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

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)
 * Most important, can I respond only to something posted by others on Evidence page (so far nothing), because the number of different claims in AE request was enormous?Biophys (talk) 04:19, 7 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. Hers fold  (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)
 * I decided to finish my statement right now because I will be busy. Not sure if I can closely watch this case. Sorry for contributing to disruption. Keep in mind that I was never sanctioned by Arbom/AE previously and follow all previous clearly stated advise (rather than sanctions) by Arbcom, such as not talking with/about Commodore Sloat and unsubscribing from EEML. I am ready to continue doing so in the future.Biophys (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, is obviously somewhat related to this, ugh, dispute. Some time ago, while he was banned by ArbCom (for his clashes with Biophys, btw, see Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin), he used his sockpuppet  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, 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)


 * An important background to the contentions raised by Colchicum:
 * As could be seen here, Biophys had two accounts, one of them (Wikimedia) account, with his real name and information about him on user page.
 * He also used both his accounts at image deletion request, pretending to be different individuals both at deletion request and when |has seeking advice from the administrator in violation of the account policy (Sockpuppetry).
 * Biophys asked to delete his real name account, citing not privacy concern, but concern that another user has brought complaint on this to ANI.
 * After CU was done by administrators, account Biophys was also blocked indefinitly.
 * Summing up, Biophys was disclosing his personal information long before, and never was so seriously concerned with his privacy. While, I agree that my behavior was not acceptable and polite in 2008, I do disagree, however, with above dramatic evaluation by Colchicum and his attempts to tie it as justification of POV editing and disruption of his side. Two and half years passed since, but till today I haven't seen any serious attempts to litigate this case. Now, Colchicum, you are clearly following the tactic to shut up anyone who has another POV.


 * It is very astonishing that you, Colchicum, play here the leading role, while it was you who posted on Vecrumba's talk page a link to a blog of racist, whose average comment is "genetical waste, if someone die it would be a favor to the world", etc., where my personality is both outed and attacked. But I didn't brought it to ANI back in November 2009. And, frankly, I don't care about it right now either. Because the reason that brought me here is Biophys activity on deletion of totally POVed article and his enormous attempts to milk a bloody hell out of "coded death threats by Ellol".


 * It was not a pleasure for me to see your hostile accusations of disruption 1, 2 on mine and other uninvolved editor comments during DYK nomination for Soviet reaction to the Polish Crisis of 1980-1981, an article which you quickly written from scratch and without getting any feedback nominated to DYK. I would note here, that after our comments you never did anything to the article hence it was left POVed.


 * Hinting to us as "freaks and ignorants" was of course very constructive.


 * Another brilliant example of you behavior pattern is that when you returned back to WP, you, without any discussion or comments from third parties, totally re-edited Andrei Babitsky article, by shifting POV to exactly opposite of what was.
 * I especially noticed that your POV'ed addition "However, according to Mario Corti, head of Radio Liberty's Russian service, Babitsky has not shied away from reporting Chechen atrocities and was the first Russian journalist to put the blame for the death of the American disaster relief specialist Fred Cuny on a Chechen warlord." If Babitsky is an employee of Radio Liberty, I don't think that anyone from Radio Liberty would acknowledge his faults, because it would automatically be the faults and unprofessionalism of Radio Liberty". But could you give me a link to any Babitsky article where he depicts and denounces Chechen atrocities? And this issue is raised in many independent Russian publications.


 * Deletion of opinion of independent military expert Vladislav Shurigin, whose name search alone gives 60,600 results leading to info about him, and who is well-known in Russian blogosphere, you mark as "Gross BLP violation", and you say Shurigin is "nobody"?


 * Well, I do understand why you are so active here, given that your edits indicate that you are not going to change your behavior after EEML and to discuss or negotiate anything. But, please, at least don't use phrases like "enormous blow to the integrity of Wikipedia policies" and don't waive your red herring, given your own record. I am not an angel, but, unlike you, I want and could discuss NPOVing the articles, something that I seem managed to do in Bereza Kartuska prison.‎ Vlad fedorov (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, dear arbitrators, please add this to the evidence. The issue, as we all now have a chance to see, is not a matter of the past. Many thanks to Vlad for confirming my point. I really coudn't say it better.


