Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence

Yes, I made reverts in several articles, although many diffs by Russavia are not reverts to any previously existing version. What this is all about? I tried to include important or at least interesting materials sourced to books in several articles, but I was reverted to their preferred versions by users Timurite [1] (sockpuppet), YMB29 (talk · contribs) (SPA), Saiga12 (talk · contribs) (SPA), Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs) (see below), HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) (currently blocked) and Ellol (talk · contribs) (that's his bias: [2]). Please examine what they do in this project.

• As you can see, these articles cover different subjects. That's because I edit many subjects, from Biology and Chemistry to History. But I fix forged numbers not found in sources [3] or restore important information sourced to books if it was removed by political partisans [4]. I do not take it lightly, and I tried to fix just this in the examples by Russavia.

• In one of the articles, I removed a poorly sourced conspiracy theory (a diff by Russavia [5]) although I am very open to debating such theories when they are sourced to multiple books [6],[7]. In another article I fought a vandal who did such edits: [8],[9],[10], although I politely explained everything to him [11].

• If I am such an edit warrior, how did it happen that I am currently reverted by every single person to their preferred versions in almost every article mentioned by Russavia? See these "winning" reverts by Ellol, YMB29 and Russavia himself [12], [13], [14], [15] [16], [17]? I have "lost" everywhere because I learned my lesson and restricted myself to only one (sometimes two) reverts) per day. I also actively debated at the article talk pages [18], [19],[20],[21],[22],[23] and asked advice from experienced editors on the "opposite side" [24],[25]. But one of those experienced editors was actually a sock who fought an edit war [26] to "help" YMB29 because he asked him [27],[28], [29].

• My alleged "edit warring heavily to keep a known Islamist propaganda source". No. As follows from Russavia diffs [30], I restored text sourced to U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, GlobalSecurity.org and other good sources. I think Islamist sites can only be used to source claims about themselves [31],[32][33] (the category is "propaganda site, rather than a "news agency"), like in many books [34].

• Russavia tells that I violated our policies by editing on the behalf of a banned user. No, I did not. Yes, I received suggested changes by email from someone who did not tell me any personal information. I looked at the changes, checked the sources, accepted something, rejected a lot, and made the edits. But this is encouraged by WP:IAR. I edited on behalf of this project and not on behalf of anyone else. I confirm that the changes are verifiable and I had an independent reason (improvement of the content) for making them (second paragraph here). These changes did not cause any disruption.

Not only Russavia outed me himself (hence his first block by Moreschi), but he incited DonaldDuck, Miyokan, and probably Offliner [35] do the same: See the diffs. During this discussion on September 11, 2008. Russavia said this [36] and this [37] about me. DonadDuck and Miyokan responded as follows [38], [39]. This resulted in e-mail conversation with Miyokan: [40], [41], [42], [43]. Myokan was then indefinitely blocked for outing, and DonaldDuck repeatedly attempted to out me: [44] despite the earlier warning.

Russavia incites others to "battle" on a regular basis. Here he tells (at the bottom) that he will invite others [45], and one of them came telling: "restored Russavia version". Russavia invited Vlad_fedorov [46], Offliner [47], Igny, LokiiT [48],[49] and DonaldDuck [50] to "deal" with me. And all of them act as a single group (the "prima facia" by Thatcher): Myokan, Russavia, Offliner, Igny, PasswordUsername[51][52], LokiiT/Krawdanwg [53], and IP from Russia.

The behavior of Russavia did not improve when he came back from the editing restrictions which replaced his indefinite ban. He earned his block on 4 December 2009 because he tried to out a group of people [54]. And he is still trying to out one of these users right now (please see this conversation in SPI by User:Igny.)

This AE request was filed by Russavia immediately after coming from his restriction. This is clearly a battleground action based on the evidence above in this section. He asks for two-year ban for me, although I voted to lift his topic ban at AE. First thing he did after filing his AE request was revert of Litvinenko to his preferred version [55] because we had a dispute with him about this article. He submitted this request because he believes he is "immune" to sanctions [56].

