Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
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.
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.
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.
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]).
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]).
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.
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to longevity, broadly interpreted.
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.
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.
3.1) John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
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)
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) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
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.
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.
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.
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]).
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]).
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.
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to longevity, broadly interpreted.
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.
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.
3.1) John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
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)
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) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.