Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the project for other purposes—such as advocacy, propaganda, and the furtherance of philosophical, ideological or religious disputes—is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct and decorum[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain:

1. Still not entirely comfortable with the wording of this principle, although I agree with its gist. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest[edit]

3) Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.

Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, although with the quibble (as I noted on the workshop) that the word "interest" may not be being used in precisely the same sense in each instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process[edit]

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fait accompli[edit]

5) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Treatment of scientific topics[edit]

6) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudo-scientific or non-scientific viewpoints.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. From Fringe Science. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. See also my thoughts about this principle on the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. There is also a difference of note between recognizing and giving a platform; Wikipedia is not the right venue to make an hypothesis known or to defend it — its coverage in our articles must reflect its actual relative importance in the literature. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Sorry for not bringing this up in the workshop, but this fails to recognize that some topics are viewed as scientific by some Wikipedians and as matters of religious belief by others. This lacks safeguards against the deletion of non-scientific religious beliefs that conflict with scientific norms, like Young Earth creationism. By all means, let us cover science as science and religion as religion--had I gotten to this earlier, I would have proposed alternate wording, but it seems too late in this case to do so. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This parallels my comments in the workshop. I'd be glad to work on wording to address this issue in an appropriate case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Good intentions[edit]

7) While good intentions do not justify misconduct, they may serve as a mitigating factor when sanctions are considered. A violation of policy committed in an honest—if misguided—attempt to advance Wikipedia's goals is more easily forgiven than an identical violation committed as part of an attempt to undermine the project.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. yes - I think this is a good principle to differentiate editors who are striving to contribute positively to creating an encyclopedia, versus editors whose aims have entirely diverged from that course. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per my comment on the workshop and Cool Hand Luke's comment below, I might support an alternative formulation, if offered. But the basic principle here is sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. The point being that there are cases where editors will behave in a way they know is improper (whether to make a point, to drive a perceived "opponent" away, or out of frustration). — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Newyorkbrad, although I do see Cool Hand Luke's point. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I could support this ironic backwards version of AGF, but I don't see what it adds. Not many editors who we deliberate upon are trying to undermine the project. Hoaxers and wiki-anarchists are easily dealt with by the community. ArbCom is the domain of sincere, but often misguided, editors who do not back down. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   What bothers me is: this proposed principle implies that one or more of the parties in this case has benefited from such mitigation. I'm not sure if that's Kirill's intent. If it is, I'm curious about what the mitigation evidence consists of. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I still don't see how we can enact this without chipping away at WP:IAR. If someone intends to IAR in good faith and entirely misjudges consensus, that's a mistake, not an actionable misdeed. If they do the same thing again, that's disruption, and if they consistently misundersand or misconstrue consensus, that's a matter of WP:COMPETENCE. This principle smacks too much of prior restraint on IAR for me to be comfortable with it. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Cool Hand Luke and Jclemens.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Jclemens. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not entirely sure how this is being used in this case and I apologize for missing that in the first pass on the Workshop. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes[edit]

8) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. With a nuance: it is not our role to settle such a dispute when the opposing positions are equally supported in policy. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I note Coren's point, though I think it's often more likely that when someone is not supported by policy, their behavior in pushing against community consensus and refusal to let the problem go are what ends up here, rather than the content dispute itself. Shell ^babelfish 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Risker (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute revolves around the existence and content of articles on longevity in general, and around the suitability of certain sources and the alleged conflicts of interest of certain editors in particular.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Specifically, human longevity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Questions of content[edit]

2) The degree to which the materials produced by the Gerontology Research Group and affiliated groups may or may not meet Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, and the degree to which any individual longevity-related topic may or may not meet Wikipedia's policies on notability, are questions of content which lie outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. We are not RSN. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Shell ^babelfish 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with the abstains, but this is fundamentally a reasonable thing to state: whether it's within or outside our sourcing guidelines is not within ArbCom's remit. Whether or not editors have used and properly applied dispute resolution when sourcing issues arose, on the other hand, is. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I too concur with the abstentions but find Jclemens point more persuasive.  Roger ^talk 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't believe that is correct; and I don't believe that the committee has shied away from qualifying content as lying within or outside policy in the past (see also my comment on the related principle) — indeed, that's what Fringe Science was about. That said, it's clear that those questions are not material to the present case and need not be visited further either. — Coren ^(talk) 02:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I consider the repeated use of inappropriate source material (or alternatively the inappropriate use of acceptable source material) to be a behavioural issue more so than a content issue; however, I agree that the notability issue is generally speaking outside of the purview of the Committee. Risker (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. See both ways here. Looks like a job for the RS noticeboard in those cases. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Group affiliations and conflicts of interest[edit]

3) Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. That goes to a general principle, really. Membership in a group might create bias or conflicts when editing about the group, not about what the group does. It would make little sense to bar IEEE members from editing on engineering topics, for example! — Coren ^(talk) 02:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think this should be much broader and a principle, as Coren says, but this is the correct application of that principle. Cool Hand Luke 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. See also discussion on this proposal on the workshop (which reached a conclusion more-or-less similar to Coren's above). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. However, when one wants to edit articles in the area, they need to make sure that their individual and group POV (that this stuff is really really notable) doesn't unbalance the way they edit. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ryoung122[edit]

4) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([1], [2], [3]); sustained edit-warring ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]); and inappropriate canvassing ([20]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with the thrust of the finding, though not necessarily with each and every diff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

John J. Bulten[edit]

5) John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including sustained edit-warring ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]); misuse of edit summaries ([27]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([28], [29]); repeated deletion nominations that could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to overwhelm through sheer volume ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]); and attempts to unduly advance a fringe point of view ([50], [51], [52]).

