Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys

Request clarification

 * Moved here from Requests for arbitration. Picaroon (t) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I need clarification on this instruction. My concern is that the other party has taken this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? As the arbitration came to a close he immediately went to one of the disputed pages and made the exact same changes that I and several other users had been protesting. Is this behavior considered reasonable, and am I expected to just ignore any page he chooses to edit? Or are his actions considered a violation of the spirit of this instruction? csloat 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." . Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past.  I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed.Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary.  If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine.  The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill.  We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case.Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill.Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No; we had no substantive conflict over the other articles. The substantive conflicts were over those two articles and I will agree to leave them alone if you agree to the same.  But I do not think it is a good idea to say that you "own" those two articles. csloat 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I submitted evidence in this case. Upon resolution, Biophys proceeded to undo all of my contributions to Operation Sarindar. We will hear no more of this, should both parties refrain from editing said two pages. Something, obviously, not for me to decide. smb 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoiding all article where they have both made significant contributions in the past sounds like the best solution to me. Divvying up mutually-edited articles based on who edited first isn't an optimal solution in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What does it mean a "significant contribution"? Are we going to dispute here our contributions to all articles? We need a formal and simple criterion. There are only two simple options. Option 1: we divide all articles that we both edited, as has been suggested above (note that we both are treated equally). This option is consistent with current ArbCom decision, as clear from the statement by Kirill. Option 2: we do not edit any articles that we both previously edited, however all our newly edited articles would still be divided according to Option 1. Then a new decision by ArbCom is needed, and we do not want that.Biophys 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "significant contribution" standard seems clear enough to me. My interpretation of this would be any article in which both of us took a stake in the outcome, which can be determined by looking at edits.  If you or I just came there to revert the other one a couple of times and didn't participate in talk, it would not be considered a significant contribution.  But if we both made substantive changes to the article and participated in talk, it would be considered a significant contribution.  This is an easily enforced standard, and we can clear it up right here.  In my observation, the only articles where there is that much overlap is the Communist terrorism article and the Operation Sarindar article (which you have again changed the name of). I don't think you could make that case for any other article. csloat 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Biophys wrote: There are only two simple options. Fallacy of the excluded middle. Biophys and csloat can refrain from editing any article the other has made significant contributions to while at the same time both avoiding the two problematic pages that brought us here. Namely, Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. Fair and simple. There is no contradiction here at all. smb 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are two options noted by ArbCom member Kirill, and I agree with him.Biophys 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually those are two that you made up, which are different from what Kirill suggested. One of Kirill's options is the option I have advocated here. csloat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then let's move by little steps. Do you agree not to edit any articles that I have edited after this ArbCom decision and will edit in the future? I can promise you the same if you agree.Biophys 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think such an arrangement is appropriate - the issue is the articles we've edited in the past where we actually had conflicts; arbitrary restrictions based on any edits in the future are useless here. And I'd rather not give each party an incentive to make meaningless edits on as many pages as possible to drive the other editor off pages.  Perhaps if we simply agree to interact civilly with each other when we have to do so, we can avoid such arbitrary restrictions.  If you are willing to do so I will certainly agree to that.  The point is to actually address and resolve conflicts, not to draw arbitrary boundaries around them. csloat 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What you suggested would be a reasonable solution in the past. But right now we have ArbCom instruction to avoid each other, and we must follow that instruction. Not only you refused to stop following my edits in the past, but you just refused to stop following my edits made after this ArbCom decision, and instead suggested to single out several articles based on your choice.Biophys 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This back-and-forth between the two of you is ridiculous. The arbitrators reviewed the evidence of prior hostility between you and could have imposed substantial restrictions on both of your editing. Instead, they decided that fortunately, things were not so bad as in other cases that come before them and settled for asking you to avoid each other and stay out of each other's way. There is no reason why with a modicum of good faith, the two of you could not accomplish that. Instead, you are here practically begging the committee to impose much stronger sanctions against each of you. I suggest that you both stop this nonsense right now. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for that. I agree to stop immediately, to consider this matter resolved, and to follow exactly the ArbCom instruction as clarified by Kirill. The instruction was "to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way". In particular, I am not going to edit any articles that have been created or edited by another side before me. I hope that will be enough to avoid any interaction. Biophys 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My only problem is that the arbcom decision was never clarified on this point. I have no desire whatsoever to further interact with the other party and don't plan to, but I also don't plan to avoid articles just because the other party demands that I stay away from them.  Another important problem is that the arbcom decision did not address the other party's tendency to own articles, an issue I expect to see brought to admins' attention again in the very near future. csloat 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by csloat
