Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Igor and Grichka Bogdanov cannot be objective and should not edit this article.
1) I ask that neither subject of the article, that is neither Igor nor Grichka Bogdanov contribute to this article at all. They are, by definition, not objective.  They clearly have a goal of making this into an article that makes themselves look good (like geniuses) and that helps them sell books.  They have a clear financial motive and one of pride that disables their objectivity.  It doesn't mean that it is open season for any critics of theirs to write falsehoods or to delete pertanent information that is supportive of the Bogdanovs, but they simply cannot be expected to write objectively of themselves.  Editors that are supporters or critics (or neither) have nothing to gain nor lose should be the editors of the article. r b-j 04:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Of course they should not be editing an article about themselves, but neither should others be editing an article about an event they are participating in. Fred Bauder 13:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * r-b-j wrote : I ask that neither subject of the article, that is neither Igor nor Grichka Bogdanov contribute to this article at all. They are, by definition, not objective.


 * If only objective people have the right to edit this article, I don't think r b-j should be allowed to... Please remember that he wrote about them :
 * "They are hucksters, swindlers, con artists. If this were a criminal trial, the jury would eventually get sick of their lame defenses and simply say "Guilty, guilty, guilty!" (...) Hoax, pseudoscience, The Emperor's New Clothes, excrement are precisely appropriate." (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2)
 * "he [=Igor] lies and lies and lies and lies. that is how he got to the position he is at today. (...) it [=The Bogdanov Affair] is what it is. it stinks. the stink is of the Bogdanoffs' own making and no amount of room freshener will remove that stink." (r b-j (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 3)
 * To the arbitrators : so, if you wish objective contributors for this article, and if you choose to ban all non-objective ones who took part to this farce, please don't forget rbj, even if he has taken part to other Wikipedian articles ! With such a hate against the Bogdanovs, do you think he would be an "objective" contributor, especially if nobody could defend the brothers, including themselves ?
 * Laurence67 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is not about me, Laurence. Neither is it about you.  And I have not suggested that they ban you (unless it is discovered that you are a sock-puppet of Igor, right now I think you're a "meat-puppet").  I did not come into this with an opinion of the Bogdanov's, but I surely did form one after researching many webpages of evidence.  I do not think you can claim the same.  You came to WP solely to defend the Bogdanovs and your edit history confirms that.  I have been editing dozens of WP articles for more than a year before this dirty affair.  Still, I do not call for banning you from editing an article about someone who is not you.  How is it that you cannot allow the same for me?  Your argument does not pass the  "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" test.   I doubt there will ever be a WP article about Robert Bristow-Johnson, but if there is, I should not be editing it.   r b-j 21:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

