This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Scope

This matter concerns behavior of User:Commodore_Sloat, User:Biophys and User:Armon.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Biophys 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Stop the moving target

1) Move to stop the moving target nature of biophys allegations. I have responded to his allegations on the Evidence page three or four times now. Each time I do, he changes the page in ways that make my response difficult to follow. If he has new evidence to bring up, I ask that he create a separate statement rather than changing his previous statements. I had a very well developed and organized response to his evidence here; he then added a new section that I had to respond to again. After that, he made several changes that completely reorganized his evidence so that my response did not seem as organized. I have dealt with his most recent changes as of this writing but I should not have to keep fighting against a moving target while he comes up with more rough drafts of his case. csloat 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not familiar with relevant WP policies. But what might happen is the following. I provide certain evidence. Csloat criticizes my evidence as too weak. Then I would add more evidence. Is that allowed? Also, my time is very limited. So, whenever I have more time, I could look for more evidence and add it. Is that allowed? Thank you.Biophys 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'K, I finished my initial statement. It took less than a couple of days suggested by Picaroon. I will try to keep all changes minimal in the future, unless the evidence by others will point to a different direction.Biophys 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys please let me know when you are really finished with your statement; your most recent changes included changes in the titles of sections and of the order of evidence, undermining the response that I made once again by creating confusion. Let me know when you are really finished so I can fix the order of my response without having to worry that I am wasting time on another moving target. Thanks. csloat 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing mostly minor edits, such as adding diffs or arranging links in chronological order. If I understand correctly, I can do any changes in my part as long as this case is active and the page is not archived. If this is a violation of any WP rules, please let me know. I did my best to finish this statement as soon as possible, but my time is limited.Biophys 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you're violating any wikipedia rules; it is that you are distorting my response. Your edits have not been minor in the week since you falsely declared you were finished; and even your "minor" edits have included changing headings and changing the order of charges, sometimes for no apparent reason, which has created confusion with my response. All I'm asking is that you make another announcement when you are truly finished so that I can fix my response then; at the moment my response is out of order because you have changed the order of your charges so much. I don't know why you're doing this but if you can please let me know when you are done it would be very helpful. Thank you. csloat 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I do not have any plans to work further with my statement, although I might decide to modify something in the future. So, you are very welcome to adjust your statement.Biophys 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There's no good way to deal with this issue. We can't prohibit someone from editing their own evidence. I'd recommend waiting until a couple days after his last major adjustment and then responding. If he makes a major adjustment after that, it'll obviously be to throw you off, but right now I think we should assume good faith. I'd recommend placing a permanent link to the revision of the page you are responding to at the beginning of your response to avoid confusion. Picaroon (t) 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that we make any assumptions of bad faith; only that we try to make things easier to follow by starting new sections when necessary. If biophys agrees to simply make it clear in the text if he is removing something or changing something in response to something I said, then the discussion will be more clear. Thanks! csloat 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently even that simple agreement is not something biophys is willing to do. He has again dramatically changed the structure of his accusations, without leaving any indication (other than edit history) that he has done so. This is not helpful but I will try to continue to work with it. csloat 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due Process requires that people be told of the charges against them, and that the evidence presented relate to those charges and not something else. Making one set of accusations, then dropping them with no explanation (has this happened twice now in this case?) and bringing up another set of allegations is disruptive. Maybe policy needs to state that allegations found to be "completely unfounded" must be apologised for. Maybe ArbCom needs an extra stick, a finding of "bad faith accusation" or "editor who wasted our time". (This might reduce the backlog that otherwise threatens to overwhelm the process). In several cases I can think of, unfounded (and even malicious) allegations have been left hanging and then brought up again in successive (equally unfounded) "disciplinaries". I'm not stating this as a fact, but there is a real danger that csloat is actually the victim of a campaign of harassment by editors/an editor who cannot dispute his scholarship and seek other ways to overcome him in content disputes. If this is allowed to happen, then bad editing will drive out good. PR^talk 14:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completed my evidence statement before ArbCom voting. Nothing else is requred for due process.Biophys 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You changed your statement after I responded to it -- and after you had promised you were finished changing it. It appears that you undermined the due process by doing so, whether or not that was your intention. csloat 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do any significant changes. Besides, it is you who suggest to include even more changes in my evidence right now: [1]. No, thanks.Biophys 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a misinterpretation of what I said; others can check the link and confirm that. I was not asking Biophys to change his evidence statement once again. It has already changed significantly several times. csloat 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current, and final, version of Biophys's statement. Biophys, except for spelling and grammar fixes and formatting, please do not change it any more. Picaroon (t) 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Biophys 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wholeheartedly agree. csloat 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AgreeBiophys 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly the goals of the project. Editors that persistently cause conflict may be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Specifically I would argue that editors who consistently try to escalate valid content disputes by treating them as violations of Wikipedia rules are themselves in violation of this policy. csloat 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.Biophys 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

