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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Clarify meaning of 'party'

1) Please clarify meaning of 'party'. On the simplistic presumption that it means "editors whose conduct will be reviewed", I believe it should include dormant and less-involved editors as well, viz., six dormant (Kitia, Kletetschka, StanPrimmer, Bart Versieck, NealIRC, and Cjeales), five less-involved (The Blade of the Northern Lights, O Fenian, Maxim, Carcharoth, and Sbharris per next link), and, prospectively, any editors newly identified with COI or undue influence during the evidence week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#COI list ( current permalink; total 29 or possibly more). A clarification would also be acceptable that indicates that the editors just-listed are considered nonparties but with the same standard of review as parties; if that is the case, I believe the party list should be shorter, by dropping BrownHairedGirl, Griswaldo, and TML to "less-involved nonparty" status (15 parties and 14+ nonparties). Either way I appreciate the appropriate clarification. JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The named editors will be added as parties if and when substantive evidence is presented regarding their involvement in the current dispute. We're not going to add a large number of tangentially involved editors as parties unless we have reason to believe that their conduct warrants review. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Parties (when opening a case) generally means anyone substantially involved in the dispute, or someone who could reasonably have evidence presented about them. We ask that you keep to current issues and issues that haven't been resolved, which means parties who have long been dormant or only tangentially involved at some point don't need to be listed. If during the case we believe that an editor not initially listed may receive sanctions we will ask the clerks to notify them that they have been added as a party. Shell ^babelfish 11:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Said is forthcoming. Thank you, Kirill and ArbCom, for your prompt replies. To my above personal "long list", Timneu22 has identified as the 30th member (under "less-involved"). JJB 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC) My final comment on this is under #General discussion. JJB 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Briefly noting here that I'm aware that JJB has listed me above. As I said in my initial statement, I'm happy to go into more detail about what happened in November 2007 and subsequently if this is needed, but won't do so until it is clear whether it is necessary to revisit what happened then. As I said, I would appreciate it if I could be notified if those matters do come up, but until then I will restrict myself to observing the case unless I think I can help clarify matters. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Clarify validity of self-identification

2) Please clarify validity of self-identification. I have already gotten three revisions deleted by boldly inserting what I thought was fair use of identification by themselves of editors' real-life personas, but despite requests no clerk has clarified proper fair use (Georgewilliamherbert started to). Because conflict of interest is an important component and the validity of using self-ID will affect the direction of the evidence, I believe it appropriate to have a stipulation that certain parties have self-identified. a) Can someone review this evidence of self-identification and verify that this meets a prima facie standard of presentability? b) If it does, could someone boldly place the data in an appropriate place in this case with an appropriate disclaimer (perhaps even the party list itself, although that is complicated if the request 1 response above involves a nonparty list also)? If parts of it do not, could someone have ArbCom email me to discuss how to hide all the (probably large number of) revisions that would need hiding? c) There is one identification case I judged as a trivial non-self-identification, which I have not continued to insert, but which was part remains only partially hidden after several requests. Could someone either verify its triviality or perform the additional revision hiding? I will be happy to clarify this point further if necessary. d) If it is judged that all disclosures were either self-identification or trivial, it would also appropriate for the record to unhide the three hidden revisions. e) What would be a streamlined process for review and insertion of any new discoveries of self-identification discovered during this case, as the present process seems decentralized and ineffective, as already explained? JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Evidence specifically regarding the real-life identities of users should be submitted privately for Committee review, even if those users have self-identified. Any requests regarding the removal of identifying information should be addressed to the Oversight team. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Kirill is correct; additionally, please see the response to your email. Shell ^babelfish 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Provide requested guidance

3) Please provide requested guidance. My email to ArbCom of 10 November, requesting particular private guidance on two points, was acknowledged but now needs substantive response prior to the conclusion of the evidence phase. I will post here when this guidance has been provided if there is no public comment. JJB 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

If you have any doubts about the suitability of particular matters for public discussion, please submit the relevant evidence privately to the Committee for review. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Guidance has been provided. JJB 06:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment on the advisability of unblocking Kitia

4) Please comment on the advisability of unblocking Kitia. Per Kitia's talkpage, Kitia appears to be a dormant editor without significant prospect of disruption if unblocked. Kitia requested accessibility to ArbCom mediation on this issue specifically and repeatedly between Dec 2007 and Apr 2008 (note edit summary), and declined the potential alternative of participating by email during block. I see no reason why a temporary unblock and offer to participate would be counterproductive. JJB 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Kitia has not been heard from for almost three years; I see no reason to believe she is still interested in Wikipedia, and no reason to drag her into this proceeding if she has not expressed a desire to participate. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Kirill. Additionally, it is unlikely that we will be substantially reviewing issues from three years ago unless they directly relate to current, on-going issues. Shell ^babelfish 11:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment on protocols for in absentia trials

5) Please comment on protocols for in absentia trials. With evidence week occurring over a major American holiday, which was an unanticipated result of my filing time, there is significant possibility that Ryoung122 (last edit 05:13, 14 November 2010), whom I consider the "primary defendant", would miss an opportunity to comment. I fully expected that Ryoung122 would have significant input. It would be appropriate to discuss how in absentia trials normally proceed, and what safeguards are made for Ryoung122's potential later participation. JJB 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

JJB is the primary defendant, as he is the one pushing POV-biased editing not based on outside sources, but his personal opinion. Ryoung122 00:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case are expected to respond within a reasonable period of time. Should Ryoung122 fail to do so, we will adopt any necessary findings regarding his conduct in absentia using the normal rules and procedures; there are no special allowances for editors who refuse to participate in arbitration. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

We will take all reasonable steps to ensure Ryoung122 has the opportunity to participate, however, as Kirill said, editors may not avoid having their behavior reviewed by refusing to participate. Shell ^babelfish 11:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

This is moot; everyone has now had more than an ample opportunity to be heard from. Bickering between the parties is to stop immediately. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment on civility vs. advocacy

6) Please comment on civility vs. advocacy. I intend that all contributors should be free to present a civil but very biased case; it is typical in adversarial proceedings to abandon the encyclopedic, neutral tone, in favor of advocacy language that argues heavily in favor of the conclusions desired, with mild rhetoric even being considered a sine qua non. While having heightened respect for process, the process itself is used to compare the points of view each with their best advocate, and even "writing for the enemy" is used adversarially rather than neutrally. To use an example close at hand, the offensive comment "I Initially was inclined to view this as Randy and Sword wielding skeletons theory" with link would be permitted as a statement of reaction to an event under review, although the statement "I am still convinced that is still a substantial factor" would be excluded as a present-tense violation of civility to a current interaction partner and thus as stepping from advocacy into (the outermost circle of) process abuse, although this could be fixed by amendment to "that was a substantial factor". There is slight interrelation between this request and request 5 above. While hard-and-fast rules need not be defined, I invite general feedback on this method of proceeding. JJB 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a general rule, parties are permitted to present their cases as they see fit; gross personal attacks may result in action being taken, but mere negative commentary is permitted within the context of arbitration statements. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accept stipulations

7) Parties, please comment, for the purpose of unambiguous reference to external parties and sources, on whether the following facts and identifications about them can be stipulated or unstipulated by you, in whole or in part (I will notify all current commenters next). These stipulations refer only to external parties and sources, as given by appropriate Internet sources. The primary purpose for their listing and their relevance to the case is to facilitate discussion of self-identified relationships between internal Wikipedia editors and the external organizations and sources named, which may constitute conflicts of interest. That is, these stipulations are intended as no different in neutrality from statements in mainspace, although making no warrant of their notability.

1. The "Gerontology Research Group" ("GRG") operates grg.org. [1]
2. The description and purpose of the GRG is self-identified as being (emphasis in original) "Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers dedicated to the quest to slow and ultimately reverse human aging within the next 20 years." [2]
3. The contact for the GRG is "L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D." ("Coles"). [3]
4. The three Supercentenarian Claims Investigators for the GRG are "Mr. Robert Young" ("Young"), "Mr. Louis Epstein" ("Epstein"), and "Mr. Filipe Prista Lucas" ("Prista Lucas"). [4]
5. The GRG maintains a current webpage called "Validated Living Supercentenarians" ("E.HTM"). Ibid.
6. Yahoo! Groups maintains a current discussion-group organization called "World's Oldest People" ("WOP"). [5]
7. The description and purpose of WOP is self-identified as, "The purpose is to inform the public regarding an area that has been lacking by organizing disparate data into a quantitative approach, while still maintaining a qualitative flavor. In other words, photos will be organized by the age of the individual; false cases will be disallowed or posted separately. It is also hoped this will serve as an opportunity for previously unknown cases to be found." Ibid.
8. Invisionfree.com hosts a current discussion-group organization called "The 110 Club" ("110C"). (Due to blacklisting, rather than linking, I quote the webpage address as being "z3.invisionfree dotcom slash The_110_Club".)
9. The homepage for 110C contains a link to WOP with the link description, "Robert Young's World's Oldest People Yahoo Group." Ibid.
10. Recordholders.org hosts a current webpage called "The Oldest Human Beings" ("OHB"). [6]
11. OHB is maintained by "Louis Epstein". Ibid. JJB 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Blogspot.com hosts a current blog called "Supercentenarian Study" ("SS"). [7]
13. The description and purpose of SS is self-identified as "to write informative biographies mostly about supercentenarians." Ibid.
14. SS is maintained by "Brendan". Ibid. JJB 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
15. JohnJBulten is an editor at [ [8]] and this may establish a POV-COI issue for him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

JJB, please bear in mind that despite certain superficial similarities to a legal procedure and the occasional use of legalistic terminology, this is not a court and relatively few of the arbitrators, parties, or other editors reading your presentation will be lawyers. For the benefit of other readers, the term "stipulation" or "stipulated facts" in this context means a fact that is agreed upon in advance by all the participants as being true, so that there is no need to present evidence to prove it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

• Stipulated by proposer. JJB 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry about the confusion, except as it gives Newyorkbrad an opportunity to shine. :D Yes, my intent is just to determine whether other editors formally agree with (stipulate) the validity of the statements, or whether they have any reasonable qualms about (leave unstipulated) the formulation of any of them; wikilink added above. Just a typical attempt at consensus-building that may be premature and/or off-target; I presume this request may remain open throughout the case. Anyway, parties responding as they see fit is exactly what is appropriate, thanks to everyone. JJB 02:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC) While adding three more late stipulations, I observe that WP:SILENCE, although the weakest form of consensus, does positively indicate that my statement of off-Wiki matters is sufficiently correct to be actionable. JJB 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I hereby stipulate the validity of Ryoung122's additional fact #15, understanding "JohnJBulten" as Ryoung122's nickname for User:John J. Bulten. [9] JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

JJB left a message on my talk page asking me to comment here (and left identical notes on the talk page of eight other editors). I've read the above, but am not sure what comments are being asked for, or indeed what "stipulation" is, though it seems to be being used in a courtroom legal sense here. I'm also unclear as to what criteria JJB is using to decide who to ask to comment. Rather than comment further, I will wait for an arbitrator to comment and provide guidance on what is needed here. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Discuss new diffs from #John J. Bulten

8) I request that an arbitrator discuss matters with me openly rather than risk certain third-party criticisms such as nontransparency. Thank you. The remaining full text of this present request appears elsewhere on this page, and I apologize for not remembering to place the request here at first. JJB 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand that having a finding about you proposed can be a very frustrating thing, but please understand that we're not ignoring the situation, it just takes some time for people to review the comments and respond. Remember, this is the workshop rather then the proposed decision, so there is time to discuss these issues. Shell ^babelfish 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Does it also follow that we should post all of the numerous pieces of alleged evidence that one and only one party in this case sent to us privately? No, this isn't happening. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you're reading too much into it, JJB. If you want to engage with us publicly, all you have to do is engage with us publicly; you could, for example, challenge the premises of Kirill's proposal on this page. There is no precedent for an arbitrator to engage in a Socratic dialog before issuing a sanction, nor should there be. If you have disagreements, post them. Simple. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Thank you very much. Since there is time to discuss, I infer that creating a new section on this page would not be considered dilatory, and that I would be advised to move discussion elsewhere if anyone believed otherwise. Since Newyorkbrad at his talk stated the desire to comment more by today, I infer that boldly starting the discussion would not be considered untoward or impatient, and that I would be advised to slow down if I appeared to be overwhelming anyone by my length. Further, I infer that my good-faith compliance with WP behavioral policy in this discussion of my concerns is sufficient (as, in particular, that my listing my own inferences is not considered pointy, because those facing a ban proposal by ArbCom must necessarily defend against all criticisms attributable to WP's wide policy network), and that I would be advised if I were considered by anyone to be breaking policy. JJB 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My wife remains confident, considering Shell Kinney's statement, that ArbCom will enter the requested discussion with me prior to beginning voting, even though the latter is scheduled for tomorrow, so I guess I can continue to trust the wheels of Justice. JJB 00:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke's rhetorical question has been received. I will govern myself accordingly. JJB 21:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you, your reply is fully responsive to my request. If I have disagreements, I will post them within 30 hours from now, at the bottom of this page, solely for ArbCom's consideration prior to the voting period (if I am sufficiently timely). They will presume familiarity with my analysis. JJB 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

9) I don't know if this is the right place to mention it, but there is an exchange on my talk page between Ryoung122 and myself, that will be of interest to parties and participants. Happy for someone to copy it over if they feel that appropriate. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Refactor request

10) I request that, due to BLP, a clerk immediately delete the sentence Ryoung122 just added, searchable as beginning "JJBulten even stated". (This section was accidentally deleted by Itsmejudith due to edit conflict and restored clerically by me prior to my reading it fully.) The objectionable sentence crosses the line to push a hot button. What I actually stated, and what Ryoung122 seems to misremember, was: "Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: ... Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113." In context, this means that the articles listing only verified cases from these two continents should have been deleted (they were) because they were biased against unverified cases from these two continents, particularly against unverified cases under 113. Ryoung122's novel interpretation of my comment is a severe violation of WP:BLPTALK and requires immediate third-party response, please. JJB 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Copying to User talk:NuclearWarfare. JJB 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

NuclearWarfare, immense thanks for strengthening my trust in the ability of the ArbCom system to respond quickly when appropriate. JJB 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no reason to take such an extreme step as a temporary measure. Shell ^babelfish 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Blocking of JJB. JJB has been a POV-pushing, fanatical editor on Wikipedia who continually flouts rules, intentions, and courtesies. For example, even on this "workshop" page, JJBulten is making lists of those he deems to have conflicts and should be removed from editing, and those he deems not to have conflicts. Of course, JJBulten lists HIMSELF as not having a conflict. Isn't this a conflict, however? Why is he deeming himself to be free of conflict while labeling others?

JJBulten often cites "policy" which is in fact nothing more than his own previous insertion of material. JJBulten discourteously fails to mention changes, instead claiming that "silence=acceptance" when others are not made aware of his sneaky editing. One can easily find examples on this ArbCom page of him self-quoting his own insertions, then claiming silence=acceptance.

JJBulten has dedicated an inordinate amount of time, to the point of obsession, to turn the Wikipedia material on supercentenarians into a battleground between the mainstream POV and his religious fanaticism POV, much like insisting that schools that teach evolution must also teach creationism. Such POV-pushing is highly inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia policies on NPOV and RS.

Articles such as longevity myths have been degraded, and others have been deleted (even if appropriate) after a concerted campaign of deletion by JJBulten that included canvassing, recruitment, posting the same message on multiple AFD's, and attempting to intimidate other editors (for example, making fun of Brendan's age). JJBulten does NOT have Wikipedia's best interest in mind, but is instead pushing a radical right agenda. I say this as someone who has leaned right in politics.

Given the amount of material to pore over, and the amount of damage JJBulten has already done, I propose a temporary blocking of further editing by JJB, pending final outcome of the arbitration. Ryoung122 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I would hope this, being a form of temporary injunction request, would be addressed before ArbCom begins a proposed decision, as silence might be misunderstood by at least some parties. JJB 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Kirill Lokshin's proposals relate slightly to these concerns, I reply briefly to some. Certain subtextual concerns, such as the unproven, never-cited charges of religious fanaticism and ultrarightism, should be dispelled by the mere act of naming them. I have also explained WP:COI repeatedly to Ryoung122, but I repeat for his benefit that I have behaved before ArbCom properly within the limitations of any party to the case.

Ryoung122's concerns about a religion-science battleground are addressed by my analysis of diffs presented as alleging a fringe viewpoint, as well as my analysis of Itsmejudith's evidence below, both of which show neutrality and source reliance in religious topics: it appears Ryoung122 interprets the ambiguous word "battlegrounding" as meaning importing nonneutral or otherwise antipolicy material, which is different from Kirill Lokshin's use of the word. Further, the diffs actually presented to allege a fringe viewpoint show only that I once copied scientific sources from one article to another in reliance upon the last sentence of WP:ONEWAY, and that Itsmejudith had generic concerns about this that have not yet had an actual consensus-seeking discussion.