 * (A clarification for those who don't speak Russian: don't be misled by Vlad, this is merely an opinion piece in the blog of Misha Verbitsky, a Russian web personality, concerning the deplorable situation around the Boris Stomakhin article in the pre-WP:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin era. Admittedly not very complimentary towards Vlad (neither was the ArbCom decision), it doesn't contain any factual information about him or any other Wikipedia user other than what was and still is available on-wiki for everyone to see. The rest of VF's rant speaks for itself, I presume). Colchicum (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This two and half year old case of alleged outing has no relation to the case brought here and I see neither your valid evidence, nor valid points, nor continued disruption after EEML, except your milking back and forth an old Boris Stomakhin case. Which, as could be clearly seen, was a case exclusively between me and Biophys.


 * As about your links to attack pages, which also strictly speaking do not belong there, I think that just naming me "a brigade working on Stomakhin article" is already an attack. Wasn't it the same for "cabal" during EEML? And you were aware of this, posting this link.


 * Reading this blog (which is presumably his blog, no one knows for sure), you may find that this personality states it has "been in clinic for mentally disabled and in prison", "he fucks himself with rubber dick and finds his feelings to be interesting", "he is often feeling himself antisemitic", in another post he defends paedophilia. This misanthropic blog contains enormous amount of attack posts and comments on anything and everyone. You are reading "expository" (good word coined by you) blogs, indeed, Colchicum.
 * And real Misha Verbitsky was recently succesfully sued for the defamation of known Russian artist Kuklachev. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the kind of thing I asked that editors not do. Shell  babelfish 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Going off of what Shell Kinney said above, I just want to remind everyone that this is the place for extra discussion of proposals - this is not the place to present evidence, nor should you be trying to argue "your side." ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be wrong place, but the discussion was very helpful. It explains exactly what's the problem. I do not understand why such behavior is tolerated for so long. Moreschi did nothing except blocking the secondary account. Thatcher did nothing. Arbcom did nothing during the EEML case, although the creation of the sock to conduct outing was reported there with evidence. Can anyone explain this please? Biophys (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with evidence thus far presented
I sincerely hope that the Committee is not buying into emotive musings (presented as evidence) which have no evidence for, nor grounding in reality. For example, Biophys has posted to evidence:

"But one of those experienced editors was actually a sock who fought an edit war to "help" User:YMB29  and possibly provide the evidence against me for Russavia."

Biophys seems to be insinuating that there is a grand conspiracy involving dozens of editors which force him into edit warring, ostensibly for the purpose of gathering evidence for use against him at a later stage.

Biophys is also accusing myself, for example, of:


 * Inciting others to WP:BATTLE, using evidence such as:
 * - yes, I did post a notice elsewhere, that being at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia/Archive_1. members of the web brigade is in relation to the continual accusations and insinuations by Biophys that his so-called opponents are in the service of Russian govt services. - that post was not an incitement to battle, but good practice and use of WikiProjects to get outside opinion on articles - that someone reverted his edits does not prove any incitement.
 * - yes, I did post that to User:Vlad fedorov talk page - at the time I was involved (and still am) in developing User:Russavia/DipMis - as VF is in Belarus, I wanted to approach him to see if he could provide photos of the Russian embassy in Minsk, and also the Russian permanent mission to the CIS in Minsk, for use in the photos. I have made requests such as that with other editors in the past, including some who are supposed to be opponents, but look what that got me!.
 * - yes, I did post that to User:Offliner talk page - as an editor who had previously been active on the web brigades (something Biophys has accused many editors of belonging to in the past) article, I was merely making Offliner aware of problems with the article that may require some discussion. Note: This is at the same time that WP:EEML members were involved in the article, by inserting information from an Arbitration case
 * , - yes, I did post these. It was in relation to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_17 - a section on an admin's talk page where Biophys was seeking sanctions on two editors, but failed to advise them of this.
 * - yes I did post this as an advisement to the user that Biophys had accused him of being a sockpuppet at Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters/Archive, but had failed to advise the editor in question.

Given that most of Biophys' evidence has been presented umpteen times before in numerous venues, and has been both responded to and discredited on numerous occasions in the past, it would appear to me that Biophys is simply dragging up issues, and as shown above non-issues, from the past in order to divert attention away from alleged edit warring and misconduct since the WP:EEML case; post-EEML being the stated remit of this case. Biophys has been advised here to keep evidence to under 1,000 words, and I assume that it is expected that all evidence from all parties is to be kept under 1,000 words, but given that Biophys is intent on dragging up ancient history, which needs to be rebutted by editors, I am asking the committee to either;


 * 1) dispose of the 1,000 word limit, in order to allow for adequate rebuttal to accusations which have been levelled against editors, or,
 * 2) strike pre-EEML evidence from the record as irrelevant

--Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please use the evidence page to present information; it is not appropriate here as was explained more than once just above. We're quite capable of sorting through the evidence given - if there is evidence that a party is currently problematic, no amount of distraction is going to divert the case - this is one of the reasons cases are not over with quickly.  However, if the evidence bears out disruption by more than one party, we may look at the behavior of other editors as well.  Neither of the things you ask for is going to happen; if there are discussions where this evidence has been presented and found lacking before, instead of rebutting them again, simply provide links to these older discussions. Shell   babelfish 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shelly, thanks for your comments. I have submitted evidence to my section of the evidence page, and as per what seems to be the wishes of Arbcom, I have kept it purely to post-WP:EEML disruption. If the committee is going to use ancient history in determining an outcome to this case, can I ask that editors such as myself be given notice that this is the case, so that we can respond where needed. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As mentioned elsewhere, we're going to be looking at continuing disruption since the EEML case. Evidence that is out of scope very likely will not be considered. This has been stated multiple times. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Workshop proposals needed
I'd like to try and move this to voting around the end of the month, but to do so we need some proposals from the parties and others as to what outcomes you'd like to see from the case. I'll try to start posting some proposals of my own this weekend. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but after being outed, I do not want to be involved in this, . Do not wait for anything from me. Life is more important. .Biophys (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly, dare I ask is the problem with User:Russavia/letter? If I must say so myself, it is a well-worded and very professional letter, and if i may say so myself, perhaps that is why they replied with File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf? If anyone thinks that the writing of that letter was done for any other reason than for the betterment of this project, they have rocks in their head.

If anyone would like to know why that letter was placed there in the first place, well here you go -- User_talk:Russavia/Archive_5 -- an editor approached me asking for pointers on how to convince an organisation to give permission - look at what they wrote when they approached me, and look at my response to them. That clearly demonstrates that someone is here for the good of the project.

Compare that to say, a request I make of another editor, which gets the response from User:Colchicum (who is so vocal in this case, for no apparent reason) "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia."

Now you tell me who is here to collaborate in the spirit of what it should be all about. Furthermore, another editor approached me at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_14 and I directed them to letter as well. And what I proposed to him there is something that I think should be done -- so many resources could be available to us, if we were just to ask for that permission.

And I don't care if you have a problem with me uploading thousands of images to Commons; others obviously don't and make good use of them (you yourself have used them to help a now banned user paint a "grotesque" article). I don't care if User:Colchicum assumes bad faith with my creating commons:Category:Vladimir_Putin_in_the_federal_subjects_of_Russia and using that as part of an overall categorisation structure, and refers to it as a personality cult. For the record commons:Category:Vladimir Putin in Chechnya is placed in that super category and in commons:Category:Chechnya - many of these photos that have been uploaded are able to be used. I don't care if you have a problem with my creating Koni (dog) as a result of me noticing we had files -- funnily enough, and this proves that I edit in an NPOV fashion, and cover all sides when I edit (unlike some) -- if you look at the article, I even include information critical of Putin -- protecting Putin am I?....indeed (choke).

So do tell us Biophys, what exactly is the problem with User:Russavia/letter, and why do you not want to be involved with it? Or is it just that you have a problem with collaboration? If that is the case, the project is probably better off without you. Or are you trying to use that letter to attack me, not again with your usual accusations of people being connected to the Russian government (not that there is anything wrong with that mind you). --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? You first suddenly raised this very old issue , and then immediately created this letter addressed directly to the Putin's administration. And I also knew about this your threat and this your discussion with Jimbo. All of this can have multiple explanations. One possible interpretation is that you are sending a message to me or even to the Foundation.Biophys (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, look at your evidence. It is 95% contained of old issues. Even after you were asked to keep it to post-EEML disruption. You couldn't resist dragging up old issues, and with more than a hint of disinformation to go with it. Secondly, you opened the door with your asking what is your bias. What I posted is a prime example of the extreme hatred and POV that you edit Wikipedia with; and in that instance you broke a core policy -- WP:BLP -- and yes, I have asked a couple of people to look over that piece that I wrote, and they have all said that what I wrote is an absolutely true and correct version of events. I have asked them not to post here for not wanting to appear that I was canvassing them. However, I know I was right, they know I was right. And you had the gall to splash this arbcom with disinformation. Also, I did not create User:Russavia/letter just now -- it has been up there for months (for the reasons stated) -- but it's nice to see that you are still following my contributions -- funnily enough, I haven't bothered looking at any of yours, I've been too busy creating content you see. Also Medvedev does not equal Putin, and Russia does not equal the Soviet Union. Please understand this as the letter was written to a staff member in the Medvedev administration. And it's good to know that you know about my post on the ANI and Jimbo's talk page, for it demonstrates that I am serious about BLP. Too bad you still ignore the message that is written in it.