I believe this AE request was prepared by banned user Offliner. The request was created as a long list of short and clear statements with bullets: [57], exactly as EEML evidence by Offliner: [58]. All statements by Russavia are made in a very different style, with large fragments of continuous text [59]. Indeed, Russavia acts as a representative of Offliner [60].

Why Russavia attacks me? This is nothing personal . He does the same with regard to other Russian editors who do not share his pro-Putin bias [61].

Vlad_fedorov just outed me again, during these proceedings (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop, I can not provide the diff for privacy reasons). He did this also previously. In fact, Russavia was possibly inspired by his example [62]. Vlad had created this sock to report, during his one-year block by Arbcom(!) my real life identity to User:Ellol (please see my email to Thatcher). Indeed, Ellol acknowledged later that he knows my name [63] (first line in this translation [64]).

YMB29: "Defender of torch" asked: [65]. I responded: [66] and debated: [67][68][69]. He liked my comments and apparently decided to "help". But if he followed my edits, that's his problem. I did not ask him anything by any means. Also see this: [70],[71], [72], [73].

LokiiT: ("GRU/KGB"). No, I did not accuse him of COI, but only of copyright violations, sockpuppetry and personal attacks [74]. He is trying to frame me. This is our conversation, [75], please see my last statement at the bottom of "Terrorists" that explains the misunderstanding. I have never accused anyone of this in the open internet space (private talk is a different matter; and I also said this once about an IP editing).

Ellol: That's your diff: [76]. Yes, it does not matter if this is the Hellmann–Feynman theorem [77] or the "bombings". It only matters what reliable secondary sources tell, as I tried to explain you here. But you did not answer my question what exactly did you read on the subject: [78].

Vlad_Fedorov: Those are minor content issues. With regard to using WND in Grozny ballistic missile attack, I agreed with Blueboar (each instance should be checked and attributed to author) [79] and I fully explained this at article talk page. No one objected (that's too late, Vlad [80]!). Keep in mind that such issues are really complicated. You might think that I am trying to "protect" a notorious militant Umarov looking at the diffs by Vlad, but I know that some of the claims contradict a large number of other sources [81]. See these diffs/links for other articles mentioned by Vlad: [82], [83], [84] [85], [86], [87], [88]. No, I had no email communications with Nakh.

DonalDuck ("HanzoHattori") This is your diff: [89]. Note what I said: "I think your edits are good and sourced." This is something I have checked. In relationships with all sockpuppets I follow WP:IAR (the primacy of content) that supersedes all other policies. As long as they are doing good job, I do not report them but only watch. For example, I reported Kupredu [90] but kept good content he created instead of reverting him [91]. Yes, I closely watched edits by Hanzo and his alternative accounts to intervene and add something I know on the Chechen subjects (note my sourcing to books: [92] [93]).

Response to Russavia ("promises"): here

Other recent and very important evidence can be found here. See also my AE statement [94].

Evidence of Biophys' disruption in the article from the EEML case: [95]

After some time since the EEML case Biophys comes back to the article to reinsert his edits from months ago without any discussion, as if nothing happened in the article during the months he was not editing it: [96] [97] [98]

He then inserts more of his old edits and continues to edit war: [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

Attempts by admin Altenmann (we both did not know he was socking at the time) to get a discussion going on the issues only got Biophys to discuss the issues for a short time before he again failed to respond and keep the discussion going. [104] [105]

User:Defender of torch, who never edited the article before, blindly reverts to Biophys' version: [106] [107]

The second revert was made less than half an hour after Biophys' last revert [108] and it helped Biophys avoid a third revert that day.