Of Ryoung122's concerns about the deletions, Kirill Lokshin declined to sustain any concerns except the batching itself. I repeat that my first action was to research the 2007 topic-area deletions, making a significant table for the WikiProject's benefit, and posting my analysis indicating the types of articles that consensus had then indicated as nonnotable as a "common outcome". When NickOrnstein attempted to delete seven articles in various ways in a short period, I seconded each of these attempts, in some cases clerically finishing his own work, regarding NickOrnstein's indications as sufficient consensus for the validity of batch deletion in 2010 (just as BrownHairedGirl had done in much greater numbers in 2007, i.e., 45 articles in one week). All were deleted. One month later I nominated eight new articles based on the "common outcomes" that I'd proposed and that Ryoung122 presumably had watchlisted (based on his contributions to the page elsewhere). None were kept (one was relisted). Based on all these demonstrations of consensus, the following week I nominated nine more new articles, but the behavior of several editors in these discussions, who had not participated in the prior ones, resulted in a sudden shift of outcomes to delete only two of them. I stopped at this point. If multiple nominations overwhelm the system, that same behavior by NickOrnstein and BrownHairedGirl should be reviewed. If Ryoung122 was disappointed in missing the two rounds in which 15 out of 15 articles were not kept, the proper response, as he knows, is DRV – even batch DRV – but not ArbCom sanctions in any view of the evidence. JJB 20:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Uncommented proposals were deleted. JJB 14:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed principles JJB

Biographies of living people

15) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. Case/Climate change

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:BLP applies to me too. Today, RY has repeated a vile slur against me that he once retracted. Any resolution of this case should include increasing sanctions each time the lie is repeated. In my view, the sanctions should increase geometrically, rather than arithmetically, with each new offense. David in DC ( talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Serious accusations

16) Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutely never acceptable without indisputable evidence. " Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participants should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with the Arbitration Committee. Case/MZMcBride 2

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:BLP applies to me too. Today, RY has repeated a vile slur against me that he once retracted. Any resolution of this case should include increasing sanctions each time the lie is repeated. In my view, the sanctions should increase geometrically, rather than arithmetically, with each new offense. David in DC ( talk) 18:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

21) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Canvassing

32) Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Index/Boilerplates

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have added an extra item of evidence about off-wiki canvassion on the invisionfree website. Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

And another thing. I haven't added it to my evidence, as it's just really par for the course. Edit summary in this edit today implies that we should be looking to the 110 Club internet forum as a source. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

IMJ googled her wikipedia user name and found some troubling discussion threads. She's posted them below. My wikipedia user name is David in DC, but until recently, RY has referred to me as DavidinDC. So I googled DavidinDC. Here's what I found. It frightens me.
Now, I suppose frightening me is not, inherently, a violation of any policy. I'm a bit Claustrophobic, but I can hardly blame an actor (or hobo) dressed up as Saint Nick for provoking my unreasonable fear.
But the thread I've linked to is qualitatively different. People posting as "ryoung122" and "Brendan" engage in a detailed analysis of my interactions with editors who edit on wikipedia under nearly identical names. And what to do about me.
When the adreneline-fueled "fight-or-flight" reflex this thread has induced wears off, I may go look for policy to cite. But I'll probably leave that for the arbs. What I do know is that, from this day forward, if I ever again attend an in-person wiki-event, I will try to folow the Old West custom of never sitting with my back to a door. And I will pray that the "ryoung122" and "Brendan" who posted on the thread are not closeted David Berkowitzs or Jared Loughners. David in DC ( talk) 14:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, apparently I should be z 3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?s=53b6783c2e4538a41d4e0adccbcf507d&showtopic=1621 wondering how I live with myself (copy and paste that into your search bar, since it's getting picked up by the spam filter, and search for my username when you click on the link), according to a certain "Brendan". The answer, by the way, is that I frankly don't give a fuck. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Enough is enough

39) When all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community. Case/Climate change

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To be honest, I really don't care much for referring to strict ArbCom rulings as "draconian measures"; it would not reflect well on the committee, who should avoid overly harsh remedies unless absolutely necessary. Regardless, I think this proposed principle is redundant to begin with. Wikipedian Arbitration is widely understood as a last resort measure intended to minimize disruption, and that implies a much more stringent approach than other venues. Master&Expert ( Talk) 08:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact JJB

Locus of dispute JJB

1) The case primarily concerns editing on human longevity and related articles, and, in particular, a series of disputes among a number of editors concerning appropriate content and sourcing for these articles. Several editors have admitted conflicts of interest in the topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Between = 2. Among = more than 2. David in DC ( talk) 19:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Fixed, trusting you're applying the same conscientiousness to all my edits. N.b. membership in GRG, WOP, or 110C, or contribution to OHB or SS, is a conflict of interest. JJB 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Intermittently conscientious about your edits. Hey, Intermittently Conscientious would be a great name for a band. David in DC ( talk) 18:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

JJB, YOU are a conflict of interest. You shouldn't be involved in proposed remedies. If this were a court and you made your case to a judge, you don't get to decide your own case. Ryoung122 01:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Arbs will be using the Wikipedia definition of COI. Membership of a Yahoo! group isn't on the face of it a conflict of interest. Like railway enthusiasts editing articles about trains, it's just a hobby pursued on and off Wikipedia. COI is when someone stands to gain professionally or financially from posting to WP. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Note that the allegations that membership in GRG, WOP, 110C, and contribution to OHB and SS are conflicts of interest are unsourced and have come purely from John J. Bulten et. al. What determines conflict of interest should not be determined by you as you have been unable to provide sources that directly prove that contribution or membership of a certain group or organisation as mentioned above are absolute provenance of COI. 110C is an InvisionFree forum; inactive registrations there are not deleted or hidden; someone could join 110C for one day and make no posts, or a "character of the day". Thus membership at 110C is NOT provenance of COI at Wikipedia, especially as it is a site outside of Wikipedia's jurisdiction and material from 110C has never appeared in any sources posted to articles on Wikipedia. → Bre nd an 14:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You know, if you would just answer the question you have been repeatedly asked (whether or not you are this person running a blog on this subject) this wouldn't happen. Instead you're dancing around it; in a legal court, we'd need more proof, but this isn't a court of law. To give a more obvious example, someone who is a member both here and at Stormfront will most likely have a COI when it comes to articles on white supremacy. If you ask someone if they're the same person on Stormfront and they don't give you a straight answer, then you'll most likely assume they're dodging the question, and that they're trying to hide something; can you not see that's what is happening here? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Previous sanctions

3) Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs) has been sanctioned as the result of separate community discussion: Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324#User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions, Ryoung122 was blocked indefinitely by Maxim ( talk · contribs), who cited "Attempting to harass other users: Disruptive editing, pushing POV, repeatatly inserting unverifiable information".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While that was a long time ago, and it is clear that JJBulten is guilty of wiki-lawyering by trying to broaden the current dispute, the core issue at hand is that the "unveriable information" turned out to be, in fact, verified information.

That's why CNN, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the AP, and other sources continue to use me as a major source for their news articles on supercentenarians.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iBdLIQRxQqEghsDu8536YKOuQjBg?docId=fc753d0075d240bba11838be6f5dc9a6

In fact, the core of the 2007 dispute was a false witch-hunt, much of which was overturned gradually. For example, the Marie Bremont article was resurrected, and the GRG was determined to be reliable.

Now, however, we have a POV, self-described paranoid delusional editor, JJBulten, attempting to push his religious perfectionist POV editing, including the idea that all ages in the Bible are correct, because the Bible says so. If anything is a walled garden here, it is JJBulten's religious walled garden. All this started because someone had the audacity to label an article on Noah a "longevity myth". That's what all this is about: protecting religious mythology from modern rational thought. Ryoung122 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Robert, have you read nothing that editors have said about GRG? About how its fact-checking work is of value, but shouldn't go directly into WP unless it is properly published? Please, for your own sake, go to WP:FTN, search for longevity, and find that editors have taken all sorts of positions, not reducible at all to religion vs science. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

These three diffs contain a very interesting agreement in language that suggests undue influence (note the word "delusional" is original to each), and based on other evidence I suspect the influence flows outward from Ryoung122 (off-wiki) rather than inward. [10] [11] [12] JJB 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Editors' sourcing

4) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have relied excessively on sources whose reliability was, at a minimum, legitimately disputed under the reliable sources policy; edited disruptively by repeatedly and stridently insisting that particular points of view, supported by the works of particular e-groups (including GRG), be incorporated in the articles; persisted in aggressively demanding that POVs be incorporated long after it became clear that there was a strong consensus against it; and/or repeatedly added material not directly supported by the sources provided, or with no sources provided at all.

• Ryoung122 [13] [14] [15]
• Brendanology [16] [17] [18]
• Longevitydude [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
• NickOrnstein [24] [25] [26]

4.1) Ryoung122 proposed at 01:42 on 6 Feb, with the edit summary "removed bias words", deleting the words "single-purpose" and "legitimately" from proposal 4 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If diffs in any section are believed insufficient, more are generally easy to come by. JJB 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The above is just another example of JJB's POV editing. Everything he states above is 180 degrees from reality. The reality is that sources such as the GRG are found reliable by outside mainstream sources and should be treated as such on Wikipedia. The reality is that most of these sources were added by others, not me, and that JJBulten and David in DC have attempted to delete or minimize the GRG, even though the GRG existed before Wikipedia did. In short, JJBulten in particular is attempting to replace outside sources with his COI-/POV-pushing. David in DC has, in particular, made false charges in AFD discussions, claiming "no sources" existed when in fact the articles were multiply-sourced.

Finally, it is clear from outside sources that SOME of the AFD decisions were incorrect, mainly due to the anti-supercentenarian cabal, a group of editors who "team up" to delete material, even when objective, third-party analysis finds that it is properly sourced. Ryoung122 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say that; it's just a matter of changing consensus. It happens sometimes. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Editors' edits to biographies of living persons

5) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have focused a substantial portion of their editing in the longevity topic area on biographical articles about living persons in a fashion suggesting that they do not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.

• Ryoung122 [27] [28]
• Brendanology [29]
• Canada Jack [30]
• DerbyCountyinNZ [31] [32]
• Longevitydude [33] [34] [35] [36]
• NickOrnstein [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

5.1) Ryoung122 proposed at 01:43 on 6 Feb changing the word "single-purpose" to "other" in proposal 5 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is completely ridiculous. JJB seeks to take something that, in the end, is akin to a dispute over a parking ticket to the Supreme Court. Case in point - my "crime" above, my "non-neutral" approach? It was to change a year of birth for someone to the year as cited in the link on the page! It's not even about disputing the source, it's about making sure the reference matches the material on the page, a rather basic function here at wikipedia. Someone had changed a birthyear to an uncited year. I changed it back. That is normally called "vandalism" if there is not even an attempt at supplying a source for this different information. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm unclear why this becomes a "Supreme Court" "crime" in Canada Jack's view. The dispute about Sanborn's birth year (#1 on the list at the time) is well-known to the gerontology group, not a vandalism but a good-faith IP citing an ambiguous source "GRE". It may be true that Canada Jack aligned the material to the reference, which is helpful; what is unhelpful, and illustrated by this diff, is the endemic undue reliance on GRG as a source, cited 83 times in the first footnote of this diff. As I said in finding 4, if more diffs are necessary to carry this point, they shall be forthcoming. JJB 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors' conduct

6) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have made a series of increasingly uncivil comments and cast unsupported aspersions of bias and wrongdoing against fellow editors with whom they were in editorial disagreement, as well as against members of the relevant WikiProject, and have engaged in personal attacks, including via edit summaries.

• Ryoung122 [42] [43] [44] [45]
• Brendanology [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]
• Canada Jack [53] [54]
• DerbyCountyinNZ [55]
• Longevitydude [56] [57] [58] [59]
• NickOrnstein [60] [61]

6.1) Ryoung122 proposed at 01:44 on 6 Feb, with the edit summary "too many to cite", adding the bullet points "JJBulten" and "DavidinDC" prior to the first extant bullet point in proposal 6 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

6.2) David in DC proposed at 03:55 on 6 Feb, with the edit summary " That's Not My Name", changing "DavidinDC" to "David in DC" in Ryoung122's proposal 6.1 above. JJB 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Funny how my "uncivil" comments turn out to be 100 per cent accurate when it comes to JJB. One of the incidents cited above happened THREE YEARS AGO with a different editor, and the uncivil incident was remedied at the time. In terms of Mr Bulten, I simply noted that he has failed to gain consensus for his suggested changes, there was no reasonable prospect of gaining consensus as his concepts had been debated and largely rejected, and that to continue the debate was to beat a dead horse. My closing remark saying I wasn't holding my breath in the hope you'd cease beating this dead horse are borne out by what we see on this page... The "uncivil" party here is Mr Bulten himself who seeks to force changes outside of normal consensus by tarring everyone who disagrees with him as somehow in a conflict of interest or as someone who is hell-bent on ensuring "their" page is not altered by outside parties. Sorry, most of us are just people with too much time on their hands contributing to this great project called wikipedia. I have no clue who Mr Bulten is, other than that he seeks to bulldoze his concepts onto numerous pages and most here don't see his concepts as being constructive. Which is why, I am guessing, he seeks to have those parties who disagree with his approach banned from the pages in question. Which, I submit, is the most "uncivil" approach of all. Canada Jack ( talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, the scope of this case includes the events 3 years ago as far as ArbCom believes relevant; the "remedy" is that Canada Jack was warned (see also my evidence section), which would be fine if we were not talking about recurring behavior (see my finding 7). The other diff indicates current bullying tactics by debate-closing attempts (continued here), charges of beating a dead horse (which should have appeared here first as whether I'm doing so is one topic of current review), possible misunderstanding of WP:CIVIL (unsourced charges), and definite misunderstanding of WP:COI as well-enunciated today by Itsmejudith in the COI section here. That "hell-bent" statement comes dangerously close to a self-admission. JJB 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors' approach

7) The following editors, in addition to many single-purpose accounts, have adopted a battleground approach, characterized by repeated assumptions of bad faith in interactions with other editors; disruption to illustrate a point; tag-team editing unduly influenced by other bloc editors; and/or gaming the system.

• Ryoung122: battleground approach, bad faith, disruption, [62] [63] [64] [65] tag-team edit warring [66]
• Brendanology: edit-warring, [67] [68] battleground approach, [69] [70] undue influence on Brendanology, [71] Brendanology's undue influence on newcomer, [72] point editing [73]
• Canada Jack: battleground approach, [74] disruption, [75] gaming the system, [76] [77] undue influence, [78] [79] open meatpuppetry [80]
• DerbyCountyinNZ: tag-team gaming the system, [81] [82] tag-team battleground approach, [83] undue influence, [84] [85] [86] additional inappropriate removal [87] [88] [89]
• Longevitydude: point editing, [90] [91] [92] undue influence [93]
• NickOrnstein: tag-team edit warring, [94] battleground cold-reverting [95] [96] [97] [98]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Others might want to speak to the degree to which Ryoung122's evidence section was a disruptive use of ArbCom proceedings, in that my two-word primary conclusion under "analysis" has perhaps not given it sufficient weight. JJB 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the message on this page is strong and clear - if you disagree with Mr Bulten, he will search through your entire history on wikipedia and gather "evidence" that you are unfit to be editing the pages in question, no matter how flimsy that evidence may be, and seek to have you banned from editing on the pages in question. Which is why several of the occurrences which involve myself have nothing to do with the dispute in question and are things which happened years ago and were remedied at the time. As for the other critiques, such as "gaming the system," wherein I repeatedly suggest the pages in question should stand until there an agreement on what, if any changes, should be made, I simply ask now: Is this not standard wikipedia practice? No one person, despite their passion for their stance, can presume to have "the" answer. Which is why we seek consensus, especially in the case of the sort of substantial changes sought by Mr Bulten. Other "violations" noted here are simply standard wikipedia practice - reverting changed dates which don't match the dates in the references on the same page; explaining why a claim is not on a page because, as the page stands, it fails to make the criteria. If I explain on a discussion page why Babe Ruth isn't included on the list of top-scoring hockey players, I wouldn't expect that to be cited as "evidence" of some sort of "violation." Yet, that is what I am seeing here. NONE of the above in any way precludes someone from finding other references which may match the information they inserted, or seek to have an alternate authority. Canada Jack ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, the scope was already review of all histories, whether or not some party searched them. Most diffs are recent; 2 are historical and relate directly: (2) Canada Jack at ANI and (5) his open proxying for then-blocked Ryoung122, both of which have been evidence for 3 weeks. Canada Jack also rebuts 2 current charges. (3) "Gaming": in a roughly even split of then-current editors in the "bolding war", Canada Jack bypassed the obvious WP:MOS violation, unanswered by the bolders, by repeatedly arguing from past consensus, in ignorance of WP:CCC (a gaming or Wikilawyering that he continues on this page). Actually, automatic retention of past consensus is a practice only in guideline WP:BRD, for two-editor disputes, and is a wholly superseded argument in a live war unless there is evidence of canvassing. When a block warning went out for whomever would be the very next warrior, the war ceased, but later on the bold was readded as if the war had never happened and the other "side" did not resume the war (in my case, due to waiting to hear from ArbCom here). (4a) "Fails criteria" apparently refers to the first diff of the fourth charge, "undue influence", in which Canada Jack refers to "claims considered not true". As seen passim in Ryoung122's edits, Canada Jack's belief, that certain claims like Li can be dismissed as "considered" by unnamed parties to be "not true", is an endemic violation of V: we are not here to judge Li's claim as true or untrue, but to state properly the POVs of those who believed and disbelieved the claims. While there is some applicability of WP's guidance on "fringe" topics to Li's case, it does not extend to allow the continuance of a projectwide consideration of such claims as objectively "not true", because WP's core practice at V is to waive truth determinations, especially so in fringe cases, precisely to avoid the judgmental positions of either Canada Jack or any counterexample editors who find Li's claim to be "considered objectively true". This denial of V is central to the policy blindness rampant in this case. JJB 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal information and communications

8) Ryoung122 has used the personal information or private communications of others in a manner that could reasonably be understood as intimidation. [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since when is citing the misdeeds of JJBulten "intimidation"? Ryoung122 03:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

When it becomes an attack on editors who have little or nothing to do with JJBulten? The first diff JJ cites above is between you and O Fenian. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

In the examples that refer to me, Ryoung122 is using my self-disclosures, and misinferences drawn therefrom, in an attempt to intimidate me and others who disagree with him, regardless of any misdeeds that may be associated with the intimidation. JJB 20:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ryoung122 and Wikipedia

10) By reason of the foregoing, it is apparent that Ryoung122 is in fundamental disagreement with basic principles on which the collaborative Wikipedia model is founded, and that both he and the project would be best served if he published his writings elsewhere, irrespective of their quality or merits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actually, I am in fundamental agreement with Wikipedia, that is why I am here. It is JJBulten who has degraded article quality on Wikipedia, contesting outside sources that are good enough for the New York Times but not an editor of a religious-right website. I wonder why. Ryoung122 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Single-purpose accounts and conflicts of interest

11) The following editors have effectively been operating as single-purpose and/or conflicted accounts in the disputed topic area. These editors have placed undue weight on selected research by GRG to promote a point of view. In pursuit of their agenda, they have disruptively removed material, edited biographical details about living persons in a fashion suggesting such articles were not always approached with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view, tag-teamed with users, gamed the system, treated the disputed topic area as a battleground, imported an "us vs. them" mentality, and/or repeatedly directed incivility and personal attacks upon those who disagree with them, both in posts and in edit summaries, as noted below.