All statements, critical or supportive, should be verifiable by links to internet sites
2) (self explanitory.) Lot's of people are saying lots of things about what lots of other people are saying.  It's time that each statement is supported by at least some document that we can readily read on the internet and not simply supplied by the subjects of the article.  r b-j 04:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is an overly narrow principle. It should be permissible to cite to an offline source.  Not all the information in the world is on the web, yet. Kelly Martin 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This problem is part of the intrusion of the event into our report of the event. Fred Bauder 13:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Should be made a necessary but not sufficient criteria. It is too easy to set up a web site for the specific purpose of backing ludicrous claims; I do not want the people linking to web sites of imaginary university departments again. Rama 06:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:, , , , , , . , , , and all others who meet the criteria.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * seems to be the only obsessive editor not caught in this net. Fred Bauder 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This does seems necessary, sadly. James F. (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: Rama and Ze miguel: I don't see any reason to exempt CatherineV, if the others are also going to be banned. Ze miguel, however, I would exempt from the general ban and only restrict from editing related pages to the Bogdanov affair, as he has shown interest in and evidence of editing articles outside the dispute. For the others named I support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would recommend grouping Ze miguel in with Rbj on the topic-specific ban instead of a general ban. He joined Wikipedia and made several edits on unrelated topics before being sucked into the maelstrom.  Kelly Martin 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm a newbie Wikipedian, I created my account on September 26. Although I've mainly edited the Bogdanov Affair article, I have done a few other contributions. In particular, I think I've done some significant work on a draft for the Cubana Flight 455 stub article, not yet completed. I also contributed to the French Wikipedia on this French city article. I wouldn't mind being blocked (even forever) from the Bogdanov Affair article, but I would like to avoid being banned from Wikipedia, if possible. Please  don't bite the newbie and assume good faith :). Thanks. --Ze miguel 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ban me, if you choose to. I am not ashamed of anything, not a single action, I did regarding this sordid affair.  The 3RR violations (that twice got me blocked for 24 hours) happened only in the context of reverting Igor's persistent removal of pertainent and factual information that was not flattering to him (or his brother).  It was also done, in the second case, with the advanced approval of an admin  because it was obvious what Igor was doing.  He was literally vandalizing the article and I was reverting the vandalism along with others.  Also remember that Igor ignored his blockage to the article and continued to edit/vandalize the article even when he was "banned".  I did not.  In addition, I haven't edited the article in more than a week and don't plan to as long as I can see that someone is fighting off the Bogdanov vandalism.  I did not come into this as a partisan, for or against the Bogdanovs, but I became convinced, after my own research of the affair (with no help from  or any others) that the Bogdanovs, as represented by Igor, are clearly not just cranks or crackpots (that, like other crackpots, believe that they are neo-Einsteins and just cannot come to terms about the baloney that they have successfully foisted upon the French community and tried to with the physics community) but they are clearly nakedly dishonest and narcissistic.  They will do anything to squelch accurate critique, and it would be a shame if WP submitted to such actions of the Bogdanovs.  To keep them from wearing down even the admins and ArbCom, you will nearly certainly have to protect the article from editing, once an "objective" version is settled upon. r b-j 20:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One more additional comment, Fred Bauder's observation about me "not caught in this net" is accurate. I have never been involved externally in this affair.  Not once.  There is no web page about the Bogdanov affair with any contribution from me other than here at WP.  There is no USENET involvement from me at the original 2002 discussion on sci.physics.research at all.  I have made contributions to dozens of other WP articles and have let questionable (IMO) contributions by other editors slide many times (the Variable speed of light article is a good example of that, I had vigorously disputed the very concept of the meaningfulness of VSL with the article creator and have edited the article only twice, once for a NPOV header and another to take it out).  I also think that   is a NPOV editor.  I don't think that  is particularly NPOV but fully support her being allowed to edit because she behaves herself.  And, for certain,  has only recently started in on the Bogdanov Affair and there is no evidence that he/she has had any external involvement at all.  Why is Ze miguel caught in the net?  Using another metaphor, please be careful about the barrel length of the shotgun you shoot with.  Please make sure it's long enough.  r b-j 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of banning all the bogdamaniac contributors (including me) and to only allowed the contributions from people who had already written valuable articles on other subjects. To ban the bogdamaniac won't be efficient as long as "Grishka B.",ZCN or Rollande68 will be able to intervene there.--Luis A. 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just found out about the proposal of banning all new contributors and would like to thank those who have already mentioned me as a fair editor. Indeed I've never edited any other article on Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean I never will, and I suppose you've got to start somewhere, right ? I wouldn't dream of editing an article without having some sort of expertise about it. And it turns out I have some expertise (so to speak) about the Bogdanov Affair, so why couldn't I take part in the article, especially when I try to behave and respect both rules and co-editors ? I would definitely resent being banned on the mere account that I'm a new wikipedian or exclusively edit this article. --CatherineV 07:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a proposal to the Administration Committee for another possible decision to settle this issue: do absolutely nothing. As evidence that this might be a sensible approach, I would point out the Bogdanov Affair article itself: if one looks at it today, I think it is quite factual and, for the most part, NPOV. Furthermore, if one looks at the edit history of the past 10 days or so, there are less and less reverts, and these concern minor points. What disagreements remain on the content of the article