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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.


Evidences presented by XAL[edit]

Admi favoritism is the main problem[edit]

Before anything else I would like to adress the recent attacks provided by administrator Bishonen. There was no war on the talk page and it was about the Bogdanovs affair, as it adressed namely this IP problem, who has been a very heavy subject on the talk page since a long time and even here, so I don't see your reasons to supress the post exchanges other than to hide something that YBM is not proud about. More that that you have ban me and not ybm who was making personal attacks as I didn't, and even hinder me to can mail to admi!!! and this because I sayed that the article was soon a closed chapter, which funny enough you are saying yourself here, repeating my own words, that Igor is satisfied by the article as it is now. So what is the problem, and what was so the reason for my ban???

Discrimination?

Favoritism?

Partiality?

Certainly not a wiki rule but mainly a sub rule of this talk page that Laurence mentioned above: Admi involved in the discussions and taking side, by protecting YBM and rjb clan while sanctionning very heavily the other side even when it is the ybm or rjb who has enfrindged the rule: 3RR or personnal attacks. In my case, I was answering questions asked by YBm who found them very relevant, so if my answers are irrelevant enough to be removed, what about his questions and personal attacks? what about all the post with insults who were never removed nor sanctionned the night I was blocked 3 days without any plausible explaination, on the pretens of personnal attack when I did none?, same night were YBm called the Bogdanovs Bastards and rjb called us excrements (see Laurence references above) but they received no warrent, no sanctions, and their text remain untouched up to today. So what is this? It is indeed favoritism done by the admi, and a biaise evaluation of users articles. Bishonen always found something to block me no matter what, and no matter what ybms' rant can be, she cover for him. She banned me now so that I can't take part in the discussion. Look on my talk page for both the 3 days block and the compleete ban and you will see that she has absolutely no reasons of doing so in both case. 5 days from each others. She also say i don't contribute to the page, which is an insult and a lie, approved by Maru who contribute to it with his insults and personnal attacks and cynical comments that night, and rjb who did the same and had called users contributions for excrements that same night. Is it what one must do and say to can call oneself usefull and a good contributor of the talk page? Say insults? Talk about the weather in New England and the way it feels to be back? (like rjb did a few minutes before I was banned) Deny constantly all the evidencies presented? like do YBM no matter how heavy they are. Is it contribution to the talk page to reinsert many times on different places the same article on copy/paste directly, like YBm did for 3 days ago? I don't think so, but I do know that they can do so because they are protected by Bishonen and some other admi, like Maru who is an openly declared anti Bogdanovian.

Another point is that Rialuezo is a cosmologist, but he is not! It is an invention of YBM, this man do research at the CNRS but is by no mean a cosmologist!

What about this cartoon that YBM inserted yesterday in the talk page and who make laugh at the Doctor Igor and Grichka Bogdanov? Why wasn't it removed nor warned about immediatly? How can he do that after having being warned against personnal attacs 4 times the day before and 2 times the same day? No following up to warnings again, on the anti Bogdanov side. So its easy to assault people when one know he is protected no matter what.

Why has Bishonenn never blocked nor banned him when he is making personnal attacks and more than 3 reverts a day so many times since the end of august?

What stop her of doing so?

What are her motives?

If the admi were not taking side nor doing favoritisme but simply doing their job equaly, 80% of the problems will be solved, and 99% if YBM was banned. So the source of the problem is the administrators attitude who cover up for one side of the affair: that anti bogdanovian are their favorit, we just have to be extremely carefull, but it isn't enough, if pro bogdanovian, so you can get busted no matter what. I am the living proove of that. Blocked 3 days for no reasons and now banned for no reason. I have asked ever since Bishonen what was wrong in saying that a new chapter of the affair was about to begin, and she didn't answer. It is in my meaning not reason enough to ban someone, nor to emit any warning. This is madness compleete madness.


Exemples[edit]

here is the text she warned me for:


I can't have evaded the references so well as you pretend as this reference did appeared today on his own person, and gave you all the references you had asked for, and had received too on many occasions, and denyed to have received in twice as much occasions, and evaded again when you received it again from the source itself of it this very morning. Try to work this out first.

Concerning antispyware they ALL have as a function to stop cookies and I don't think that your defenition of cookies is as up to date as one could hope it is...

Your evaluation of what will remain of yesterdays answer is not for you to decide and I will say that you are the last one anyone will think of asking about this to get an objectiv evaluation. The fact that you still, don't understand what this IP adress is about says it all.

As about contacting Holger Bech Nielsen and Stephen William Hawcking, I have contacted them and I have received an answer already. i can inform you that the first, due to his foreign research activities at the moment will not be able to deliver his answer immediatly, but will eventually do it as soon as he is back on shore, and as for Stephen Hawking he has to read the thesis first and then write his evaluations of it therefter, which will take some time du to the fact that he has to use his equalizer to do that, as he told me so. Nonetheless, he is informing me of the current progress.

Regarding everybody laughing about it I have no comments to add. Everybody being a large word, I counted only two, the rest ignoring it all together. Not because my input are irrelevant or non contributing, but not something any one could think of doing, or will feel capable of doing, or will be able to understand, or to answer properly to.

It is not enough to say a project is impossible before even have been trying it.

Regarding you remark, of how I could get an answer from those specialists using my writting style, you don't suppose the results will be better using yours or EE Guys, do you?!

Shall I call Stephen Hawking "mon chou chou" or "Mon Allumeuse" or "ma pépéte" as EE guy did? or call him a "Masochist" and "200% insane and dishonnest" as you did to me? or accuse him of being "incompetent and a crank" as you just did?, and "a bastard, and a lyer", as you did to Igor Bogdanov the other day? or call his work for "excrements and rant" as r-j-b did to all of us a few days ago?

I will stick to my own style, thanks, and it did already produced the expected results. If you had read my answers the way I read everyones contribution here, you will know about it, as I have already made it known...for 2 days ago.

Wiki article is now a close chapter, and a new chapter is on the verge of beckoning.


This is what she answered to it:

Renewed ban warning "Wiki article is now a close chapter, and a new chapter is on the verge to be open." I'm delighted to hear it. Please, then, take your ancient flamewar off the Wiki article talk page, both of you. If you want to keep open the option of posting here, for when you have something to say that belongs here, then please continue any discussion of IPs, cookies, bad language, and each other's character flaws in a Yahoo group, as PJacobi suggested, or at least on your user talk pages. Is there anything about these subjects in Bogdanov Affair, or do you propose inserting it there? No? Well, then. I'm serious. Don't post about anything else than Bogdanov Affair here again, not even once. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

--XAL 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)



And here comes my answer to it and the reason why she banned me: me asking her what the warning was about!!! I would like to know what I have say who might have obsess you!? Igor has indeed declared yesterday that he agreed about the stand of the article and I have say it already many times to YBM, so what is the problem? I am not using bad language, nor am I making any character flaw, if you have to make accusations so keep it adressed to the right person and not just to both as if I was the one doing so! The story about IP has been florishing for weeks on this talk page and it is only the second time I do mix in those discussions in fact, but it seems to be reason enough for you to make it an out of subject story, all the sudden. I would like some more explainations about it too, thanks.

There is no flame war speach at saying that the article is finished and that a new chapter is about to be open, when I have just say that Stephen Hawking is about to give his opinion about the whole affair. If this isn't to be consider a new chapter on this affair so please give me an idea of what could be one.

As far as I am concerned I have done nothing else but answering the questions and allegations of YBM. He asked about IP, I answered, he asked about Igors' post I answered, he asked about my settlement proposition made last week at contacting the worlds greatest cosmologists and best specialists about the question here at hand, and I answered. Are those area out of the affair? I don't think so.

You see, the affair being based on the evaluation of the thesis, as being greate for some and crank for others, it is of course essential to have a clear and definitiv view on that matter that the best head in the scientifical community are able, and about, to deliver. If this is out of subject, so are all the discussions we have seen on this talk page since weeks and months, concerning if yes or no a certain text from a certain journal of science should be included or not, and if the comments of this and this physisist and a paper should be or not included and in which degree, and in which chronological order, all of them concerning positiv and negativ evaluation of...the Bogdanovs Thesis. So, yes, it is of the upmost interest for all interested and for the quality of this page to hear that this dilema is on the verge to be once and for all resolved after 3 years of stride!

