning, things were fairly simple with you and them. Even though I may not have been overly enthusiastic about getting involved then, that was mostly due to various external reasons, and I did try to help when I could. Now, it seems that fires are burning in all directions, and I just can't serve as a one-man arbitration committee; that's not what I signed up to be here for (had I wanted that, I'd just run for an ArbComm seat). I do like you because even though my views of the world are more in line with Biophys' than yours, you nevertheless manage to remain neutral (as is humanly possible) when writing content. You also understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard for political statements (although the creation of "eSStonia" did cast some doubts). I cannot in good conscience respect a person who would write something like "phone call to Putin" and not only present it as true encyclopedic material, but fiercly defend it when pointed out that it is, in fact, not, and completely ignore several requests for finding qualified sources. To me, that's a giveaway that the person is not here to contribute, s/he is here to advocate, and no matter how much I agree with the cause being advocated, my duty here is first and foremost to the encyclopedia.

In the end, if you want my sincere advice about how to proceed, an advice coming from a human being (rather than a human being in an admin role), it is "fuck 'em". Let them write their idiotic little pieces about whatever flashy neologisms they can find in whatever "sources" they can lay their hands on. Our readers are not complete morons; they will ignore articles where bias is so blatantly obvious. Don't feed the trolls; let them fuckers starve. When they leave due to the lack of attention (and leave they will), the cleanup can commence."

I believe that politically, Bakharev is also more attuned to the way that Biophys thinks (look at Bakharev's user page political compass). User:NVO is another user who is also more attuned to thinking the way that Ezhiki and Bakharev think as per User_talk:Russavia/Archive_13. Yet I get along superbly with all 3 editors/admins, and we often collaborate on articles/materials/etc where we can. And there is none of the other crap that I have experienced with members of this mailing list. This is what Wikipedia is.

As to Ezhiki's involvement on my talk page when I was topic banned, it was clearly obvious that Ezhiki saw that I was being sandbagged by User:Sandstein's broad interpretation of what constituted history and the like, and also could not understand the way that Sandstein was thinking in this regard. When Sandstein copped out from explaining questions that were being asked of him and simply extended the topic ban from history of the Soviet Union and Russia to ALL of Soviet Union and Russia - so much so that I can not mention the word Russia, or even a Russian name, anywhere on WP in any wikispace (including talk, userspace, etc), then yes Ezhiki did go into bat for me; not because I asked him to, but because he could see what was happening there. When I presented a solution to Sandstein that I believed was fair, after Sandstein fobbed it off, Ezhiki again tried to make see Sandstein see reason, and has since offered to take over the imposition and policing of the topic ban as I proposed to Sandstein (this is contained in the AN/I thread where the existence of the web brigade came to light). By this point, I have seen Sandstein's actions as stubborn in refusing to recognise that he bears some responsibility for what had ensued, and I will note that after I retracted any notion of any legal threat, Sandstein was still not in favour of the lifting of my unblock in order to allow me to edit other articles not covered by his draconian topic ban.

Have any of these two admins acted on my behalf in an untoward manner? Not in the slightest, and there is no evidence of such. I actually appreciate having admins such as this around, who can see a productive editor who is getting sandbagged by process and the like, and will assist in that regard. It has nothing to do with protecting a nationalist Russian editor -- I'm Australian born and bred, with British heritage FFS. So what's all that about? :)

My topic banning
In 20090909-2108-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Digwuren states that any attempts to compare my "obvious misdeeds" with their "not-so-obvious misdeeds" must be deemed by the cabal to be examples of combative attitude. Well this cabals misdeeds are now more than well known, and as per the Cabal co-leader's suggestion, this is exactly the line that editors used at the AN/I thread. In the same email, Digwuren states that Vecrumba's email to Sandstein could be a "useful device" in assuring Sandstein that Vecrumba is concerned with Sandstein's integrity. Digwuren also suggests that Sandstein should be nudged that if he can find something against Martintg to criticise, that he should be pressed to do so in order to demonstrate that Martintg is open to criticism.