are being actively discussed in the Talk page by the supporters and critics of the Bogdanovs in a (mostly) civil manner. So perhaps doing nothing might be a possible decision that could to be considered by the Committee. Just an idea. Ze miguel 20:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Update: Sorry, I did not realize that the Committee had already taken a decision. Please disregard my comment. Ze miguel 20:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * As an admin who has been monitoring the page and trying to enforce calm there for some days, I would like to stress that a number of users cited above have not only refrained from violating Wikipedia policies, but also made really positive contributions. I have found myself citing as an example for some others at least twice, for instance. If such a policy was to be implemented to some extend, it would be wise to be very selective as not to discourage valuable editors. Note that this proposal has caused some turmoil on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. Rama 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * With this comment, I do not mean to suggest that should be CatherineV as an exception to a general ban, but rather that a ban would be better directed at particular disturbing users. I think that liberty should be the rule and ban the exception. The page has been so disturbed that such measures as general ban might have been appropriate in the past, but now things have calmed down and I think that in the present state, a general ban would be overkilling. Rama 16:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Things have "calmed down" only because Rama has done what he could, as an administrator, to encourage a side to persevere (in this case : people against the Bogdanovs), and to discourage the others (people who defended them) from editing the article. I note, for example, that in the "Internet discussion" part of the article, the problem of the violence and the insults against the Bogdanovs on the fora has been completely concealed, not because a concensus has been found, but because it has been reverted each time we tried to mention it ! And yet I had given a lot of links to these fora, examples, names (pseudonyms) etc., it is a fact about which there are a lot of very concret evidences... but it was just censored each time, until I had to resign myself to stop editing. Rama cites Catherine as an exemple, but she tried also to mention the problem, and I don't see her text about it any more... So, there is no "stabilization" on this article, just intimadatory acts in order to prevent some editors from writing what they had to write.
 * Personally, I don't care about being banned, if the contributors who have tried to impose such a partial and malicious article are banned also. All I wish is preventing the article "Bogdanov affair" from being a settling of scores and a kind of game for people who have already harassed and insulted them on the fora.
 * Laurence67 18:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Laurence, the salient fact that you are overlooking or evading is that the Bogdanov Affair is about nothing other than the recognition of an academic failure regarding the credentialing of your friends and the subsequent dishonest behavior of the same. It's a story about some nasty doings, how can you expect an article documenting that to not reflect poorly on the Bogdanov brothers?  It's like having an article about Child pornography  or pedophiles.  Should there be a 50%-50% "balanced" treatment where every anti-pedophile fact is "balanced" with a pro-pedophile defense?
 * What the Bogdanov brothers did was literally a fraud (if not a hoax) perpetrated upon the physics and academic community as well as on the general French population. The fraud was compounded by the clear dishonesty of Igor by use of sock-puppets here at WP as well as other internet venues.  It is compounded further by use of legal threats. It's an ugly situation.  To whitewash this into anything else, dilutes Wikipedia as a reference of authority. r b-j 21:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're comparing this to, gasp, child pornography?!? I'm speechless. --CatherineV 07:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * i could only wish!
 * now, Catherine, can you address the actual argument (without the use of a strawman)? why should the negative behavior of Igor (and sometime Grichka) be presented in a form that is ambiguous regarding its wrongfulness?  are you saying that dishonesty (the myriad phony sock-puppets, the deliberate misrepresentation of critique into praise), the arrogance (Igor has never submitted to an edit ban, has he now?), the legal threats, the narcissism, etc.  should all of this foolishness be presented in a 50%-50% "balanced" treatment where every anti-dishonesty fact is "balanced" with a pro-dishonesty defense? r b-j 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on an erroneous (to say the least) comparison. The article is, first and foremost, about the merit of scientific articles. And yes, it deserves to be balanced. Now, you are comparing the use of sock puppets, the mistranslation of "possible" into "certain" and the bypassing of a ban on wikipedia, to the worst crime committed by mankind for which there is no possible balance. Your argument is void. And burn that strawman. CatherineV 15:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The strawman is the implication that I am comparing the Bogdanovs to pedophiles in a primary sense. I am comparing the argument that Igor has made many times that every critical fact regarding his or his brother's "scholarly" output or subsequent behavior be "balanced" by a defense from him.  Like this is a 50-50 thing.  So we'll have the anti-sockpuppet statement balanced by the pro-sockpuppet defense?  How about the anti-legal-threat-as-a-rhetorical-stragegy citing balanced by a pro-legal-threat-as-a-rhetorical-stragegy?  We should balance every citing of a Bogdanov lie with Igor's explanation that the lie was justified?  That is the comparison to pedophiles because there are actually human beings that openly defend pedophilia between consenting persons.  They would demand equal time, but I seriously do not think that an accurate and responsible WP article about the subject should give them that equal time.  Do you?
 * The article is, first and foremost, about the merit of "scientific" articles of the Bogdanovs. No one else.  It is also about the subsequent profoundly dishonest behavior and narcissism of the Bogdanovs.  No one else.  I don't want any pro-dishonesty defenses or pro-narcissism apologetics in the article.  Do you? r b-j 22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope this comparison will make more obvious your hystery against the Bogdanovs than anything I could have written about your behavior.
 * Laurence67 10:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ... speaking of hysterics.... r b-j 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * About RBJ Pedophile allegation: It is a shame, a real shame, that so called "editors" as RBJ even dare to compare this article to an article on the pedophilia.  I am outraged of such a comparison which allows to suppose many things. I ask that this "editor" be quite simply banned. Igor