If anyone truly believes the rubbish that I am sending messages both to Biophys (like he are the reason for my existence on this project) and to the foundation, by my posting that letter months ago, then please re-read what I wrote in my first response on this issue. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Target date
Just FYI for all those concerned, due to some conflicts with real-life the target date for proposals has been pushed back to the 12th of May. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 04:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not here to rehash same old arguments
I just wanted to remind the participants in this case that even though we're here to try and solve some recurring issues that doesn't mean we need to have the same recurring debates again. Remember, the Evidence page is there for the actual presentation of evidence, while this Workshop is for discussion of proposed findings based off that evidence. While discussion of evidence may be warranted, this is not the page for an additional full presentation of your case, replete with diffs, and definitely not where we should have a tète-à-tète. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 00:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I would suggest that something be done about it. Shell, for example, has said that years old evidence presented by Biophys is pretty convincing. And has even asked for an explanation for what she says is convincing. I asked above about pre-EEML evidence, and was said it is not being considered, but it is clear to see that it is! How to proceed? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 00:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying anything in particular about anyone or their behavior. The proposed decision should be coming in a few days so I'm just reminding y'all to have your ducks in a row.  If an Arbitrator has asked you a question, I would imagine answering it might be worthwhile. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't inferring you were. If there are portions that are outside the stated remit of what arbiters have stated this case is about, they should possibly be removed, as it will only inflame tensions, I am sure. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To avoid inflaming tensions, please do not mention me personally as being nearly exonerated ("all but cleared") by yourself in the future. Do not bring me up as someone suspected of improper conduct unless you have clear and demonstrable evidence. "I all but cleared Vecrumba of suspicions of wife-beating," for example, leaves the reader with the notion there must be some reason I was suspected of wife-beating in the first place. I regret your placing me in a position where I must address you directly, as I have never had any appetite for these sorts of proceedings. And as I you do mention me personally as someone suspected of improper conduct, I am within my rights to address you here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba blocked
Note: I have just blocked for – rather blatantly, in my view – violating his existing topic and interaction ban through his highly inflammatory postings to the evidence and workshop page. I leave it to the clerks to decide what to do with the postings (and the follow-up smoke in the related discussions). My recommendation is to remove them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not withstanding whether or not Vecrumba's contribution to the ArbCom case is useful to the Committee in its deliberations, I must say that Fut.Perf's apparent usurption of the Clerk's role in this ArbCom space is most unprecedented. It is the specific purpose and remit of the Clerks to maintain good order and format on Arbitration cases (using, as necessary, their authority to issue formal cautions and bans—enforceable by block—from case pages). The ArbCom case pages are a special zone separate from main space where any issue can and should be discussed without fear of intervention from regular admins. It is for this reason why Clerks are given special remit to enforce blocks and bans on these pages, not any usual admin. Note that in the past the Committee has even allowed perma-banned users to participate. Vecrumba's topic ban was not imposed by the community, but by the ArbCom, therefore it is up to the committee and the clerks to decide if he should participate or whether he should be warned or blocked, not for Fut.Perf to dictate this. --Martin (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Vecrumba tells that his comments about Russavia are response to the comments by Russavia about him . He considers this to be a "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" per this Arbcom ruling. Is it really "legitimate and necessary"? This can only be explained by arbitrators who made the ruling. That is what happens when R. makes an inflammatory comment about V. and M., but V. and M. can not respond. Either none of them makes any comments, or everyone tells whatever he wants. Biophys (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW having now examined his submissions I think it's a good block - rather clearly in violation of the ban, letter and spirit. As for the above, arbitration enforcement is in the permit of any sysop, and those who work there should be commended. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting to one side the merits of the block, the issue here is whether any random admin is permitted to enforce order on these pages during an active Arbitration case. If this precedent stands, this not only threatens to turn Arbitration into a circus (with potentially ANI reports arising out of things said during an active case!), but ultimately threatens to undermine the authority of the Arbitration committee itself. --Martin (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re but ultimately threatens to undermine the authority of the Arbitration committee itself. It is a non sequitur. And why would you all of a sudden worry about the authority of the ArbCom? (Igny (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Not really. Vecrumba doesn't need to be a part of this, and isn't. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking neither Vecrumba nor Martintg were invited to this case. The recent SPI was initiated by me, not by Russavia. It is not related whatsoever to this case of Biophys versus Russavia. The SPI was brought up by Biophys somewhere here as a general attempt to portray Russavia as some kind of a vengeful editor whose evidence here does not have any merit. The very first uninvited edit by Martintg here was not related whatsoever to his and Russavia's clash brought up by Biophys, and that largely constituted a breach of the topic ban as well. Later, after Russavia rightfully questioned Martintg's participation here, Shell excused his involvement. However, Martintg's participation here remained unrelated to Russavia's comments in the SPI charges against Martintg and was focused at attacking Russavia's arguments against Biophys. Now this edit by Russavia can not be considered as invitation of Vecrumba to this case, he merely countered a largely irrelevant and blatantly false FoF brought up by Colchicum here. (Igny (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