3) All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. All editors are expected to adhere to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree; can we also get a statement about WP:NOR and WP:SYN, since the content dispute that this RfAr is really about comes down to Biophys' incessant attempt to add WP:SYN violations to certain articles? csloat 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Deletion of sourced views on a subject of an article is unacceptable. Biophys 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "sourced views" is not only acceptable but mandatory when those sourced views represent original research. csloat 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research & No synthesis of published material

4) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. This includes syntheses of published material serving to advance a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. csloat 21:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. Citing different sourced views on a subject of an article does not represent original research, as long as a WP contributor does not make any logical conclusions of his own, and as long as he follows due weight criteria per WP:Source. Citing all relevant sources on the subject is required by WP:NPOV policy.Biophys 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those "sourced views" are not talking about the phenomenon described in the article, then they do indeed represent original research as decribed in WP:SYN. csloat 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles provided as examples are about the following subjects: (a) an alleged Russian special forces operation in Iraq (Operation Sarindar), and (b) terrorism by Communist organizations (Communist terrorism). Sourced views deleted by Csloat were clearly about these subjects.Biophys 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Commodore Sloat

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a member of wikipedia since 10 May 2004. Since he joined the project, he has been the subject of a requests for comment discussion, which resulted in seven users certifying that there were problems with his behaviour. He has also been the subject of a community enforced mediation request, which failed to yield a satisfactory result. Commodore Sloat has been correctly blocked seven times for three revert rule violations and incivility [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Move to amend the statement to include the fact that the RfC was satisfactorily resolved and that the CEM was scuttled only by the refusal of the other party to participate. Move also to strike the word "correctly" as some of those blocks were disputed. csloat 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement about User:Commodore Sloat. These are facts. Biophys 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Sloat has been incivil

2) Commodore Sloat has persistently been incivil towards other members of the community, often turning the project into a battleground.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree.Biophys 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This undifferentiated list of links is worse than the so-called "evidence" that Biophys has listed on the evidence page. It is entirely deceptive and most of these incidents are very old and represent disputes that have been resolved. I object strenuously to this presentation as a "statement of fact" and I ask that it be stricken forthwith. csloat 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs there show attacks from early on in your wiki days right up to now, showing that this has been an issue that has not been addressed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them are not attacks, many of them are taken completely out of context. They do not show whether or not the issue has been addressed. I deal with the links Biophys brings up on the evidence page one by one but piling them here and claiming they are evidence of me turning the project into a battleground completely begs the question -- you are stating as fact that which remains to be proved. I think relevant links should be discussed on the evidence page. This is highly prejudicial to the case and gives me no chance to respond to claims that are distorted and in some cases utterly false. csloat 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the huge list of links without any explanation makes it look like there is a bad problem, but when you look through the links you find the case for this proposition collapse.

To respond to each link in turn:

[26] - Yes, I had a disagreement with Silverback back in April 2005 -- over two years ago -- and used the "f" word. I should not have used the "f" word. I was responding to a user -- Silverback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- who was making a completely illogical argument. I will add that I was later part of an RfAr about that user's conduct and that user was reprimanded for his conduct during those discussions (his conduct at the time involved borderline vandalism, deception, and abuse of the RfC process during a conduct RfC that was filed against him prior to the RfAr). I just don't see how this thirty month old dispute is relevant at all to the current discussion. This is not indicative of any current dispute I am involved in.

[27] [28] These "Admin warnings" from Ed Poor turned out to be incorrect, as another admin noted in the discussion. This also happened over 2 years ago. As I explained in response to Ed, those comments were not personal attacks. They were a bit heavy-handed, and I don't tend to write in this manner anymore. Ed and I have interacted a few times since then and I think those interactions have been very congenial, even when we have disagreed, so I'm not sure why Biophys is bringing this up.

[29] [30] I had a dispute with this user too. I was not especially uncivil and this is also 2 years old. RonCram had gone to numerous pages all over Wikipedia inserting known disinformation that I and other users would not allow on the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I described that user's actions only slightly hyperbolically as a "little jihad" because I felt he was turning Wikipedia into a battleground by spreading disinformation all over Wikipedia. It was not meant as a personal attack. And again, it is too old to have any relevance, as it is not in any way similar to anything going on now.

[31] [32] [33] These disputes are very old, and they involve a user who was especially uncivil to me. Unfortunately I grew frustrated with his antics and did not always keep my cool; however, it is very clear from the context of the discussions that I was responding to personal attacks, not initiating them. And it is very clear from looking at the Leonard Peltier discussion in particular that the other user was making demonstrably false claims and distorting the process. Since that time I have agreed to a truce with that user and have been nothing but civil to him in the recent past.

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

All of these links are comments that I made in response to direct and abusive personal attacks from Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user who was abusive to me constantly on Wikipedia, who was stalking my edits and reverting them, and who has been discovered to be a sockpuppeteer. He has since been blocked for his abuses of Wikipedia and I believe he is currently being mentored. I do regret that Isarig was sometimes able to drag me to his level of discourse, but that it truly in the past.

[40] Yes, I did once tell a user who appeared to be playing dumb to stop playing dumb. I don't think it is that insulting, but that user was goading me incessantly. I regret that I made my statement in those terms.

[41] This is completely inapplicable; there is no personal attack or incivility whatsoever in my statement. I think it was a very polite reply to a user who had called me a Nazi and threatened me with violence. Am I really not supposed to ask such a user to stop abusing me?

[42] Again, there is not an uncivil word in that statement. It is an accurate depiction of the situation. I really think if an editor is going to add a link to this mess implying that I did something wrong, they should be able to quote directly from the link and explain what I did wrong.

[43] Here I am asking another user to stop bullying to get his way and suggesting that a more amicable approach to dispute resolution would be a superior tactic. Do you really find this uncivil?

[44] This is the one truly objectionable comment in the bunch, a comment I have profusely apologized for in an RfC that I believe resolved any extant problems with my behavior.

[45] In this link I agreed with a statement by Humus about "non-compromising POV warriors" (Humus' words). If there is a personal attack there, it was Humus who attacked, not me; my comment may have been a bit snide but it was not a personal attack. Again, this so-called "evidence" is totally inapplicable -- it is not a personal attack and Biophys appears to be padding his case in a totally illegitimate manner. It is upsetting that this padding has been picked up by an administrator and republished here, giving it a legitimacy it does not deserve.

[46] Along with the other similar statement above, this link shows where I have overstepped the line. This comment and the other one was the subject of an RfC, which was resolved after I apologized many times. It will never happen again. It is unfair to use this as evidence to provoke some kind of additional punishment for a dispute that was resolved months ago.

[47] The situation where this comment arose is explained here. I was not uncivil - I was being very matter of fact about the fact that I had caught Biophys blatantly lying, had exposed the blatant lie by providing links, and that Biophys replied by blatantly lying again.

[48] There is nothing uncivil in this comment at all. I simply expressed my frustration to an admin over two users who had consistently and demonstrably lied to promote their position on Wikipedia -- users who were, in a sense, treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