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. While not all of the diffs are of equal demonstrativeness, I agree with the assessment. I see a long pattern of battleground mentality and the consequent behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 02:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. the mass AfDs in particular could have been handled differently...a single merge discussion maybe. A superficially subtler and less emotional editing style yet all in all problematic conduct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with the thrust of the finding, though not necessarily with each and every diff. See also my comment on the corresponding remedy, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Shell ^babelfish 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger ^talk 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I have to say that the longer I look at these links, the less I'm convinced. For example, this link is a comprehensible summary by Itsmejudith. While it certainly frames the dispute well, it's mostly about Ryoung122. The worst that can be said about JJB from that particular link, is that he's cited to primary sources such as the Bible. That hardly seems inappropriate, however, when one is citing the traditional age of Biblical characters. I can't sanely get from these links to "unduly advance a fringe point of view." The deletions seem to be even more questionable; they're a far cry from truly massive deletion campaigns, few of which have ever gone to ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I think none of the links really support the fringe point, but Fut.Perf's new evidence certainly shows edit warring.[53] Cool Hand Luke 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The "misuse of edit summaries" and fringe advocacy evidence are too tenuous for me to support this as a formal finding. Breach of expectations has clearly occurred, and I don't have particular heartburn with it passing, but I'd rather see fewer, cleaner, well-supported charges in a summary like this. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd have no objection to an alternative, more generalized finding of poor conduct, if that is the consensus, although I wouldn't want the closing to be unduly delayed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to longevity, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Readers of this decision should carefully review the linked page, which discusses the nature of discretionary sanctions. As the bottom line, what this remedy means is that uninvolved administrators are authorized to crack down on editors who engage in any further disruption on articles relating to human longevity after this case ends. This includes parties to this case (some more of whom could have been sanctioned now but are getting a final chance), as well as other editors who may be placed on notice of the sanctions in the future. (The arbitrators have disagreed in the past about whether we should impose discretionary sanctions by linking to the policy page, as above, or by copying the sanctions into the decision for greater visibility. I remain agnostic on that question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Administrators now have the ability to quell further incidents much quicker. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ryoung122 topic-banned (suspended)[edit]

2.1) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted.

This implementation of this topic ban is suspended, provided that Ryoung122 agrees to undergo a mentorship under an experienced Wikipedia editor, who will assist him in improving his conduct to better comply with Wikipedia policies and community norms. The mentor must be approved by the Committee prior to the commencement of the mentorship. The topic ban will be rescinded upon the satisfactory completion of a six-month mentorship period.

If Ryoung122 fails to find a suitable mentor within four weeks of the conclusion of this case, or fails to complete the mentorship period to the satisfaction of his mentor and the Committee, then the aforementioned topic ban will go into effect immediately.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. I am unconvinced that imposed mentorship can give positive results; it is an informal affair that has shown its value in the past only when engaged in voluntarily and freely. — Coren ^(talk) 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. For the reason Coren mentions, this is a distant second for me as well. Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. A more nuanced sanction sort of a topic ban could also be reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice.  Roger ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I an not unconvinced, I am firmly convinced that mentorship will NOT work here. Thus, I prefer below, and not wasting the month of time to find/Six months mentorship. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. If a suspended topic ban was a workable remedy, given the findings in this case, it really should have been explored at a sub-Arbcom level. Like always, topic bans are subject to appeal once encyclopedic work elsewhere has been demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Ryoung122 topic-banned[edit]

2.2) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice per 2.1. — Coren ^(talk) 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice. If mentorship is not viable for whatever reason (and it does seem a bit incongruous for someone who has been editing for so long, though I understand the purpose it would serve), I would favor a more nuanced sanction short of an outright topic ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. First and only Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice.  Roger ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. First choice. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

John J. Bulten banned[edit]

3.1) John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think it's important for me to clarify my support for this ban (and the corresponding opposition to the topic ban below):

   Topic bans have a demonstrated value when the editor being sanctioned is a generally productive contributor that has a topic where — because of sensitivity or personal stakes — they are unable to behave appropriately. By redirecting efforts towards areas that are less contentious, not only do we retain the valuable contributions of that editor, but we allow them to gain further experience at interacting with their fellow editors — thus making an eventual return to the more difficult topics all the more likely to succeed.