When I asked if he contacted Defender of torch to help him edit war, Biophys said that he does not see anything wrong with off-wiki coordination, and does not care if I do it too. [109]

Biophys adds a joke to the Red flag article: [110]

Other users tell him that such jokes don't belong in the article: [111] [112] [113] [114]

Biophys reinserts the joke again and adds another one with profanity: [115]

Continues to revert to his jokes: [116]

Then he went over to the Red Banner article to insert the jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit there. [117] [118]

He is told again that the jokes don't seem to have been popular in the USSR and is asked to prove notability: [119] [120] [121]

However he does not provide any evidence of notability and continues to edit war: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]

-YMB29 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys claims that I made personal attacks against him... Well this is not the first time he has brought those accusations up [130] and if they were true an admin would have done something about it by now.

As far as socks helping me, if Biophys' editing attracts socks it is not my fault. He had a history with Altenmann and his socks way before they came to the articles I was editing. [131] [132]

An IP that belongs to a recently banned sock also reverted me in support of Biophys [133], but I did not mention that here since I know that most likely the sock just followed my edits and Biophys did not contact him.

Furthermore, Biophys himself brought the sock master into the editing conflict between us. [134] I only asked him (of course unaware of his socking) to look at Biophys' edit warring and ignoring of discussion after Biophys first asked him and after he already made a commitment to resolve the dispute between Biophys and me. [135][136]
Implying that I teamed up with a sock master admin against him is a clear example of Biophys distorting the truth in his evidence.

Also I am not sure why Biophys keeps calling me an SPA...

-YMB29 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I presented all of my evidence of Biophy's continued disruptive editing here[137], all of it relevant to the post-EEML situation.

I want to note here that once again, just like during the EEML case, Biophys has chosen to use this as a battleground and launch a completely unwarranted, irrelevant and baseless attack on me for unknown reasons. He brought up my sockpuppet case from 2008 (why?) and he makes yet the same completely false and debunked claim that I created this account for sockpuppeting when the sole purpose of this account was to avoid his harassment. I explained this all in detail here[138]. So along with his relentless harassment, stalking, accusations of working for the government[139], sock fishing[140], trying to find out my real life identity and spreading lies about me (which is all detailed in the evidence I linked above), he's now claiming that I created this account for the purpose of harassing him, which is just unbelievable that he would say something like that.

Also Biophys mentions something about two IPs (it was actually just one) that came to my talk page with a personal attack, claiming it was an attack on him. But it was actually a personal attack against an admin and had absolutely nothing to do with Biophys. Not only that, but Biophy knows this. It's already been explained. So why is he even bringing it up? Why is he bringing any of this irrelevance up? LokiiT (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preface April 2007 program statement October 2008 next program.

The years 2009-2010 (note what articles are all about)

• Artyom Borovik, Background - December 2008, Colchicum and Biophys edit war against Beatle Fab Four by injecting POV speculations (POV fork) about Putin childhood in Georgia into this article diff, diff, diff. April 2010, Biophys arrives and injects his POV according to which sources contradict to each other, read both sources with man knowlegeable in aviation to evaluate.

• Anatoly Trofimov, Biophys edit wars, removing source not favorable to his conspiracy. Note, this source is also used in independent article Gerard Batten, position 5, edit wars once again, and and again.

• Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), Biophys doesn't like comment on Goldfarb of Mary Dejevsky (the chief editorial writer of The Independent), diff, diff, then instead of blind revert Biophys tries to disguise its removal diff, inserts (!!!) this again diff, but the next minute removes it claiming BLP violation diff, again blind revert, revert, and revert, these last three reverts are almost 3RR violation, and Biophys self-reverts, even in disambiguation Goldfarb Biophys allows to inject POV (human rights activist).

• Human rights in Russia I don't like it with summary "abstract should summarize content of this wikipedia article, not the report of Gil Robles", self-reverts in 11 minutes (!!!) diff, still doesn't like it and "agrees with someone" diff,

• Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs, having lost on Reliable Sources board discussion on use of terrorist sites as a source (KavkazCenter Thread on RS Noticeboard), arrives and not changes sources to those reliable which are in abundance, but deletes everything diff

• Recruitment never dies diff, note above how Biophys accuses others of canvassing. Five days later new recruit becomes operative diff.