• 12.144.5.2 ( talk · contribs), editing since 2003-08-04: personal attacks, [105] [106] [107] undue influence and POV in COI article [108]
• Beawitness ( talk · contribs), editing since 2010-12-31: BLP violations [109] [110] [111]
• Berries and cream 33 ( talk · contribs), editing since 2010-09-16: undue influence in BLP [112]
• Cam46136 ( talk · contribs), editing since 2011-12-11: undue influence, [113] battleground approach [114] [115]
• DHanson317 ( talk · contribs), editing since 2010-09-14: BLP violations, [116] [117] tag-team edit warring, [118] undue influence [119]
• Petervermaelen ( talk · contribs), editing since 2009-04-05: major BLP violation, [120] [121] meatpuppetry, personal attack, [122] undue influence [123] [124]
• ResidentAnthropologist ( talk · contribs), editing since 2010-09-17; personal attack, [125] [126] undue influence [127] [128]
• Sbharris ( talk · contribs), editing since 2005-11-13: disruptive personal attack, [129] [130] gaming the system, [131] undue influence, battleground approach [132]

The above is indicative of the typical false accusations by JJB. As exhibited by Sbharris, most if not all of these are NOT single-purpose accounts. In fact, the false accusation reflects poorly on JJB, not those so-falsely accused. Ryoung122 02:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I noted no issues with Plyjacks, SiameseTurtle, or TML. JJB 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Might want to review Plyjacks in light of his re-erection of the the RYoung122 article David in DC ( talk) 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not writing a finding of fact for Plyjacks at this time due to being a single incident, as the discretionary sanctions account for any recurrence. I added "and conflicts of interest" to the heading to disambiguate from the other identical section heading and because of the below comments. JJB 19:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Excuse me?? I put myself in the “COI pond” above [133] so that nobody would think I was trying to hide something. The associations disclosed above with the acccused, are all that there are. Being both a geriatrician and gerontologist by professional training, I’m bound to know most of the people in the field, and bound to have my own opinions. Having your own opinion, however, is not the same as being a single purpose account. In my 22,000 edits on Wikipedia, most are in chemistry, physics, physiology, and Old West history. Only a handful are in gerontology, which is actually my area of expertise more than any of the subjects I normally edit in. So being put in this category “single purpose account” is somewhat galling. One of the many laundry list of “sins” supposedly committed by this list of editors I find myself in here, is promoting an “us vs. them” attitude on Wikipedia. Consider the irony. So having somebody put me in a box like this one, is supposed to make me feel included, maybe?

Okay. I’m not going to bore you-all with a point-by-point commentary of the diffs above, but a few are worth citing in better format. For example, the diffs that label me as “personal attack” are where I point out that two administrators have been abusing their tools. That story is best read here in all its gory glory, rather than diffs with bad markup: [134] Basically back in 2007 a user named Stan Primmer was blocked mistakenly as a sock of Ryoung122 by an admin, and when I pointed out that he was a different person, he was INDEF reblocked permanently as a “meatpuppet,” by another admin. This went beyond error, because it persisted after error was pointed out on the admin’s TALK page (the admin’s response was to erase it). I believe I earned the accusation of battleground approach by saying [135] “Meatpuppetry is not a blockable offense. What part of this don’t you understand?” Later, this admin had the grace to apologize; the other admin never did. The episode provoked a rebuke by user:Carcharoth about blocking for causes unnamed in blocklogs (that’s about as much rebuke as you’ll ever see from Carcharoth, BTW). The experience caused user:StanPrimmer to leave Wikipedia, a bitten newbie, and his userpage was later deleted by JzG. One of Ryoung122 supporters bites the dust! But don’t call it “gaming the system”—that’s only for his supporters.

Before I run out of space (that's a joke), I should make some comments on the suggestion that the verified lists of the oldest-old are some kind of “walled garden” tended only by Ryoung122, the mad doctor L. Stephen Coles, his nefarious GRG (of which I think I'm still a member!), and their house organ Rejuvenation Research (to which I have not yet contributed, alas); and that the whole thing is stinkier and more pseudoscientific than, say homeopathy (and the National Journal of Homeopathy, too). However, such is not the case. There does exist an international database of supercentenarians here [136]. It is The International Database on Longevity, which is hosted at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany. The host of international contributers to the database can be found here: [137]. Peer reviewed publications in demographic monographs using this data, and one published in Experimental Gerontology (not controversial academically in any way) may be found here: [138]. Now, it is true that Robert Young is one of the database contributors, but he’s one of 24 scientists in 12 countries. If this institute’s data are good enough for international demographic publications and a publication on the oldest-old in a top gerontology journal, it should be reliable and notable enough for Wikipedia.

My comment on supercentenarians themselves must be limited here to the observation that their numbers decrease with age with quite predictable regularity (if you include a bump-up in mortality risk from 50% a year to 70% a year, starting at age 114), so long as only those who are well-verified by modern methods (census data “catching” them at early ages, and good birth certificates) are used. Using these tools we can see that the probability of a person making it to 122 is about the same as that of a person growing to a height of 8 feet 11 inches (see Robert Wadlow). And an age of 123 years would correspond to 9 feet tall—just a bit more, but never seen yet. An age of 130, however, would correspond to perhaps 10 feet tall—again small in percent but a huge difference in probability, given the observed distribution. Extraordinary evidence of the existence of such a person would need to be required.

Now, would somebody like to clarify for me what all the arguing is about? A lot of work seems to have been expended on this page. What are we all angry about? What is it, that we'd like to do, or prove? Or write about verifiably? Why don’t I see all this much bad blood (for example) in the pages on limits for human height, or weight, or (for that matter) anything else that is human? S B H arris 07:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

At last these underlying issues are being aired properly. Clearly, Sb, you aren't a single-purpose account. I haven't looked into the Stan Primmer affair, hope to do so now.

Now, as to the 'walled garden' question. Of course lists maintained independently of Wikipedia aren't walled gardens. That isn't the meaning of our phrase at all. It's a very good thing for knowledge generally that there are people out there systematically investigating human longevity, whether it is for the general reader of Guinness or for science and medicine. The question is how that process of investigation relates to our purpose of developing an online encyclopedia. A walled garden exists in Wikipedia if there is a set of articles from which newcomers are excluded. That has definitely been the case here. You only have to look at the silly bolding war, and the way that I and other uninvolved editors have been treated.

Nobody has called Stephen Coles a mad doctor. He is clearly properly medically qualified. GRG has also been treated with respect. Some effort has gone into establishing the extent to which Robert Young can be considered an expert. I still have no fixed opinion about how we should judge Rejuvenation Research as a journal. The last thing that was said on FTN is that it is 'somewhat fringey'. Two things worry me about it: 1) the role of Aubrey de Grey, who seems to want to be a scientific maverick (nb I said a scientific maverick, not a pseudoscientific one), and 2) the very name of the journal. A thorough discussion is needed, among the biologists and medical researchers we have here, and the rest of us will follow what they say. No-one has compared it with homeopathy, that's just a red herring.

International Database on Longevity. Agreed, it's a serious scientific resource. The only possible question as to its use in Wikipedia is whether we can through it get access to records that we can be sure have been fully verified and fact-checked. We need to be able to distinguish those records from communications that are still under consideration. It's just the distinction between published and unpublished, that's all.

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Yes, good principle. I added it to the criteria on the Wikiproject page. If effort had gone into developing that project all along, rather than allowing it to proceed as an extension of the Yahoo! group, a lot of ink would have been saved. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Mr Harris,

I’ll tell you what all the arguing is about. There are two schools of thought here.

One camp believes in the scientific study of human longevity; the other in a theological or ideological view of human longevity.

There is the Bible and there is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Both are important in the human story.

But the editors of Wikipedia have to make a choice. Wikipedia either becomes a cutting-edge online encyclopaedia for the 21st Century based on the scientific principles of observable events, reproducible experimentation and the recording of data; or a body of work contained in the stricture of theology or ideology. The choice is stark. — Cam46136 Cam46136 ( talk) 05:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

So-- this controversy is headed up to be like intelligent design-lite? But why does all this stuff have to be biblical? The Greeks (for example) thought their gods and Titans and even some heros were about 20 feet tall. Back in the mythic past, everything was bigger. And Tithonos was immortal but kept getting older and older...

But look, why should this be a problem? The article on rainbows has a section on rainbows in mythology which explains that it's the bow of god put in the sky as a sign he won't drown the world again. Since rain comes from holes in the vault of the sky, letting down the waters above. Why not some section of the same type in the longevity articles, where we can put Methuselah, and Noah, too. S B H arris 07:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I completely agree. I think there should be articles on Methuselah and Noah. On everything. It’s an encyclopedia, it’s about knowledge. That’s what it’s all about. But there are those who think we should censor information. —Cam46136 Cam46136 ( talk) 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

It's absolutely possible, and necessary to treat the mythology properly. This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on multiple occasions. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

In an act of conciliation, let me say this. In one sense, the story of the Garden of Eden is true. Science suggests that the origins of man lay somewhere in Africa. But recent research on the Human Genome Project has shown that the genetic origins of Semitic and Caucasian man originated somewhere around the head of the Persian Gulf 40,000(?) years ago, see the graphics at the end of R. Young’s thesis: http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=gerontology_theses

Five thousand years ago, the Hebrew peoples established their identity and incorporated this racial and cultural information into the God of Abraham. The God of the monotheistic religions. There is an interconnect between the scientific view of longevity and the religious. That is why research into both areas of study is so important. Cam46136 ( talk) 07:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

Clarifications: Given multiple lines of evidence and multiple parties, I might end up handling individual cases too summarily, and will be happy to explain. The heading "SPA" does not mean all accounts are SPAs, as the text clarifies that some (viz., ResidentAnthropologist and Sbharris) are COIs instead. In Sbharris's case, I thanked him for self-identifying a well-managed COI, and accordingly I ask for no remedy, unless being named as a COI with certain behaviors in a finding of fact is regarded as punitive or remedial.

The specific details of these findings, which relate to evidence presented 3 weeks ago (simply search my /Evidence section for "Sbharris"), are: (1) and (3) In 2007 Sbharris attacked BrownHairedGirl and Maxim, charging admin abuse (comparing their tactics to a Taser), because BrownHairedGirl mistook meatpuppet StanPrimmer as a sockpuppet (meat is agreed by all); he also charged "attack" on the notability of Coles and made an unsourced "assumption" of recruiting among admins tantamount to canvassing; this was, further, disruptive due to its length, its unquestioning advocacy for Ryoung122, its strawman characterization of BrownHairedGirl's view of "the badness", and its novel view that meatpuppetry is not blockable (perhaps interpreted as saying that, since meatpuppetry is not always blocked, it should not be blocked here), when the policy currently states that meat may be subject to sock remedies, which policy was properly applied by BrownHairedGirl. Battleground (us-them) approach is indicated by, e.g., the heading "casualty of this war" and the remorse (repeated in Sbharris's comment just above) it indicates over when a "supporter[] bites the dust!"; Sbharris hints that blocking a meatpuppet might be gaming, but does not consider his antipolicy advocacy to be gaming. (2) During this ArbCom case, Sbharris again made novel epistemological policy interpretations against V, at disruptive length, again unduly relying on Ryoung122's expertise; the diff I supplied did not indicate the full dilatoriness of the discussion, already noted as tangential by David in DC. That is all.

Incidentally: (a) "Mad doctor" might relate to the RSN discussion in which an actual "mad doctor" who contributed to the OED was mentioned, if anyone is interested in looking up that detail again. (b) I don't know of any reliability attack upon Max Planck Gesellschaft or the IDL, primarily because they are so rarely used by contributors (besides myself), who so unduly rely instead on sources more directly related to GRG. More use of Planck would be a step in the right direction for encyclopedicity. (c) Sbharris's speculations about rarity do not appear to accord with the scientific sources (e.g. Gavrilov) quoted in the articles for some years now; but that is a content issue, so I'd rather Sbharris pursue it at, say, User:John J. Bulten/DR2 than here. (d) To answer his apparently sincere question, you might start seeing bad blood in other record-setting areas on the day when Wikipedia contains an article listing the top 100 heaviest humans from Europe, complete with edit-warring over rank (42nd vs. 43rd) and original research about present weight based on previously sourced weight. JJB 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

JJB above writes:

The specific details of these findings, which relate to evidence presented 3 weeks ago (simply search my /Evidence section for "Sbharris"), are: (1) and (3) In 2007 Sbharris attacked BrownHairedGirl and Maxim, charging admin abuse (comparing their tactics to a Taser), because BrownHairedGirl mistook meatpuppet StanPrimmer as a sockpuppet (meat is agreed by all); he also charged "attack" on the notability of Coles and made an unsourced "assumption" of recruiting among admins tantamount to canvassing; this was, further, disruptive due to its length, its unquestioning advocacy for Ryoung122, its strawman characterization of BrownHairedGirl's view of "the badness", and its novel view that meatpuppetry is not blockable (perhaps interpreted as saying that, since meatpuppetry is not always blocked, it should not be blocked here), when the policy currently states that meat may be subject to sock remedies, which policy was properly applied by BrownHairedGirl.

COMMENT: The policy was not properly applied by BrownHairedGirl on Nov. 12-15, 2007 when I complained about a newbie being bitten, see WP:BITE. At that times, the WP:SOCK policy simply emphasized that most "meatpuppets" are new editors who likely do not know what they doing, and not to WP:BITE them. Obviously indefinitely blocking them with that in mind would be against policy and was. The reason it does not appear to be so now, is that user:JzG simply decided (withough any discussion or consensus), to significantly change the meatpuppet policy. He did that with several edits on Nov. 24 [139]. These edits sequentially removed the warning about biting newbies, thus making it apparently okay to bite this class of newbies. And in the same series of edits, JzG added the idea that remedies against a sockpuppet can apply to meatpuppets, based on an old arbcom decission. That gives the option of indefinite blockade of a newbie, without saying, in any obvious way, that this is a new way to hurt newbies that is very much against previous policy, and certainly that is against the spirit of WP:BITE.

I note that there was no discussion of whether or not an arbcom decision can or should reset WP policy. There was also no discussion of what is explicitly being authorized here with these changes, as new "rules of engagement." JzG simply decided that an arbcom decission should reset policy (after all, he was one of the 6 arbitrators in that decission), and he added a reference to it. And that is how the policy came to read as it does today, without anyone exploring the consequences, or the conflict with WP:BITE.

I note this as a clever way to game a system: if one admin does something against WP policy, some other admin may simply rewrite that the policy, two weeks later, without discussion. And under the idea of ex post facto laws, now it's later referred to as "properly applied." You may quote it here, three years later, and then suggest that my reading of policy is "novel." No, it is not novel. It was policy at the time not to bite newbie editors in this way, but was changed very soon after (and no doubt because of my complaint, unless you believe in large coincidences). And (as noted) changed without the debate it deserves. I very much doubt if most experienced administrators would agree with the idea that indefinitely blocking newbie editors who are drawn into a Wikipedia debate, as "meatpuppets," without even a warning, is actually acceptable practice. But, since a discussion of this point has never actually been held, I can't say for sure. I suppose it's time for an RfC. If anyone cares. Which they probably do not, as newbies are a dime a dozen on WP. S B H arris 09:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Assuming Sbharris's data is correct, it does weaken my assumption that his approach was a novel reading of WP:SOCK; but even if JzG adopted policy based on ArbCom without discussion and Sbharris did not know at the time it was their practice, this data does not show misfeasance by JzG or change the depth of Sbharris's advocacy. Sbharris should be seeking consensus at WT:SOCK; and my other points remain as is. JJB 12:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies JJB

Ryoung122 banned

2) Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should include Ryoung ( talk · contribs) if the account becomes active in this area, per ANI linked from COI list. JJB 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If he is banned attention will have to be paid to all previous sock-puppet accounts, and to potential new socks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Topic-ban per Blade, below, should definitely be considered. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

@Blade, thanks, but evidence has already addressed his editing in nonlongevity areas, such as threats to User:Fyunck(click) over tennis, diff 1.1.2.2[26], threats to David in DC over articles related and not, diff 4.3.2, and his date-delinking wars, 11.6, 11.20. There was also a war over whether Wikipedians could opt out of having their total edits counted in a list. Given several of those plus evidence I chose not to include, I found his nonlongevity editing to be of comparable merit to the rest (David in DC, whom I believe came in through the nonlongevity editing, may have further comment). I think I saw a neutral edit to the temperature of Miami. But no, even there he made a statement not in his source ("Miami has recorded a triple-digit temperature once", i.e., exactly once, which is OR). But any good edits are not sufficient to continue permitting edits that require mass remediation, stir up constant controversy, and risk harming the Foundation, just as another application of undue weight. JJB 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not quite sure where to put this, as I'm kind of on the border between party and outsider, but here works as well as anywhere. I'd hate to see Ryoung122 banned, as I think he has some valuable information; I wonder if a very broad topic ban along with a very tight restriction on casting aspersions wouldn't work. I haven't worked with him very much, but what I've seen of him outside of longevity articles (I often lurk for a little while on pages before I start editing them, and I have some observations) is different. If less draconian measures would suffice, I'd like to take that route; however, I also recognize others have edited in his area more than I. I'd appreciate comments from those who have worked with him more both in and outside of longevity articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Ryoung122 to be placed on probation

3) Ryoung122 shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined by the Arbitration Committee, effective on the completion of the ban imposed in Remedy 2. Ryoung122 is prohibited from returning to Wikipedia until the terms of this probation have been set, regardless of whether any other ban remains in place.