This arbcomm decision was decided a while ago; it was determined that there was no substantive evidence of wrongdoing but both myself and Biophys were advised to "refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." It was my assumption that this advisory included following one another and reverting the other's edits on principle and without comment (such as this edit, followed by this one). In both examples, Biophys reverted my edits (which I had explained clearly in the edit summaries along with a note in talk); his only comment in talk was that he was not allowed to explain his reasons because of the arbcomm ruling. My assumption was that the arbcomm ruling would advise us against edit warring against each other, but Biophys seems to believe that it only prohibits us from explaining why we reverse one another's edits if we choose to do so. Personally I don't particularly want to have interactions with Biophys, but I do think that if he is going to revert my edits he should at least be encouraged to explain why. Can you clarify? Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to Biophys' comments below, the instruction from arbcom was to "refrain from interacting or commenting" with/about each other -- not to avoid content editing of articles. I would assume that reverting one's edits without comment is still a way of "interacting with" each other. For him to use arbcom as a way to revert my edits without responding to the issues involved seems disruptive. Also, the article "Nuclear terrorism" was, I believe, on my watchlist since 2006. The article on "Terrorism" was on my watchlist even longer (2004 maybe?) I did not appear "all of a sudden" as he states. I did not "ask him to debate my deletions" -- I explained my deletions and he reverted without explanation in an extremely disruptive manner. I find this behavior unproductive. csloat (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was on my watchlist long before that. And you are not consistent on this claim; for example, I edited Terrorism at least as long ago as July 2005, yet here you are in 2008 and 2007 editing it.  My point remains that arbitrarily deciding that you own articles you edited first and I own articles that I edited first smacks of WP:OWN, and is an inappropriate interpretation of the arbcomm recommendation.  It is especially inappropriate, IMHO, for you to interpret that recommendation as meaning you can revert my edits whenever you please but have an excuse not to defend your actions in talk.  Things would actually be much better if you and I both focused on editing the content of articles rather than trying to dredge up old (and, it turns out, ill-advised) disputes. csloat (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Biophys keeps changing his story so I'm going to add one more comment to this. I think it is silly to get involved in the question of who had which article on their watchlist first -- not just silly, but blatantly inconsistent with WP:OWN. His idea that whichever one of us edited an article first gets to stay there was not part of the Arbcom decision. That is his own imposition (unilaterally) of a disciplinary action that he made up, apparently because it benefited his own plan (which was to keep adding original research and irrelevant material to certain articles). I think it is disruptive and abusive for him to use the arbcomm decision as an excuse to edit war without even explaining why he is reverting, as he did at Nuclear terrorism. It would be great if someone besides me could ask him to stop. Thanks. csloat (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, Biophys. I never said I was unhappy with the arbcomm ruling; in fact, I thought the ruling was completely appropriate.  If you recall, the committee was unanimous that "The evidence presented, while indicative of some areas of concern, does not demonstrate substantially disruptive editing on a level requiring sanctions from the Committee."  The Committee also instructed both of us to refrain from interacting with each other -- an instruction you violated by reverting my changes to a page.  You then compounded the violation by blaming arbcomm for your edit-warring behavior.  csloat (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have followed up for clarification on Kirill's talk page hopefully there will be further enlightenment. I agree with Kirill that we should just voluntarily stay out of each other's way.  I added another comment on the talk page of nuclear terrorism before I read biophys' note -- is he agreeing to walk away from the nuclear terrorism article completely and expecting me to do the same?  I would like to edit that article but I will restrict myself to the talk page there until further instruction comes.  I also wonder if there is some time limit on this instruction - do I have to avoid this guy forever or will there be some point at which we can interact on the same page without him threatening me with arbcomm penalties? csloat (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Biophys
This question has been answered previously by Kirill. He explained that we should simply avoid each other, no matter how. Obviously, we can not edit the same articles if we can not communicate. So, I suggested not to edit any articles that csloat edited before me, and vice versa. As long as we both followed this rule it worked very well. All the sudden, csloat came to Nuclear terrorism article that I extensively edited earlier in connection with Alexander Litvinenko, Category:Nuclear terrorism, and other related subjects. He deleted without discussion large portions of relevant and sourced text. For some reason he decided to delete texts previously included by me. This sounds as a violation of the previous Arbcomm ruling... He then started communicating with me and asked me to debate his deletions, which would be a violation of Arbcomm ruling from my side. Therefore, I did not discuss anything and communicated only with other users at the article talk page. If there are any further instructions from Arbcomm, I am ready to follow them, although I do not complain about anything. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited Nuclear terrorism first time on 19 July 2007, please see the diff and please check content I included. Csloat edited this article first time on 10 October 2007; please see his edit summary. I check every article before editing to make sure that csloat did not edit it earlier than me. In that case he did not.Biophys (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC) If he edited article Terrorism before me, I am ready remove all my edits in this article. Actually, nothing left after edits by alleged Giovanni33 socks.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To summarize, this complaint by csloat and his repeated deletions of the sourced text in Nuclear terrorism only serve to illustrate his point that he is not happy with the previous Arbcomm ruling, or perhaps to show that he is not going to comply with Arbcomm ruling Biophys (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kirill. But it does not mean he can come to any article and delete my previous contributions at will? To the contrary, he should not do that (just as me) if I understand you correctly. For example, I can walk away of the Nuclear terrorism article, leaving it in the present state, and never edit it again, and Csloat suppose to do the same. Having that, I consider this request for clarification closed.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Guys, please stay away from each other voluntarily, even if you have to avoid some articles of common interest to do so. I can pretty much guarantee that neither of you will be happy with the result if you force us to impose a binding restriction on your behavior. Kirill (prof) 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)