• The way Biophys reaches consensus with other editors: "I insist on (my) version..." "we would ask the outside reviewer", diff

• Redirect most likely under HanzoHattori request http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Popkov&action=history

• Unproductive attempts to fish socks on disliked editor Saiga12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lareneg/Archive. Note that Biophys does a thing that he calls outing "this is probably an IP from Germany".

• "There's nothing wrong to create the article on something that doesn't exist" diff

• Nadezhda Krupskaya POV injecting diff, the authors of the claim are Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky as usual.

• Yuri Felshtinsky removing curious claims by Felshtinsky & Co. diff, removing International Herald Tribune source which describes Felshtinsky as an associate of Berezovsky and source from the Herald which indicates the book was financed by Berezovsky,diff, removing the same againdiff, and again (claiming it is rearrangement) diff, and again diff.

• "I despise Islamist propaganda", but They certainly have an editorial oversight, but it matters who was the editor. The site was popular and much better in 1999-2002, if BBC uses this cite as source, why we can not?.

• Citation from Biophys own proof diff "During wars, they also reported losses on the Chechen side, and such reports can be regarded as official reports of losses by the Chechen side (which does not mean that their numbers are the "truth", just as numbers by any other combatants". Aga, KavkazCenter "earned his fame" for statements like "100 munafiks (Russian occupants) exterminated and three mojahideen are wounded".

• Kavkaz Center, revert wars by Biophys on sourcing to KavkazCenter, please do not remove valid refs from WP articles, This is claim about KavkazCenter itself distributing the spam amusing edit summary, right?, another diff. Check it against WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG.

• Biophys appears on RS Noticeboard to defend WorldNetDaily as reliable source despite numerous other editors claiming its inaccuracy. Please note, that majority of authors recognized World Net Daily as not reliable. Biophys used that source at revert in Grozny ballistic missile attack diff, despite previous author properly indicated it is not reliable diff.

• Valeria Novodvorskaya edit wars in pair with Colchicum diff, Colchicum stale reverts diff, diff, diff.

• Stalin Epigram Adding POV summary and adding source from another Wiki. Note in contrast what Biophys has claimed in WP:EEML about removal of links to Wiki. Hmm...

• Dokka Umarov organizer of Moscow metro bombing, POVing lead. Terrorist changed to Revolutionary this is more informative, deletion is sourced to nowhere. along with correction per [[WP:Terrorist, removal of Umarov position]. "Fair attempt to improve"... by revert to the previous version - diff. 82.160.239.145? Who is it? Hanzo?

• Note the contrast use of term "terrorist" by Biophys, in Revolutionary terror in Soviet Union diff, diff, especially note the that while Biophys adds what he names "background", he doesn't mention White terror, which means article is pure POV.

• January, 2010 Russian apartment bombings Statement by Biophys bombing by FSB agents is a majority view. Compare with preface.

• "User:Biophys does not respect WP:NPOV", "User:Biophys does not practise what he preaches" source
• "I found Biophys' behaviour, ... to be disruptive". source

It seems that Colchicum doesn't recognize collaboration and civilty as the WP pillars.

Here

• Finding by Shell Kinney from June 2009: "Biophys regularly edit wars" [141]
• 1RR sanction given by Thatcher (now vacated): [142]
• Biophys' (broken) promise to follow 1RR: ("I will also try to stick to 1RR") [143]
• Another (broken) promise during the EEML case: "I apologize for edit warring. I knew that was against the policy... In the future, I will compromise, ask 3rd opinion..." [144]

• After the EEML case ended, Biophys began to conduct massive edit warring again.
• Biophys did over 65 reverts in the first months of 2010.