Should Ryoung122 wish to return to editing, Ryoung122 may contact the Arbitration Committee via email once six months have elapsed from the date of this decision. The Committee will then open a discussion regarding the terms of probation; this discussion may include the involvement of the community at an appropriate venue. Should Ryoung122 reject the terms offered by the Committee, Ryoung122 will be limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

He will need lots of effective mentoring, and the mentor has to be chosen with care, and changed if there is any indication that mentoring isn't working. Potentially he still has lots to contribute. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

DerbyCountyinNZ topic-banned

9) DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from longevity, per Remedy 5.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is Un-Be-Lievable! Actually given my experience so far of the instigator of this it is entirely believable. This the most exterme case of WP:Wikilawyering I can imagine. In lieu of responding to all the other instances where my name has appeared on here, I will make all my comments here. Unlike JJB I do not have time to trawl through wiki looking for every edit that could possibly be used against another editor(s) so others will have to excuse me. I am also unfamiliar with the process of this page, not being a lwayer, so again excuse me. Checking through the list above I can see the following that JJB has not followed: Purpose of Wikipedia; Editorial process; Consensus Building. The attempted wholescale removal of a large number of regular editors of longevity articles also seems to me to violate Article ownership and also endangers Neutrality. I have been accused of assuming bad faith: this is absolutely correct, the existence of this page proves my assumption. JJB, in seeking to what I can only term "take control" of the Longevity myths, including the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to rename it (initally without consultation or seeking consensus, which I would have thought was paramount in good faith editing), used a bulldozer approach out of all scale to the problems in the article. He repeated the process at Longevity claims which is when I became aware of the attempted takeover (from an edit summary by JJB I believe Longevity myths was edited first). Despite the attempts of Robert Young and myself to get JJB to slow down (See Talk:Longevity claims/Archive 1#Some rework and await consensus JJB refused to do so and continued making wholesale edits as well as, rather pedantically, adding ^{citation needed} tags to every sentence with which he disagreed. After 3 days or so of this approach (which I believe violates Purpose of Wikipedia, Editorial process and Consensus Building) I could no longer be bothered and removed both Longevity articles from my watchlist. The result was, in my opinion, that both articles were worse than when JJB started editing, with the changes being made on such a scale that it was virtually impossible to work out what, if anything, was constructive. Fortunately after a while JJB desisted editing those articles but they are still a mess. It may be that the only solution is to wipe them clean and start again. JJB may even be able to contribute constructively to any reconstruction, by I won't be holding my breath. Which brings us to what appears to the more immediate reason for this arbitration: JJBs contributions to List of the verified oldest people. A petty, pedantic (and described by JJB himself) bolding war. Why? What did this achieve? Did it improve the article? Or did it just waste peoples time? What it did do was provide some useful ammunition for JJB to present here. Let's also take note of a line made on a user's talk page made by JJB "... take a word to the wise: pick your battles wisely. This is a nonstarter. I'm sorry that you've been hanging out with editors who have not followed policy, but now's the time to be a quick learner". I'm not sure which guideline that comes under, but it looks somewhat like a threat to me. It also seems to indicate that JJB was already preparing to "battle" someone (longevity editors perhaps?). Not surprisingly under such provocation, the editor at whom the statement was made is also included on this page. A cynic such as myself might think that such editing was deliberately provocative and the intention was always to see which editors could be brought to this page. So, if it please the court, there you have it. Guilty of assuming bad faith? Yes. Guilty of "unjustified failure to assume good faith"? No, I believe it is entirely justified. Guilty of being uncivil? I'm certainly being far more civil than I would like to be in the circumstances. However if this were a court where justice outweighed legal pedantry this whole case would be thrown out for wasting the court's time. Any issues of whether an expert in longevity should be allowed to continue editing wiki or whether the World's Oldest People members have a COI in editing wiki can be dealt with more constructively than by banning anyone who belongs to it for a year. Which brings me to a final point. I have been accused here of being a "... WP:SPA, broadly interpreted, or to be closely following and supporting the COI" i.e. WOP "...editors". This is incorrect. I have never belonged to WOP. I don't believe a citation which requires a user to join a group is, in most cases, an appropriate source for wiki, and have argued as such here. Yet more evidence that JJB thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must be working together. In short the main problem here is not the people who have been named by JJB, the problem is JJB. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 11:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, but evidence of your being influenced by COI editors, as well as the Fish BLP case and other incivility, was presented and not responded to (except insofar as the charges are admitted). Instead, I am variously countercharged:

1. Attempting to remove editors: yes, I did present good-faith evidence, in the proper place, that editors broke policy sufficiently enough in my mind to take a break from the area (as I am now doing). I made no antipolicy attempts, but presented my proposals procedurally and appropriately (and, now, seem to fail consensus). If instead the charge is that it's automatically disruptive to believe a long list of editors should each be topic-banned, no, not so if supported by evidence; and the relative weight of the evidence in my diffs and in Kirill Lokshin's diffs has not yet been established.
2. Attempting to control: most of my edits added overlooked cases and sources. As long advertised, I tagged 70 sentences, not for disagreement but because they were all unsourced OR inserted once in 2005 by Ryoung122 and remaining such until 2009. A few were eventually sourced, the remainder were deleted without challenge gradually in 2010. At all points I was very solicitous for outside opinion (your unwatching doesn't help me), and incorporated those opinions I received; though "longevity myth" still lacks sources that satisfy WP:RNPOV, this was never recognized by consensus (perhaps due to COI), so I abandoned the attempt for compliance on this point, and similarly when Ryoung122 had other enfoldable suggestions. DerbyCountyinNZ seems to disagree with WP:BOLD, via linking to neutral discussion of my first bold changes to "longevity claims" (where we two amicably agreed on what DerbyCountyinNZ's list of concerns were, and continued the discussion elsewhere). Concerns of "wiping clean" appear to object to the fact that the former outline was Ryoung122's wholly unsourced 2005 self-described essay, while my new outline was adopted from GWR and other reliable sources (Itsmejudith has since replaced this with her own outline, without challenge); these concerns seem unwarranted.
3. Bolding war: First note that many topic-area articles use this anti-MOS convention, not just one. After others initiated the MOS question, I was the one who brought it to the talkpage, where it was revealed that one side relied on MOS and the other on IAR. At that point I advised Brendanology that charging me with "ignoring" IAR was a nonstarter (not on userpage but on article talk), and my generic advice, "pick your battles wisely", in an edit war, obviously means that some such wars are worth abandoning quickly. Advice is not a threat; but when Brendanology objected to another part of this comment as intimidation, I apologized and struck it, as having no such intention.

Could I have handled these things better? Should I have presented less evidence than I believed applicable in good faith, or should I have handled 70 sentences of unsourced OR differently, or should I have refused an attempt to be friendly with an editor who might have realized the folly of holding IAR out of context? I'm open to advice. JJB 18:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NickOrnstein topic-banned

11) NickOrnstein ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from longevity, per Remedy 5.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not necessary from what I've seen. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

But since I posted that, this reversion indicates that some remedy would be appropiate. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Use of blogs and self-published sources

17) All users are reminded that, as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable-source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically an article about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

GRG, E.HTM, WOP, 110C, OHB, SS, and the like are self-published. JJB 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is of utmost importance because of the need to uphold BLP policy. Some editors have consistently confused, and still confuse, the process of expert verification of biographical information, and the sourcing requirements of Wikipedia. The WikiProject should continue to set guidelines for the use of sources. Further advice from arbs or uninvolved administrators would be very welcome. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

IMJ is totally correct. By insisting on meanings of "verify", "reliable" and "notable" other than their definition on WP, a group of "experts," & hobbyists (and their acolytes) have, largely, turned WP into a web-hosting service for charts, graphs, lists, and bios that meet their own standards while ignoring, defying and treating with outright contempt en.wikipedia's. David in DC ( talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Someone on WP:RSN, initially thinking that output of the Gerontology Research Group must be RS (because GRG carries out verification for Guinness World Records), was convinced by my argument that much of their documentation has the character of work-in-progress, and is not actually published, a vital distinction for Wikipedia. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If this was Citizendium, the expert argument would be the be-all and end-all for this argument; however, we aren't Citizendium, and input from experts has to be as well sourced as input from laymen. Self-published sources have a place, but our policy about using them cautiously is in place for a reason, one that is especially accentuated by BLP as has been discussed above. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

JJB, can you explain why you think 1)GRG, 2)E.HTM, and 3)OHB are self-published? Thanks. → Bre nd an 05:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe I can do that, although just reading the definition of self-published should be a strong hint. The GRG, E.HTM, and OHB are organizations that accept data, then analyze and publish said data according to their own research- that is, they're publishing their own work. There's no independent body watching over that the way there is in, say, an academic environment. These types of sources are not so good for indicating notability for reasons I've described elsewhere on this page. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you actually read English? I directed the question at JJB, for him to explain. This was a public question posed directly to a specific person and your interference is not appreciated. → Bre nd an 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You're not making yourself look too good; he's (by his own admission on his talkpage) on a long wikibreak, so I answered your question. Was that so horrible? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I would be happy to hear anybody answer the question, then. "Self-published" in the context of RS, clearly refers to the idea of one person publishing data they themselves collected. If, however, you have a group of people publishing material, that's called an "organization." Organizations publish material considered to be "reliable" by WP standards all the time. This includes all newspapers and news sources, the Guinness Book of World Records (a self-published source if ever there was one) and numerous sports score repositories which call themselves "official" just because they can. For example: [140] for Texas high school athletic scores. Does it meet criteria for WP:RS and WP:V? You tell me. Where is the academic-review check on sports scores?

The bottom line is that there's doesn't exist very much published information out there that means the criterion of independent academic peer review. To pretend that WP demands that, and that GRG material can't be used because it doesn't meet that standard, would be for WP to shoot itself in the foot pretty badly. You can't maintain those standards for most of what's in WP. So I suggest you don't go there. That's never what WP:V was meant to demand. S B H arris 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm just the messenger on this one; I'm trying to state it from John J. Bulten's perspective, since he was the one being asked. My own views on this are more like yours. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, if JJB has gone away and nobody else wants to press this issue, how about we shut down this part of the debate for want of an issue or policy violation? If WP regularly cites material from public organizational journals, newsletters, and e-newspapers, then we're simply debating whether GRG's material on its website is such a thing, or not. It looks like such a thing to me. Does it to you? To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt (talking about a point in a labor dispute), can Tweedledee be allowed by both parties, so long as we agree to CALL it Tweedledum?? GRG's material is verifiable, insomuch as a third party can go an look it up as a reference, including its own sources. Whether GRG's data is RELIABLE (i.e., likely to be TRUE), that's another issue, but not one that can be solved by WP's usual methods, because WP doesn't really have any "usual methods." WP usually assumes that if a primary source has been published (even in e-form on a website) and has been checked by at least one other party for accuracy, and has some mechanism for fact-checking and correction by some other person who is working hard to make sure it is true (rather as a standard newspaper does) then it's reliable enough for most purposes.

Sometimes if a local newspaper reports a whopper, we may have to cite them with tongue in cheek, such as when the Dogpatch Gazette reports that Joey Fisher caught a 50 lb rainbow trout (although it has not been recognized by IGFA). Or that Granny Goodwin just died at the age of 132 (although this has not been investigated by the GRG). Ordinarily such reports do not bring forth vitriolic fights on WP where somebody decides to wonder what the heck does this walled garden "IGFA" think it is, and what gives them the right to question and thereby perhaps impugn the claims of little Joey and his fish, or Granny's wonderful family, who respectively certainly ought to know how how big that fish was, and how old Granny was. But that's what we have, here. The Dogpatch Gazette gets a free pass on WP's RS/V "standards" and somebody who doesn't like some other watchdog organization, perhaps one more widely known, is deriding the skeptical secondary recordkeepers as being "self-published." Well, unfortunately, they're no more self-published than any other "data-dump" or "data-source" (Tweedledee/Tweedledum) of this type.

The amount of argumentation we'd have here, over this particular issue, is just not justified by it. For this, I believe the responsiblity must reside with Mr. Bulten. It would be better to go back to specific claims about specific fish, and (perhaps) whether anybody really cares about 50 lb trout. Or ought to care. Wikipedia's answer is the last kind of question, is that if somebody does care enough to keep careful records, then WP should care enough to summarize them. Quite like Pokémon, or keeping track of how many times a statue of a goat is burned by vandals. S B H arris 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Standard SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Kirill Lokshin's proposals, often helpful and appropriate, do not appear to address concerns raised by consensus at /Evidence. If ArbCom is relying on eloquent silence to address any responses to their proposals, silence would indicate ArbCom believes all concerns, old and new, have been or will be heard and addressed fully by the proposals and final decision; but by silence ArbCom also risks sharper third-party criticisms than otherwise, I believe, as per below.

I respectfully request that an arbitrator discuss concerns with me publicly. My first concern might even be my only one. Namely, the severity of these proposals implies there is no way I will escape formal sanction based on charges not heard in the case: or, generally, it implies ArbCom is free to respond to a good-faith evidence presentation, by a user who has always expressed openness about behavioral change, with sudden new charges that may be enshrined in a final decision any few moments from now, and to which speech in one's defense is chilled by those same new charges. I insist on taking Bob's approach in believing the best for ArbCom: if it remains silent, clearly it believes, for unexplained reasons, that potential criticism is somehow less risky than openly communicating with an open, voluntarily banned editor. I can hope that ArbCom actually prefers that an arbitrator discuss with me this potential for third-party criticism, in the interests of transparency.

I have already begun a voluntary ban from most editing, and its terms are offered in the fond hope that I not be named in the final sanctions (incidentally, mere cross-reference from a sanction to my voluntary ban would not do, as it would invalidate the ban as stated). If my good-faith editing truly contained sanctionable behavior, especially when no party brought any of it up, the link from evidence to finding to sanction should be clear and unmistakable to third parties. In order that third parties do not become unduly afraid to nominate more than one AFD at a time, or to add unimpeached science sources to the "wrong" article, if ArbCom is fully desirous of sanctioning me, it is appropriate to its restorative methodology to enter consensus-seeking discussion. JJB 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, although I usually include this lower down in the section (on the basis of putting what we do deal with before what we don't). As ever, there remains the question of when pushing low-quality content rises to the level of a conduct issue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

The statement is uncontroversial. But if it's supposed to refer to the case at hand, the phrase "good-faith content disputes" is entirely inapposite. Among parties, just on this workshop page, only BNL and IMJ have uniformly displayed good faith. I aspire to their level of discipline. I think I've got about a B- grade on this score. But nothing about the remainder of the interactions among the parties is within a country mile of acting in good-faith. And as far as content disputes go, that ain't, at root, what this is about. David in DC ( talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Treatment of scientific topics

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is certainly true for the science and history articles. It certainly is appropriate to acknowledge religious traditions concerning human longevity—for example, articles about figures from Genesis will certainly mention their heroic described lifespans (although they may also mention modern speculation as to what the term "year" was used to mean in that context). And articles about anthropology and specific cultures can certainly address a people's traditional beliefs or contentions about the human lifespan or the lifespans of their ancestors. That is very different from incorporating ill-documented or speculative claims in other articles as if they were undisputed fact. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with Brad on this. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct and decorum

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Definitely. This might also be a worthy case for reaffirming our principle about what sort of behavior we look for on arbitration pages. In short, is behavior very different from what we saw in this case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The behavior of the parties in all phases (prior to this ArbCom case, during this ArbCom case) falls short of what is expected. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflicts of interest

5) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a good formulation of our policy, and as important, of the reasons behind the policy. I think, though, that the word "interest" may be being used in two different senses here, or at least introduces a latent ambiguity. Not sure yet how to suggest changing it, though. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The COI (as described) is that some wish to give more prominence to those people who are solely notable on behalf of their age. Some would consider this inherently notable. Others disagree. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

In your words, how is a COI relevantly different than a POV? Anyhow, agree with this formulation. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

In this case, interest includes acquiring:

1) wider distribution of self-published, raw data (my oft-repeated "web-hosting" trope), and

2) more prominent acknowledgement of the expertise of the compilers and self-publishers (who I've referred to before as " tenders of the garden." David in DC ( talk) 18:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Noted; this conveys what is intended, I think. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Editorial process

6) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From my review of the area, there was significant breaches of this, some of the AFD's and comments I saw fell short of what Wikipedia requires of its editors. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fait accompli

7) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Edit Warring by Attrition is not allowed. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

On this point I respectfully request that the arbitrators review the content of any of the approximately 15 articles that were deleted for comparison with the AFDs, prior to final application of this point to my deletions. Comparison of articles deleted by BrownHairedGirl in 2007, listed at WT:WOP, might also be useful. JJB 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Good intentions

8) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed, although I don't see actually see any of the parties here as actually "attempt[ing] to undermine the project." (Some of their conduct has had the effect of damaging the project, but that is different from saying that they sought or attempted to do so.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

How does this square with IAR? Jclemens ( talk) 05:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Invoking IAR has never been an absolute defense; that an editor who violates policy claims to be doing so in order to improve the encyclopedia doesn't necessarily mean that such an assertion is a reasonable one, or that the editor cannot be sanctioned for their actions. This is especially the case when the policies being violated are ones fundamental to the functioning of the project; the threshold for necessity in those cases is generally a high one. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 13:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

There needs to be a high bar for IAR, I've seen it used too many times as (I disagree with disputed (action/policy X), so I'm going to sidestep community discussion, invoke IAR, and revert/remove it. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

A diff demonstrating that one party, identified by IP address and his signature "L.E." forthrightly asserts his own primacy over the policies and mission of the project. The adjective "cordially" does little to modify the word "hostile", given the remainder of this post to my talk page and, especially, L.E.'s edit summary. Please note, the IP address in question has been identified as a party. And I think WP:DUCK is enough reason for me to use the male-gendered pronoun "his". David in DC ( talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

In terms of this case, the connection between this and the rest of the decision isn't as clear as it seems to be to the arbs. On the general part of IAR (which is not specific to this case), I've more often than not seen some users insist that discussion was sidestepped because the action is disputed and not because of more important reasons/priorities (such as fulfilling the stated goals of the project). The bar is high, but that some view it as not always reaching its full height (aka fear that an action is going to be overturned before it carries out its full adverse effect) would not justify trying to set the bar even higher. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Exactly so. I might insert "human" before "longevity." Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Sums up the locus nicely. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions of content

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This should be a job for Reliable Sources and its related noticeboard. Not the Committee. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Group affiliations and conflicts of interest

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed. However, I might add a sentence along the lines of: "However, editors affiliated with such a group should be cautious to ensure that their editing remains neutral and complies with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines" or something of that sort. Also, a leadership position in the GRG might give rise to a conflict of interest in connection with an article on the work or activities of the group itself. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

(To Itsmejudith) I'm a member of the Bar Association. Does that give me a conflict of interest on law-related topics? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd say that it might cause a POV to sneak in to one's edits and that such editors should work even harder to make sure their edits comply with the rules/policies of Wikipedia. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I disagree with DavidSirFozzie's presumption of POV sneakiness for affiliated editors. I support this as written, although I would not be opposed to NYB's addition. Everyone has a POV. Just because some have a more formally-informed POV doesn't give them a conflict of interest. Full stop. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

A hobbyist interest in recording longevity isn't a conflict of interest. That would, as far as I can see, manifest itself in membership of the Yahoo! group. Membership of the GRG is, if the group is operating as it said it does, restricted to people who actually research gerontology as opposed to following it. WP:EXPERT is helpful in that case. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Being a member of the New York Bar surely does not give you a conflict of interest on all law-related issues. At least that's the conclusion I've drawn for my own membership in the D.C. Bar. I think we might both have a conflict of interest in an artcle about MCLE, or, if we had a transactional practice, IOLTA accounts. I think the hypothetical a bit overbroad for what we're discussing here.