--XAL 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what I wrote after the ban:

And what is wrong about this who could excuse a banishment from the talk page? You didn't imposed banishment on ybm who did insulted me and Igor bogdanovs, AFTER you had emit 2 warning. I think that this is only an excuse to remove those texts from the talk page because they were disturbing for him and his pseudo argumentation, and that you did it on his demand and not on your own, as for the 4 last times. The text above your warning and starting with "oh alphonse de bayonne" and put there by me as a copy of some articles from the talk page and never removed nor never receiving a warning, are the proove that you are making absolut favor treatments on this talkpage and should be absolutely removed from it. As an exempel, everybody can see insults recently posted by YBM and small talks about the wether in new England posted by RJB a few minutes after Bishonen had clearly asked for no more out of subject articles, and who is also insulting people, just take a look to a small part of the latest post on this talk page:

Your deep and disgusting dishonesty is a public fact for quite a long time. --YBM 13:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bogdanov_Affair"

And he isn't banned nor warned and it is like that all the time: no ban no block to every day recidivist of insults, opposit, encouragements and ban of their adversary who are able to demonstrate them wrong using logic and plain argumentation.

--XAL 12:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what YBM wrote on my talk page after that, and wasn't asked to remove it nor blocked for it nor ban:

Your problem is that you spent your live issuing irrelevant statements about questions you don't even understand, even when indeed very simple. I asked you to provide references for a few very factual statements you wrote, and that I know to be false, you failed miserabily. In case you will decide to retract some of your lies, or (quite unlikely) to provide real references (and not random irrelevant links), feel free to add it up on A failed attempt to communicate with a nut.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XAL"

I think that it say it all and is a very convincing exemple of how admi are managing the page and using the rules of wiki as pleased, and not as necessary as they should. Bishonen has to be forbidden from this talk page and even dismissed as an administrator of wikipédia for abuse of her tools as an admi and abuse of power, and this is what I would like the arbitration comitee to debate upon. She is not the alone admi having failed but can be sayed to be the one with the heaviest recidivist problem in that matter.

--XAL 17:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)



General background for the current problem[edit]

What happened.

I cannot edit on any pages. I could yesterday on my own page until bishonen sendt me a fire mail where she said she had put hér spamfighter on my mail adress så that I couldn't mail to her and therefter i couldn't come to my own talkpage. She never made a softban, the one you talk about was the one from last week where she blocked me, then made it softban so I could come to the argumentation page, where I declared boycott the argumentation as it was illegal, because containing none of the arbitrations matters from my arbitration list, and because it was instaured in a chaotic way, instead of having the comity first, and after make the arbitraton with limited acces instead of this tug of war there is now with people who don't have a thing to do with it as they weren't part of the bogda affair when this arbitration was originally decided. Bishonen removed and deleeted my articles a few minutes later and remade the blok for 3 days. Since after this block I was 2 days on the talk page, and bisho baned me. She sayed I couldn't come again in the talk page. She dont have given any explainations yet and I hope you will found out about this story and found out what to do about it. She cannot continue to do this kind of attacks on me since end of august! YBM was reverting all from me then, anytime I posted something, he reverted it. As I didn't knew about this revert function at the time, I was asking myself how he could do it so fast. After 10 days of having done that, so 10 days where I couldn't post anything, he called upon bishonen who didn't knew this talk page, who had managed to work without admi until then, and she blocked me for 24 hours immediatly, on the words of YBM who told her I was making vandalism... I had in the mean time written to Cesar alexanian, (Cereal@killer) from the equivalent french site, about this problem, but he was busy at the time.

I didn't knew how to contact an admi on wiki english so i couldnt do nothing else but reinsert all my text mechanichally, about 20 times a day(more like a night) for nothing, as YBM reverted just as many times! I had also tried to contact wiki for rampant vandalism but all I could found was definitions of it and definitions of admi.... no emails... But when bishonen was there so i explained to her, and she didn't care and never looked into the history to see that it was infact ybm who had done vandalism and not me. And she just blocked me for another week. I was very angry. Then on my talk page, during the block, she put all my text that she had removed from the talk page... and ybm came there to provocate me and also asked me to answer to his friend Jean Pierre Voyer who is the person behind this all Bogdanovs affair and orchestrating it, and that he had denied knowledge of until now, so this was constituating a central proove of what I had advanced. This man was insulting me and asking for an answer, which i did, and then, Vupti! Geogre arrived and deleeted all my talk page because it was not contributing to wiki and because i was not making use of all the things one can put on the own talk page (??!!) I had this talk page for only 2 days.. The fact is that all evidencies a bout the contact between Voyer and YBM was deleeed, and admi Ben Bratsch was unable later on to found it and recreate the page as it was originally.

I had also begin a mediation about this incident with YBm revert-folie, and the fact tha the administrator Bishonen had made me paid for the vandaliser, me who was his victim, and also the fact that she was harrassing me since and never look at the historic to see what had really happened, but just assumed things. My mediation was removed by a friend of Bishonen at the mediation group, who qualified my mediation for rant, though it had been placed there by the mediation boss: Nicholas Turnbull, but she didn't care. 24 hours later, YBM also put a mediation there, about... Igor abuse of the revert function!! now it was too much. He was himself reverting and much more than Igor, and Igor never hindered people to express themselves, and even worse, ybm had also deleeted and moved around articles from the other users and made them believe that it was me who had done that, and made them also complain against me for vandalism on the site! it was before mediation and all that, it was during his revert folie, at the end of august, and I could read it but could never tell the other users that it was a lie, because he was reverting me imediatly!This was very frustrating a real psycho war. So by night he provocated me a lot and eventually i will write something bad, it happened and he didn't reverted it, instead he contacted bishonen, who saw what i had written and blocked me for a day. Et voilá! Smart this ybm dont you think? I was so mad, being blocked for what he did and accused of his vandalism against me!

To come back to the mediation episode, I found very provocating that he made this, he stole my mediation against his vandalism and revert manie, to make it a mediation against Igor revert. This was really something. This guy had really no shame. I get eventually my mediation reinserted by Nicholas, and short after bishonen blocked me again for exchange on the mediation: YBM was going on my talk page to provocate me about stuff from the mediation page and therefor Bishonen blocked me, but not him, of course and adressed me in a very agressiv and unproper way. I had at that time been 4 weeks under pressure. It was not finished, I tried an arbitration, but nick wasn't an admi, couldn't really help wihtout asking others, it was taking time, he was busy, and he was away weeks in all. Then out of the blue, snowspinner opened the arbitration he had sayed he will not make anyway one hour before, after having first banned Igor out of the blue, and after Bishonen had banned me 3 days without any consistent reason, probably because yYBM had been ban by an admi for his revert folie again. (he had enfrindge the 3 RR again that night) He also had called users bastards lyer crooks rant, excrement but wasn't ban nor blosked nor warrent for it ever.Nor were the insults removed.

I do not say revert war, as it take minimum 2 to make a revert war, and if the other one do not know about the revert function and never use it, then there cannot be a revert war but a revert attack, and thats not the same at all.

So I was technically blocked by YBM revert fuzz for 10 days, then officially blocked 1 day by bishonen, then 1 week, then a day then 3 days then a week then 3 days and now a ban since 2 days. Wich mean that since the last days of august, I have been hinder acces to wiki for 26 days!!! I never reverted nor insulted anyone out of the blue, I did my duty and followed the rules and my commun sense, and often performed a real good admi job, so I should get a medalj for my patience and for not having get a nervous breakdown yet.

I have also not been in wiki some days because this injustice made me sick and because nobody had time to look at it, but to protect YBM there is plenty of admi 24 hours a day! Bishonen, Geogre, Maru, Snowspinner, and some others. The very serious problem being that they do participate to debate inside the talk page take side, and do use of admi tools like deleeting other users contribution that they don't like not because wiki rules say so, but because it is contrary to their private opinion and against the side they support on the talk page, meaning: the Anti bogdanovian side as always.

In that regard, rjb was first recruted by ybm on this chat room for admi the night YBM contacted Bishonen for the first time, at the end of august, I saw the transcript of their conversation. It was really disgusting. There was geogre and rjb, who didn't knew a thing about the bogdanovs then, and Bishonen, ybm came, sayed I was doing vandalism, and harassing him, bisho and the others read my article who was an angry one where I sayed that if he was to do this again I will call the police as he was breaking the law about freedom of expression. So they discussed and made laugh about me, thought I was an american because I was speaking of the first amendment, so did they assumed, and decided to block immediatly.

On the second time, Geogre say to block me a week. In the mean time they all 3 begin to mix in the talk page they didn't knew a thing about. It was the first week of september. Later on r-j-b begin to mix more and to revert the article of the talk page on switch with ybm, and was learning all about the affair from ybm, as unique source of informations, and within 2 weeks he was able to repeat every single paradigme and theorems of the ybm version of the Bogdanovs' affair, like if he was born in the head of ybm, a real parrots. So much that some times I thought it was ybm and not rjb! He even presented stuff who had been discussed long before there and prooved wrong, but he didnt knew about it, it was really impossible. When he appeared on the sceene, the article was well advanced, and all had arrived at a concensus, he destroyed all of that by making changes not agreed upon directly to the article, and destroying the concensus. He was new didn't knew a thing, and was destroying every body elses' weeks of work. Therefor many reverted his doing as it was vandalism. Usually we had done like this to discuss things on the talk page, then to agree upon something and then insert it in the article after the whole thing had been debated in all its details.

But ybm made his revert creazy period against me, and rjb appeared on the scene and Bishonen too, and from then on, it was chaos with constant reverts and block. Before any admi appeared on the scene there was no revert problems, and before rjb appeared.

It all started with ybm making it impossible for me to participate on the talk page, because I am the alone opponent he have had in 3 years who was able to nail him and to proove him wrong on his own field in a very short time, and on his own forum, from which he had banned me just a few days before he made his revert war against me on wiki. So even after having banning me from his forum, because of an article I had writen on wiki(!) he followed me on wiki and tried by all mean to stop me and make me leave the debate. I was too disturbing for his reputation in front of his group of fan. If it was not for Bishonen being partial and protecting him, he will not have been able to do so, and the article will be finished since a long time, and will be much better than now.

So it was then that he begin to make his french connection in the wiki admi network to ensure the realisation of his plans, and up to now it has work after his purpose.

He insult, deleete, revert, lie, speak out of the question, but was never blocked.

He received one block of 24 hours last week given by an unknown american admi/latino, as a sanction for overseing the 3RR. And thats it, thought all he did agaisnt the rules. He received sometimes warrent, but only as a group, never individually even if he is the reason for the problem by provocating it or is the alone one who agresss and make personnal attacs, which of course is very frustrating for all the others.

Those warrent only begin to appear as a result of a general discontentment of the pro bogdanov user that he was always sparred for it all, and they were generously sanctioned for almost nothing. It was very visible.

So now we have ybm his new recrue rjb, and admi who protect them. And all that make a very bad atmosphere. They know they risk nothing and that by provocating us long enough they will eventually get some sort of reaction from us, that an admi on their side will use against us to warn us and /or block us immediatly.

It is never taken into account the fact that they really insult one for a long time before the reaction is triggered, which is extremely partial. So they should be warne or block as soon as they begin their attacks and not us being blocked as soon as we begin to react, this don't go. It isn't fair at all.

Now I believe that you have all the data to understand the psychological mechanisms on the talk page. In my opinion catherine and laurence 1 and 2 and Igor are far too sweet. I am from south of France and a project leader, and I don't accept a job poorly done, nor being pushed around like that, and if one pull out the trigger then he is also accepting to get the consequence of it, and thats it. If I was warrent and the guy who is the source of the provocation was blocked, så it is fair, if I am blocked for reacting, and him get nothing, then it is a non functioning system. Next time will be worse and worse and worse, because of resentments, and build up of frustrations for unjust treatments, and the other will be worse because they can all, and bosses (admi) have given them more rights, so they are like the pope, unfaillible.

And thats the worse case scenario you want to have in a firm or a talk page. I am team builder and conflict solver, so I know what I am talking about. I work in firma with long time staking personnal conflicts, so I know how they build up and how they are to be solved. Being insíde without the power I can't resolve that one, but I can see all the big mistakes made by some admi. It is very important to reestablish the balance and to understand the conflict history.Here and even outside of wikipedia.

Igor has been harassed by YBms' rumors for exactly 3 long years and lost a lot im matter of status, dignity, and "renom" because of it. Compleete Status quo, since this rumors trip started.

It is a big psychological stress.

On it add the stress from each of those forums and the repetition of the same argumentation over and over again, as YBM repeat the exact same pseudo argumentation from a forum to another, froma year a month to another andd is very tirering. It is only now since end of september that Igor is beginning to react assertively ( about time also in my mening) You dont ban someone under pressure whos life has been destroyed by rumors, and who try to restaurate part of it. Most of the elements ybm bring now are things he just found about during august september, the rest are things he builded up in different website and forum, years ago, prooved falsh many times, but recycled all the time when he run dried for something to say, something to argue about. Anything will do in fact. Thos private forum or affair staging place, have been used as a place where he begin by announcing the color as being the truth. His color of course, even if in fact it is a supposition. He will then get some people to support it, as if it is written, must be true.. and will then use those web site and forum and blogs as references and evidencies in his "Missing - the - central - links - kind - of - argumentation". I have stude for months how he works, so I know all his cowebs.


Plaidoyer:[edit]

For me what I see in this affair is two personns who are victims of a vendetta made against them by people who basically do not give a damn about physic and big bang theories, and never heard of those until they falled over this story.

I do not see why 2 humans lifes should be destroyed to satisfied some pernicious individuals with unclear motives, who obviously dont have much else to do since 3 years now. There is a point where one must stop and say now it is enough.

The very proove that none of them is interested in knowing if their thesis are actually valid or not, good scientific work or crap, is the fact that neither ybm nor rjb nor snowspinner nor Bishonnen nor Maru, are interested to hear about the meaning from Stephen Williams Hawking and Holger Bech Nielsen, about the Bogdanovs theories.

When i told those about my contacts with those specialists their interest was zero, they were even disturbed, like if I had announced that the party will soon be over. Thereby the reaction of bishonen when i say that the article is soon finished and a new chapter of the affair can begin.

I hope that those informations will aloud you to enter another part of this talk page, the story itself and the essential about it.

This isn't about an article, but about the humans implications of it in real life and real time.

I believe that anyone is innocent until prooved guilty, and that until then nobody has the right to call them bastards, lyer, croocks, and other insulting words, nor to influence the jury, here the administrators of wikipédia.

It should be it, and my initiative to come in touch with the precise persons in the world able to decide on the basis of their width knowledge and wisdom weather their work is a diamant who will shine for generations to come in the world of Science, or is a spontan but briev flash of light, will bring fruits and will clean their name once and for all. What will all the detractors do then? swear they were on their side all along? Will ybm found another victim, another writer? as he did many times before? (it isn't the first time he create rumors and destroy the reputation of french writters on the internet and by mean of the internet facilities, like forums, chats, blogs, and web sites.)

Now you have it all (I hope not for all the winter) served and packed, monthes of carefull analysis on a silver platter.

Remember that postsituationist ground stone, that this YBM instigator of this hetz, is a member of, is to look as convincing as possible on net situation, no matter how little one know or how impossible the advanced theory sounds. And YBM is very good at it, he has practiced since 1998, when he slaughtered his first lam online. He is indeed very convincing unless you learn to see through his speech technics and learn to see when and how he manipulates the public, how much he is after the " what will people think of this if they knew?", and the "if he says it so there must be something true about it". it works, always, it is technics used in advertising and political propaganda, so they have prooved how usefull they were many times, and to work on most of the people.

Unless you have as me learned about the analysis of the kind and about argumentations theory, and semantic analysis of texts and words, so you can see a bluff theory when presented to one. I see the missing links in the reasonments, the holes who do that it don't hang together, in one glance, to distinguish in an instant when it is an argument and when a fiction is presupposed as a fact to make the argument valid. It means that the argument is non valid, it means that there is no arguemnt, ditto no argumentation, which give.. empty talk, nothing but bla bla to convert newbees to the cause. The YBMs' cause to destroy a Being.

Corruption of administrator should be thorougly investigated upon.

Administrators favoritisme and involvement in one of the party side to support them even against wikipedias rules, and abusing of administrator tools to help the side they like and sanction without sufficient evidencies the part they dislike must be act upon and corrected or sanctioned as best will be.