   In the case of editors who edit very little (or not at all) outside of the target topics, we end up with much less desirable results: either the editor will be unwilling or unable to extend his editing outside his single topic (in which case we are ending up with, effectively, a site ban) or they do so to remain at the periphery of the topic area or around the editors with whom they had conflicts. In both cases, we end up with a frustrated, probably bellicose, editor who is more likely than not to increase the amount of disruption to the project, and who will be unable to disengage and step back to review their behavior.

   Given John J. Bulten's essentially exclusive editing within the topic of longevity biblical literalness (of which longevity is an aspect), I don't believe a topic ban is appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 02:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's flatly untrue that he's a human longevity SPA (if anything, Ryoung122 may be closer to being one than JJB), but I see you've now revised to say he's a Bible literalist SPA. If that were true, you could just topic ban him in Biblical literalism, broadly construed (as he's not quite an SPA in that topic either). That said, recent actual evidence of out-of-topic misconduct by Fut.Perf convinces me to support a full ban.[54] Cool Hand Luke 03:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Cool Hand Luke 03:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. global issues. (NB: Support any attempt to help editor disengage with some discretion/grace/dignity and move on) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Regretful support at this time. However, I note this editor's suggestion in recent days that he would prefer to withdraw from editing voluntarily, if he needs to separate from Wikipedia for some period of time, rather than be sanctioned by name and banned in an Arbitration Committee decision. Given that he edits under his real name, that strikes me as a reasonable request, and my preference would be to accommodate it. I will readily post an alternative proposal aimed in that direction if my colleagues lead me to believe there would be any significant support for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would also prefer to accommodate such request. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Regretfully. I would support the ability of this editor to have his account renamed, and to have the final decision amended to reflect the change in account name, should he wish; however, I do think that the ban is appropriate, taking into consideration not only his actions in this topic area but in other areas as well. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per CHL's concerns--including the willingness to accommodate an exit, should it be desired. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Cool Hand Luke 03:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

John J. Bulten topic banned[edit]

3.2) John J. Bulten topic banned — withdrawn by proposer, feel free to revive if desired. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
3.2) John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted. Support: Proposed; a more extreme version of the term topic ban that Itsmejudith suggested in the workshop. He could always appeal the restriction, if needed. Both Itsmejudith and David in DC thought 3.1 was too harsh, and I agree. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Not going to un-hide it, but I'd be willing to let the user try a topic ban if the committee as a whole was willing to. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Oppose: Per my rationale at 3.1. — Coren (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Abstain:

WikiProject World's Oldest People urged[edit]

4) WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deletion of evidence sub-pages[edit]

5) Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} templates. Nothing in this remedy prevents at any time any other editor from requesting deletion of the subpages via the Miscellany for deletion process nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Coren, how is this case different from Climate Change?[55] Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My own position has drifted on that matter; although there is also the difference that the CC case also allowed for blanking rather than require deletion. — Coren ^(talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Several of the parties in this matter edit under their public names. The ability to apply and maintain any approved sanctions is not dependent on the continuing availability of these pages. Should any page identifying an editor by name remain undeleted after the usual deletion process, they should be attached to the case with a suitable page title, rather than being left in user space, where they could be modified and/or picked up by search engines; my own preference would be attaching evidence pages in most cases. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Though moving to evidence subpages is certainly an option; either way, userspace isn't the place to keep these. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Copy-edited to add "in their user space" as without the associated principle, this is ambiguous.  Roger ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not sure this is wise. I would rather move the pages under the case pages for the record (noting that arbitration pages are not indexed by search engines). — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. There is tension between requiring deletion of evidence subpages in userspace and our keeping evidence pages in the arbitration cases themselves around in perpetuity. Sometimes the former are obnoxious, hateful screeds, but other times they are simply evidence sections that have overflown the size limits on the evidence pages. On balance I think we would be best served by getting rid of such subpages the vast majority of the time, but whether to require deletion as part of our decision may be a closer question. Will think some more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My take is that they are better as case subpages and that we should review whether case pages do need actually keeping in perpuity. My view is that they usually don't need hanging on to forever though they should be retained where AE, for example, is ongoing.  Roger ^talk 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per NYB. Even if this particular remedy fails, note that individual pages that are "obnoxious, hateful screeds" should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Throw out the bathwater, by all means... Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions[edit]

1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 04:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of decision sanctions[edit]

2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cool Hand Luke 04:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Passing remedies: 1, 2.2, 3.1, 4, 5

Passing enforcement provisions: 1, 2

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: None

Failing findings: None

Failing remedies: 2.1, 3.2

Failing enforcement provisions: None

Last updated: NW (Talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Final comment on implementation notes before case closure) I concur with NuclearWarfare's above tallies, and I specifically agree that remedies 2.1 and 3.2 fail and that their respective alternatives will pass instead. AGK [•] 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. We're done here, I think. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Consensus/majority is clear on all points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

# Hold yer horses... Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment