Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys

Case Opened on 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat and Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon

I suggest to evaluate behavior of User:Commodore Sloat who often makes uncivil comments, transforms WP to a battleground, and removes sourced and relevant materials from WP articles in violation of WP:NPOV policy. An RfC by Bigglove and enforced mediation with Armon failed to change the behavior of Csloat.

1. WP:CIV problems (random examples with seven different users): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

2. He transforms WP to a battleground and intimidates other users, as follows from my history of communication with him (in chronological order):

(1) I had no interactions with Csloat except our dispute over article Operation Sarindar [8] Once I tried to edit Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but Csloat warned me that he will report me to ANI for wikistaling: [9], so I stayed away of any articles he edited. Next time, I restored a more neutral version of article The Intelligence Summit (because it is linked to Operation Sarindar), and Csloat immediately reported me as a "wikistalker" to WP:ANI: [10]. Administrator commented that his ANI report was unfounded [11].

(2) An RfC has been filed about Csloat by user Bigglove [12]. I made a couple of comments in this RfC. Csloat apologized for his uncivil behavior and promised to work in a more cooperative manner. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Instead of cooperating with others, Csloat blamed Bigglove of sockpuppetry, conducted RR war with several users, and finally decided to "take care" of me.

(3) In response to my RfC comments, Csloat came to my talk page with inflammatory claims [13] [14] [15]. I asked him to stop, but he refused. He stopped only after intervention of an administrator: [16].

(4) Then, he came to edit article Communist terrorism that I am currently working with. He never edited this article before. He started making massive deletions of relevant and perfectly sourced text [17], ignoring all objections by others [18] [19], and finally, nominated this article for AfD, exactly as he did previously twice with article Operation Sarindar.

(5) I suggested to Csloat that we should stay away of each other's edits but he refused [20], started blaming me, and again, an uninvolved administrator had to intervene [21]

3. WP:NPOV violations and WP:DE

Let's consider only one last edit by Cslot that he made right now: [22]. In the single edit, he deleted numerous mainstream views on the Communist terrorism taken from reliable sources. He deleted views of (1) Ion Mihai Pacepa; (2) Professor Martin Rudner; (3) Robert Conquest (4) Karl Kautsky; (5) Edvard Radzinsky; (6) Richard Pipes, (7) Karl Marx.

Note that Csoat made such deletion right now and twice [23]. He thinks he can do whatever he wants by making unsubstantiated claims that all the sources he deleted are WP:FRINGE, or that citing such sources is WP:SYN. Csloat provided no valid arguments at the talk page to justify his actions. He did this against consensus, since Hardyplants, Mamalujo and me made their disagreement clear at the talk page or by reverting the unjustified deletions of text. He did this after a warning: [24]. He has been already blocked for 24 hours for offensive modifications of other user comments - at the talk page of this article [25] [26]. He came back from the block and continued the "battle", regardless to this standing RfA request about him.

Csloat deleted referenced and relevant texts from many WP articles, for example here [27] (note that he blames me of WP:SYN but reverts version of W. Frank) or here [28] [29] [30] [31]. In the last example he was involved in RR warring against several users and "won" the "battle" by asking to protect the article. Biophys 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys has completely misstated the dispute. This is a content dispute over Biophys' insertion of original research into Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism -- a synthesis of unrelated quotes strung together to make a point. Every time I deleted material I explained in the edit summaries and in talk; Biophys refused to engage those arguments -- instead he mass reverts.

I don't see how he tried to resolve this - he simply edit warred and threatened to take me to arbcom. He has not tried any other form of WP:DR. I believe he is using my previous disputes with other users - most of which have been resolved - in order to escalate this.

Armon should not be included as a party to this dispute. He has not been on either of the articles at hand. It is true I have had disputes with Armon in the past, but I have no current conflicts with him and I do not see how he is involved in this dispute at all. Currently Armon and I have avoided interacting with each other and that has worked out fine. There may be interactions between us in the future but I for one have resolved to approach such interactions amicably and with every assumption of good faith.

Biophys "confirmation that other dispute steps have been tried" is entirely deceptive. He mentions an RfC but does not mention that it was about an entirely different dispute. He also does not mention that the RfC led to an amicable and satisfactory solution. I owned up to poor behavior on my part and apologized unconditionally. Contrary to Biophys' claim, the RfC is an example of dispute resolution actually working! In any case, that RfC was an attempt to resolve a completely different dispute.

His second example of DR -- the failed [CEM] attempt between myself and Armon -- is likewise a completely separate dispute. It is true that CEM did not work out, and I was very upset that it did not. I tried to be very conciliatory during the CEM, but Armon refused to accept any compromise offered by me. One of the admins who got involved in the mediation -- someone who shares Armon's POV on the content dispute -- pointed out his failure to engage constructively. It is truly unfortunate that that CEM did not work out, but it is entirely deceptive to make that dispute part of the current one I am having with Biophys on those two articles.

His list of 7 examples of incivility is deceptive - some of them are 1-2 years old and most represent disputes that have since been resolved. I respond to each in turn on the Evidence section. I note there and show evidence for several extremely deceptive statements by Biophys; it is surprising he would bring such a shoddy case to ArbCom.

His claim that I treat wikipedia as a battleground is incorrect. It is true that I have let myself get drawn into edit wars, but Biophys is by far more egregious in these matters. I try very hard to justify each edit in an edit summary and I am very clear on the talk page about why I support a particular edit. He mass reverts multiple edits and refuses to discuss the arguments about them in talk. These are content issues that should be discussed in talk. I discuss his examples in detail on the evidence page.

His claim that I violate NPOV and DE is not substantiated by any of his evidence. His links show that I have deleted items but Biophys leaves out the fact that in every instance he cites, I was removing original research. I go through each instance in turn on the evidence page.

The evidence cited for this RfAr does not establish much of a case at all.

It's true in a sense that I'm not currently is a dispute with sloat, but that's mainly because I haven't been editing. If I were to edit any page he does, it would be the same old, same old. The only way to remove yourself from a dispute with sloat is to avoid him altogether because any dispute, no matter how minor, will quickly makes you subject to his incivility, personal attacks, and proof by assertion/ad nauseum arguments. It is an utterly no-win situation if you're attempting to work on an article. Improvements to the article itself comes to a standstill, while it's talk page expands into usenet.

If you enter DR with him, as I did when he suggested CEM, that will also go nowhere, because he will be utterly intransigent that articles mirror his opinions no matter how much evidence you present.

There is copious evidence of sloat's TE and treating WP as a battleground, however, the last time I brought up issues with his behaviour, they were dismissed because of my longstanding disputes with him. The problem is, these issues are not simply to do with me, and I think intervention from arbcom is unavoidable. <<-armon->> 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill 02:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Keeping one's cool

1) Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor wikiquette are considered harmful; such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all.

Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat and Biophys

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have accused each other of disruptive editing and various other violations of policy.

Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nature of evidence

2) The evidence presented, while indicative of some areas of concern, does not demonstrate substantially disruptive editing on a level requiring sanctions from the Committee.

Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Parties instructed

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way. Failure to do so voluntarily may result in the imposition of a formal restriction on their editing.

Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.