YBMs involvement to an organisation which purpose is to create fonny and rumors and scandals and unexisting stories on the internet shall be investigated, and decided upon in which extend wikipédia which to be involved in such methods and if wikipedia ethics can accept this kind of abuse wihtout overshadowing wikipedias' own principles.

His motives have to be clarifyed and wether he is after knowing the degree of validity of those thesis and theories or if in fact he is only after sustaining the scandal atmosphere, and his all argumentation is no more than a show off, without interest to the reality. This will bring the matter of weather or not he can be aloud to come on wikipedia about this subject and in which extend his documentation can be accepted here.

To finish isn't it better to wait for a final decision by the specialists and to make place for their future interventions here, and in the mean time take care that the kind of persecutions we can actually see today on the talk page perpetrated by users and administrators against Doctor in Theoretical Physic Igor Bogdanov and Doctor in Mathematic Grichka Bogdanov, and their defendants, will then be history.

I was unjustly blocked and banned for a month and humiliated and subject to diffamations and assaults against which Í was unable to defend myself, and want an non retaliational equivalent justice being done against the persons who where responsible, directly and indirectly, for those crimes.

--XAL 17:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Central Arbitration Tema[edit]

1. YBMs'membership in the post-situationistic movement, and cooperation with Jean-Pierre Voyer, leader of this movement, in the (*)artificial elaboration of this affair making him disable to be part of this article writing and necessity to reveal this part of the "Affair Bogdanov" as the essential and underlaying reason for all this event, on Wikipedia actual talk page, and for the past 3 years on the internet.

(*) by artificial is understood: the creation of evidencies, of blog page on the internet, of discussions groups and forum on the internet, and of subject in existing officials scientifical forums, with the aim to arm the Bogdanovs scientifical and personal reputation, with the sole purpose to test a set of tools and theories advanced by this movement: the post situationistic movement, by means of psychological trics known in the adertising branches and political branches of propaganda, as is advertised in their own web sites, and YBMs' sub websites of Jean Pierre Voyers'own central web site.

Those constitute prooves of their collaboration as well as the mail exchanges I did received from both part, YBM's stating himself as "Mr. Rupley", which is also the name of YBM's main Post-Situationistic Web Site.


2. Administrators close relation to the subject and abuse of their title to exerce favoritism on behalf of YBM and all YBMs' related point of views, and generosity towards users supporting YBMs' own value system.


3. The evidencies from very central persons in the department of Theoretic Physic, known as world wide best Cosmolog, Professor Holger Bech Nielsen from the Niels Bohr Institute of Theoretical Physic, and Professor Stefen Williams Hawking,chair of mathematic from the University of Cambridge, who will present their own evalutions of Doctor Igor Bogdanov and Doctor Grichka Bogdanovs thesis, and by this mean will set a definitiv stop to further speculations regarding the scientifical value of their work and their place in theoretic physic, as well as setting new standard to the way they ought to be adressed, and by those mean reestablishing their moral and ethical integrity.

We will also know if Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, in fact, created a new Paradigm in science, and what is the essence of this Paradigm.

3.b.

Point 3 is under construction and will take longer time due to the necessity to adress those specialists in their own terms, and within they aloud time, and the time necessary for them to make an evaluation of those thesis.

Expected time for both: 2 months from today.

Expected evaluation from Holger Bech Nielsen:

5 weeks from today.

--XAL 11:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and corrections to Rjbs' evidencies[edit]

None of the scientists you listed in your chapter as evidencies against the scientifical validity of the Bogdanovs thesis is a cosmologist, nor assiociated with work in the field of Theoretical Physic.

Jean-Pierre Luminet

John Baez

Alain Riazuelo

Peter Woit

Jacques Distler

None of those has the hability to evaluate the thesis written by the Bogdanov as they do not understand Theoretical Physic, which has been recognised by Joan Baez since.

It has in fact been the recognition sign of all the persons with scientifical background who have criticised the Bogdanovs work: None of them is specialist in the field and none of them has read their thesis.

The hability to do so is reserved to scientist who work in the field of theoretic physic with a degree equal or superior to the doctors Bogdanov.

For your knowledge, Alain Rialuezo do some research work at the CNRS, but is by no mean a cosmologist, nor in possession of any academical credencies in the field of Theoretic Physic.

Those facts infirm in all ways the evaluation of those scientists, and most of them based their comments on the lecture of the paper ABOUT the thesis read in some scientifical journal, but not on the analysis of the thesis itself.

In conclusion the critic of those scientifics is a mere opinionated view than a scientifical one on the thesis, and is therefor caduque as a proove of the thesis invalidity, as a scientifical work in the field of cosmology.

Take notice that this is an arbitration, insults toward anyone will not be accepted.

I do not accept to be call flesh and blood supporter, and I do not accept the degradating use you make of this arbitration to present your version of the article, and to imped negatively on the opinion of the arbitrator by using pejorativ vocabulary who give an apriori judgement of the person to the reader, and words with negativ overtone, to describe and name the users who do not have the same meaning as yours.

Abusive use of words with a pejorative undertone like: cranks, emperors new clothes, socket puppets, liers, and other insults, you up to now have commmonly use every day on the talk page, are not accepted here.

You are asked to remove all words and expressions of degradating and pejorativ character at once.


--XAL 22:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here are
  • Jean-Pierre Luminet's web page (for the general public, he is the author of a well-known book on black holes; he is also a proeminent researcher);
  • we have a page about John Carlos Baez, see for yourselves;
  • Alain Riazuelo has a user page here User:Alain r, where his claim of being a cosmologist is backed up with links to a thesis and scientific papers.
  • Peter Woit [2] has written a few snappy things about the Bogdanov; he has taught Modern Geometry, Quantum Field Theory and Geometry and Lie Groups and Representations at teh University of Columbia.
  • Jacques Distler [3] is a professor in the Theory Group [4] at the University of Texas.
Incidentally, I would be rather curious to know on what sort of expertise XAL bases her extraordinary claim that these people are not "assiociated with work in the field of Theoretical Physic". Rama 06:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Evidence presented by Igor B== LLL 5 october 2005

We are in a difficult position on this page since we are at the same time subjects and editors of the "Bogdanoff affair" article. We are the Bogdanoff brothers. For the reasons you can read in the article we are TV public figures in France and theoretical physicists as well. This situation was never accepted by some people and they tried everything to disqualify us scientifically : from the initial Mail of Tours (where a physicist pretended that our thesis were a "hoax") to the present discussions.

The most "hostile" of the "team of editors" is a certain "YBM" He has been after us for 2 years now. His goal is to cancel our thesis and to make us us fire from our TV program. He is the most insulting person and he does not hesitate to forge so called "proofs" to show everyone "how bad we are". Here is an example of what he writes everyday about us in this article :

"You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field." and "Your are a bastard", in the talk page ?

We do think that this YBM should be stopped to edit our article/.

As we also think that his friend "rbj" should also be stopped for insulting us the same way : " I have nothing but contempt for the Bogdanoffs. they are not sincere. they are not merely mistaken. 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!". "We are not dealing with honest people." "Hoax, pseudoscience, The Emperor's New Clothes, excrement are precisely appropriate. for the sake of society, these con-men need to be exposed for who they are. r b-j 03:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)" (see Personal Attack from Rbj  : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/Archive_2 )

In a general way, the article under its present form is not satisfying. YBM and RBJ are both falsifying it constantly and I am once more "blocked" because I have reverted 3 times their non sense.

In conclusion, I ask 2 things :

1. A permanent blokage of YBM and RBJ whose objective is not to achieve any consensus but only to destroy our public image 2. A shorter and more balanced article whose citations would be less long and the "internet discussion" part merey suppressed (because having mainly being cause by YBM long before this article began it has nothing to do in a Wicipedia article).

______________

I (Igor) add the following element .

I just read another version of the "internet discussion " of the article. I place it here because it is a good example of what was happening to us since 2002 and what is presently happening on the article in process on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bogdanov_Affair&oldid=24853040 )  :

Internet Discussions[edit]

"The Bogdanov affair has first been discussed extensively in the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research, then on fr.sci.physique, various english and french-speaking blogs and web forums, and Wikipedia. The Bogdanov brothers have frequently taken part in these discussions, presenting vigourous defenses of their work. Since most of the discussions forums were not moderated and based on anonymous exchanges the Bogdanoffs were regularly attacked by very numerous users masked by pseudonyms. In reply, Igor (Grichka did not participate to any internet discussions at that time) used 4 pseudonyms to defend their privacy which he revealed some time later.