Try an example closer to the COI and improper EXPERT behavior here: I couldn't cite to a database you and other experts maintained of pending civil forfeiture or health care reform cases at a website called LegalReasearchGroup.org and you couldn't cite to a set of lists and graphs I and a bunch of experts maintained about pending Rastafarian marijuana and free exercise of Santeria cases at a site called www.FreeExerciseResearcxhGroup.org.

The problem is pervasive. We can fix the bios, stubs and line item paragraph bios easily enough, according to BLP, BIO, RS, V, N and a whole bunch of other policies. But all of the lists that rely on the GRG, OHB, and other self-published data, near-exclusively, have turned this encyclopedia into a web-hosting service. Watch the list pages. They're meticulously maintained in synch with these outside lists, and woe be unto the editor not afiliated with these lists who tries to enforce stylistic matters like MOS:FLAG or MOS:BOLD, let alone even the much more important rules about OWN, NOR and SYNTH. David in DC ( talk) 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Unless Sir Fozzie's name is David, I'm perplexed by Cool Hand Luke's recent edit. I've said nothing about "sneakiness". Sir Fozzie wrote "I'd say that it might cause a POV to sneak in to one's edits...." But even there, I think he used "sneak" to describe a subconscious phenomenon. "Sneakiness" is generally volitional and merits disdain. But having ones POV "sneak" into ones edits is usually not volitional. Assuming good faith, it's usually unintended. It may merit a friendly reality check, but ought not be considered wrong-doing on par with "sneakiness". David in DC ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It is. Very sorry. Cool Hand Luke 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The sneakiness is on the part of the POV, not the person. The whole idea of a COI is that it gives the POV a volition of its own, that's in tension with the person's genuine wish to edit neutrally, and can get past the person's defenses. If my close buddy Bob is tried for a crime, I won't be allowed to serve on his jury, because of the likelihood that my association with him will cloud my judgment even if I make genuine effort to weigh the evidence impartially and think I've succeeded. I.e. "the POV sneaks in" is a perfectly good description. 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 12:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment.

It's a lot easier to "simplify" issues into "us against them," but often that's not the case. But I'm going to simplify a few issues here, and where I stand on them:

1. science vs. religion (Ryoung122 vs JJB)

I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-censorship. Wikipedia has room enough to express both the religious and scientific views on the Virgin birth of Jesus as well as parthenogenesis. But insisting that each article must exist in its own WALLED GARDEN is the problem here. The "real" "Walled Garden" of the JohnJBulten vs. Ryoung122 dispute started when someone dared label the article on Noah a "longevity myth". It's OK to call Greek gods myth, but not Biblical material? Is this 2011 or are we still throwing Galileo under the bus?

Don't believe me? Ask JohnJBulten is he believes that Noah lived to 950. Ask John J Bulten if he tried to replace scientific terms with original research (i.e., change "longevity myth" to "longevity tradition", sourced to quack websites or not sourced at all)

2. GRG, OHB, web hosting (Ryoung122 vs David in DC)

In fact, it would probably help the GRG to have Wikipedia delete their lists, since a lot of kids turn to the Wikipedia lists instead of the GRG lists. But my goal has always been science, not personal interest, not the GRG. Science. So if 15-year-olds want to make a list of supercentenarians that conform to modern scientific (demographic) principles of age verification, there's nothing wrong with that, so long as the list reflects outside sources, not OR (original research). Yet periodically, editors such as David in DC have i-voted on AFD pages that claim that articles on supercentenarians have NO SOURCES when in fact they did. David in DC has attacked the reliability of the GRG, using the "self-published" putdown, even though sources such as the New York Times, Tokyo Times, Wall Street Journal, the AP, and Guinness World Records use it. The GRG includes more than 60 Ph.D's and more than 200 persons with a Master's degree or higher, including persons such as Leonard Hayflick, Jay Olshanksy, etc. In fact, it's probably the world's highest concentration of bio-gerontologists. I agree the GRG site could use some stylistic improvement, but that's beside the point. The GRG lists are used by Guinness, by Rejuvenation Research, and by the mainstream media. So to claim that it's not a "reliable source" is little more than wiki-lawyering. The Wikipedia page on "self-published" sources gives the example of "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." But that's not the case here. The GRG has been featured as the topic, for example, of a front-page Wall Street Journal article, and has long-term sufficient standing in the mainstream media to qualify as far more than a source that "anyone" could put online.

As for MOSFLAG, MOSBOLD, and other issues: there are tangential, stylistic issues, mostly addressed by editors other than myself. Yet I must note that Wikipedia's "one size fits all" policies are often counterproductive to Wikipedia's purpose. Aside from IAR, there are reasons to have exceptions to policies which have been developed and changed over time. The use of flags may be prohibited in individual biographies, but make sense in group listings. In fact, might I say this: there's no problem in using flags for sports figures, is there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_association_football_goal_scorers

Wow, listing a flag next to a sports player's name! What an outrage!

I am sure that we can get the other issues worked out, but first there is JJB's personal vendetta against me and anyone who ever opposed his longevity editing (CanadaJack, for example).

I am so sure that JJB is the problem that I'd be willing to accept a mutual topic ban: that is, if you agree to topic-ban JJB from longevity articles for, say, one year, I'll stay clear as well. Because I'm certain that in the long run, this is about more than just me or him; it's about whether Wikipedia is going to allow the secular scientific approach to supercentenarians and longevity be reflected objectively here, or are we going to be protecting the religious walled garden that says that "Christian" material is off-limits from science (but Greek material, go ahead).

With JJBulten, the problem goes beyond his viewpoint, it goes to his methods of operation, which include: --voting for his own AFD's --mass-nominating AFD's with the same text --self-proclaiming himself free on conflict in this ArbCom, while naming others as conflicted (third-party persons should be doing that) --making lists of proposed punishments (third-party admins should be doing that) --trying to stir up trouble by citing long-closed discussions from 3+ years ago --trying to stir up trouble by misrepresenting material of others (for example, I helped facilitate a compromise in the edit count dispute) --self-citing his own policy editing changes, claiming "silence is consent," and failing to courtesy-notify others or first establish consensus --making blacklists of all who disagree with him --launching what he called the Bolding War --trying to re-open the MOSFLAG dispute regarding supercentenarians --fighting against consensus by calling consensus a "walled garden" --mislabelling the policy edits of others as "attacks" --making "friends" lists, adding persons without their permission, and using these lists for intimidating others (ask Nick Ornstein or Brendanology) --putting down others on account of age

Perhaps the most-disturbing thing about JJBulten, the self-proclaimed paranoid psychotic, is that he "pulls back" to objectivity when opposed, but then starts new issues. I note he opened this ArbCom WHEN I AGREED TO TAKE A BREAK FROM WIKIPEDIA, IN MID-NOVEMBER. WHY RE-IGNITE AN ISSUE WHEN I TRIED TO STAND BACK?

So, I'm all for fairness. I have no intention of leaving Wikipedia forever, but I should note that most of the so-called "Walled Garden" of longevity wasn't built by me. I didn't add flags, I didn't add bolding, I didn't create top-100 lists. I did suggest that individual biographies of persons 113+ that were covered in substantial sources would make good human-interest articles. The University of Mississippi thought that Bettie Wilson was someone whose story should be preserved for posterity. I did too.

I could perhaps use a bit of mentoring on "how to be nice" and how to consensus-build. But one thing we can all agree on: we don't have time for these interminable ArbCom disputes. I was busy FINISHING MY SECOND MASTER'S AND OFF-LIMITS when JJBulten decided to launch this ArbCom, after promising to take a break. I am reminded what my stepmother said, "People take niceness for weakness." So instead of taking a break, JJBulten took advantage by launching a massive ArbCom. I didn't have time to respond to all of the allegations. In the past few weeks, I finished a journal article, three encyclopedia entries, took trips to Florida and Spain, and updated the Guinness world's oldest person title. I didn't have time to respond to the meticulous, obsessional accusations, but I'd be willing to bet that every individual one, if you post to my talk page, has a rational explanation. So, for more information, post a query to my talk page, and I'll try to answer it.

One more comment: the impersonation of JJBulten on the 110 Club was apparently by LongevityDude (a 17-year-old kid). The admin of the 110 Club traced the comments to Louisiana, it was not me, I had no knowledge of who was doing that, and when I quoted the comments in January I thought they were being made by JJB. LongevityDude had already been banned from the 110 Club and it may have been done as a prank. That issue is long-closed. So, let's not confuse the many edits by teens (Nick Ornstein, Brendanology, LongevityDude) with issues of science or the GRG. And as for COI, all the kids were on Wikipedia first, finding the 110 Club later online (it shows up in Google searches). The 110 Club is not run by me, I'm an advisor to it, but it's a fan club for persons interested in media-reported supercentenarians.

Ryoung122 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The biggest

It was I, not JJB, that started the ArbCom, Robert. To NewYorkBrad: I was just arguing for a nuanced understanding of COI. David's points above seem to be valuable. Further definition by arbs would be good. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Ryoung122's statement makes numerous false and misleading charges to which a material response would ordinarily be appropriate. I respectfully request comment on whether such a response would be read, thanks. JJB 12:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact and Fiction: OK, Itsmejudith is now claiming to have started the ArbCom. Yet there was NO MENTION of that on my talk page; I was informed by JJB. In fact, checking the records, I see NO EVIDENCE that Itsmejudith started the ArbCom. Checking the "history" of the ArbCom, it appears to have been started by editor NuclearWarfare on Nov. 22, yet we see JJB mentioning it on my talk page on Nov. 18. Regardless, it certainly was not a "lie" to say that I thought JJB started it.

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

   * Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
   * Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So, now Itsmejudith is taking credit? If so, that's another issue: why did Itsmejudith not inform me? Ryoung122 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

My mistake. Sorry all. My memory was playing tricks on me. I think I suggested that this was the point at which an ArbCom case should be taken out and JJBulten went ahead and started it. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Itsmejudith is correct, this is the only sense in which she "started" it. Nor did she accuse Ryoung122 of a "lie". Anyway, since Ryoung122 was a party to this mediation page I assumed he had been watching it. I addressed the remainder of Ryoung122's comments categorically above. JJB 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If this is to be included in the decision, I'd question how much value it actually adds; that is, it seems to just create unnecessary issues/disputes in the future despite what is obviously intended. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Ryoung122

4) Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ( [141], [142], [143]); sustained edit-warring ( [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ( [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]); inappropriate canvassing ( [160]); and sockpuppetry ( [161], [162]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm reviewing the diffs. The two regarding sockpuppetry appear to reflect IP edits. They may just reflect Ryoung122's editing while inadvertently logged out, as opposed to any intent to sock or mislead. (I'd appreciate Ryoung's briefly commenting on this.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

RYoung has never taken responsibility for the edits, has he? But an exhausting, (if not exhaustive) level of diffs here. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Seems comprehensive enough. I would suggest a minor tweak: from "in a variety of inappropriate conduct" to "various inappropriate behaviors".   Roger ^talk 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

John J. Bulten

5) John J. Bulten ( talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including sustained edit-warring ( [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]); misuse of edit summaries ( [169]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ( [170], [171]); repeated deletion nominations that could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to overwhelm through sheer volume ( [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191]); and attempts to unduly advance a fringe point of view ( [192], [193], [194]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

(Re Itsmejudith) I certainly agree that except in unusual situations, our decisions are based on patterns of behavior rather than isolated instances. Unfortunately, I don't believe we are dealing with isolated instances in this case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

There is a pattern here. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

One impatient edit summary is neither here nor there. I'm also not sure that the AfDs were inappropriate. There was and still is a lot of human longevity related material that needs to be examined for encyclopedicity. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Full analysis at User:John J. Bulten/DR2#Analysis of Kirill Lokshin proposed finding 5. JJB 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I respectfully request that we two have a consensus-seeking discussion at your talk about this belief. JJB 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur with BNL. David in DC ( talk) 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Concur with Itsmejudith; to cut a walled garden down to size, it seems necessary to figure out what should and shouldn't belong; doing so will involve some test cases to figure out exactly where the line is. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

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 (suspended)

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

The implementation of these sanctions is suspended to allow editors working in this area an opportunity to voluntarily improve their conduct and the state of the articles. The Committee will convene a review of the area three months after the conclusion of the case to determine whether the sanctions should be rescinded; unless the Committee determines otherwise as a consequence of this review, discretionary sanctions will go into effect three months and two weeks following the conclusion of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Don't see any reason to wait. The parties have been given a significant amount of time to wait, and the behavior hasn't improved. The only thing I see three months giving these folks si a chance to run off any new editors who might pop up there in the meantime. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ryoung122 banned (suspended)

2) Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

This implementation of this 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 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 ban will go into effect immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think Itsmejudith is right regarding the scope of the ban (if one is needed). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, though given the narrow focus of Ryoung122's editing interests, I don't believe there would be a significant difference in practical effect between the two. I very much doubt that Ryoung122 will remain to contribute on topics if he's banned from longevity-related articles. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Incorporating my thoughts above (that I don't see a reason to wait), I agree with Kirill that Ryoung122 would not likely hang around if they are not allowed to edit in this area, so a topic-ban is a de facto site ban. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Topic-ban rather than outright ban, I would have thought. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment.