After you look through the so-called "evidence" link by link, it becomes clear that this entire case is a distortion of the facts. csloat 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's barely necessary to look into the detail in this case to suspect that csloat is being wrongly targeted for reasons that are difficult to understand. A quick check of a few diffs suggest that Biophys has behaved recklessly and csloat has repeatedly caught him out. When diffs such as this are being described in evidence as incivility, then it's time these proceedings were dropped and there be consequences to the complainer. Statement of interest - I've carried out drive-by edits on some of the same articles as csloat has done, but we have never addressed each other directly and I don't think he's ever edited articles I'm interested in. PR^talk 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque is not a defense. Commodore Sloat has been on the borderline many times, interacting with many editors, and the net result has been a serious long term detriment to encyclopedic collaboration. Durova^Charge! 07:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that statement is horribly unfair. I have made some comments I regret, it is true, but this characterization is simply not consistent with the reality. csloat 09:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that csloat "has been on the borderline many times, interacting with many editors, and the net result has been a serious long term detriment to encyclopedic collaboration" is a rather severe exaggeration in my opinion, particularly the last portion of the sentence. Sloat often edits very contentious articles (something which we need smart editors like Sloat doing) and has been in a lot of contentious discussions (where, as he readily admits, he was sometimes uncivil, as were others--the latter point being a fact which cannot be summarily dismissed via Latin). But during the only brief interactions I had with him months ago he made very positive contributions to the actual content of articles in the context of a couple of highly debated AfDs--which, as a fairly new Wikipedian, I personally found very inspiring, and which is something he has done on numerous occasions. Thus I find the suggestion that the "net result" of csloat's time on Wikipedia has been a "detriment to encyclopedic collaboration" to be, prima facie, terribly oversimplified and more than a little unfair. Having said that, I'm not opposed to some sort of temporary civility restrictions on csloat, though hopefully after this ArbCom he will watch himself much more closely on that front such that an official remedy would not even be necessary. Kirill's proposed decisions are very much in line with my way of thinking on this case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by Commodore Sloat

3) On numerous occasions, Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited disruptively, including revert warring[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]and failing to adhere to the neutral point of view policy[65][66][67][68][69].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, I strenuously object to this one-sided statement. I believe that the statement heavily distorts the case by using these links, without comment about individual cases. I have also responded to a number of these links on the evidence page. I also object to the abuse of this process in general. Why is Biophys' disruptive editing and WP:OWN violations not mentioned at all here? csloat 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the workshop where users put forward their idea's for the arbitrators to take into account. I haven't looked properly into Biophys at this point in time, but I can assure you I will take a proper look at conduct in due course. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is true I have been involved in edit wars over the past several years of editing. My goal has never been to disrupt Wikipedia, however; in most of the cases listed, the goal has been to keep original research off of Wikipedia. I deal more specifically with the cases, and with the false claim that my editing was disruptive, in this section of the Evidence page; the only problem in recent cases has been Biophys' WP:OWN issues with particular pages. csloat 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there's any reason for this ArbCom whatsoever. None of the diffs I've checked here look like disruption either. All I can see is other occasions like this where it would appear that csloat is trying to improve articles and is being opposed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT disruptive or even rankly prejudicial grounds ("Der Sturmer (that you push in here) says hi"). PR^talk 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only wonder is that it's taken so long to get to this arbitration. I contemplated opening it myself many times over the last year. And to be perfectly candid, I'm waiting for Palestine Remembered to be named in an active case. Durova^Charge! 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by Biophys

4) Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited disruptively on a consistent basis, including revert warring with deceptive edit summaries[70][71], stalking[72][73][74], violations of WP:NOR [75][76], renaming pages to make a WP:POINT [77][78] and constant attempts to own pages (discussion here and here).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. csloat 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by Paul Pieniezny is completely misleading. To the contrary, I restored relevant and sourced materials per WP:NPOV in Putinism article. Currently, all sourced views are incorporated, including those provided by several other users.Biophys 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC) As about article Operation Sarindar, that was a case when two sides created two extremely divergent versions of the same article. That could be handled through a series of WP:DR procedures. However, I decided to give up because it was very obvious to me that any normal WP:DR procedures with csloat would fail - just looking at his enforced mediation with Armon.[79]. Biophys 15:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also "Evidence" section. I must admit my 3RR violation in article Operation Sarindar as a result of RR warring with banned User:Vlad_fedorov. Since then I tried to avoid such things.Biophys 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have checked the article Operation Sarindar that was first mentioned by SMB. Please take a look at this revert. An astonishing 33 edits of work by three editors in 22 days (csloat x 3, SMB x 28 and W. Frank x1 + bot x 1) has been lost with a bad tempered summary, and the next edit by Biophys is a name change. This must rate as "highly disruptive" and I can only wonder how Biophys has come to think this kind of behaviour is tolerable. PR^talk 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-evident, as can also be seen at Putinism. Biophys is deleting sourced material there, and in effect claiming ownership. --Paul Pieniezny 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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.