One must say that the Bogdanovs were confronted with some particularly agressive people who did not hesitate to insult and harass them with so many questions that it became impossible for the Bogdanovs to answer everything, which they were blamed for very rudely. This occurred on Usenet (fr.sci.physique and fr.sci.astrophysique, for instance), on Hardware.fr and sur-la-toile.com, etc. On these last two forums, the attacks against them became even more violent when some participants who had argued with them on Usenet decided to take their revenge, and did everything they could to encourage the others to attack the brothers as strongly and intensively as possible. On Hardware.fr, they decided to contact the media (press and television) collectively in order to criticize the Bogdanovs and enhance the public side of the "affair" (page) :

Les grands médias ne sont visiblement pas au courant des derniers développements de cette affaire:
(...)
J'ai par MP donné à certain ma décision, je pense que cela peut aboutir si il y a "insistance et multitude".

which means :

Obviously the mass media don't know about the latest developments in this affair :
(...)
I told my decision to some of you in private, I believe it can succeed if we are insistent and numerous.

One of them, YBM, wrote directly to France 2 to suggest firing the brothers. He is seen as the leader of the enemies of the Bogdanovs, as he created one blog and two forums dedicated to criticizing them and putting all the blame on them. He is still very active and is still dreaming about having them fired from France 2 and having their theses cancelled.


Sources (all in French) :


I really think that this "internet discussion" section should be suppressed (or maintained under control).

__________

I don't know what I'm doing here. I'm a real person, defending the Bogdanov. What evidence do you want me to bring other than my good faith ? I am not a sockpuppet, as I already said.

  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

<day2> <month>[edit]

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

Evidence presented by User:Rbj[edit]

pre-existing wikipeidians and newly created sock-puppets[edit]

I want to first point out that I have been here at Wikipedia long before this Bogdanov Affair flap began. My contribs bear that fact. I didn't just come to Wikipedia to take on a fight at a new venue about this ostensible academic scandal. This is not my only agenda here, although, as this heated up, most of my contribs are regarding this affair. That will change as this winds down or I run out of time or lose interest.

In constrast, the Bogdanov's:

Special:Contributions/Igor_B.

Special:Contributions/Igor_Bogdanov

Special:Contributions/Bogdanov

their likely sock-puppets:

Special:Contributions/Agent_194

Special:Contributions/Naudin

Special:Contributions/82.123.111.172 ("Abraxas")

Special:Contributions/82.123.35.18 ("Abraxas")

and their likely flesh-and-blood supporters:

Special:Contributions/Laurence67

Special:Contributions/CatherineV

Special:Contributions/XAL

(and the myriad various IPs that, upon examination (including tracing where the IP goes to), are almost certainly those used by Igor Bogdanov himself.)

But none of those WP "personalities", whether real people or sock-puppets, have shown any interest in Wikipedia other than to edit Bogdanov Affair and only in such a way as to portray the Bogdanovs in the most positive light possible (and sometimes in even a more positive light than is possible) or to defend the Bogdanovs in the talk page. They have come here to Wikipedia for only one reason. For only one agenda.

Initial editing by Bogdanov to clearly whitewash affair[edit]

The entire history of the Bogdanov Affair should be examined to get an impression of what the Bogdanov's were trying to do, but the first edit of theirs appears at this time. It is clear, from the very beginning, what their intent is: to suppress factual information that appears damaging to their public image and to introduce text that is more flattering to their image.

What the physics community has said about the Bogdanov's work and their behavior[edit]

There is quite a record of what well-known physicists with well-established track records are willing to say, on the record of what the Bogdanov's work means and of their behavior:


This last little analysis by Riazuelo has appeared first in the talk page and is now archived. User:YBM is archiving it himself to keep this very salient analysis from slipping into obscurity. The Urs Schreiber analysis above is also another earlier technical analysis that eventually dismisses the merit of the Bogdanov work.

Also in Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments there is the text from a New York Times article about the scandal that, because of copyright information, I have not put a link to. I could not find a direct link to the NYT article since I do not subscribe to their internet news service. I hope someone else can.

The links above also document the original sock-puppet behavior, that Igor has even admitted to, which is demonstrative of dishonest intent. The Bogdanov's even took clear criticism of their "work" from Schreiber and Woit, mistranslated into French that was praising their publication and published that in their book or supporting materials. That is the damaging information that first led me to conclude that the Bogdanov's are not only crackpots or cranks, but are fundamentally dishonest people with the intent to deceive and distort information in such a way that it makes them look good. No honest scholar would do what they have done.

In addition, there is the pathetic "defense" the Bodanovs made on the moderated USENET newsgroup sci.physics.research: beginning where physicists Steve Carlip and John Baez pointedly question the Bogdanov's and their replies. There is no doubt that the mainstream physics community utterly dismisses the Bogdanov "research" as pseudoscience.

Finally, to gauge a bit, who are the real physicists and who are the imposters, the SPIRES site does a crude counting of citations of published research. The Bogdanov papers are cited a total of 3 times on the SPIRES database for 6 published papers and one unpublished preprint). For comparison, the publications of cosmologist Jean-Pierre Luminet were cited on SPIRES over 500 times, an average of 28 citations per paper. The publications of mathematical physicist John Baez were cited on SPIRES over 1200 times. The publications of cosmologist Alain Riazuelo were cited on SPIRES over 700 times. The publications of physicist Peter Woit were cited on SPIRES over 200 times. The publications of physicist Jacques Distler were cited on SPIRES over 2200 times, an average or more than 50 citations per publication.

The Bogdanov "research" is utterly ignored by the physics community. 3 pathetic citations compared to the many hundreds of citations of the recognized substantial publications of their critics. How could this happen? In the words of physicist Steve Carlip: The referees made a mistake. Well, accidents happen. Referees are volunteers, and get very little reward for their service to the community. Sometimes they get overwhelmed ... and get careless. Sometimes they don't want to admit that they don't understand a paper. Sometimes they read their own ideas into a paper. Two referees are better than one, but once in a while they'll both make mistakes.

The system made a mistake, first publishing any of the Bogdanov's phony research in any reputable journal and subsequently granting them degrees for it. That is not easily rectified, but there is no justification in white-washing this scholarly failure into something that resembles success. To do so is simply fraud.

The Bogdanov brothers are imposters, pretending to be neo-Einsteins (see the NYT article for a quote from their advisor attesting to that) that have foisted upon the French reading public their theories that they purport to be some amazing new discovery of how the Big Bang happened and what occurred prior. The physics community has recoginized this bogus "research" for what it is. It is very similar to the "two weavers of fine cloth" in The Emperor's New Clothes. The physics and academic communities have been embarrassed to find their emperor naked and have clearly stated that the emperor is naked and would like to dress the emperor decently. But these "weavers of fine cloth" insist on continuing to be the emperor's taylors and brazenly showing off their fine couture that no one else can apparently see.

Wikipedia is becoming a chronicle of breaking and current popular history. Let's make sure we get this story right.

Igor Bogdanov believes that he is not subject to WP rules[edit]

Igor considers himself above the rules and is perfectly willing to "play the system" to get what he wants, whether he deserves it or not. Twice, Igor and I have been blocked from editing because of revert warring (breaking the 3RR).

The first time for 24 hours each by Ral315 at this time: 21:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Igor could not edit the article as it was protected, but he did edit the talk page twice during this 24 hour period:

These are not diffs and almost useless as evidence Fred Bauder 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
okay, Fred, i fixed it. i was out of town for a week and had no time to do this until now r b-j 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second time, I was blocked for 24 hours and Igor was blocked "indefinitely" by ☺drini♫|☎ at this time: 01:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

During this 24 hour period where I was blocked (and Igor was blocked "indefinitely") he has edited the article 4 times:

These are not diffs and almost useless as evidence Fred Bauder 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
again, fixed. please don't delete the additional diffs that Ilinka posted below. r b-j 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and a lot more, not mentioning the sock puppets...
Hope that helps, Ilinka
thank you, Ilinka, it does help. r b-j 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both times, I had been silenced for 24 hours and submitted to that whether or not I felt justified in trying to stop Igor's repeated vandalism (that is Snowspinner's words, Igor was repeatedly deleting factual and relevant information because it was not flattering to the Bogdanovs). And both times Igor simply ignored the block and edited from various IP addresses that the admins had not added to the block list.