When I started editing on Wikipedia, even prior to the incorporation of the Ryoung122 identity, Wikipedia was more like Citizendium, where a few "experts" were asked to write articles on topics. Many of those articles were written by Louis Epstein and myself. These included articles on myself and Louis Epstein. Much of this had to do with the Mary Ramsey Wood article, where several very persistent editors insisted that she was "120", even though my census research found her to be 96 or 98 (depending on the 1880 or 1900 census match). The argument then became whether "experts" could add their own research to Wikipedia. Later, I discovered that the Mary Ramsey Wood case was already debunked (disproven) in 1939 by Walter Bowermann. Thus, I was right, even if the arguments over sourcing made a mess of things. Since the 2007 ArbCom raised COI issues regarding my position in the GRG, I have refrained from adding the GRG as sources to articles. The current dispute, rather, dates to 2009 and is one of religious POV vs. scientific POV. My 2005 essay "longevity myths" was based on prior research done by others, but not collated into one source. The Wikipedia article "longevity myths" actually dates prior to that, as it was created by Louis Epstein. My 2005 essay was published as a chapter in my book and my national student-award-winning thesis. To argue that it is not a reliable source is missing the point. The real point is that, since the age verification field was established by William Thoms in the 1870s, when he noticed a discrepancy between the ages claimed in folklore and the maximum ages existing in life insurance records, that it became apparent that the vast majority of claims to ages above 115 were false. Even for the 1980-2009 period, 99% of all claims in the U.S. Social Security Death Index were false, and scientists are in remarkable unanimity that the maximum scientifically observed human lifespan was 122. Even so, I was willing to conceded that age claims in the 123-130 range might just be possible. It was I that added a "longevity claims" compromise, so why are those like JJBulten out there insisting that to label someone aged 950 as a "longevity myth" is POV and offensive to religion? (One could also argue about the Flood covering the entire Earth and getting all the animals on the Ark). JJBulten's edits had the effect of degrading article quality and scaring off others. I note that DerbyNZ is a neutral, third-party editor who is not associated with the WOP or myself but JJBulten pushed him out as well, and also renamed the "longevity myths" category and almost single-handedly overturned scientifically-sourced consensus with his own original-research. The irony is that many Christian fundamentalists attempted to close the gap between Biblical and scientifically-validated ages by coming up with lots of rationalizations such as the vapor canopy theory. The irony is that I am a Christian and have tended to be rightward in political viewpoint, and my own thesis and book carefully respected the Christian fundamentalist viewpoints, offering them as the apologists presented them. Nonetheless, I recognized it was unscientific and, moreover, in violation of Wikipedia's policies on NPOV to give benefit to Christian mythology on age over that of other religions (such as Hindu, Babylonian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.). In fact, it is not too much to say that wherever reliable systems of birth registration have not been in place for some time, the human need to believe ages greater than fact is universal. We see longevity myths such as Thomas Parr exist in the UK in the 1600s, but since compulsory birth registration began in 1837, no one in the UK has even claimed an age greater than 115. Likewise, Sweden saw age claims as high as "147" in the early 1700s, but since 1749, when 100% of the population was required to register births, no one in Sweden has even claimed an age older than 113. But the narrative on longevity myths was about more than the age claim; it was about the human need to believe them because it served to assuage the human mind of that deep dark notion on the back of everyone's mind: that we are all going to die, and is there an afterlife for us? Believing that someone off in a remote village is "150" is comforting to someone aged 50 and having a mid-life crisis. Thus, the discussion of the mythology of longevity abutted sociology. Gerontology is, of course, and interdisciplinary perspective. I should know since I have a Master of Arts in Gerontology degree and a certificate in gerontology. Much of this material is, in fact, published in books, some of which were published before I was associated with them. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/ The name Kirill here is just a coincidence. I only suggested I would agree to a mutual topic ban (assuming the same is applied to JJB) as to make a WP:Point, to see what would happen if I and JJB were not editing these articles directly. As DerbyNZ pointed out, JJB attempted to overturn consensus by threatening other editors (such as DerbyNZ, CanadaJack, Brendanology, Nick Ornstein, etc.). Yet his own way of putting things allows a "method to this madness." He would constantly claim, for example, that "silence is consent" when he failed to inform others of changes he made, or to make edits after citing his own policy changes slipped in. When it became clear that JJB's editing was against consensus, he then launched this end-around approach to clear any editor with alleged affliation (read: interest) with articles on supercentenarians. JJB, against the 2007 arb-com suggestion to merge supercentenarian biographies for borderline-notable persons into "list of (Nation X) format," went around deleting the biographies (even though they were sourced). While some of my charges may seem outlandish or uncivil, in virtually every case a closer inspection of edit histories bears out that I was telling the truth. Some are obvious; JJB has, for example, refused to pronounce his own opinion on whether Noah lived to 950. His personal opinion is not the issue, however. The point was, he was trying to force his opinion as "consensus." The second issue, that with David in DC, again seems on closer inspection to be something that requires David in DC, not myself, to change course. I never advocated that simply being listed on a GRG list conferred notability. Instead, the argument was that being on a GRG list meant that the case was sourced as "validated" according to an outside reliable source, which meets WP:V. Again, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. No one knows for certain who the world's oldest person is, but outside reliable sources deem those who have applied for the title and whose evidence has been deemed passing official muster as "notable." This is, of course, a construction which predates my existence. Guinness World Records started in 1955, and even before that, their research was based on work by Bowermann (1939), T.E. Young (1905), and William Thoms (1879). Thus, I have been an arguer for following tradition, not establishing a new one here. It should also be noted that my "longevity myths" essay pre-dated my promotion to "Senior Consultant for Gerontology" for Guinness World Records (which dates to November 23, 2005) although prior to that, I also contributed to Guinness. The bottom line is: 1. Yes, I could be more civil. But it was JJB who launched "Bolding Wars," tag-teamed AFD's with David in DC, attempted to overturn consensus by intimidating other editors and even adding 15-year-old kids to his list of "friends", when that 15-year-old dared make edits against JJB. From violating 3RR or coming close to it, much of JJB's statements now, including apologies, will only matter if he changes his editing policies in the future. These include: A. Notifying others on the talk page when making edits contrary to consensus B. Not intimidating or threatening other editors, not making long lists of "friends" on Wikipedia, not making edits so fast and destructive that few have time or the patience to counter them. I think, for example, the 9 AFD's on a single day using the same template resulted in some articles (such as Louisa Theirs, Elizabeth Watkins, etc.) that might in fact warrant an article. Louisa Theirs is still recognized, 85 years later, as the first undisputed person to reach the age of 111, and was featured in literature such as that of Walter Bowermann in 1939 and the very first edition of GWR in 1955. C. Not making edits that are "original research" or only cited to "quack" websites (unreliable sites whose purpose is to sell longevity-related substances). D. Recognizing that if he is to make a quasi-legal court on Wikipedia, then he should adhere to principles of ethics, that include not being the judge (since he is an involved party) (why was he denoting who was COI but himself was "free")?, not overwhelming others with reams of material (which is unfair, considering it makes it difficult for others to respond to everything), and not pushing religious-political POV material. JJB has been involved in edit "discussions" regarding abortion, planned parenthood, etc. I don't have the time to investigate further, but it's clear that this is not his only issue on Wikipedia E. Ask a third party when a disagreement with someone else arises F. Don't make frivolous/false charges. The claim that my edit to the Miami weather was controversial is just silly. 2. The long run will judge my perceptions and viewpoints of the situation to be correct, if not the methods. I agree browbeating JJBulten's idiosyncrasies (such as his being a self-described paranoid person) is not helpful, but the irony is that it was my own fear of JJB running off other editors that led me to be assertive in standing up to his "charges." 3. David in DC is a long-time, established editor whose flavor could self-admittedly use adjustment (he gave himself a B- in this dispute; I would say less than that). Accusing the GRG of being biased, self-published, unreliable, etc. is simply his personal opinion not borne out by facts. The fact of the matter is, the GRG has the world's largest concentration of biogerontological minds, and age verification research is just one department of discussion. We find that the GRG (and OHB) material is consistently quoted in the mainstream news media as reliable material. There was ONE death report mistake in the past 9 years, and that was traced to a UK government official, who was thought to be reliable. That's a fairly good track record: over 99.8% correct. No one is saying that the GRG lists establish or confer biographical notability, but they should confer list-ranking notability. Finally, it must be stated that the idea of "Walled Garden" conspiracy here is like accusing the Egyptian protests as controlled by one man. Many/most of the editors here on Wikipedia that are interested in supercentenarians found material in the news or on Wikipedia first, later joining "fan clubs" like the 110 Club, or places to post research results, photos, and news stories (the WOP Group is not a blog, and is not used as one; it is used to post updated material). Sometimes these editors agree; sometimes they disagree. I note that I proposed a very strict, high level of notability for individual supercentenarian biographies: the first test of notability is that the coverage in reliable sources exists outside the local area. Thus, no one made an article on Ruth Bauder Clark, aged 111, of Sarasota. But Onie Ponder, 112, was covered by Time Magazine and other sources. Her notability was not just due to her age but to the amount of coverage in the media (she voted for Obama; she was in great shape and able to talk in interviews, etc). I don't see myself creating any of these articles; I only advocate for keeping articles when "votes to delete" seem to be stacked-deck-unfair and loaded with false charges. Many of the articles for deletion claimed "no sources" when the article had sources. In fact, I note that several Wikipedia editors claimed that my own biography had no sources, when in fact it did: http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm Was this published by me? NO! Was this a "trivial" mention, or a one-event mention (such as a "witness to a fire")?NO! Yet "no sources" exist. Not true, of course, and this is beside the point. The point of the article was that, as an editor on Wikipedia, I attempted to use the Wikipedia policy on self-referenced material from "experts." Yet I see from the Wiki-lawyering that some have commented that I was not an expert, even though it could be argued that I am, in fact, the world's leading expert, and that I am associated with far more groups than the GRG. Rather, it has become easy to use me as the "scapegoat" when much of the alleged Walled-Garden activity was material that I initially opposed. Would it not be better for the GRG if Wikipedia didn't keep lists of living supercentenarians, where the media can copy? Yes. But any Machiavellian thoughts were won over by the usefulness of an article that integrated GRG and OHB material and, pluralistically, included a third section on unvalidated cases. I have been more than fair. Had other Wikipedia editors edited conscientiously and approached the subjects with a little less personal emotion and more objective analysis, there never would have been an ArbCom to begin with. I note that supercentenarian longevity expert Louis Epstein chose to drop out, as his approach was "my way or I'll hit the highway." I, on the other hand, have been repeatedly open to compromise and fairness. Finally, I realize that it has been said that editing Wikipedia is like sausage-making; you don't want to know the process. But I would go further: sausage is made out of poor-quality material, I'd rather have substantive "meat" to begin with. Ryoung122 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle David in DC ( talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

John J. Bulten banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Itsmejudith: I don't think a topic ban would be sufficient, unless it were coupled with a total prohibition on interacting with or commenting about members of the GRG and its affiliate groups; the conflict is, at this point, as much a personal feud as it is an ideological one, and the evidence submitted by JJB strongly suggests that he himself views it in those terms. I am unconvinced, however, that the value of JJB's continued participation in the project justifies the administrator time that would be required to enforce such an unusual remedy. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed with Kirill. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Well, my first take is to be a bit shocked by this turn, to speak mildly. I rather thought that one-year bans related to behavior that was sustained policy violation after warning and mediation failure, or some such ideal. My second take ("denial") is to assume that this proposal is being put forward, out of consideration to fairness to Ryoung122, for the purpose of the proposal being soundly rejected. If it were a matter of proposing a fate for one editor because he proposed it for another, that would perhaps be also understandable. However, I haven't scheduled time to review a batch of new diffs in the next 24 hours, so I'm a bit uncertain of how to proceed; I'm now in the position of my response being likely to be much more closely watched. JJB 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Since this proposes a harsher penalty for myself than Ryoung122, that determination relies either on Kirill's published diffs or on something else. Insofar as the former, it appears appropriate for me to reply with a brief analysis (as with the other diffs), which I intend to post to my /DR2 page and link from the diff graf above. Insofar as the latter, I have no alternative but to continue to trust the principles of Justice to work through both ArbCom and the community at large, and particularly through the comments of the other case parties to these proposals. I am not opposed to yielding up my "nonmop" privileges for the good of Wikipedia, but I would be disappointed to do so without a remedial channel by which I might learn why. JJB 05:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also having a hard time seeing what the grounds for a one year ban are. Granted there may be evidence I'm not aware of, but there's nothing he's done (that I can see) that's so egregious it warrants action like that. Maybe a 1RR restriction would help here, or maybe a topic ban of some sort, but a one year ban seems rather drastic. I'm not really on one side or the other in this- my goal here is to find the middle-ground between Ryoung122's and John J. Bulten's views that we should be aiming for- but I'm more than a little reticent about banning someone based only on the diffs Kirill Lokshin has above. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Topic-banning for a period would be more appropriate. JJB might voluntarily agree to that, even, and would benefit from mentoring. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

@Kirill Lokshin: I have no problem negotiating an interaction ban, topic ban, or mentorship. I have for now given up attempting to remediate the topic area and have now limited my WP interaction to trying to clear my name, so interaction ban would be possible and zero admin time would be required. I do not have a personal feud nor an ideological one, in that all my concerns have been content- and policy-based (Ryoung122 has charged me with conveying certain ideologies, but I request that this be proven, as the "fringe" diffs do not seem to do so); and if ArbCom finds my topic and other concerns not worthy to be addressed, sobeit. If this remedy is adopted, the remaining unaddressed walled-garden situation in the topic area will be at least entertaining to watch from exile. While requesting consensus-seeking discussion at Newyorkbrad's talk (I would appreciate it if you join me there), I ask again that I be treated as an approachable editor who addresses concerns raised to him, even when raised suddenly. JJB 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have voluntarily banned myself from most editing, broadly but with some exceptions and with one contingency. I am open to discussion on strengthening this ban. JJB 06:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully request that Newyorkbrad, David in DC, Itsmejudith, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and 198.161.174.122 (the commenters here and at the associated finding) speak to whether my voluntary ban addresses everything they perceive as sanctionable sufficiently enough to avoid my being sanctioned formally in the final decision, or whether they believe I have truly committed formally sanctionable behavior, with details. Thank you for helping an open-minded editor. I am also commenting more generally at the first point of this proposal above. JJB 13:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, from what I've seen, that you're aggravating. But I think the intially proposed sanction for you is overbroad. I think even your proposed voluntary ban is overbroad. I think you should voluntarily refrain (not be banned and not have a formal renunciation on file, but rather just exercise maximum adult restraint) from any edits involving longevity and wait to see if the community can correctly resolve the issues you've identified. Your work at defining the problem and helping weed out the worst of the violations in the BIOs has been a positive contribution. But at this point, you've done your job as a conscientious editor. Most canaries in this kind of coal mine do their job by dying. But you can fly away from the disaster now and see if the miners and coal company heed your clarion tweet. Your own personal involvement is now a lightning rod. It doesn't help. If the web-hosting for self-published data is still around in a year, you can draw one conclusion. If it's gone you can draw another. In the meantime, you can disengage and find other areas where your skills are needed in this ginormous project.

I also think there's a difference between the problems KL lays at your feet and those he lays at RY's. I think it would be disproportionate to treat them equivalently. David in DC 16:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Escher again? Deep shaft (cough), — Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Bulten ( talk • contribs)

I was very surprised by this proposal. David makes some very sensible points. I also think that most of us could benefit from mentoring so you should consider volunteering for it. Probably not Blade, though, good though he is, someone completely uninvolved. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

My understanding of mentoring is that it is only useful when offered to someone who would benefit from it. Experienced and/or knowledgeable editors have nothing to gain from mentorship since they already know what mentorship is expected to tell them. I would infer that this means Kirill believes that ignorance/inexperience/immaturity is at least partially responsible for Ryoungs behavior and that you (JJB) have too sophisticated a knowledge of WP for mentorship to be of any use. That he (Kirill) appears to be accusing you of fait accompli tactics seems to bolster that assumption as I believe that would require an advanced knowledge of WP process to accomplish. So it’s not so much that you are being punished harsher as it is an understanding that an assigned babysitter is beneath you. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

As usual, JJB may be gaming the system by specifically asking for commentary from those particular editors that he cherry-picked. David in DC tag-teamed with JJB in many AFD's, and David in DC has incredulously described JJB's actions as a "canary in the coal mine." I see myself as the canary, making sure that others noticed JJB's POV-pushing editing which involved, when edit-wars against consensus failed, to make a list of persons to "topic-ban," including anyone whose edits on supercentenarian articles stood in the way of his "one-man consensus." Even appeals to emotion, such as he will be waiting for his wife to see how the "vote" goes, smacks of political manipulation. This is not a "vote," and that's the problem. JJB, associated with a political website where is is an editor (right-wing, of course), was gaming the system on Wikipedia. From "voting" for his own nomination to recruiting others to vote for his nominations, to deleting material that already passed AFD 3-4 years ago or was properly merged into a list-format, then claiming that nothing more than a list was needed (no bios) and then claiming that lists sourced to the GRG or OHB may not be needed...what would be left? JJB cited an unvalidated case example as an article to leave. It was more than clear that JJB had a problem with the idea of validation, much the same way creationists have a problem with evolutionary theory, which is based on scientific testing, not "only a theory" opinion.

Many of the rules JJB violated I was following, even if I was not following prior to 2007. You'll not see cites of me self-creating articles or linking them to the GRG, although under the original formulation of Wikipedia, it was ENCOURAGED, not "deprecated," for experts to participate. While sometimes I didn't sign in, or other times I was auto-signed out after a time limit, you won't see me use sockpuppetry to "vote" for or against anything. My belief is that it is easier to be honest than to cheat, and therefore I don't believe in cheating, lying, or the like. In a few cases, what I said could not be sourced, but circumstantial evidence supported the idea that something may have been said, as was evident from JJB's comment to go after the List of European supercentenarians article next, and David in DC's comments that articles such as List of African supercentenarians might be "biased," even though his pushing for article deletion simply means that the Wikipedia coverage leans even more heavily in favor of Europe. In fact, though, that says more about the state of reliable sourcing in 1900 (when European records were often kept, but records in many parts of the world were limited to nobility). In Saudi Arabia, the exact birth of even members of the Saudi royal family is often unsourced for those born in the 1920s and earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_of_Najd

I think I could say more. Anyone who is fence-sitting and wants a clarification about what I did or others did, simply look at the list JJB generated on this ArbCom and how he failed, as usual, to inform those listed that they were being listed.

Note also that User:Kitia was apparently a teenager from Sweden? or somewhere in Nordic Europe, intimidated off Wikipedia in 2007. I wonder how many were intimidated off Wikipedia again in this latest brouhaha.

Ryoung122 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

WikiProject World's Oldest People urged

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One could argue that the "can of worms" was the behavior that led to this case. If the behavior improved, and the environment improved, then perhaps we could take the next step. SirFozzie ( talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I have done some of that. I contacted WikiProject Biography, but had no replies, possibly because this arbitration is ongoing. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Me too, for the same reasons. One response, on-wiki, was something like "I'm not going to open that can of worms." I wish I could find the diff. David in DC ( talk) 11:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's an example of why this project is inscrutable to all but the tenders of the garden. Why, what is meant by "See recent WOP messages?" the uninitiated are bound to ask. They're not on the WOP Wikiproject page or its talk page. But if one takes the time to search the editor's contributions, one discovers this page with a big bold red disclaimer on top. At the bottom of this peculiar page, one is directed to this user page. Byzantine doesn't begin to describe the folkways and obscure pages one would need to learn, at the feet of the masters, no doubt, to become a functioning member of this still-birth of a wikiproject. Then, for fun, check out these edits. Please note the editor's citations, in the edit summaries. [195], [196]. They're citations to a yahoo group, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People. C'mon.

I understand that ArbCom doesn't resolve sourcing questions. But it's the behavior that's the ultimate problem. If the only way you can edit these pages is to cite to pages like the WOP Wikiproject's subpage of Future supercentenarians, or doublecheck against AMK152's user sub-page, or with an edit summary citing to a yahoo group, the problem is not ultimately a sourcing problem. Its OWNership to such a degree that WP is simply a web-hosting service for data compiled and self-published by the "experts". Why on earth would any sensible person try to break through this logjam, especially in the face of seeming indifference to the behavior by the community and its dispute resolution system. I note, in passing, that all of the edits I've cited above were made today. It's why only certifiable nutcases like me dare tread here. And it's why, unless the community and its sane voices help lead the way, the advice 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...' sounds naive. Or even abdicatory. David in DC ( talk) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Alternatively or in addition to this, perhaps an arbitrator would be willing to get involved in this task. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Evidence sub-pages in user space

1) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard,   Roger ^talk 08:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Deletion of evidence sub-pages

1) Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard,   Roger ^talk 08:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Unsurprisingly, I think this makes a lot of sense. David in DC ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are actually TWO major issues here. For convenience, editorial foes chose to "merge" their disputes in a tag-team. That tag-team was mostly John J Bulten and David in DC.

We have already well-discussed John J Bulten's misactivities, but not enough attention has been directed to David in DC.

Thus, I am putting this below:

When we see edits from David in DC like this:

"If the web-hosting for self-published data is still around in a year, you can draw one conclusion."

David in DC comment to John J Bulten

This is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The Gerontology Research Group has been around longer than Wikipedia has. Wikipedia pages have copied the GRG, it has not been the GRG pushing to have Wikipedia "mirror" it.

David in DC's mis-use of the term "self-published" is, ironically, self-delusional.

I see no reason why the GRG should qualify as a "self-published" source. I, for one, do not "publish" the material. It's not me online "publishing" this material. Dr. Coles publishes it.

Also, the Wikipedia policy on "self-published sources" is in regards to non-notable entities that have failed to establish or attain mainstream community consensus, but are instead materials put up by "fringe" persons.

Checking the GRG material on supercentenarians, the GRG material on supercentenarians is used by Guinness World Records and quoted by the AP, APF, UPI, and major news publications such as the New York Times. We have seen the GRG be featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The problem here is NOT the GRG. The problem here are editors such as David in DC who, in violation of Wikipedia rules and policies, replace reliable sources with their self-appointed, anti-GRG bias to decide for themselves what is or what is not notable. That is the problem. David in DC has literally "voted" for deletion for articles by claiming they are not sourced, even if they were. As usual, most of the time the information in the articles was correct, and the sources are often NOT the GRG. For example, Louisa Thiers:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-mil00154

Newsclippings about and tributes to Louisa K. Thiers (1814-1926), credited as the oldest person to have lived in Wisconsin and the last true daughter of an American Revolutionary War soldier, also are included.

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/william-george-bruce/history-of-milwaukee-city-and-county-volume-2-cur/page-39-history-of-milwaukee-city-and-county-volume-2-cur.shtml

Not only did sources exist that predated the GRG and Wikipedia, but Ms. Thiers has been well-covered in the scientific literature as well as the popular press (indeed, mentioned in the very first edition of Guinness World Records 1955). Yet editors such as David in DC saw fit to delete the article on Louisa Thiers by claiming it was some kind of GRG conspiracy to inform the world about how long verified supercentenarians really live. Oh wait, it's that the purpose of encyclopedia articles on supercentenarians?

Ryoung122 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's yet more of the same from David in DC:

1) wider distribution of self-published, raw data (my oft-repeated "web-hosting" trope),

Excuse him, the GRG data is NOT "self-published," it is NOT "raw data."

If someone sends in an application ("my grandma is 110!") and the GRG reviews the data, saves the records, and publishes the photo, how can that be self-published? The GRG is a non-profit entity that is, in fact, governed by laws such as privacy laws, which means we keep actual documents sent to us by family members private.

I've been concerned, from the beginning, with David in DC's editing, in part because he had a personal third-party dispute with me that had nothing to do with supercentenarians and then he comes on here and starts deleting material, falsely claiming sources don't exist when they do, and using terms such as "raw data," "data dump," "self-published" and worse. In short, David in DC is allowing his personal opinions to get in the way of the facts.

Checking out, for example, this AFD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

   * Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
   * Delete Actually a ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported [1]. But that seems to me like an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. At any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. (Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [2] [3] [4], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, David in DC made false aspersions ("no sources"), then suggested the GRG was not reliable, then suggested that the GRG was biased against non-Western sources. Yet checking the evidence, who helped to delete the articles on African supercentenarians and South American supercentenarians? David in DC and JJBulten. All of this is easy to find on Wikipedia, if one had all the time in the world available to hunt it down.

Ryoung122 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe a strangely simple explanation exists for the vehemence of some of the argumentation in this area. Sadly, while it's been aired on my talk page in an exchange between RY and me, (with incisive, brief commentary by Tomwsulcer), it's not been taken to heart. I think it's worth reviewing David in DC ( talk) 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

David in DC, a lot of what you say is negative aspersions ("self-published, "data dump") that are not only negative in character but misrepresentative of both truth and verifiability.

The GRG is NOT "self-published" according to Wikipedia's definitions. It is NOT some "blog" where someone puts their great-grandma on it and declares her the world's oldest person. A third-party family might send in a claim to the GRG, where the evidence must be checked for factual verification (is the document original proof of birth? Is there proof that the person alive today is the person in the record?, etc.). So, your aspersions that the GRG is "self-published" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. To be more blunt: you're wrong.

You also claim that the GRG is not a reliable source, even though it's reliable enough for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Times, etc. Who appointed you self-appointed arbiter, to override outside-source determination of reliability? In short, your edits are therefore contradictory to Wiki policies. Notability is conferred or not conferred by outside sources, NOT your personal opinion of the GRG, OHB, or the like. Ryoung122 22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

This is how the reliability of GRG web pages was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Can't you see that both David and I tried our best to get the question properly aired? Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, now can you answer the following; how is it that the GRG inherently confers notability? Not everyone who gets mentioned in the New York Times is notable; we don't have articles on every single person in the police blotter or every corporate official who gives an interview with them. I'm not sure whether the refusal to get the point here is real or contrived, but even assuming it's a reliable source, not everyone reported by the GRG is notable; that tautology doesn't hold up for the reason I said above. As Itsmejudith pointed out, RSN had a look at it, and my experience with the people there (having used that noticeboard for a couple of unrelated issues) is that they're generally spot on.

I don't think David in DC is saying that the GRG, OHB, etc. are unreliable sources, but that they in and of themselves don't make a subject notable. Tase Matsunaga, for instance, is notable not only because she lived to be 114, but she also received coverage in other secondary sources. The GRG is definitely a primary source (as it takes data and puts it all together, the same way looking at a military munitions report would be) dependent on how many supercentenarians there are, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it means we have to be more careful using it. To give you an example from my history work; I am very interested in the Ainu people of Japan. Until very recently, Ainu had no writing, and what is written largely hasn't been translated at all, much less into English, so I have to go on what Japanese people wrote about the Ainu. The Japanese had an obvious viewpoint and an obvious agenda when writing about the Ainu (in their case, to marginalize the Ainu as much as possible), so I have to go through and separate the facts from the propaganda bullshit, of which there is plenty. I certainly don't think the GRG puts out propaganda bullshit, but it definitely has an agenda, to determine how many people reach 110; in fact, its existence is predicated on exactly this. That means it will be inherently more slanted towards proclaiming people who are 110 years old or older as notable, just the way the Japanese were inherently slanted towards maligning the Ainu when Japan's control of Hokkaido depended on subjugating the Ainu. It is for this reason that coverage in secondary sources is necessary; that coverage will be less biased towards one or the other, and serves as a more effective barometer for notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

By John J. Bulten

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sometimes, you learn a lot just by watching. If Yogi Berra didn't say it, he shoulda.

Anyway, the tenders of the garden have been editing Oldest people, unimpeded by any supposed Torquemadas or trolls.

Any comment beyond asking the arbitrators to read this edit, and the few edits on either side of it, would risk overkill. January 30 through now should be quite enough.

The time for the submission of evidence is over. I simply ask the arbs to read this microcosmic archetype of the degree to which, today, Oldest people (and all its multifarious appendages, charts, graphs, lists, bios, stubs and fol-de-rol) have slipped beyond pillars and policy. The cause is the behavior at the root of this ArbCom case. David in DC ( talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, David in DC, I'd encourage you to comment. My analysis is that NickOrnstein is arguing with another editor in favor of Beard being a "disputed" case rather than an "undisputed" case, deleting the self-published sourced statement that GRG counts it as "undisputed", appealing to unproven consensus, shouting, and unduly regarding Ryoung122 as some sort of (cough) arbiter. The context indicates that NickOrnstein believes he has evidence, not yet provided, that GRG does not agree with its self-published statement. NickOrnstein also disagrees with the other editor about whether this should be a top-10 or top-15 list, both of which are OR positions, and there are about two revert cycles of a nascent war that has not yet materialized. Aside from NickOrnstein's tendency to mimic Ryoung122's prior behavior by regarding himself as a better arbiter of GRG than GRG's public data-dump, and people disputing about whether or not there's a dispute, I'm not sure what you're going for. JJB 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh look, Longevitydude does the same thing as NickOrnstein and Ryoung122 in discounting GRG when they know better, you may be on to something. JJB 07:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Gee, arbs, read it yourself or just read JJB's play-by-play. He's accurate. I'm just not clear on why he thinks y'all need to be spoonfed. David in DC ( talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks; three reasons for it, without calling it "spoonfeed": to have it in my own words, to exercise my rights to speak (marathon style, admittedly), and due to #Comment on civility vs. advocacy. JJB 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: While commenting at WT:WOP, Cam46136 appears to have accidentally saved an old version of the talk while adding his paragraph; this diff shows that the intermediate 29 revisions were discounted while Cam46136's paragraph was added. The only later commenter was David in DC so far, who was attempting to reupdate the deletion table that had been updated once before with the same data but had become out-of-date by Cam's misinvocation of the old version. The proper clerking would be to revert to the version just before Cam46136 while readding his paragraph, treating David in DC's edits as already incorporated in that version. Since I am not editing WT:WOP (only reviewing it for understanding the history), I trust this notation, with a copy to David in DC, should be sufficient to restore the talkpage on this request, in accord with WP:TALKO. JJB 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed index

The following reflects my closing personal judgment about the roles of all named "parties" in the case, using the word "party" noncontroversially in the loosest sense as per the questions section above. Based on my initial statement at case talk:

• Involved, apparently nonconflicted (4): John J. Bulten, Itsmejudith, David in DC, The Blade of the Northern Lights
• Apparently conflicted (10): Ryoung122, 12.144.5.2, Longevitydude, Petervermaelen, Plyjacks, TML, Sbharris, DHanson317, Brendanology, NickOrnstein
• Apparently unduly influenced (7): DerbyCountyinNZ, Berries and cream 33, ResidentAnthropologist, SiameseTurtle, Cam46136, Canada Jack, Beawitness
• Apparently conflicted, dormant (4): StanPrimmer, Bart Versieck, NealIRC, Cjeales
• Apparently unduly influenced, dormant (4): Kitia, Kletetschka, TFBCT1, Kingcouey
• Relatively uninvolved, "nonparties" (13): O Fenian, Maxim, Carcharoth, BrownHairedGirl, Griswaldo, Timneu22, Sjakkalle, Sandstein, Matchups, Bduke, Mike Young, Sumbuddi, Canadian Paul

Total 42. I am proforma sending immediate notifications to those on this list (12) not listed as notified at case filing time (22) and not listed separately as RFA commenters (4) or evidence providers (4): apologies to anyone who was omitted or discussed without getting notified sooner. JJB 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

HOW CAN YOU PASS JUDGEMENT ON YOURSELF? SO, ACCORDING TO YOU, YOU ARE "UNCONFLICTED" BUT THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE A CONFLICT WITH, ARE CONFLICTED?

THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE, INAPPROPRIATE EDITING BY JJBULTEN.

And "all caps" are for attention. Words don't "shout." Ryoung122 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm sorry, but none of this section is helpful to me. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with Itsmejudith, although COI is very often defined over-broadly by wikipedians. Cool Hand Luke 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Primarily intended to demonstrate (to myself et al.) that I had not omitted any editors. In particular, I was glad I realized I hadn't notified Canada Jack, who has now had contributions of significance above. JJB 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have always found JJB's use of "conflicted" confusing. I think he means "having a conflict of interest", if so, he is defining it much too broadly. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If this is still being misunderstood, "conflicted" was defined at the original link, WT:WOP#End COI, as meaning essentially "having gerontology relationships that conflict with WP's purposes and interests". GRG and WOP have advocacy purpose statements that technically conflict with WP's encyclopedic neutrality purpose. This has no relation to whether users have conflicts with each other. JJB 12:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To Cam46136: This is very simple. If you are not unduly influenced by Ryoung122, then your implication that I am one of several "censorious religious fanatics who want to prevent that knowledge from being disseminated to the general public" clearly relies on objective, demonstrable facts, rather than on accusations by Ryoung122. Please place those facts on this page for ArbCom's benefit, or else admit the possibility that I may not meet that description, thank you. JJB 13:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The following edits in Longevity Myths show a preoccupation with removing the word “myth”, removing references to the scientific concept of human longevity, and reference to Biblical longevity especially with resistance to the use of the word “myths” for “Christian” material.

[ [197]][ [198]][ [199]][ [200]][ [201]][ [202]][ [203]][ [204]][ [205]][ [206]][ [207]][ [208]][ [209]

But the question I want to ask JJB, is this:

Do you believe that human beings do, can or did live to 900 years; and please firmly state whether you believe that Noah lived to 950 (literal) years, because the Bible says so? Cam46136 ( talk) 07:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

I don't know if I will take the time to review all these diffs, but my memory is that I consistently argued that the colloquial sense of "longevity myth" contradicted WP:RNPOV (though I permitted it in the article when sourced) and the technical sense of "longevity myth" was completely unsourced; that I did not remove sourced references to the scientific concept (that was Itsmejudith, arguing along fringe-theory lines); and that I sought balance for Biblical longevity, shrinking the Biblical section in my first pass as already advised due to undue weight, while treating the word "myth" as per the sources described above. As I told Ryoung122, I decline to answer the question about Noah, because my POV is as irrelevant to WP as Ryoung122's oft-expressed personal POVs, and I have deliberately avoided statement of my POV for my own protection, because my stating it would be misconstruable whatever it truly is. What is relevant to this discussion is that Ryoung122 has placed many more baiting references to my beliefs about Noah's age than there are references in all of mainspace about Noah's age in general: that is, his fixation upon insisting that he knows what my beliefs are and that this contributes to my being nonneutral has been so personally detrimental that even ArbCom has proposed a sanction that has the risk of appearing to take some of his unsourced assertions and aspersions at face value. Accordingly, because I am now seeking solely to clear my name of having been dragged through such filth, I have no reason to abandon my deliberate-ambiguity policy, and I must direct you to ask Ryoung122 to source his assertion of my beliefs, as he claims to know much more about them than I admit to knowing, and he has never provided sources for this crucial element of the proof of my alleged nonneutrality. JJB 17:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

“Dragged through such filth.” What filth? This is a Wikipedia ArbCom. You must realise that if you instigate such quasi-judicial proceedings, you run the risk of being asked questions.

Questions you won’t answer! Cam46136 ( talk) 06:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

To answer your question about filth, see the unsourced aspersions in my evidence; my statement has nothing to do with being asked questions. Now I asked you a question by implication, and your links did not answer, so I will wait to see how you answer first. But see User:John J. Bulten/DR2#Cam46136 for the question itself. JJB 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@Cam46136, I have continued the discussion at that section; you may want to add it to your WP:WATCHLIST. JJB 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Typing in All caps on the Internet. David in DC ( talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I wish to place on the record, and as a non-party to the dispute, that the accusation made by JJB that I have been “apparently unduly influenced” by Mr Young is false.

I know of the man, I have had discussion and debate with him, and have had disagreements with him.

I am here, not to defend him, but because a significant amount of scientific research into human longevity, built up over years of effort, is under threat from censorious religious fanatics who want to prevent that knowledge from being disseminated to the general public. Cam46136 ( talk) 13:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Does the recreation of this page, at this juncture, seem somewhat pointy? David in DC ( talk) 18:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

1. What's POINTY is that Blade of Northern Lights and David in DC decided that this was something that warranted their attention, sort of like playing "whack a mole."

2. In truth, this was complete surprise to me that Plyjacks decided to re-create this article. Had I planned it, I certainly wouldn't have done so at this point in time, with an open ArbCom discussion.

Ryoung122 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Why was this article deleted?

As requested in the preamble to the article, it was stated that if one wanted to keep the article, one had to add {hold it} and put their comment.

I did so. IMMEDIATELY afterwards the article and my comment were deleted in complete contravention to Wikipedia policy on {hold it}.

No debate or discussion were allowed. This is one of the most appalling cases of Wikipedia censorship and intellectual thuggery I have observed on Wikipedia. Absolutely disgraceful! cam46136 Cam46136 ( talk) 02:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)cam46136— Cam46136 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Erm... where did I enter into this? I didn't have anything to do with the (now deleted) article on Robert Young; I didn't create, tag, or delete it (not that I could have deleted it, not being an admin). If you're talking more generally, outside this specific recreation, open up another section and I'll respond there. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You didn't enter into this. It had nothing to do with you. — Cam46136 Cam46136 ( talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

OK; I just saw that my name came up, and I'm not sure why it did. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I've explained why I deleted the article on my talk page. SmartSE ( talk) 12:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

George Orwell was right. He just got the date wrong. Cam46136 ( talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

That's a bit melodramatic. Lots of people aren't notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

No, it’s not melodramatic. This is pure Orwell. Here’s a guy (Robert Young) who has one of the world’s largest databases on human longevity, is acknowledged as one of the world’s leading authorities on human longevity, is the lead researcher for the Gerontology Research Group, has contributed to books and published papers on longevity, and is constantly and consistently consulted and referred to by the world’s media on matters pertaining to human longevity. This person is so non-notable that there is a Wikipedia ArbCom action above equivalent to about 10 articles of copy trying to ascertain whether his views have credence. And an article on him is deleted because he is not notable. This is bizarre in the extreme. This trial is pure Orwell, with all its own Newspeak on sources, notability, COIs, POVs and the rest of the gobbledygook.