• • Russian apartment bombings (Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article) [145],[146],[147],[148],[149],[150] (3 reverts in 24 hours),[151],[152],[153] (again 3 reverts in 24 hours),[154],[155],[156],[157],[158],[159],[160],[161],[162],[163],[164],[165],[166]
  • Battle for Height 776 [167],[168],[169],[170],[171],[172],[173],[174],[175],[176],[177],[178],[179] (3 reverts in 26 hours),[180]
  • Human rights in the Soviet Union [181],[182],[183],[184],[185],[186],[187]
  • Red banner [188],[189],[190],[191],[192],[193],[194],[195],[196],[197],[198]
  • Red flag [199],[200],[201],[202]
  • Cyberwarfare by Russian state [203],[204],[205],[206],[207] (the last 4 reverts are a 3RR violation), [208]
  • Invasion of Dagestan (1999) [209],[210],[211],[212],[213]

• For the diffs, see the AE thread. No need to duplicate them here, since:
• Biophys has already admitted making edits on behalf of another person. [214]
• Biophys claims he "did not know the person's real name." Interestingly, Biophys does not deny that he knew this person was HanzoHattori. (see Non-denial denial)
• It is highly likely that Biophys knew that this person was HanzoHattori:

1. The proxy edits were all made to articles where HanzoHattori and socks were the main editors
2. Only another WP editor would contact someone and ask to make specific edits
3. The only way this editor could have found out Biophys' email address is to use Wikipedia's email feature
4. This will reveal the editor's username to Biophys.

• When Biophys' actions are under investigation, he often "retires", ostensibly to avoid sanctions. [215] (Retired while an AE thread leading to Biophys' 1RR was being investigated),[216],[217] (Retired during the WP:EEML, when his actions were under investigation by ArbCom),[218],[219],[220] (and again),[221],[222]

• Biophys now knows that this tactic works. Therefore, he has retired again during this case: [223]

• During the EEML case, a lot of evidence was presented against Biophys; at least as much as against the now topic banned editors.
• Biophys somehow managed to escape sanctions, probably because of the "promises" and "apologies" he made during the case:
  • "*I apologize for edit warring. I knew that was against the policy. Everyone who edits on controversial political subject should be ready to accept removal of his contributions by others, no matter how well these contributions were sourced. In the future, I will compromise, ask 3rd opinion..." [224]
  • "*I apologize for joining the mailing list." [225]
  • Yet, Biophys continued his secret email correspondence with other editors and even made edits on behalf of a banned user, which was founded to be disruptive in EEML (Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz)

I believe, that Biophys is an user with an extremely strong POV. One quote of him from the talk page of the Russian apartment bombings — what is a very complicated story itself — sais much about that user:

[226]

Of course, I was interested about what law of nature helps Biophys to prove his theories. To do that, I cleaned up his version of the description of the Ryazan incident [227]. Not surprisingly, I found the good old technique "if facts do not fit the theory, the worse for the facts" !

ellol (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I never posted any personal information on Biophys. Please follow the diffs provided by Biophys and check this.
2. What is WP:OUTING? According to Wikipedia policy “Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.” Back in years 2007-2008, Biophys voluntarily posted some personal info on Commons, showing no concerns for his privacy at that time. He can’t claim outing of this particular information, because he had previously voluntarily posted it himself for public use.
3. What is the real reason behind repeated outing accusations by Biophys? (Biophys already made this accusations in EEML case and in at least one off-wiki email to administrator, as far as I know)? Biophys is trying to: suppress any reference to his own sockpuppetry on Commons, get his perceived opponents blocked and avoid sanctions in Arbitration process by claiming organized harassment campaign again him.

Federal Security Service (Russia) (April 2009) David Satter (April 2009) Yakov Krotov

• Biophys advising HanzoHattori sockpuppet how to avoid scrutiny: Please keep in mind that no one suppose to block you without asking checkuser, and checkuser will not make a check unless there are compelling reasons to do so, such as uncivil comments or sustained edit warring .
• Greetings to another HanzoHattori sockpuppet by Biophys.
• Biophys calls HanzoHattori his friend.