Response to evidence by Biophys
At Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence, Biophys asks if he is paranoid. The answer to that is of course; yes he is. It is a well established fact that Biophys has accused many editors of being in the employ of Russian security services (KGB/FSB/etc) in the past, and the present, and in fact seems to insinuate as such right here on these arbcom pages. He refers to this edit as my calling an editor to arms - when clearly it is a notice to another editor who had long been involved on the article that they may want to join the discussion on the article talk page. Remember this is the same article and at the same time that I covered above. The other call to arms to these supposed web brigade members is this diff. This of course is in relation to this, which I only placed after LokiT was heavily involved in the article and the accusations that kept being inserts of Putin being a paedophile. As one can see from my talk page, LokiT stated that he is staying away from such articles in future, due to the severe problems in this area; problems which are basically summed up by this very case. This diff presented by Biophys is the clincher. I stated very clearly, "I'm not getting into an edit war with you on this, I will ask other members of the web brigade editors for their opinion." What Biophys doesn't make clear here, is that the only place that I asked other editors was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia/Archive_1 - the article is clearly within the scope of the project, and as such it is making perfect use of the project talk page - of course, it's going to be argued that this is inviting editors of WP:RUSSIA to edit war and team and the like, but this is so far from the truth, it isn't funny, because WP:RUSSIA is made up of editors who have varying personal viewpoints, but I think for the most part that most of the active members of the project realise that we are not here to engage in POV-pushing, advocacy and spreading of propaganda, but that we are here to build an encyclopaedia in a collegial environment; something that having to deal with editors such as Biophys, at times, impossible to deal with, due to his obvious misconstruing of events to present a problem as something that it is not, and which almost certainly always comes back to accusations that anyone who disagrees with what he is doing, has to be a member of the web brigades. As all the evidence thus far is showing, there is only one web brigade in this area of editing. --Russavia Dialogue 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal details were discussed
In his evidence Biophys claims that "No any private information was disclosed in emails, except information about the participants themselves and information that was openly posted by others in wikimedia space". This is a blatant untruth. In 20090615-0538-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ Biruitorul posts a google link with my username and surname, and tells the list that I finished high school in 1991, and then provides a link to a linkedin.com link with some of my details (not having ever really finished off that profile, it omits some facts, such as my graduating from university with a double major in Human Resources Management and Industrial Relations), and then provides a link to the website of a family business that I operate and am the Director of. He also suggests making some mischief through the contact us form, or could even get Biophys (in Russian) or Martintg (with Australian accent) to call me. This is followed up in 20090615-0547-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ by Dc76 who posts details of mine from my registration at vedomosti.ru. In 20090615-1909-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ Digwuren then shares details with the group on which high school I attended, and also questions some details of whether I am who I say I yes. Yes Digwuren, I am who I say I am. I am the Director of the company -- all details of the company are on file with ASIC as required by Australian law. And no Digwuren, we are not in the yellow pages as it is a waste of money, when organic web search is where we get our business. But we are in the White Pages. And in 20090908-2120-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Biruitorul states "xxx xxx of Perth, Australia is not a happy man today." And of course, there is then suggestions for people to contact the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation with an anonymous tip that I am a Russian spy. So my personal details were not only discussed, but it was actively discussed on what could be done to harrass me off-wiki.

Inflammatory accusations of being Nashi members or neo-Nazis
The evidence section by Biophys at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence is inflammatory, without a shred of evidence, and should be stricken completely. Biophys has been informed many times that making accusations of such things is not condusive to creating a collegial environment, and he has now moved on from basically accusing myself and others of being in the employ of Russian security services or the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is now accusing us of being members of Nashi, or even seems to insinuate that we are neo-Nazis. The entire section by Biophys is not evidence but an unmitigated attack on myself and others.

These types of accusations were included in the general finding at Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision. He was found not to be guilty of this at Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision, and also escaped admonishment, due to a promise not to continue with such things in the future. This is now stepping over the line in a big way. --Russavia Dialogue 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to evidence by Martintg
It is interesting that Martintg raises Kaitsepolitsei, and also commits a potential BLP violation by referring to someone as a neo-Nazi. As one can see from the talk page, I agree that the opinion could be included, but stated my opinion that it was undue in the form it was. Based upon that, I removed the opinion from the article and reworked it. It should also be mentioned that Diguwren was blocked for 5 days by Thatcher for his referring to myself and Offliner as neo-Nazis. One can also note that both Digwuren and Martintg acted in a somewhat tedious manner over where the article should be named - Digwuren called my Google results bullshit, accused me of vandalism, and of acting against "wide consensus" (meaning team members Martintg and himself). In fact, Digwuren's actions on this article were raised at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42. Note, I did not post into this AE. In 20090621-1802-[WPM] Offliner Martintg notes this AE thread, and suggests that evidence should be included by someone such as User:Miacek. And course, cabal members including Martintg, Piotrus, Biophys, Miacek, and Tymek all post on there in defence of Digwuren. It was as a result of this AE that he was banned for 5 days for referring to me and Offliner as neo-Nazis.