Let’s cut to the chase. This whole thing is about censorship. Period. And if you can’t see that now, you never will. Cam46136 ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

Let's just say that your analysis wasn't exactly what I inferred from reading George Orwell, in both a literal and figurative sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Read the book “Nineteeen Eighty-Four” and note Winston Smith as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth where his job, to quote Wikipedia, “involves revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs — mostly to remove ‘unpersons’, people who have fallen foul of the party.” This is pure Orwell. Cam46136 ( talk) 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

Robert Young is not acknowledged as one of the world's leading authorities on human longevity. Keep a sense of reality. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That's not what's going on here, and I think you're fully aware of that. Now would you mind toning down the inflammatory rhetoric? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

We can’t even agree on reality. Robert Young IS one of the world’s leading authorities on human longevity. Now we have Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22”. He can’t get documented on Wikipedia because he is not notable. He is not notable because he is not documented. And we can’t reference the International Database on Longevity at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, The New England Supercentenarian Study or the Gerontology Research Group. Cam46136 ( talk) 04:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136 reply

By consensus, Young does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia, which is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Jon

Young is one of the leading authorities on supercentenarians and human extreme longevity. His membership as one of the data analysts for the International Database on Longevity at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, on which all other peer reviewed publications in the field depend on for their data, establishes THAT. Now, it may be true AT THE SAME TIME, that he doesn't meet WP criteria to have a BLP, not personally having enough coverage in "reliable" (this means newspaper, I suppose) sources himself. That's fine. There are a lot of fine scientists who haven't had enough bio printed about them in newspapers to generate enough cites for a WP BLP, whereas the same is probably not true for your average high school football varsity player. This is a failing of our journalism system, which thinks high school sport is more newsworthy than science in the big leagues, and WP simply goes along for the ride, there. Due to the way BLP rules are structured, there's not a lot else WP can do.

However, please don't get the one thing mixed up with the other. Young IS a world authority in this area. AND may not be "notable" enough for a WP BLP, by WP's criteria. Just accept the two facts, which are not mutually exclusive, or even contradictory. S B H arris 06:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Discussion per request 8

Per request 8 above, I intend to discuss with ArbCom my concerns about Kirill Lokshin's diffs about me, starting with the concern that they do not appear to demonstrate sanctionable behavior. In support of this, David in DC stated that even my contingent voluntary ban was overbroad (though his edit summary implied he did not consider this a full answer to my question), and Itsmejudith said his statement included "very sensible points" (Shell Kinney also said, prior to these proposals, that even blocking would be "such an extreme step", but perhaps this meant "extreme for an injunction"). On the other hand, Kirill Lokshin stated not being convinced "the value of JJB's continued participation in the project justifies the administrator time" in certain cases, SirFozzie agreed, and Newyorkbrad doesn't believe the diffs constitute "isolated instances". While I recognize ArbCom advises that remedies may seem deceptively lenient or stringent, the two involved editors quoted do echo my concern of there being an unprecedented disconnect between the diffs and any penalty (let alone other concerns).

I have analyzed the diffs here, including a "writing for the enemy" analysis of a hypothetical in which these edits had been committed by a GRG member and discovered by me during my former topic review. If these edits result in any sanction in the final decision (even if ArbCom mentions my voluntary ban, which is to agree formally with the need for me to be penalized rather than to use ArbCom's ever-eloquent silence to accomplish its ends), the subtext of such sanction would invite various inferences, justified or not, from any third party. (My first draft of this paragraph contained several such misinferences, but it appears unnecessary to list them all at this instant.)

My conclusion on diff review is that a one-year ban is proposed based upon one set of reverts not sanctioned as warring, one additional small revert, one ambiguous edit summary, one consensus-seeking list of topic-area editors to achieve community resolution of a consensus-admitted problem, one list of editors in one's own evidence presentation, one instance of batching deletion nominations found later to be against consensus (the two other instances were with consensus: note, 20 diffs referred to only 3 events), and one instance of copying unimpeached science sources from one article to another (with another editor's generic views about this). A key potential third-party misinference is that these behaviors in themselves might be considered sanctionable suddenly and with the most extreme penalty, even though none of them are against policy without further evidence that any of them constituted sustained disruption in some other way. This is, of course, the chilling effect: if some penalty were sustained, the misinference would weaken editor boldness across the board, by dissuading editors from WP-building behaviors due to fear that they might be sanctionable even as they build the encyclopedia in good faith.

In short, the quoted arbitrator comments speak very poorly of my continued project involvement, and I wish to clear my name of these charges (or, alternatively, to have them laid out plainly and clearly for the benefit of third parties). I have, as stated, abandoned all other purposes for this arbitration, insofar as they now appear to be against consensus. The wise man seeks out criticism. Accordingly, please comment on my analysis linked above. JJB 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies: To continue discussion, would apology help anything? I could've handled reversion and the edit summary better, and I could apologize to Ryoung122 and NickOrnstein; but Ryoung122 has never revisited the ANI outcome on the reversion, and NickOrnstein has never even expressed offense. Could I have handled the community-recognized COI problem better (after repeated COIN findings of not just COI itself but COI with rampant abuses), other than by my compiling self-identified gerontology advocacy relationships into a WikiProject list, while naming COI-handling options for group discussion to which I invited all? I can apologize generically for any overbreadth to my statements "End COI" (which was always intended as shorthand for "End COI abuse") and "Evidence indicates ...", but my phrasing was never objected to in a long good-faith consensus discussion. Could I have done better than by nominating deletions while fully advising the WikiProject after patiently compiling and following prior examples and outcomes? It would seem a bit bending over backwards to apologize to Ryoung122 for not notifying him personally while assuming he was watching the WikiProject; but I suppose I could've noticed his absence in some AFDs and let him know about them, if that seems to ArbCom it would've been better. Could I have done better with my evidence, to protect it against charges of battlegrounding, than by grouping it by activity, with lists of editors underneath? All I can tell about the "battleground" charge is my guess that maybe I'm being charged with not assuming good faith about editors or groups: though surely simply listing editors and behaviors in an evidence section is not battlegrounding in itself, and no one was offended by that. Could I have done better than by adding science sources to an article in good faith? I suppose I could apologize to Itsmejudith for us never yet having had a discussion toward an agreement on FRINGE, RNPOV, ONEWAY, etc.; but our discussion has always been amicable, I've let her edits almost all stand, and none of this is ban-worthy. In short, my determining whom I have offended and how I have broken policy sustainedly, in ArbCom's view, is central to this section's discussion, as I always stand ready to apologize and rectify problems brought to me directly (as I have identified my own lapses in my analyses); but it's unclear whether an apology would suffice to address the problems ArbCom speaks about only indirectly. So, well, I'm sorry I don't see it yet. JJB 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose sanctioning John J. Bulten

Per invitation: ArbCom should reject Kirill Lokshin's proposed finding 5 and remedy 3 in any form: I say this as a former forum admin, familiar with privately discussing, among other admins, both our problematic contributors and how our admin responses would be viewed publicly. I believe 10 minutes' consideration will be worth your time. First, rejecting these sanctions greatly reduces risk to ArbCom's goodwill, which would otherwise arise from third-party misinferences invited by the text and subtext of these sanctions. ArbCom is certainly interested in #Avoiding apparent impropriety by preventing circumstances in which ArbCom's decision might be colorable as sustaining false inferences. Ordinarily I would (as above) withhold these statements as being risks of which ArbCom is presumably already well-aware, but I trust that under the protection of my being invited to list disagreements, ArbCom welcomes my speaking freely to ensure the risks are well-aired in a proper forum. Specifically, adoption would permit editors to misinfer:

1. That ArbCom may arbitrarily violate WP:RFAR/G#Workshop point 3 (which all "editors should keep ... in mind"), that "proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page". In Kirill Lokshin's proposal, no diffs whatsoever referred to specific evidence (three referred only to generic evidence sections), a substantial violation. Violation of point 3 necessarily entails the following points, and adoption of sanctions would permit editors to misinfer all these as valid approaches to any case:
   1. significant subtextual shock value due to sudden disparity with prior evidence,
   2. dramatically decreased time for discussion of new charges compared to that of charges actually in evidence, and
   3. undue refocus of the case from the actual evidence trends to the new charges.
2. That ArbCom may arbitrarily dispense with former procedure for handling significant unpresented evidence. Formerly, when ArbCom agreed significant evidence had not been presented by any editor, they agreed that one of their number should recuse for the purpose of taking a prosecutor role and presenting the evidence. ArbCom had opportunity here to avoid shock value by selecting a recusing prosecutor and by meeting or extending the evidence deadline to accommodate parity of timing and focus for the otherwise unpresented charges. Even in the rare case that violation of point 3 is appropriate, such as significant unpresented evidence, the recusal process is always more appropriate if sanctions are truly called for. Since ArbCom declined this option available to it, adoption of these sanctions would permit editors to misinfer that the protective step of recusal may be arbitrarily dispensed with for unstated reasons.
3. That ArbCom may arbitrarily violate WP:RFAR/G#Workshop point 4 (which all "editors should keep ... in mind"), that "a proposal to ban User:Example from editing requires substantial evidence that User:Example has violated community editing norms". Particularly, "editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors." No lesser sanction has ever been attempted, and only one admin warning has ever been received, for any of the behaviors diffed. The diffs, prima facie, do not indicate "extreme or very persistent" behavior or "considerable disruption or stress"; even the lesser charge of "sustained" behavior is debatable (characterizations of "[not] isolated instances" and "a pattern" fall far short of ban policy). Even in the rare case that violation of point 4 is appropriate, such as "exceptional privacy issues", a one-year ban should not be proposed for light behaviors without mention that private evidence exists, as that would permit the additional misinference that the light behaviors are banworthy in themselves.

These misinferences would create a chilling effect against various healthy behaviors appropriate to smooth project function. Particularly, editors would reasonably fear entering arbitration due to the risk of sudden shock, unequal discussion time, and undue case refocus, as well as due to the risk of ban without prior lesser sanction, without prior admin warning, and without evidence of extreme behavior. (By contrast, ArbCom's silence on the proposed sanctions creates no such chilling effect, nor risk to ArbCom's reputation and goodwill: the only risk that might attach to silence would be if some truly sanctionable behavior went unsanctioned, a risk assessment that depends wholly on the behavior truly being sanctionable, which is discussed below.) Accordingly, all forms of the proposed sanctions should be rejected, because any form of sanction based on these proposals would subtextually indicate that ArbCom decisions may freely be built from unpresented evidence and (because even a lesser sanction here would countenance the ban proposal) that such unvetted decisions may freely include site bans, since they have been previously countenanced.

In addition to these sanctions creating unnecessary risk for ArbCom, other reasons for rejection of sanctions include:

1. Good-faith defense. The accused has replied to the diffs by analyzing the behavior, summarizing it as "one set of reverts not sanctioned as warring, one additional small revert, one ambiguous edit summary, one consensus-seeking list of topic-area editors to achieve community resolution of a consensus-admitted problem, one list of editors in one's own evidence presentation, one instance of batching deletion nominations found later to be against consensus ..., and one instance of copying unimpeached science sources from one article to another". Each of these good-faith behaviors are appropriate (often policy-driven) in many circumstances. ArbCom has declined to discuss this good-faith defense, indicating only that all defenses will be accounted for in the voting period. Adopting any sanctions for this behavior would allow any editor who reviewed both sides of the question to be significantly chilled from healthy behaviors not distinguishable from the behaviors sanctioned, permitting the associated detriment to the project through the following misinferences:
   1. that reverting unexplained deletions of sourced material on one occasion, plus one other small revert, constitutes "sustained edit-warring",
   2. that one creative use of textual styling in a summary, to get another editor's attention, constitutes "misuse of [plural] edit summaries",
   3. that consensus-seeking proposals that might offend editors already widely identified as misbehaving, and a full and free evidence presentation, constitute "misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground",
   4. that ordinary AFD batching constitutes "an attempt to overwhelm through sheer volume" (and perhaps, due to ambiguity, "Edit Warring by Attrition"), and
   5. that even one instance of WP's mainstay, copying unimpeached sourced material to an article, when taken with generic reference to another editor's concerns about it, constitutes plural "attempts to unduly advance a fringe point of view".
2. Party consensus. All three commenting parties (not counting the accused) disagreed with the proposals, speaking as editors with more experience with the behavior than the arbitrators. When asked specifically about the applicability of any sanction, one said that even the accused's voluntary ban was overbroad, and another agreed generally. This is a unanimous rejection both of the proposed sanction and of any replacement sanction by all commenting parties on each point.
3. Plain error 1. Kirill Lokshin stated, with SirFozzie agreeing, in response to this consensus, "The conflict is, at this point, as much a personal feud as it is an ideological one, and the evidence submitted by JJB strongly suggests that he himself views it in those terms. I am unconvinced, however, that the value of JJB's continued participation in the project justifies the administrator time that would be required to enforce such an unusual remedy." John J. Bulten responded, "I ... have now limited my WP interaction to trying to clear my name .... I do not have a personal feud nor an ideological one, in that all my concerns have been content- and policy-based." Kirill Lokshin's statement, seconded by SirFozzie, assumes facts not in evidence, viz.:
   1. that John J. Bulten has a personal feud with Ryoung122, implying that John J. Bulten is unable to drop behavior like his policy-based calls for Ryoung122 to be site-banned, when in fact John J. Bulten did drop that call ("limited my WP interaction") as soon as it appeared that neither the project's interests nor consensus were served by continuing it,
   2. that John J. Bulten has an ideological feud with other editors, implying that John J. Bulten makes ideology-driven edits, when in fact no such POV-pushing has been shown with any single edit, even the "fringe" diffs provided by Kirill Lokshin,
   3. that John J. Bulten views a conflict in these terms, implying that an evidentiary list of editors and behaviors (such as the behavior of being traceably and unduly influenced by another editor) constitutes admission of such feuding, when in fact John J. Bulten denies viewing any conflict in such terms, and
   4. that unjustifiable admin time would be required from a targeted ban, implying that risks arising from John J. Bulten's continued participation clearly meet the ban policy's test ("that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all"), when in fact there is no evidence that an interaction ban would require admin time, because a voluntary interaction ban was never proposed to John J. Bulten and there is no character evidence indicating that the editor would fail to yield to consensus (evidence indicates the editor has often yielded issues to consensus).
4. <deleted by JJB 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)>
5. Voluntary ban. The accused editor is in the sixth day of a successful voluntary ban, admissive of amendment, crafted responsively to Kirill Lokshin's statement that a topic ban with a strong interaction ban would not necessarily be insufficient. If ArbCom agrees with sanctions equal to or weaker than the voluntary ban, or stronger but within the possibility of voluntary amendment, there would be absolutely no reason for the formal sanction, other than to mark the editor as banned by ArbCom instead of voluntarily. In all other ways the ArbCom and voluntary bans are identical (especially in the area of enforceability), except for the unnecessary added punitive nature of having ArbCom's name on the ban. This would open ArbCom to the possible misinference that it is unwilling to work with broad voluntary bans.
6. Unnecessary harm. Site ban, or a ban stronger than voluntary amendment can bear, would cause undue real-world harm to the reputation of John J. Bulten, who edits in his own name, as well as the goodwill inherent in his account and already damaged by Kirill Lokshin's proposals and suggestion greatly devaluing his continued participation. Real-world harm to reputations is a nonnegligible factor in these decisions. This harm should not be ratified by ArbCom without great and pressing reasons similar to those described in the ban policy: the voluntary conditional ban should be upheld, and the sanctions should be accordingly rejected. (For clarification, I don't make threats: any attempt to repair, mitigate, or prevent this harm will occur only through Wikipedia project processes.)
7. Interaction time. Though there is risk that this point be misunderstood, it must be stated for completeness, because I believe in providing the public with full information about my assessment of my options. A user who has demonstrably limited his WP interaction solely to clearing his name, if assured that he will not be mentioned in the final decision, is very likely to do nothing that will come remotely close to endangering that assurance. The same user, if assured that he will be mentioned in the final decision, is very likely to continue the procedural steps required to clear his name by proceeding to ArbCom's ban appeal subcommittee, requiring more time for both himself and ArbCom. A quick settlement of differences is almost always preferable to an unexplained sanction that is not agreed by the parties on reasonable grounds of difference. (For clarification, I don't make threats: this is, rather, just one more relatively neutral risk assessment of predictable results from ArbCom's various options.)
8. Restorative nature. "Arbitration is more likely to ask if a user can change, or what restrictions would have an effect." ArbCom has been presented with evidence that the accused can change, both in admissions of lapses by the accused upon encountering them in the evidence proper, and in the voluntary ban after the new charges were laid. ArbCom has been presented with evidence that the voluntary ban meets Workshop consensus and has all the effects stated as desired by the arbitrators. Accordingly, not naming the accused in the final decision would be in keeping with the restorative nature of ArbCom proceedings.

I trust my defense has been appropriate. Thank you for your patience. I have nothing more to say as I await ArbCom's application of the principles of Justice. JJB 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this post. As for your point #4, I believe no one has suggested sanction for reasons that cannot be found in these public case pages (I am confident that's true for all parties). Supposed dilatoriness, in particular, is not something that anyone appears to have considered. I do apologize for the remark. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Sincere thanks. JJB 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)