Commodore Sloat restricted

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a general editing restriction. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Further to this, if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may also be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This remedy does not really address the problem. It only prevents RR warring, but RR warring is only a part of the problem. Main problem is his incivility and targeting other WP contributors at various talk pages and ANI noticeboard. User:Commodore Sloat had a number of opportunities to improve his behavior over the years, including such "wake-up calls" as two RfC and an enforced mediation. He did not improve for a very simple reason. He honestly believes that he did absolutely nothing wrong [80], [81], [82]. So, why should he improve? This particular remedy will not stop him from commenting on various talk pages.Biophys 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy also includes an incivility caveat, that would allow an admin to block him for any personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or incivility, which should irradicate the problem. He may be blocked for upto 1 week for any of these, and after 5 blocks, for upto one month. If the problem is not fixed by this remedy, a new arbitration case could be brought and a ban looked at - but without trying this method first, I don't believe he will have exhausted all other possible sanctions in an attempt to fix his behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would probably work. Support.Biophys 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, not sure on the wording however. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject - this looks like a highly partisan motion against an editor wrongly brought to this process. ~~He's not been found to have any problems (even while suffering understandable frustration from apparent obstruction).~~ //There is some problematical language buried in the evidence, but the overall impression is that of a dedicated editor.// When ArbCom is apparently buckling under the weight of important matters that concern the whole nature of writing articles for the project (eg the AoIA mess), it seems positively disruptive to press for more time to be wasted and sanctions applied here. PR^talk 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Can be opened for review at some point, but WP:NOT#Not a battleground has to have meaning at some point. I would take this position toward any editor whose conduct followed this pattern, regardless of which side of the political fence that individual occupied. Durova^Charge! 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Reject - This is uncalled for and unfair. I have observed Csloat's editing in real-time, including some of the supposed violations reported above, and these allegations are plainly ridiculous. If he is guilty of some offense, then I have about twenty editors to report, including some admins, who I have observed doing far worse things with far less provocation. Thank you, Jgui 06:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If such behavior is considered appropriate by many wikipedians, then we do have a serious problem, and some actions by ArbCom are needed.Biophys 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, your "argument" has no substance. There is no "such behavior" to complain about since Sloat never did anything to you that is even worth complaining about. And it is not WE who have the "serious problem", but YOU, if you think you are going to improve WP by wasting everyone's time on an unjustified attack against one of WP's better and fairer editors - one who is always willing and anxious to explain his edits and engage in dialog. If you think WP in general has a "serious problem" that should be addressed by ArbCom, then please lay out your case on Jim Wales' Talk page, and cease this apparently personal vendetta. Thank you, Jgui 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not think like you that he is "one of WP's better and fairer editors". I know him as one of two most abusive users I have ever met in WP among 50-60 other users. I knew several banned users and a few uncivil users. I had absolutely no problems negotiating with them. All of them (except Vlad_fedorov) were people one can negotiate with. But one can only run away of Commodore Sloat in case of any disagreements. Honestly, that is what I think, although I can be wrong just as anyone else.Biophys 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, csloat has not been abusive towards you, or if he has you have been unable to give an instance of it. Apparently he accused you lying, when the evidence clearly shows that you had been "untruthful". How is that abusive? I think it would have been better if he had softened his verbage by calling it "being untruthful" or some other euphamism, since it is possible that you had forgotten that you had edited a page three times instead of once. But I do not find his accusation, backed up with clear evidence, to be an example of "abuse". Furthermore, a look at the Talk page at the time of your edits shows that you made NO contributions to the Talk page.

Biophys, a word of advice. If you want csloat or ANY EDITOR to behave in a strictly courteous manner, then you need to explain your edits in talk pages when they are challenged. You should NOT make the same edit repeatedly without comment. From the brief perusal of your and csloats edits that I made, it appears that you are not interested in or willing to engage in dialog, even when pressed to do so by csloat. A "negotiation" requires NEGOTIATING, i.e. DISCUSSING. If you are unwilling to do that, then it is YOU and not csloat, who is showing an unwillingness to negotiate. I recommend you follow the WP guidelines regarding use of Talk pages, if you are sincere in your wishes to avoid conflict with other editors. Thank you, Jgui 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys restricted

2) Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a general editing restriction. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems only fair to propose restrictions on the other party to this dispute, since he is clearly guilty of ongoing edit warring, inserting original research and synthesized material into Wikipedia articles. And, as opposed to csloat, when Biophys edit wars he does not contribute to the ongoing discussion in talk; he should be required to contribute to talk when editing pages. Biophys is also guilty of abusing the RfAr process, circumventing normal dispute resolution in order to escalate a content dispute by using Wikipedia lawyering tactics. He has also been caught severely misrepresenting evidence and events during the dispute resolution process (including on this very RfAr!); such actions should not be condoned by admins. csloat 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ArbCom should consider very carefully behavior of all sides based on provided evidence. But I believe that Csloat's claims about me being "caught" or not contributing in discussions (e.g. in Operation Sarindar) are factually baseless.Biophys 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the evidence for those arguments, and a couple of other editors have backed them up (at least on the Operation Sarindar issue). I think that if Biophys believes these comments are baseless he ought to explain his argument against the actual evidence provided. csloat 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it would only be fair if ArbCom consider my behavior as well. Unlike some others, I am sure there is a serious problem here. It is enought to look at the struggle of Csloat and Armon [83] (although I did not provide any evidence about it hoping that Armon will come himself to clarify his issues with Csloat). So, I urge ArbCom to consider all evidence very carefully and take whatever measures are neccessary to correct the problem. If my restriction is needed, so be it. I rely completely on your judgement.Biophys 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that I am not involved in discussions are completely groundless. I have 10,446 edits, and 2,044 of them are discussions at article's talk pages. One can also take a look at the article in question where many people and me contributed to discussion [84]. Obviously, I commented only in cases when I had something to add to an ungoing discussion.Biophys 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At issue is not the general number of edits, but the contributions to specific disputes Biophys was involved in. On the Operation Sarindar page, he continued to revert the page long after he had stopped contributing to the discussion. His edit summaries blamed other users for his reverts even though those users had also left the discussion long ago. And on the "Communist terrorism" article, when I added a "totally-disputed" tag and presented six arguments justifying the tag, he refused to respond to those arguments, but nevertheless edit-warred, deleting the tag several times without comment. After being pressed on this issue, he tried changing the tag with a misleading edit summary ("NPOV label included," no indication that he was also deleting the totally-disputed tag), and then, with another misleading edit summary ("OK, let's leave your tag"), he left the tag but removed two others in subsequent revert warring. In days of edit warring over this he still never bothered to address the actual disputes in talk that led to the tags in the first place. csloat 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. My point during this discussion was alleged WP:NPOV violations by User:Commodore Sloat, as I clearly stated at the talk page: [85]. He failed to address this; he has been blocked; he came back from the block and continued RR warring against several users (hence against consensus). Please see my part of "Evidence" section.Biophys 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having been blocked for alleged violations of NPOV on that page (or on any page for that matter); I am confused by Biophys' statement here. The evidence in my previous paragraph was pretty clear and Biophys has not contested it other than to assert that it is "incorrect." csloat 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no evidence at present that suggests this is warrented. I've been checking through his contributions to see any signs of edit warring or disruption and I see very little. Further to that, there has been no attempts to solve any problematic behaviour via other means of dispute resolution with regards to biophys - So at present, it is my opinion that no remedies in this arbitration case should be applicable to Biophys. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the evidence is quite clear -- take a look through the Evidence page at this section and this section; if you still don't see it I will collect links over the next week or so. Biophys has been inserting NOR on several pages for months now, edit warring to keep the material there, and does not respond to discussions on the talk page. He is extremely deceptive with his edit summaries and with his participation in discussion; several times he has been caught in outright mendacity, including posts to AN/I and including some of the links he cites as "evidence" in this very RfAr. As for dispute resolution -- I have been trying to suggest all along that RfAr is not the appropriate place to address these disputes; it was Biophys who insisted on escalating to here. csloat 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Biophys has edited disruptively, then I urge you to put the evidence in the appropriate place of the RFArb. As I've stated, there is nothing there are present to suggest that Biophys has acted overly disruptively requiring ArbCom intervention, likewise, I have found nothing from looking through his contributions. It is important that users are subject to disputre resolution procedures first to give them an opportunity to change their conduct, this has not happened in this case and again leads me to conclude that with respect to Biophys, this is premature and unrequired. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by block

1) 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys#Log of blocks and bans.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys/Workshop

Motions and requests by the parties

Scope

Stop the moving target

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Courtesy

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Neutral point of view

No Original Research & No synthesis of published material

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Commodore Sloat

Commodore Sloat has been incivil

Disruptive editing by Commodore Sloat

Disruptive editing by Biophys

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Commodore Sloat restricted

Biophys restricted

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion