all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban on involved parties

1) All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), Ze miguel (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor is banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC) First choice (Added Luis A. (talk · contribs)) Fred Bauder 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC) First Second choice.[reply]
  3. First choice ➥the Epopt 13:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Second choice Third choice[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Second choice[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin 05:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Second choice. Reaffirmed as second choice. Kelly Martin 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban on involved parties

2) All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), Ze miguel (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Second choice (Added Luis A. (talk · contribs)) Fred Bauder 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Second Third choice.[reply]
  3. Second choice ➥the Epopt 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Third choice[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin 05:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Third choice. Reaffirmed as third choice. Kelly Martin 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Third choice.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban on involved parties

3) All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor, and Ze miguel (talk · contribs), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC) First choice[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin 05:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC) First choice. Reaffirmed as first choice. Kelly Martin 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) First choice.
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC) first choice[reply]
  6. →Raul654 03:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC) see [1] (Added Luis A. (talk · contribs)) Fred Bauder 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair

  1. All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are banned from banned from editing Bogdanov Affair pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), Ze miguel (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor, is also banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC) To supplant general ban.[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy

1) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine provides that advocates either of their own position or critics of someone else's position ought not use Wikipedia in pursuit of their advocacy activities.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Obsessional point of view

2) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Focus of dispute

1) The Bogdanov Affair is a controversy which arose when the merit of the speculative work in theoretical physics by Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, French television personalities, was questioned by other physicists. Participants in the external controversy, including Igor Bogdanov, are editing the Wikipedia article aggressively.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Violation of temporary injunction

2) A number of editors, apparently involved in the external event have continued to edit Bogdanov Affair using a number of sockpuppets despite issuance of a temporary injunction forbidding editing of the article by them.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair

1) All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are indefinitely banned from editing Bogdanov Affair. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits are to the Bogdanov Affair they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs), and all others who meet the criteria. Any new user account or anonymous IP which commences editing of the article without substantial editing of other articles shall be presumed to be a participant in the external controversy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Though I'm a tad wary of the indefinite any-new-user-shall-be-shot part.[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While I share James' concern, this situation must not be allowed to continue. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Notice

2) A notice shall be placed at the top of the article Bogdanov Affair which links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair which briefly explains that the Wikipedia article has, in part, been conflated with the external event, the Bogdanov Affair, due to participation in editing of the article by participants in the event. The notice shall include an apology for our inability to control this phenomenon and a warning that any editor which is determined to be a participant in the external event may be subject to being banned from editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Sensible.[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC) This article is already terrible; a cross-namespace link won't make it much worse.[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Normally, I would object, but in this exceptional case I agree with Kelly. When the nonsense dies down, or the article is finally cleaned up, it can be removed. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC) - horrible idea. Linking across namespaces is a violation of our no-self-references policy and makes for terrible articles as well.[reply]


Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by ban

1) Any user banned from editing Bogdanov Affair who nevertheless edits it, may be briefly banned from Wikipedia entirely, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, and after the 5th offense, up to a year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (I've slightly modified the wording for clarity.)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Additional combatants

2) New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC) See above for reticence.[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General[edit]

It may be that Rbj (talk · contribs) ought not be included in this ban and that other regular Wikipedia editors ought to be. We may have to examine the recent editing history of the article to determine what is proper. Anyway the list should be treated as a provisional list for now. Fred Bauder 22:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Everything has passed. →Raul654 19:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Raul654. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


More