User talk:YBM

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on my proposal to add a new paragraph titled "Internet Discussions" to the Bogdanov Affair, since your webpage contains extensive information about this particular topic. I'd be intererested in your opinion to see if it's relevant and if yes, if the information is correct. Thanks. Ze miguel 12:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM, I admire your steadfastness and endurance dealing with the two Net.kook brothers. However, this is already stressing me out, so I'll leave this topic for now, perhaps I'll come back if/when they get tired of Wikipedia and go on defending their "work" elsewhere. I'll go and try to add content to less controversial topics. Best of luck to you. Ze miguel 15:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear YBM: I thought I should let you know that you violated the three-revert rule on Bogdanov Affair by making 4 reverts within 24 hours (see WP:3RR for the policy) which, as per policy, carries with it a block. In this case, however, I have decided not to block you, since I thought that you may have been unaware of this policy and that it would be somewhat unfair to do so. I would like to warn you that if you do this again, there is a possibility that I or another adminstrator may block you for up to 24 hours.

I would like to ask you to please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for information on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. No matter how "proven" your claims are that you make in the Bogdanov Affair article, it is necessary that all text is worded in a neutral fashion. For example, sentences like "Igor and/or Grichka used a variety of pseudonyms, all pretending to be great scientists, trying to intimidate people using authority arguments without any scientific grounds and insulting scientists who criticized them", no matter how true you feel they may be, are not worded in a neutral voice and are not written in an encyclopaedic manner. Your edits have contained a number of these, and I figured that I should let you know about this.

I also suspect you may be unaware of the way we deal with sources here on Wikipedia; you may be interested to read Wikipedia:Cite sources for information about how claims must be referenced. In the editing that you made, there were a number of claims that were not assigned to a reference, and I would be grateful if you would make inline references for each claim made - please see Wikipedia:Footnotes for further information about this.

In addition, I have a specific request to make to you; I have recently unprotected User:XAL's talk page, on her assurance to not abuse it, and I would be most grateful if you would please refrain from posting there to avoid leading her to commit violations of Wikipedia:Civility in responding to you. I am only asking this in the interests of avoiding her being provoked into further anger, and I do hope that you understand that it is better to avoid her getting upset over matters on Wikipedia.

I would like to thank you very much for the hard work that you have put into the Bogdanov Affair article, and the work that you have done tempering the Bogdanovs' anti-critical material. If there is any further advice that you require on editing Wikipedia articles, or desire administrative assistance relating to something that has occurred on that page, please do not hesistate to speak to me.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,

NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM, Beside a few points about your version, I find you way to clinging to it no more acceptable that Laurence67's, so I am giving you a 24 hours block for excessive reverts. Rama 07:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear YBM: You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear YBM: Once again, You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affari) are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor, and Ze miguel (talk · contribs), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.

A less restrictive injunction Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Proposed_decision#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is under consideration and may replace the total bans. Fred Bauder 19:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitraton committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair case. →Raul654 03:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 and 2 of Israel-Lebanon ("Use of blogs" and "Editors cautioned", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 3.1 and special enforcement provision 1 of Israel-Lebanon are also rescinded. Any restrictions issued under remedy 3.1 remain in force, and are governed by and may be enforced via the contentious topic designation for the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Remedy 1 of Johnski ("Dominion of Melchizedek semi-protected") is rescinded. Johnski (talk · contribs) may appeal their block using the regular block appeals process.

Remedies 1 and 4 and enforcement provisions 1 and 3 of Lyndon LaRouche are rescinded. Actions previously taken in accordance with the remedy or enforcement provisions remain in force.

The post-decision motion passed from Lyndon LaRouche 2 is rescinded. Any blocks issued under that provision remain in force, and remain governed by the applicable appeals process as if this motion did not pass.

Following a long-running trial, remedies 1 and 2 of Midnight Syndicate are fully rescinded. All topic bans issued in accordance with remedy 2 are also rescinded. Additionally, the two bespoke enforcement provisions are rescinded.

Special enforcement 3 of the Race and intelligence case ("Review of topic-bans") is rescinded. Bans from the Committee may be appealed in the usual way at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Remedy 1 of Regarding The Bogdanov Affair ("Ban on editing Bogdanov Affair") is amended to read:

1) CatherineV (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), Laurence67 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), and YBM (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing Bogdanov affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page.

Remedy 2 and enforcement provision 2 ("Notice" and "Additional combatants") are rescinded. Bans issued in accordance with enforcement provision 2 are also rescinded.

Remedies 2 and 3 of Sathya Sai Baba ("Removal of poorly sourced negative information" and "Removal of poorly sourced information", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 4 of Sathya Sai Baba 2 ("Prior remedies clarified") is also rescinded.

Remedies 5.1 and 8 of Scientology ("Single purpose accounts with agendas" and "Editors instructed", respectively) are rescinded.

Remedy 3 ("Scope of Scientology topic ban") is amended to read:

3) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth. Appeals will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Remedy 6 ("Account limitation") is amended to read:

6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic from a temporary account. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.

Special enforcement provision 2 ("Uninvolved administrators") is rescinded. The normal rules of WP:INVOLVED continue to apply to administrators in the topic area.

Any sanctions issued in accordance with the rescinded remedies remain in effect until appealed. Time-bounded sanctions still expire as if this motion never carried.

Remedies 1, 2, 3, and 5 of Hunger ("Material from The Hunger Project itself", "Negative material", "Current editors", and "Continuing jurisdiction"; respectively) are rescinded. Note that the arbitration policy states The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

Remedy 2 of User:PolishPoliticians is rescinded.

Remedy 1 of Yoshiaki Omura ("Ban for disruption") is amended to read:

1) Richardmalter is indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page.

Enforcement provision 1 ("Enforcement by block") is amended to read:

1) Richardmalter may be blocked for up to a year if they edit Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page.

Enforcement provision 3 ("Enforcement by reversion") is rescinded. The policy on reverting banned editors continues to apply to Richardmalter's edits to Yoshiaki Omura–related pages.

All enforcement actions taken in accordance with the rescinded remedy and enforcement provisions remain in force and are to be appealed as if this motion did not pass.

Remedies 1 and 2.1 ("IP editing prohibited" and "Administrators instructed", respectively) are rescinded. The regular sockpuppetry policy and norms around moving pages apply.

Remedy 1.2 of the Climate change case ("Climate change: contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Remedy 2 of Climate change ("Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded") is amended to read:

2) Effective when this case closes, the community sanctions noticeboard for global warming issues should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions. Enforcement of restrictions issued in Climate change or under the contentious topic designation for climate change may be enforced at the standard location, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (AE).

Remedy 2 of the Gun control case ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Remedy 6 of The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is rescinded.

Enforcement provision 2 of The Troubles case ("Terms of probation") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motions to clean up old remedies