Igor was explicitly banned by the admins from editing this article about himself from Sept 27 until October 1. It is simply too laborious to document each and every violation of that ban that he has made from various IP addresses. Please check the article history and try to count the violations. I have lost count. r b-j 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Pjacobi[edit]

Part 1: Only what I've just have seen.[edit]

Pjacobi 16:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2: More on XAL (and YBM)[edit]

User:XAL shows on this page the same disregard for process and rules, as on the Affair talk page:

It's obvious from the name, but it should be stated here, that User:XAL account was created to tease User:YBM into endless and fruitless discussions. User:YBM, severely unaware of the meta-policy Don't feed the trolls, helped to achieve this mission. I'll find some exchanges in the next hours.

Pjacobi 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3: The french government steps in (allegedly)[edit]

Many strange edits can be seen on Talk:Bogdanov Affair, I'd consider this one the climax:

Hard to tell evicence for against and whom this would be, and the uninvolved may event thing that this was staged by the anti-Bogdanovs, but the further discussion IMHO proofs that theory false.

Pjacobi 12:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part 4: Lumidek's intervention[edit]

And some pro-Bogdanov evidence (not for the faction's behaviour, but for the factual arguments). Yes there are a minority of physicists, who still state support to the Bogdanov's, at least to the extent that no fraud or hoax was intended. Wikipedia's resident String theorist User:Lumidek, aka Lubos Motl, visited the talk page to state:

Pjacobi 12:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by YBM[edit]

Some samples of a will to trick people[edit]

  • 26 september 2005
    • They called a friend of them, from the parisian Jet-Set, Amélie de Bourbon Parme to intervene in their favour. It is so ridiculous it could be a fake, but it is indeed true. This person pretended to speak in the name of the french government (in fact she is only a student working for a stay in some obsucre under-under-comittee).
  • 2004
    • They used Adobe Photoshop to buil a forgery of a blueprint of their own book, they then presented as an excuse to have write a under-college level blunder there (btw, even the excuse by itself didn't work very well, mathematically speaking) : details here.
  • 2004/2005
  Date:	 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:54:07 +0800
  Objet:	Re: HKU Institute of Mathematical Physics domain
  
  In Hong Kong, HKU usually refers to my University
  which is The University of Hong Kong, but it is not
  situated at Clear Water Bay.
  
  The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
  normally refered to as HKUST, is indeed situated at 
  Clear Water Bay.  Thus I have forwarded your email to
  the persons in charge of IT at HKUST.  However they
  have found that in fact the information quoted in 
  the website is all unreal, so it appears that somebody
  had created the th-phys.edu.hk website without proper
  authorization.  They are now investigating the matter.
  
  Best regards
  
  Nam Ng
  Director 
  Computer Centre
  The University of Hong Kong,
  Pokfulam, Hong Kong.

Some quotes of scientists about Bogdanov's work[edit]

  • Alain Connes
    • "It didn't take me much time to make me sure that the Bogdanovs brothers don't know anything about what they pretend to talk", Le Monde, 20 december 2002
  • Igniatios Antoniadis (one of Igor and Grichka Ph.D. reporters
    • "Their scientific language was just an appearance, behind they were hiding an incompetence and an ignorance of physics, even of the basics.", Le Monde, 20 december 2002
  • Shahn Majid (one of their reporter as well)
    • "They were very weak students" (october 2004)
    • "I see that the Bogdanovs are now making up stories that I said xyz to them and I draw the line there.[...] So if he [Grichka] is now saying the exact opposite I would have to say that he would be lying. [...] Finally, Gritcka, I would appreciate not being telephoned by you since evidently you misrepresented even that." fr.sci.astrophysique 30 september 2004
  • Jean-Pierre Luminet
    • "When you really know the Bogdanov's story (I know them from 25 years), you cannot help yourself comparing their adventures with the famous "Sokal Affair". [...] One could think they wanted to ridule the scientific establishment they had some problems with (they've been making a trop around labs for years before finding someone who didn't know them and had been trapped by allowing them to be inscribed in Ph.D).", Futura-sciences, 8 october 2004

Massive sock puppets attack and proxy abuse on Bogdanov Affair from Igor Bogdanov[edit]

  • All edits from new comers these last days track down to Igor Bogdanov himself (obvious from writing style, typographic habits and actual content). Similar or identical edits are now made under IP addresses, most of them hosting a anonymous proxy (User:202.153.116.54, [[User:198.80.150.22], User:203.199.36.215, User:204.13.153.34). This is a very familiar way of conduct from Igor Bogdanov, he did basically the same on Usenet-FR for months last years. We are definitely not dealing with honest people, the word "dishonest" is quite weak to qualify them. YBM

Evidence presented by Ze miguel[edit]

An additional comment on the evidence presented by User:Rbj: the usage of multiple accounts and identities by the Bogdanovs in order to further their views is by no means limited to Wikipedia. This behaviour has been demonstrated on Usenet, and also on various blogs and web forums.

See for instance:

For this reason, and the fact that the Bogdanovs and/or their supporters have not hesitated creating new accounts on the fly to edit the Bogdanov Affair article, I doubt that, if the arbitrors decide to rule against them, banning one or more of their accounts from editing the article will solve the problem. Ze miguel 13:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by David Monniaux[edit]

Intervention of alleged "French officials"[edit]

A user who pretends to be Amélie de Bourbon-Parme has edited the page [6], quote:

As my email address indicates, I am currently working for the french governement and I think I have the qualifications, the experience and the expertise to comment on certain aspects of this affair (the Wikipedia administrators may check my quality on the basis of my official .gouv email terminaison address).

This person actually emailed an administrator from a @pm.gouv.fr address, which gives credence to her claim that she worked for the government (this is the domain for the services of the Prime Minister of France).

However, there are serious reasons why this intervention was incorrect.

First, Amélie de Bourbon-Parme has no special qualification or expertise to discuss theses in astrophysics. She is a graduate student in history, and has not even completed her thesis, according to official academic directories.

She holds no official position, except that she was appointed in an advisory council under the Prime Minister ("Council of analysis of French society"). This council is chaired by Luc Ferry, under whom Ms de Bourbon-Parme used to study. There are thus quite strong reasons to believe that she was named there not because of special qualifications, but because of political connections.

Now, it is also apparent that Ms de Bourbon-Parme is personal friend of Igor Bogdanoff. They were seen and photographed together at "jet-set" meetings in Paris. [7]

On Wikipedia, we disapprove of people editing pages about their own self, company, product etc. in order to push their own view at the expense of other views. Here, the person described in an article (Igor Bogdanoff) apparently requested a personal friend to make a pseudo-official intervention in order to browbeat other contributors into accepting his point of view. David.Monniaux 13:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:XAL[edit]

As evident from [[Talk:User:XAL]], User:XAL engages in lenghty and inflammatory rants, with numerous personal attacks (she also did so by email to me). David.Monniaux 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence regarding Sophie (User:213.237.21.6 and User:XAL), presented by Bishonen[edit]

Since several experienced editors have intervened at Bogdanov Affair, I will leave the broader picture to abler pens and limit myself to my dealings with Sophie, who edited as User:213.237.21.6 August 18—September 7, and as User:XAL from September 8, and who has added the evidence section at the top.

Sophie is extremely suspicious of my own character and motives, and seemingly convinced that I conspire with her arch enemy YBM. She thinks that I freely delete and shorten her posts, though I've never done either. (I have moved them, along with other people's, to archives, and I have sometimes moved them from Talk:Bogdanov Affair to one of her user talk pages, always explaining why.) Her dislike of me is presumably an outcome of frustration, as English is her third language, she's unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures and technologies, and the first thing she saw me do was block her.

I haven't (as far as my own motives are accessible to me) blocked Sophie punitively, or for personal attacks against myself. I've blocked her three times for disruption of Talk:Bogdanov Affair.

Chronology and examples[edit]

August 26. User:YBM requests on WP:AN that Sophie be blocked for disrupting Talk:Bogdanov Affair. I look at Sophie's entries and block her immediately for 24 hours, particularly for this edit and this legal threat.