 * Sacrebleu ! It just sounds like the technique of "the scarecrow"


 * well, we'll just have to let the words of Igor and his groupies speak for themselves.

“This logical mistake occurs when, deliberately or not, someone attacks a different argument from wich has been presented by his contradictor. The real argument is twisted, exagerated or simplified to be replaced with an argument easier to refute.”


 * it's called the Strawman fallacy. r b-j 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * O.K.,in french it's the "scarecrow". --Luis A. 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Exemple :

-	It's a story about some nasty doings, how can you expect an article documenting that to not reflect poorly on the Bogdanov brothers? It's like having an article about Child pornography or pedophiles. Should there be a 50%-50% "balanced" treatment where every anti-pedophile fact is "balanced" with a pro-pedophile defense?

-	It is a shame, a real shame, that so called "editors" as RBJ even dare to compare this article to an article on the pedophilia. I am outraged of such a comparison which allows to suppose many things. I ask that this "editor" be quite simply banned.

--Luis A. 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Taking the idea of Kelly Martin, why not soft-ban everybody from this article (and related ones) ? This might not discourage valuable users from contributing, and will have the same effect than a regular ban to those who come on Wikipedia only for warring on the article. Rama 19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In my humble defense, I have worked quite hard to achieve a consensus on this article. Yes, it is the only article that I've edited because it was the first article that I read on Wikipedia where I thought it was unnecessarily biased.  (In fact, I thought it was unfairly biased against the Bogdanoff brothers.)    Banning all users will only prevent honest people, such as me, CatherineV, and Ze Miguel from making sensible edits to an article.  None of us, I believe, have ever been blocked from this, or any, article.  Some of the more "aggressive" editors -- read: Igor -- will continue to edit this article by evading blocks (he has admitted this several times already), using sock puppets (he has admitted this several times already), or using meat puppets (such as the comical intervention by the French Government, which turned out to be a student and girlfriend of Igor's.  If you've never read this exchange, you really should: it is one of life's great pleasures.).  So why ban the honest and "aggressive" editors when it will effect only half the equation?
 * I find the suggestion perplexing that we (the honest editors) should be banned because we edit this article frequently. Is it Wiki policy that sustained interest in an article's content over a few weeks results in a permanent ban?  If there are specific complaints about my behavior or rule violations, then those should be addressed.  But there have been none.  The proposal to soft ban any honest editor appears heavy handed.
 * --EE Guy 14:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am another administrator who has been involved in trying to keep the page under control; indeed, my involvement in this matter has been long-standing, since I was also the mediator who handled the Bogdanov Affair case at Mediation Cabal. Although the mediation has been long since abandoned, I would like to point out that it would seem somewhat unfair to tar all of the involved parties with the same brush, since many have done valuable work on making the article NPOV through neutralising the material posted by both the critical parties and by the Bogdanov supporters. In particular, neither EE Guy, CatherineV nor Ze miguel have so far violated 3RR (while Igor B. and YBM most certainly have) and are, by and large, reasonably civil and responsible in dealing with the matter in comparison to the other participants of the dispute. If the opinion of the arbitrators is that these users are only here to "fight out" the Bogdanov Affair dispute on the wiki, then I would say that an injunction from both the article and its talk page would be identically successful in achieving the desired result and that a blanket ban for these users from Wikipedia would be both unjust and wide of the mark. The conduct of YBM, Igor B. and, in some cases, rb-j, would conclude me to believe that a complete ban would, however, be justified for them. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nicholas, with respect, have you thought that complete ban proposal all the way through? Banning YBM, Igor, and Rbj from editing wiki is a net that would catch Rbj only, since he's the only one of the three that's got any interest in contributing to wiki in the larger sense. For YBM and Igor, banned from wiki is merely synonymous with banned from Bogdanov Affair, but for Rbj that's far from being the case. Rbj is passionate about Bogdanov Affair, but has anybody suggested that he edits inappropriately outside that miserable article? As far as I know, he's a valuable editor. Note that nuisance editors and notorious trolls who do nothing here but waste others' time are rarely dealt with as harshly as you suggest, and that bans and blocks are, in any case, supposed to exist for preventing inappropriate editing only. They're not supposed to be punitive. Bishonen | talk 03:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition, Nicholas (and Fred), I would ask you to be specific about in what cases my conduct has been so far off of the mark. I certainly have come to the conclusion that Igor Bogdanov is profoundly mendacious and narcissistic.  That is a judgement (after a lot of web research) not a pre-judgement or prejudice.  I came into this whole mess pretty clean, and due to the record of Bogdanov recalcitrance, came to believe that any neutral article about this affair simply cannot reflect well upon them and/or their (or specifically Igor's) behavior.  