This casts some doubt on Biophys claim that he got email with proposed edits from unknown person and did not know if it was HanzoHattori or not.

For what it's worth I'd like to point some things out. This Arbitration request shows how great a battlefield EE articles still are. User:Biophys in the past has often attempted to negotiate settlements with some of the 'pro-Putinist' editors but always in vain. His request to get Russavia's sanctions lifted was stupidly naive proven by how Russavia started this request right after they were lifted. This is quite obviously battlefield mentality and the way Russavia is behaving at [228] as well as all other EE articles shows Russavia's intent to continue battle all his wp:EEML opponents. Ironically if I recall correctly all the participants in the EEML were prohibited from interacting with Russavia. Russavia has turned this around by approaching them even when he hasn't interacted with them for a long time. Having experienced editing in EE articles I see nothing has changed. It's virtually impossible to add anything critical of Vladimir Putin or his politics. A large amount of ultranationalist users will do pretty much everything to defend related articles or mess up biographies of Putin's opponents. Biophys has continued editing critical anyway, but because a large amount of critical users have been topic banned (mostly for a year) he is now a minority. Normally more users would show up so let it not be an illusion that the community is turned against him.

I don't think the evidence posted by above users is strong, proving only that editing in EE space is still problematic. Most of it is content related trying to portray Biophys of POV-illness though the users themselves have an extremely determined point-of-view themselves as you can easily see in their edit history. Vlad Federov's evidence fits in with previous accusations of Biophys supposedly supporting Islamist terrorism in Russia (IMO violations of wp:civil) which are ridiculous accusations. From what I recall Biophys isn't Islamist and is mostly interested in the Chechen conflict because 1) it's one of the most important political subjects in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and 2) Biophys has spent a lot of time in the Caucasus region (where the conflicts take place) and is Russian himself. Usually accusations of supporting terrorism can already be made when criticizing human rights abuses in the region by the federal government. Note that many journalists and even human rights activists in Russia have faced charges of "Extremism" or "inciting hatred" for criticizing Russia's part in the Chechen conflict (not to speak of those that are murdered). My point is that it's a common trick for nationalists in Russia to accuse opponents of terrorism. Right now it's done because Biophys has used sources of an Islamist extremist website but as far as I can see they are used with utmost scrutiny and only about themselves. For those not familiar with the Chechen conflict, it would pretty much be the same as condemning an American Wikipedia editor for posting an interview of Mullah Omar (Taliban leader) linked to a radical Islamist website, a website that’s used regularly in the news / academic publications, and accusing this user of supporting terrorism because he "uses those sources".

I can't comment much on supposed edit warring because I don't want to check all diffs and timestamps myself but it should be obvious that the edit warring isn't one-sided. So far all users above (except one) accusing Biophys of edit warring have a much larger history of edit warring than Biophys as well as a lot more blocks for edit warring (some having barely survived a permaban). Biophys has been blocked twice for edit warring of which one was wp:3rr. If he did indeed edit-war recently I think it would be unfair for him to become the scapegoat of post-EMML strictness by giving him strong sanctions. I'm also pretty sure that some of the above users have been edit warring since EEML. Note that User:Ellol has been edit warring extensively on Russian Apartment Bombings and User:YMB29 has been on Human rights in the Soviet Union and Red Banner. Both articles are now used to portray Biophys as the edit warrior.

Outing should not be taken lightly. Russavia was blocked for outing Biophys and another user permabanned. Vlad Federov has just now posted a link containing Biophys personal details again despite knowing that users had been banned for doing so. I can't imagine that this is now suddenly going to be tolerated. I'd like to point to [229]. Please note that some of the outed users have even received death threats outside Wikipedia, just to understand how serious this is.

All in all, please don’t judge Biophys alone in this case because it was started against him. During EEML only the EEML members were judged / sanctioned but I believe in this case the users requesting arbitration should be judged too. Thank you for your time.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.