August 30. After several warnings, I block Sophie for one week, for disrupting Talk:Bogdanov Affair to the point where she "owns" it by sheer force of the rudeness, length, and irrelevance of her posts. In my block message, I offer to shorten the block if she's prepared to edit more constructively. She replies at great length. "You are arrogant and insulting, and you deny factual proof who incommodate you. GO TO HELL! AND THATS EVEN TOO GOOD FOR A CROOK AND CHARLATAN LIKE YOU". Her message demonstrates misunderstandings, especially the worrying remark "To let people discuss of what article? what are you talking about? this site purpose is not to discuss any article, are you completely unsane?"

August 31. "As for your accusation of my pseudo crimes... do stop try to agress with lies, be more honnest with yourself, at least and say it as it is: you prefer the opinion of YBM, do not like the Bogdanov, thought you do not understand a thing about astrophysic, and you feel nothing but hatress and repulsion about me and what I stand for. i do not think that an aristrocats fan is welcome in a place like wiki who require essentially people having a great sens of honnor, democratie, equality, common sens, and who value ethic. That rules you out, as action speak louder than any words could ever do."[8]

September 7. "You are no more but a marrionette in the hands of YBM... Some people believe that you are just naïve, I think you are too much cooperative to be called naïve... I don't give a shit about your menaces and pretenses at denying to give me any answers because this and that... And again, the first amendement vous dit merde!" [9]

September 7. Sophie registers an account as User:XAL, and her wiki interchanges move to User talk:XAL, remaining intemperate. This talkpage was deleted at one point by Geogre, on the ground of being "in effect, not a user talk page, but, rather, a poison pot",[10] and could no doubt be undeleted for completeness, if desired. OTOH, it's quite ample as it is. Small selection:

September 15—17. User:Geogre deletes User talk:XAL and blocks her for 24 hours, leaving her a message: "It was my determination that it was not being used for any legitimate function. Therefore, I deleted the page under the speedy deletion criterion for attack pages... Having seen warnings, exhortations, and admonitions given to you on more than five occasions, as well as blocks of various duration, I note that your only edits of September 14 were more insults on talk:Bogdanov Affair. That is why I issued a 24 hour block."[[11] She posts several replies to him: "You planned in advance together with your dear friend Bishonen and your new friend YBM a way to cut my throat and prevent me to ever get a word utter again on wikipedia... You have in fact take revenge on me because of my disagreement with the methods of mister Jean-Pierre Voyer, and not because of all those strange reasons that you have advance... You have also wrote sonnet of a very insulting kind on your own talk page, where you ridiculise me and Igor Bogdanov, who is a writer and a Doctor in Theoretical Physics, and where you call me his Socket-Puppet, and have fun about the war you are making against me and the way you manipulate me." [This post marks the beginning of Sophie's persistent misconception that one of the sonnets on Geogre's userpage is about her, and that he has been referring to her on his talk page.] "You are by this way doing much worse than any of the crimes you accused me for on this page, and prooving that your actions were perverted and are part of a personal vendetta against me."[12]

September 15. User:Bratsche writes a kind message to Sophie, giving her many links, and explaining that mine and Geogre's actions have been in accordance with policy. Sophie replies argumentatively many times about the wickedness of Geogre and Bishonene, and I believe Bratsche is still corresponding with her.

September 26. I block XAL for the third time, for three days, with an impatient message. She responds: "Dear bishonen, here you are again, weren't you forbidden to pollute this talk page anymore by your corupted interventions and arbitrary deleeting and bans? ...You are nothing but a little stupid idiot coming and called by ybm as he was ban and not by you! of course."[[13]

Coda[edit]

In case the ArbCom should consider mentorship to help Sophie edit more appropriately, I point out that she is already being mentored by Sam Hocevar, Bratsche, NicholasTurnbull, and Rama, with much effort and little effect. For example, Nicholas and Rama have recently been explaining to her the natural causes for her edits failing a couple of days ago, and that there is no way the evil Bishonene even could stop her posting on her own talkpage or prevent her from sending e-mail; yet I see she's still insisting, in her evidence, that it was me doing it.

Sophie hasn't shown any interest in contributing to an encyclopedia. She has made zero edits to the article namespace. (Kate's tools will only show this for her XAL identity, but it's also true of 213.237.21.6.) Bishonen | talk 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I invite Sam Hocevar, Bratsche, NicholasTurnbull, and Rama to briefly state here, if they like, whether they agree that they are or have been mentoring Sophie. Please note that this invitation to edit in my section is only extended to them, nobody else. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have exchanged several mails with XAL / Sophie, and
  • it is apparent that she considers Bishonen as a personal ennemy
  • she made statements that Bishonen was forbidden to act as an admin on Bogdanov Affair, something which I have been unable to confirm independently
  • she repeatedly complained that she could not send e-mails to administrators, neither edit any page on Wikipedia, and attributed these inconveniences to Bishonen.
  • I made sure that she was not banned, but Sophie said that she could still not edit anything (requiring that I unblock her, though I had said that she was not blocked and told her that if the effect persisted, I was not competent to intervene). I suggested that she start a new account as a legitimate sockpuppet. After a while, XAL reappeared. How the problem was solved and what her understanding of the matter is now is unclear.
As a sidenote, Sophie writes in a mixture of French and English (I have reasons to think that she is Danish, since she edited from Danish IPs and had a .dk mail address, so linguistic critics should take this into account, obviously (and who would I be to criticise her, with my English...)); her mails tend to be rather long; and it is sometimes a little bit difficult to follow the flow of her thoughts. Rama 09:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was contacted by Sophie by email on September the 5th. She had already been banned once at that time, and seemed to be mostly seeking reparation for that block, asking that YBM (who has always been acting borderline ever since, and whose behaviour at that time I already found to be unacceptable) and/or Bishonen be blocked. I tried to calm down everything by asking her no to see Bishonen as her enemy, to avoid interacting with YBM at all costs, and to act positively by focusing on what should be fixed in the Bogdanov article. I did not have much time to devote to her, especially after two weeks of interaction, but have seen little progress on the Bogdanov article side to say the least. Sam Hocevar 20:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Laurence67[edit]

Rama's partiality against the Bogdanovs and their defenders[edit]

I precise first that I have just given up editing the article "Bogdanov affair", owing to the partiality of the administrator Rama against the Bogdanov brothers and people who try to defend them against their enemies' attacks. The word "enemy" can seem to be exagerated in the context of the writing of an encyclopedic article, but unhappily it is exactly the relation between the Bogdanovs and some people who harrass them for more than one year. YBM is their leader, he created one blog and two forums (1 and 2) entirely dedicated to destroy their reputation, takes part to all other forums in which there is a topic on them, created some topics also, etc. He tried to have them fired from France 2 by writing (by e-mail) to their employers, he dreams about having their theses being cancelled, and contacted a lot of scientists to get that - happily without success, of course. Now he has found, with Wikipedia, an ideal opportunity to "express himself" about these people he has choosen as enemies, and unhappily he has found several administrators to help him, the most complaisante and uncritical being Rama.

With this administrator, it has become impossible for me to write anything without being reverted, very often by YBM, sometimes by rbj or others, and with Rama's blessing. He blocked me, the 6 october, because I had too much reverted and not discussed enough... in fact, I had written a text which described the problem of the rudeness against the Bogdanovs on the forums(cited by Igor : #Internet discussions), YBM reverted it systematicaly, I tried to restore it, and I was blocked for reverting ! It could have been just a mistake, and in this case I would have been angry on the moment, and then I would have come back after my 24 hours ; but I didn't, because I knew that it was not a mistake, it was just abuse of power and partiality because Rama has "decided" once and for all that YBM was right, that he was a reference, and that every version which came from the Bogdanovs or me (and perhaps from Catherine) had to be wrong / dishonest, etc. So, I could have continue to write, and to be reverted by YBM, and from time to time to be blocked by Rama... but it would have been a waste of time...

Of course, YBM, as he knows that he is protected by an administrator, writes everything he wants, among others about the "Internet discussions". While blocking me, Rama suggested to mention the problem of rudeness against the Bogdanov on the forums , and YBM did it himself, when he is the main source of this problem ! Of course his version is ridiculously distorted, as if people who have harassed and insulted the Bogdanovs for monthes and monthes were whithin their rights cause of the Bogdanov's behavior... He was encouraged directly by Rama who wrote [14] in the talk page : "To all, try to take YBM's version and include some of Igor's statements", which shows already the partiality : YBM is clearly and officially cited as a reference ! I find that's a limit, concerning a guy who is, according to me, a kind of "stalker", who has nothing better to do than harassing two famous TV presenters... Usually, this kind of people have big problems with law... in this case, he gets a wonderful opportunity to express himself and criticize them as much as he wants...