Upon coming to this conclusion, I have said (more precisely typed) some harsh words in the talk page regarding the Bogdanovs (that Igor and Laurence67 like to quote) that I continue to stand by, but none of those harsh words went into the article.  There is plenty of unflattering facts from outside of my opinion that can fill the article and I do not need to add my opinion to that, and have not.  Yet, the external facts, flattering or unflattering, must be allowed into the article undiluted lest the Bogdanovs are, again, not held to account for their work product or subsequent defense of it.  Remember, they constructed (or contrived) quite a reputation for themselves in France as some popular-science geniuses, and if that is constructed on a fallacious foundation, we and everyone have a right to know that without dilution.  Editing about that (as well as other unsavory topics, like Monicagate) is not inappropriate.  And it is inappropriate to dilute the factual data or the meaning of it, so that the subject's ego can be left intact.
 * Twice both Igor and I were blocked for 3RR violation. In both times I was reverting Igor's repeated contemptuous and craven deletion of text that was indisputably factual, salient, and relevant (because it was not flattering to Igor).  The second time I was blocked, it was after admin Snowspinner specifically said "not to worry about 3RR" in reverting Igor's "vandalism" (Snowspinner's words).  In both cases, when I was blocked, I lumped it and took my medicine patiently and refrained from finding another IP (and sock-puppet pseudonym) and editing during the blocked period.  In both cases, Igor ignored the block, got a fresh IP, and flagrantly edited the article (the second time as the article was protected the first time) and the Talk page multiple times.
 * I have been editing many other articles in Wkipedia for more than a year. I did not come to the Bogdanov Affair with an agenda (but I certainly formed opinions after getting involved - that is not contrary to NPOV).  However Igor, his sock-puppets, his meat-puppets (Laurence67, XAL (Sophie), CatherineV) have done nothing here at Wikipedia except to support the Bogdanovs and to paint this ugly affair in the most flattering manner possible.  They have no other agenda here at WP.  They came when Igor discovered the article and called in his groupies to defend him.  So, let's see... respectfully, how is it that you Nicholas (and Fred) include me in the same "net" as Igor, Laurence67, XAL, or CatherineV?  How do you include EEGuy or Ze in the same net?  Are you going to go after Alain_r or even Snowspinner (heaven forbid)?  How short is the barrel of your shotgun? r b-j 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, both Bishonen and rb-j made very valid points which I hadn't quite considered. I withdraw any inclination I had towards having rb-j blocked from Wikipedia, and no longer support such a motion by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps, then, a better solution would be to impose a "soft-ban" injunction against *everyone* editing Bogdanov Affair who has been involved in the dispute (including myself) in the interests of fairness until the matter is resolved, and not imposing any Wikipedia blocks save for those the Arbitration Committee considers to be necessary to avoid threat to the rest of the Wikipedia community. I should point out that having looked at the work that rb-j has done, although I have not participated in a similarly ascerbic manner on the talk page, my actions in editing the article have been somewhat comparable - thus it may be considered appropriate by the arbitrators to impose a sanction on me as well. Regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible to ban rbj only for the article(s) concerning the Bogdanov affair ? He may be good for other articles, but you cannot reasonnably let him edit almost alone an article on 2 people he hates so much, and who he insulted so often and in such a way !
 * Laurence67 08:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's possible, and without underwriting what you say about hate and insults, I think it would be adapted to the practicalities of the situation. It's being proposed as a temporary measure in two out of the three injunction proposals now being voted on at /Proposed decision. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * --- I am surprised that the developement of these discussions takes. Because it appears that far from disturbing the article,  I wrote, 3 weeks ago, that I agreed with the version which was valid at this time.   Unfortunately, some editors as indelicate as rbj or YBM started again the polemic. I recognize that EE GUY had a very positive action on the article some time ago, but that, lately, he expressed a lack of confidence in what I wrote  (ie the mentions problem) and became kind of aggressive  (seing aggressivity in my posts).  Anyway,  my sole suggestion would be to suspend indelicate posters like YBM and RBJ.
 * Igor
 * Igor, speaking of suspending posters, what would you do if they suspended you? Would that stop you from editing the article or talk page?  Had it in the past?  What authority do you claim for editing the article and talk page during a time when both of us were blocked for 3RR?  (The first time at your request, you hypocrisy nearly came back to bite you Igor, except that you ignored your block and edited from another IP anyway.)  What justification do you offer to the ArbCom for editing (using other IPs) during the period that you were blocked for 3RR violation? r b-j 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i guess, even though Igor has not answered this question directly (when he could, before getting banned), he has de facto answered it by what can be seen at the article history page. To the ArbCom:  I do not think that you will easily be able to keep Igor and sock-puppets from editing the article without explicitly protecting it, at least long enough that Igor might give up and move on.  it's just an opinion. r b-j 19:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And of course, neither you nor Laurence67...Nothing to say about the "decreasing sequence" page 292 ?