Accusations of proxying for Offliner
Some editors have accused me off proxying for Offliner by way of myself presenting evidence at WP:AE which eventually brought us here. This will be my only comment on these accusations, and I will not be responding to anything unless it comes from a committee member, at which point I will provide any information via email to the Committee. I am affirming that all evidence presented here is my own, and mine alone. When I prepared the evidence, I emailed Offliner a copy and asked him for his opinion on whether the request was not without merit. He went through the evidence himself and affirmed his opinion that statements made by myself were correct. He did, however, suggest that I reformat it for clarity, and pointed to his evidence at EEML. I relooked at his evidence from EEML, and I changed the formatting accordingly, adopting a similar format. And it is that that I submitted to WP:AE. It is my work and my work alone. There is no proxying for Offliner on this case, or at any other stage, during our interactions on Wikipedia. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally a response has been formulated to answer these allegations, which were made weeks ago in the initial request to open the case and again in evidence. The fact there was email coordination with Offliner in drafting the AE case is admitted, although the claim is made that it looks similar to Offliner's style because Offliner "suggested it" and "pointed to his evidence at EEML". However the claim that this AE report was "my work and my work alone" is somewhat contradicted by the earlier admission that "the AE was simply myself being the messenger". Who actually drafted this message remains the question. --Martin (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Martintg, you're getting off-track here. Regardless of how this got started, everyone's conduct is being reviewed.  Let's stick to any evidence and workshop proposals you might want to suggest and avoid the back-and-forth since you are under a ban. Shell   babelfish 11:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. --Martin (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I admit that Offliner was a productive content editor. I wound not mind if he created new articles and Russavia posted them here per WP:IAR. But this is an illegal email coordination to get another editor banned, precisely the kind of behavor discussed during the EEML case. Yes, if anyone had learned a lesson, that was Russavia. The lesson: an email coordination to get another editor banned is very effective. This deserves a separate Fof. Biophys (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No punishment for talking off-wiki, please. You changed your mind, Biophys? Vlad fedorov (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question, Vlad! No, I did not change my mind. I would make legal all types of communications in this project (as I said to YMB29 in "Red Banner"). But arbitrators happened to strongly disagree with me and some others during the EEML case. They issued very serious sanctions to several editors for precisely that type of behavior. Therefore, I suggest to be consistent in such decisions.Biophys (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What was then illegal and what was coordination, that you claim here? Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping things up
It looks like everyone has wrapped up their evidence and proposal suggestions - the arguing about workshop proposals is starting to become a problem again, so I'd like to see if we can't move on. If anyone has anything more to add, please do so now - I hope to have the proposed decision posted within the next few days. Shell  babelfish 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet Shell, I've sent a couple of emails to the committee, on which I have not received a response as to whether they have even been received. Can you please confirm this. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 00:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen both, but not yet responded to the second. You should have an acknowledgement for the first from me - can you double check that you've received it? Shell   babelfish 01:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing received. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I mistakenly sent the reply to the list only; I've forwarded it over. Shell  babelfish 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is just to note that I recycled some diffs with comments by Vecrumba in my userspace and modified them . This is evidence about me and Ellol; it does not include any personal attacks on Russavia or other inappropriate content. Please tell if there are any serious objections.Biophys (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys, you really can say "User:X's presented this diff which actually included these four separate edits."  We really don't need any more comments that everyone else's "evidence" is PATENTLY FALSE. Shell   babelfish 03:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Main point of this: there was no 3RR violation by me, and I worked toward compromise in this article.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)