I add that Rama is also very rude and agressive with Igor : he has always criticism to make to him, systematically, and not to say for the blocking, which occurs a lot to often, and without valid reason. I find that this rudeness and this partiality is particularly well reprensented in the section About the 3RR and Igor version of the talk page. And more recently, again : Igor tried to add some things in the "Internet discussions" part (here), it was reverted by YBM 5 minutes later, and the reverting was justified by Rama, very toughly against Igor. It seems to me obvious that this administrator tries to get the same result with Igor as with me : to put him off editing the article, and encouraging him to leave Wikipedia. A kind of "web mobbing"...

I notice I wrote more or less the same thing on the 29th of September, which shows that the situation has not developped a lot in more than a week : partiality of some administrators, rudeness and agressivity against Igor (without any protest from the administrators), difficulty for Bogdanov's defenders to write anythign on the article without their text being erased or reverted, etc. :

Situation on the 29th of September[edit]

I find that the worst aspect of this revert war is the rudeness and the unfairness with which Igor is treated by some contributors and, a lot more serious, by some administrators, particularly Snowspinner. The latter decided arbitrarily that Igor's contributions were "repeated vandalism", just because he is the subject of the article, so he banned him and, what's more, encouraged the other contributors to revert his posts "on sight", without worrying about the 3RR.

This bias had an ill effect on some other contributors, who interpreted this "blessing" as a right to revert any text from which the least extract could have been in favour of the Bogdanovs. To justify this, any contributor who seemed to be "for" the Bogdanovs was suspected to be a sock puppet, which was an excellent excuse to feel free to revert us as easily and systematically as they did for Igor ! Then, when it became obvious that we were not, they created an idiom for us ("meat puppet") which meant clearly that they admitted we were not Igor himself, but which suggested we were "revertable" as well. A good example is given by "Professor Ying" here : 29 september, 11:24, as he writes by reverting me : "reverting a revert of a Bogdanov's sock puppet called Laurence67". This comment is all the more hypocritical as, whereas I have been officially considered to be a "possible" sock puppet (it was inscribed on the top of my personal page), now my name has been removed from the list after I prooved I was a "real person". And what is more, "Professor Ying" knows me for monthes and monthes as a "forumer" (among others on sur-la-toile.com) and knows better than most Wikipedian contributors that I'm "real"...

Because of this lack of fairness, the article has become excessively negative and partial, all the more as most contributors don't even take the trouble to read the details given by Igor in the discussion page - just like r-b-j, who gets 2 journals mix-up but persists in reverting "his" version of the facts.

Moreover, beside the quality and the pertinence of the article itself, I find also that the administrators should be a little more motivated to fight some serious "incivilities" against Igor, who is regularly insulted, without the perpetrators being sanctioned. One of the worst example : "You are bastards", "You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field." (YBM, 26 September, Bogdanov Affair - Archive 3) ; other version, by r-b-j : "They are hucksters, swindlers, con artists" (r b-j, Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2, 03:26, 17 September 2005), before suggesting to add the category "excrement". More recently, by the same "contributor", whose style becomes more and more hysterical : "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 17:42, 29 September 2005).

Beside these incredible "direct" insults, there are many others, more "discret" and indirect, sometimes in the article itself : some contributors try to insert external links, categories or "See also" whose content is very insultating in this context, like "The Emperor's New Clothes", or more recently : "The crackpot Index", an article about "incompetence" etc. (Bogdanov Affair - talk page - archive 2, 03:26, 17 September 2005). Obviously, this kind of contributions is designed only to destroy as much as possible the Bogdanovs' reputation. How a "real" encyclopedical article, which is supposed to be objective, could be written in such a malicious context ?

That's why I think that the "Bogdanov Affair" must be written / supervised above all by neutral contributor(s), and I find that Maru's idea - looking for a "neutral Wikipedian" - is very good. There can be one or 3-4, as suggested by Igor, I think that their number doesn't matter much, as long as they don't try to settle a score by means of the article, as some current contributors do.

Comments[edit]

Answers to Pjacobi, who accuses me above, in #Only what I've just have seen. :

"evading a short term block" : Yes, indeed, I "evaded a short term block" on the talk page, only to answer to Rama who had blocked me with such an unfairness that I decided imediatly to stop taking part to the editing of the article. I announced this decision in the answer itself : answer.

"Attacking Bishonen and Rama as being partial, in their attempts to moderate" : about Rama, yes, I attacked him as being partial, and I do again, and I will if I can : he did not "moderate", he "favoured" a lot some editors over others, several times, and still does. It is not the role of an administrator.

Concerning Bishonen, I am surprised to read that I "attacked" her, as it is one of the rare administrators whose I found she did a very good job in this affair, who didn't seem to be partial... As you don't give any link, I cannot verify what I would have written against her, but I profit of the opportunity to thank her for her job.

Anyways, all this doesn't concern me directly any more, as I leave. But I just hope that the Bogdanovs will have the right to an objective and neutral article, and not to a malicious one, written by their worst enemies in order to destroy their reputation. I don't think that an encyclopedia should accept such a thing, not only for the subjects's reputation, but also for its own reputation.

Laurence67 14:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Rama[edit]

I would like to comment about XAL's behaviour on her talk page, which startled me and which I find particularly revolting. Since most of the discussion is in French, between David.Monniaux and XAL, I thought that the opinion of a French-speaking third party might be relevant.

  • XAL is making irrelevant statements completely at odds with reality: according to her
    • David.Monniaux never edited Talk:Bogdanov Affair, and therefore is not involved in the arbitration
    • The arbitration deals about "YBM's vandalism" and is "restricted to the people directly involved in the affair"
    • she "Deals with contacts with Stephen Hawking and Holger Bech Nielsen"
  • XAL uses rude language; I am willing to consider the fact that she is not native to explain her numerous language mistakes, but her way of addressing David.Monniaux cannot be explained by a poor command of the language. She uses rude slang words and starts giving David the casual form of addressing ("tutoyement") in the middle of her discourse (a way to give the whole discourse an insulting tone; in contrast, David systematically uses the polite addressing ("vouvoyement")). She further insults David by calling his PhD a secondary school certificate.
  • XAL displays a particularly unarticulated discourse, using offending irony all over. An attempt at translating (adding proper punctuation and refraining from switching from one language to another here and there) would give something like
And what are you doing here, I though that the French and English Wiki never shaked hand, by the word of a French admin? I inform you by the way that this wiki being English, there is a limit to what a state [?] can let say about one of his scientists ou about the validity of its thesis and its universities, this is about politics. According to the level and number of insults and bullocks said on this talk page, and especially on the evening of the invtervention by the remains of the monarchy [I assume that this alludes to User:A. de Parme. (note by Rama)] it wasn't that bad, worse has been seen. It wasn't clever, that's the proof, but frankly, don't you [from here, "you" is casual form (note by Rama)] think that other statements are worse ? And you, what are your references to judge about the veracity and validity of their thesis ? Not your secondary school semantics certificate, I hope ? What more than her do you know to interfer with the article ? From the talk page ? [?] You get all pompous because I tell you that this arbitration is not a discotheque nor a hashish club, and you constantly insist that anyone has a right to intervene on a talk page except...Amélie de Bourbon de Parme? Hey, no kidding ? Can you repeat that with a straight face ? I think that you bicycle chain has brocken two argumentative logic links, your argumentation, it can't go far.
To conclude: don't mess with me, I am in a bad mood.
Your mother-in-law --XAL

My interactions with XAL have left me with the impression that she was not always very coherent and articulated; that she had developed some prejudice against Bishonen over the time; that she could occasionally be somewhat revendicative and directing; but it had always had what I consider to be a reasonably courteous tone. However, I find these gratiutous and violent attacks against a fellow user, especially one like David.Monniaux, utterly unacceptable.

Given the way that she articulates her discourse and her swings of mood, I am afraid that with XAL, we should seriously consider that we could be dealing with someone whose mental balance is not completely sane. Rama 21:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Note that the first action by XAL after her talk page was unblocked was to partially blank it, notably removing the incriminated section [15]. Rama 06:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Evidence&oldid=1089370029"