 * --Luis A. 19:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

After years of "virtual confrontations" on various foras he created,  I can recognize his style between many others : directly of not,  Luis = YBM. This kind of equallity should not surprise me, I suppose. Igor


 * Of course i'm Ybm ("directly or not" ????).Of course everybody use sock puppets like you did.
 * just for the record, not everybody use sock puppets (or multiple WP accounts or anonymous IPs) like Igor does. some of us don't do that. r b-j 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you just can't see why your proposal above is pathetic, i think your case is about pathology.

Another style worth recognizing : It is a shame, a real shame, that so called "contributors" as Igor even dare to compare my style to an Ybm's style. I am outraged of such a comparison which allows to suppose many things. I ask that this "contributor" be quite simply banned.

Nothing to say about the "decreasing sequence" page 292 ?

--Luis A. 23:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you from one partly banned party.
I dunno if this is appropriate or not, but i want to thank the ArbCom and admins for recognizing the damage to Wikipedia's value and reputation that "some" (or at least one, if you resolve the sock-puppets all together) of the banned editors were attempting to make for their own self-serving purposes. I sure don't need to edit it as it is. I believe the article, as it stands now, is pretty good, factual, and fair. I know the subject of the article will not say that, but he has to look to himself (and his brother) and come to terms with the real reason such an embarassment is now exposed to sunlight. Hopefully, they can take their Ph.Ds. and book royaltees, count their lucky stars that these have not been stripped from them, and move on. I realize, that once I form an opinion on a moral/ethical/political issue, I can be pretty abrasive. But it was getting pretty clear what the truth was and who wanted to "suppress" it. Thank you, folks. r b-j 06:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Legal dispute
1), now editing as , is engaged in a legal dispute with others who edit Bogdanov Affair