Response to evidence by Radeksz
First off, it should be noted that Radeksz has recently been topic banned from topic Russavia by an admin for the duration of this case. In regards to his evidence at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence that there was consensus for his revertion of Alexander Litvinenko. This is a fallacy, because before his arrival at the article, after receiving an invite from Biophys on the list, both myself and Offliner had reverted Biophys' massive removal of content; both myself and Offliner have been active on that article for a long time, and have continually been adding information to the article, and NPOV'ing information in it. Just where is the consensus for Radeksz revertions? Have a look at the long list of problems with the article, which included the outright misrepresentation of sources, and potential linkvios, and the like. Radeksz' actions on that article is also a total misrepresentation of what he states below. It was the pedantic revision for a fellow web brigadier - and he didn't bother posting a single thing on the talk page, although myself and Offliner had used the talk page extensively for a long time.

Additionally, I was unblocked by User:Xavexgoem at an earlier stage which was why I was editing again before User:Jehochman said something onwiki. The Arbcom can contact Xavexgoem for further information, as he has complete logs of our discussion.

Response to evidence by Sander Sade
This editor lists a number of AfDs where myself and other editors have entered into discussions. The difference between myself and the email list, is that I was not canvassed to enter the discussion. Rather, I spend a lot of time adding WikiProject Russia to relevant talk pages. Now that we have WP:Article alerts, any articles with the WP:RUSSIA banner on them will appear on the WP:RUSSIA page. I also regularly peruse User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult and add the talk page banner, and also add certain articles to my watchlist (this is how I found the Communist genocide AfD I believe) not necessarily editing them. I also keep an eye on pages to which articles are added to by way of WP:DELSORT. And lastly, I also often go thru AfD debates for a week at a time. That myself and an editor like User:Offliner may have similar views is not evidence of collusion, teaming or anything of the like; it is simply evidence of two like-minded editors. The list on the other hand is completely different, as some of the AfD debates I have listed have shown.

Harrassment by Radeksz on this very case
The email archive demonstrates that Radeksz has a very combative and battleground attitude. Due to a perceived legal threat, I was indef blocked - the Committee is aware of this. During the discussion at WP:AN where I was addressing the issues, uninvolved admin User:Jehochman deemed that Radeksz's presence constituted harrassment of myself, and topic banned Radeksz from topic Russavia whereby he is "not to comment on, report on, wikihound, or otherwise annoy Russavia." for the duration of this case. The indef block on myself was lifted, and I am still under the general Russia topic ban as set down by User:Sandstein, not an EE topic ban as claimed by Radeksz (see diff to follow). I have gone on to edit articles such as Drukair, Flag of Bhutan, and an expansion of Air Botswana in my userspace. On the proposed decision page, Radeksz proceeds to post this, claiming that I have violated my topic ban in what he deems to be a "controversial" way, and proceeds to continue the harrassment, engages in furthering of battle conditions, wikilawyering and forum shopping. My response to Radeksz is here, and I do believe this has been done here, instead of elsewhere, partly due to his "Russavia" topic ban. I am aware that I am under a topic ban, and I am editing other subjects, and doing other things (such as doing what I can at DYK). I do not need the continuation of the battlefield by members of the web brigade, in this case by Radeksz, by way of their continue stalking, harrassment, gaming and wikilawyering. I wish to, and am trying to, edit in peace, and without the constant harrassment by this web brigade.

Response to further gaming by Radeksz
In response to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence


 * I do acknowledge that the topic ban by myself as placed by Sandstein is still in place (User_talk:Russavia/Archive_12) pending possible outcome of this case, and whether I decide to seek to have the ban lessened (I haven't decided yet).
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision does state "but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban." Sandstein himself has questioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision where he stated "I'd like to note that "remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban" is unclear because I banned Russavia only from anything related to the Soviet Union and its successor states. The injunction can be read as extending this topic ban to all of Eastern Europe, which I believe is not necessary."
 * Colonies of Poland can't be construed as pertaining to the history of the Soviet Union, unless one is actively gaming which Radeksz is doing. If one follows his line, I would be unable to edit History of Cuba due to it pertaining in part to the Soviet Union. Such interpretation of a sanction which would in effect ban me from any article which mentions Russia or a Russian person is tedious and gaming, and in the context of evidence as presented, shows further battlefield mindset of Radeksz, and I say harrassment.
 * I have also been participating in helping verify hooks on DYK, such as ,,,,
 * This is not provocative. It is questioning subjective editorial comments in the hook which were not verified by any of the sources in the article.
 * In response to the rest of Radeksz' evidence, I would hope that the Committee understands that I was somewhat under stress at the time of the topic ban, and given this case it can be seen why I would be. I have since apologised for my conduct on my talk page, and have taken responsibility for my edits, and it is for this reason that I am now back to editing.