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is off the wall stuff, but would form the basis for a ban pending resolution of all legal issues. Fred Bauder 01:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The simpler ways of achieving the needed outcomes are better. James F. (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no credible legal dispute here. We can ban her for any number of things, and those reasons aren't subject to being lifted upon repudiation of the "legal dispute".  Kelly Martin 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Oh, please swallow that pseudo-legal gnat and ban XAL for the herd of camels. Note that the targeted victim of the "threat", YBM, was so un-scared by the "evidence" being collected "on the Internet" etc that he didn't even bother to refer to it. Ban her for disruptiveness, inability to work with others, unproductiveness (zero edits to article space), using wikipedia talkpages as blogs (she actually refers to them as blogs), and for spitting in our faces, not for being "in a legal dispute". Ban her for never listening to anybody. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Focus of dispute
2) 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 controversy, including Igor Bogdanov, are editing the article aggressively.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Certain editors, notably and, edit nothing else, devoting their entire effort to churning this article. Fred Bauder 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; maybe a principle that people should edit more than merely one article (but then we're telling people what to edit, if only very generally, and one of the great things about Wikipedia is that one only has to edit that in which one is interested). Not sure. James F. (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * , in particular, has written numerous web sites prior to editing Wikipedia which are very critical toward the Bogdanov. It makes sense to infer that he has come here with the specific purpose of fighting the Bogdanov version of the article. Rama 06:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I readily grant that YBM appears obsessed by this Affair, but he has also been invaluable in providing verifiable, irrefutable evidence against some rather peculiar claims made by the Bogdanoff brothers. The Bogdanoff brothers, I'm sure, would love to see him banned.  Igor frequently reminds us that YBM once called them "salauds" (bastards) on a Web forum.  While his behavior in editing the article has certainly been "voluminous," the only rule violations are for reverting Igor's (and associated sock puppets') edits.
 * --EE Guy 14:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Continuing edits by banned editors
3) Editing by banned users on both sides of the issue continues in the face of a temporary injunction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A comment from one banned editor "Reverting Igor's vandalism... YOU'RE BANNED!! Stop using sock puppets" Fred Bauder 13:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yup, that was me... I had just returned from an overseas trip, wasn't logged into my account, and hadn't realized that I was banned myself. My apologies. --EE Guy 68.54.2.189 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been compiling a small statistical analysis of the edits done on the Bogdanov Affair article since the injunction that may be of some interest for the ArbCom: User:Ze miguel/B tracker. -- Ze miguel 10:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Is the ArbCom aware that their ban has been ineffective?
1) The ban passed by the ArbCom has effectlvely kept myself and the other less sympathetic editors from editing the article but has not kept the subject of the article, who has shown a vested interest in editing out unflattering factual and relevant data and who has been completely banned from Wikipedia, from editing the article multiple times. I don't have a specific proposed enforcement (other than reverting out the Bogdanov edits and protecting the article for a good long time), but thought I would let you know about this. r b-j 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, the question of who is obeying the injunction is of some interest Fred Bauder 01:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

A proposal regarding enforcement
2) I have suggest this before, but not officially. Now I will as "officially" as I am allowed to do.  Why not protect the article for the maximum period (I believe that to be 7 days) so that people don't have to waste time defending it from the vandalism of the subject of the article?  When the 7 days (or whatever period that the ArbCom deems is more appropriate) expires, the article can be legitimately edited and also it would most certainly be vandalized by the article's subject for a short period of time (hours, or maybe one day).  A WP admin could then revert any vandalism and clean out any POV that was added during this period, and then reprotect the article for another week (or whatever period seems most appropriate by the ArbCom).  This would have to be done for weeks until the subject of the article might eventually give up on it and trial periods of un-protection could be tried to see how much vandalism it gets. If vandalism flairs up again, the article could be re-protected for this period of time again. I believe, once the article's subject and principal vandal is convinced that his vandalism is not going to be allowed to stick and that his repeated attempts to wear the admins and other editors out will not succeed, he might give up. But it will take time and determination. Why not minimize the cost of such determination by protecting the article? Thank you for considering this. r b-j 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: