Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:49, 7 February 2011

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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.

The "Gerontology Research Group" ("GRG") operates grg.org. [1]
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]
The contact for the GRG is "L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D." ("Coles"). [3]
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]
The GRG maintains a current webpage called "Validated Living Supercentenarians" ("E.HTM"). Ibid.
Yahoo! Groups maintains a current discussion-group organization called "World's Oldest People" ("WOP"). [5]
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.
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".)
The homepage for 110C contains a link to WOP with the link description, "Robert Young's World's Oldest People Yahoo Group." Ibid.
Recordholders.org hosts a current webpage called "The Oldest Human Beings" ("OHB"). [6]
OHB is maintained by "Louis Epstein". Ibid. JJB 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Blogspot.com hosts a current blog called "Supercentenarian Study" ("SS"). [7]
The description and purpose of SS is self-identified as "to write informative biographies mostly about supercentenarians." Ibid.
SS is maintained by "Brendan". Ibid. JJB 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
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]

Template

8)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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)

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:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:John J. Bulten

17) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a non-threatening fashion.

Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion or the editor making the comments states that they are not intended as such. Editors who are aware that their comments have repeatedly construed as legal threats should be particularly sensitive to this concern.

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

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]

Comment by others:

User conduct in this topic area

2) Several editors in this topic area have engaged in poor behavior over a prolonged period of time, including gross incivility and personal attacks and abuse directed toward other editors, tendentious editing, persistent edit-warring, failing to cite reliable sources or relying excessively on partisan sources, and failing to respect consensus. The effect of these editors' conduct has been to produce an ongoing battlefield mentality and to drive other, more neutral editors away from related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

Continuing legal threats

9) Principles unanimously adopted by the committee have included noting that even perceived legal threats should be avoided. Ryoung122 has continued to make comments that constituted, or at least could reasonably be construed as constituting, threats of legal action against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation based on article content disputes or talkpage posts relating to such disputes.[105][106][107] Ryoung122 has continued to make statements constituting legal threats, or that at least could reasonably be perceived as constituting legal threats, in the course of this arbitration case itself.[108][109]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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,[110][111][112] undue influence and POV in COI article[113]
Beawitness (talk · contribs), editing since 2010-12-31: BLP violations[114][115][116]
Berries and cream 33 (talk · contribs), editing since 2010-09-16: undue influence in BLP[117]
Cam46136 (talk · contribs), editing since 2011-12-11: undue influence,[118] battleground approach[119][120]
DHanson317 (talk · contribs), editing since 2010-09-14: BLP violations,[121][122] tag-team edit warring,[123] undue influence[124]
Petervermaelen (talk · contribs), editing since 2009-04-05: major BLP violation,[125][126] meatpuppetry, personal attack,[127] undue influence[128][129]
ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), editing since 2010-09-17; personal attack,[130][131] undue influence[132][133]
Sbharris (talk · contribs), editing since 2005-11-13: disruptive personal attack,[134][135] gaming the system,[136] undue influence, battleground approach[137]

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 [138] 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: [139] 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 [140] “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 [141]. 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: [142]. 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: [143]. 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]

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)

Proposed remedies JJB

Discretionary sanctions

1) This remedy specifies and authorizes the discretionary sanctions applicable to this case.

Advice for editors

Any editor wishing to edit within the longevity topic, broadly construed, is advised to edit cautiously, to adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by uninvolved administrators. Editors are also urged to read and follow the principles applicable to this case. Any editors unable or unwilling to follow this advice should restrict their editing to other topics, to avoid sanctions.

Authorization

Any administrator who is not mentioned by name in the decision in this case may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on any article within the area of conflict. Any repeated or serious misbehavior that fails to conform to the purpose of Wikipedia, to community and editorial norms, is grounds for discretionary sanctions. Additionally, and specific to this case, administrators are asked to focus on editors engaging in battlefield conduct (including edit- and revert-warring in all forms, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, POV-pushing, and misusing sources) and longevity-related biographies of living people, which have coatrack problems.

Range of sanctions

The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to longevity; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Before imposing discretionary sanctions

Administrators should use their judgment to balance (i) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and to allow responsible contributors freedom to edit, with (ii) the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground.

Warning of intended sanctions

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps to take to bring editing into line with the relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

The sanctioned editor may appeal any sanction imposed under these provisions to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee.

Logging

All sanctions are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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]

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]

Thanks, Blade, 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)

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.

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

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

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

By John J. Bulten

Analyses below are based on outline numbering and (subpoint organization) at this permalink. My intent is to review all evidence diffs but this may not be completed before case closure.

Explanation of terms:

Claims: My belief about what is being claimed by the presenter.
Analysis: My description of related factors and my personal judgment about the validity of the claims, also including proposed clerical links and corrections.
Conclusion: My brief summary of the general thrust of the evidence, such as towards a case result.
Incidental information (possibly less than fully admissible): Trivial background that I believe appropriate, though not technically necessary, and presented with an appeal to the committee's indulgence. JJB 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

John J. Bulten

Claims 1.1-3: Ryoung122 committed the widest variety of policy violations, nearly all of which can be considered equal to the reasons for his former indefinite block and/or violations of his agreed conditions for return.

Claims 1.4: Like Ryoung122, at least 11 other editors have been stated to have COI in the longevity area, which is not a violation in itself but aggravates other violations.

Incidental information: The current list at WT:WOP#COI list names 14 editors, not counting many socks and unidentified SPAs.

Claims 1.5: Like Ryoung122, at least 16 other editors, plus 12.144.5.2 and 7 other IPs, committed an endemically undue weighting in favor of Ryoung122 and COI-based sources.

Claims 1.6: Like Ryoung122, this same group of editors committed a wide variety of policy violations, often following him and each other in these violations, often after warnings.

Claims 1.7: The WP:WOP articles have been widely judged a semiwalled garden, in that many of them abuse encyclopedicity and are supported by ignorance of sourcing policy, abuse of behavioral policy, and failure to report or observe COI standards.

Claims 1.8-9: In particular, the use of unreliable sources to report deaths of relatively private living persons is regularly symptomatic of the above problems and endangers the Wikimedia Foundation, with 11 generic cases shown and with the additional Margaret Fish case highlighted in that a self-identified family member alluded on WP to emotional damage caused by these editors' misfeasance to the Fish family (and, perhaps, to the party or parties who made the original error).

Analysis: The sorting and labeling of these diffs into particular charges is already essentially complete. I believe it is more appropriate for others to judge the applicability of the diffs to the violations charged. However, I wish to comment on the relationship of this evidence to that of others, and on general indicated trends. First, it is clear that the majority of presenters are in rough consensus, while Longevitydude, Brendanology, and Ryoung122 each take a different tack in presenting charges unsupported by the others (respectively, bad faith by Timneu, violations by John J. Bulten, and violations by Sandstein and David in DC, without speaking of objections against two-post off-Wiki identity "JJB"). These three editors do not present evidence contrary to the consensus charges (charges that primarily speak of violations by COI editors and a walled garden requiring remediation) but attempting to invalidate it by arguing for mitigating factors (provocation, and the invalidity of the consensus view of the policies). That is, the consensus arising from evidence should be clear. ArbCom is primarily tasked with a behavioral analysis of the various violations charged rather than judgments about the applications of policy to content, but the way in which it weighs this balance of violations will indicate the degree to which topic-specific controls are necessary and a forum for wider community input on content remediation is necessary. I point out that general trends include on- and off-Wiki demonstrations of exceedingly wide open meatpuppetry among most COI editors; COI editors maintaining commitments to several purpose statements contrary to WP's purpose (compare the stipulations above); and demonstrated entrenchment, after repeated warnings, in desire to continue violating consensus policy in favor of the off-Wiki version of these policies as was largely enshrined in WP:WOP. (When non-COI editors made recent improvements to bring WP:WOP guidance in line with policy, COI editors simply ignored the guidance edited into this project, of which many of them were members, and continued arguing from the off-Wiki community standards that they had formerly enjoyed propagating freely.) This militates for the argument that all COI editors, as well as the topic, should be placed on significant restrictions to ensure that the off-Wiki antipolicy movement does not continue to infiltrate, and that newly discovered editors, especially SPAs, should be given less than usual tolerance if they appear slow to absorb WP policy, as generally accepted and as specifically developed by a future wider collaboration of non-COI editors.

Incidental information: To digressively mention "my story" briefly: In spring 2009, as a longtime policy watcher, I became interested in WP:BLP guidance on parties not proven to be dead by reliable sources; this guidance made what appeared to me an arbitrary cutoff judgment related to Jeanne Calment's age of 122. Without drawing a policy conclusion at the time (my conclusions now appear at User:John J. Bulten/BDP, which is one of many proposals that are on hold during this case), I reviewed WP's coverage of supercentenarians and found it exceedingly wanting. Juvenile and redundant tables, abusing color and bolding, presented unverifiable and often unsourced data in excessively synthetic and novel categories, far beyond what GWR had ever done. I discovered GRG was the primary source for much of this, originally giving it tentative acceptance as a primary source, but then discovering its abysmal E.HTM and other spreadsheets had no editorial control and represented the judgments of one man (Coles) without any formal public standards. (E.g., I have never seen, after diligent search, an unequivocal description of what three documents constitute "validation", meaning that I have no proof that GRG-validation is, or isn't, a relatively arbitrary and "gut" process, which of course calls into question the entire valid/invalid categorization.) At any rate, I introduced myself to WP:WOP on 24 Apr 2009 by stating some concerns with longevity articles that needed addressing (WT:WOP#Talk:Longevity myths); those issues have largely never had a non-COI hearing in 2 years, and over time I despaired of there ever being one. My initial contributions to the topic area, as shown in Itsmejudith's evidence, included adding many scientific and/or reliable sources over time (she noted the first five of these); creating two templates organizing the longevity claims of the Sumerian King List and the Tanakh; and (completed a couple months ago) initiating the eventual removal about 70 unsourced sentences from the "longevity myths" article, all inserted in one 2005 edit set by Ryoung122, reorganizing the article as per GWR and other RS's. However, the amount of invective I have personally faced, often on an edit-by-edit basis, from demonstrably conflicted and antipolicy editors, has been unparalleled by anyone's treatment of anyone else in my WP experience. Thus, it is hoped that a community collaboration on longevity practices will yield a consensus not founded in COI and unencyclopedic manipulation, and I have always stood by such consensus when it has arisen in this field.

(Problems identified in my 24 Apr 2009 post but never settled due to antipolicy interference: (1) undue weight; (2) unencyclopedic policy violation; (3) mistitling of "longevity myths" contrary to WP:RNPOV, as first challenged in 2004 (the content of which has never been called "longevity myths" in reliable sources); (4) arbitrary and unequal inclusion criteria in that article and other articles "verified" and "unverified"; (5) general stylistic messiness; (6) sourcing failures; (7) POV failures; (8) creation of OR lists that do not appear in reliable sources and constitute novel presentations of data; (9) arbitrary, unsourced age cutoffs, such as "131y0d" between the "claims" and "myths" articles and several others; (10) datedness in the inherent structure of many articles that requires them to be manually updated almost daily (partly addressed by my BDP proposal above, partly by other proposals). An unconflicted community discussion would reach consensus on remediating these flaws.)

Conclusion: After reviewing similar ArbCom cases, I will be likely to propose an ArbCom ban for Ryoung122, a variety of blocks and restrictions for several other editors, topic-area remedies, and a collaborative forum for establishing WP consensus about longevity-based inclusion criteria, and any other remedies which may reasonably prevent the evidenced violations and disruptions from recurring. JJB 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Timneu22

Claims 2.1: Longevitydude engages in bad-faith editing, hounding (continued after warning, apparent reference link), WP:POINT AFD edits (continued after warning; "happening recently" permalink, "no history" permalink), inappropriate edit summary, and "unwanted" talk (only possible reference link).

Analysis: Restoring the permalink to Longevitydude's history above indicates there were two potential POINT edits, AFDs on "Security and Development" and "Geoffrey Farmer", and further review suggests the repeat after warning was an AFD on "23 Minutes in Hell". The Farmer edit summary aligns precisely with Sumbuddi's "good advice". I believe this supports the charges of bad-faith editing (i.e., hounding repeatedly, POINT repeatedly) and inappropriate summary. The "unwanted" talk seems unsupported due to lack of evidence of warning Longevitydude. However, it appears Timneu22 was overzealous in the statement of the charges, leading to technical inaccuracies like "any of my AFDs", "no history at all". Conclusion in next section. JJB 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Longevitydude

Claims 3.1: Timneu22's claims (bad-faith editing, hounding, POINT) are false. Timneu assumes bad faith (continued after warning), accuses Longevitydude (and apparently Sumbuddi), exaggerates charges. Longevitydude self-identifies strong commitment to GRG's and WOP's purposes (cf. stipulations) and strong support for Young as source. An unnamed editor (possibly Timneu22) was warned for incivility, but Ryoung122 is civil.

Claims 3.2: Timneu22 (apparently) inappropriately involved Sumbuddi. Longevitydude refactors 3.1 to say Timneu22's claims are only partly true. Longevitydude repeats support for GRG, WOP, Young.

Analysis: Longevitydude appears to confess to a lesser version of the charges, I believe consistently with my analysis of Timneu22. I'd say Longevitydude apparently started with the defense that he was providing his true vote in each case, then abandoned that defense recognizing that the article matches were too coincidental and/or contrary to hounding policy. I believe the charges of bad-faith editing (i.e., only the exaggerations I cite above) would stand, although Timneu22 was otherwise largely correct, and thus the consideration of repeated bad faith and malicious accusation would not stand; Longevitydude's counting "other members" as accused seems also an exaggeration, reading more into Timneu22's allusion to Sumbuddi than he intended. Longevitydude's appeal to the rightness of GRG, WOP, Young and Ryoung122 appears to be defensive, though it is problematic for the larger picture.

Conclusion 2-3: Ordinary boilover from prior tensions and unresolved ANI, which did not recur. Both editors backed down from larger-than-life first impressions and grew thereby. JJB 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

David in DC

Please see #Evidence of impersonation at WOP or 100C in re David in DC's point 4.7.

Claims 4.1 (including implications drawn from David in DC's indirect statements): (1) WOP has endemically trumped GNG and RS and recruited on WP. WOP "morphed itself into" WP:WOP, which contradicted WP's purpose. (2) As symptoms of this, Longevitydude affirmed without evidence that WOP is the best source and took offense when David in DC removed Longevitydude's other source (moved to talk, reference link); Longevitydude did not comment at talk as requested but escalated it directly to AFD ("how dare anyone"). (3) Longevitydude thought it was a compromise to propose that neither set of editors should nominate articles the other set finds notable, which Griswaldo aptly found breathtakingly and unbelievably contrary to WP's purposes and policies. Longevitydude considered that forbidding individuals to define N for themselves was tantamount to disallowing them to have their own interest, and (following Chaos5023's agreement with the others) he defended why WP's interests would be served by its adopting other purposes. (4) In summary, David in DC found this to be explicit denial of WP's purpose, and noted that its combination with undue influence (editors calling others leaders) and unverifiability (e.g., WOP) requires major work to restore WP's standards. (5) The unreliability of GRG and E.HTM has already been proven by prior evidence. (6) OHB's hosting by The International World Record Breakers' Club (recordholders.org) and its disclaimer are evidence it is even less reliable.

Analysis: Due to David in DC's often indirect style, most of these claims need no more analysis than drawing out his implications and verifying them in his diffs. His diffs show that Longevitydude indeed recruited for WOP during a widely-seen AFD; made several deeply unencyclopedic proposals; and improperly escalated David in DC's valid source objection that remains unanswered today at Jan's talk. Other assertions have been notably evidenced, such as what I call the stillbirth of WP:WOP (1.7.2[52]); the undue influence and unverifiability (same link plus 1.5 and 1.6.4 passim); and the GRG finding (1.3[40] sublink [1]). David in DC's analysis of OHB reflects consensus at WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing, stable since his last edit 21 Dec, though the reasons for this appear at incidental information 7.1 below.

Conclusion: Longevitydude's behavior was contrary to WP's purpose and requires a much larger community treatment of similar behaviors that successfully prunes a walled garden many years in the making.

Claims 4.2: Timneu22 found 62.235.160.79 an SPA and David in DC found 74.101.118.239 likely to be Ryoung122 (the "unavailable" party) and Cam46136 to be a tightly focused SPA.

Analysis: I largely agreed, flagging the first IP and Cam46136 as SPAs at WT:WOP#No COI found (only SPA, not COI, was indicated). The second IP is also an SPA, but I judged there are a sufficient number of SPAs broadly interpreted that it is unlikely to be Ryoung122; the IP's interests are clearly similar to those of the COI editors but I saw enough style and focus differences to indicate away from Ryoung122 (and, since it was largely not affecting content, I didn't list the IP either). Naturally the full context of WT:WOP#End COI is my present and developing statement on the problem.

Conclusion: SPA's, puppets, or drones abound.

Claims and analysis 4.3:

Ryoung122 committed certain incivil name-calling against John J. Bulten. Same as 1.1.1.1[7].
Ryoung122's incivility, ownership, and COI are obvious, and he has called David in DC a homophobe, a cabalist, a stalker, and antiporn. Established by sublinks (the antiporn charge was made at Talk:Paul Baltes on 19:16, 6 Aug) and other evidence already cited.
Longevitydude suspected meatpuppetry immediately after a comment from Namiba, who replied by stating having 3.5 years' longer tenure, which is a style similar to that of more senior WOP members. Evidences undue influence.
Ryoung122 was incivil while claiming unavailability. Same as 6.1 below.
Ryoung122 was incivil while claiming unavailability. Same as 5.1.4 below.
Ryoung122 was incivil while claiming unavailability. These two diffs contain Ryoung122's attempt to turn my COI-identification process on its head without understanding what WP means by COI (I later volunteered that my correspondence with Eckler constituted very negligible COI, though Ryoung122 has never accused me of COI for that reason); and Ryoung122's user-talk response to Edison for a disagreed AFD vote. Both contain invective against me similar to that evidenced elsewhere.
Ryoung122 was incivil while claiming unavailability. The unavailability for ArbCom and availability for these five incivilities is sharply contrasted. Of particular note, this statement contains an implied threat that the African list will be reinstated someday regardless of how long it takes ("The future will see this article re-instated, whether in a week ...", emphasis supplied). Incidentally, Ryoung122 repeated this comment to me at his talk, in conjunction with his calling "the 'Longevity Arbcom' mess" "nonsense", to which I replied today, "I take your statement as evidence that it will be appropriate for ArbCom to consider remedies that deal not only with current disruption but also with disruption that might reasonably follow their judgments."
Ryoung122 was incivil in AFD. In this case I think the incivility was fully "answered" by my Socratic approach. Ditto for chaotic indentation, misstatement of fact, sourcing failure, misinterpretation of policy, hypocrisy, and failure to interact with developing community standards.
Ryoung122 commented at inappropriate length in the wrong place. This DRV page actually contains several screen-size comments by him. The selected one accuses David in DC and me of voting together unfairly (we used the WT:WOP chart to publicly notify each other and everyone interested). It also charges me with inappropriately timing this AFD and various other indiscretions. Incidentally, I announced I would file the RFAR within 24 hours when Itsmejudith, unsolicited, indicated at MedCab that she was ready to do so; that was the only trigger I used for determining the timing. The first I knew of Ryoung122's schedule conflict was 27 Nov alleging an unsourced prior "more than clear" schedule announcement (perhaps one emailed privately). Ryoung122 had abandoned MedCab since 29 Oct while editing the topic regularly through 14 Nov, so I had no idea the filing on 18 Nov would be met by charges of conflict with previously announced schedule. Since Ryoung122 has also announced a new conflict with the latter part of this ArbCom while he travels to Florida (presumably for a birthday party), I don't think he has carried the burden of my timing being inappropriate.
Ryoung122 charged David in DC with being a "#2 man". I have no knowledge of or relation to David in DC off-Wiki, and affirm David in DC's suggestion that our edit histories support this.
Ryoung122, misreading policy, charged David in DC with inappropriately commenting at DRV after AFD and poisoned the well. Also supported by the diff in 4.3.9 analyzed above.

Conclusion: In addition to significant supportive coverage of charges against Ryoung122, particularly the apparently hypocritical or oblivious ones, Longevitydude's adoption of similar hypocrisy or obliviousness is also evidenced. JJB 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims 4.4: Brendanology misrepresented sources, and maintains a supercentenarian blog used via mirror to source WP. JJB 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Analysis: It appears David in DC uses the phrase "his blog" to mean ~~only~~ that supercentenarianstudy.blogspot is ~~defended by, not~~ owned by, Brendanology. It is maintained in Singapore with an unfamiliar address. JJB 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Though I made the previous comment hastily, with David in DC's prodding (e.g., below) I compiled further evidence of his assertion of the SS blog's authorship at WT:WOP#COI list, a link previously advised; while David in DC's claim was not sufficiently carried by this section's evidence, further evidence compilation was required to properly annotate the COI list (and also carried the claim, I believe). Also, David in DC's link to SS is dead due to the Zolezzi article having been deleted by the blog author. That said, after David in DC voted (context supplied), "absolutely no sources ... inline [beyond one] putative 'source'", Brendanology replied, "Saying it has no sources is not true. While inline citations may not exist, there are SOURCES," at a minimum missing David in DC's call for any sources to be brought to the article and to be more verifiable. While this part did not yet rise to misrepresentation of cited sources, the initial miscommunication does include Brendanology's claim of sufficient sources not immediately in evidence. David in DC noted there was one Italian source, mirroring SS, which he called Brendanology's blog, noted Brendanology's shouting, and explicitly asked for sources to be added. Brendanology replied the "see also" links were external and sources, and David in DC correctly denied both points. (Minutes after David in DC posted this evidence, Milowent added one Spanish source to the article.) During this AFD I observed that the Italian source was a bulletin-board convenience copy of an Il Record article that did in fact contain the article photo and some of its text, and so I have no doubt of David's assertion that the Zolezzi article deleted from SS also was drawn from the Italian article (the photo was cropped in 2006 for WP by Lincher and it is likely SS copied the cropped image). It is clear that Brendanology misstated that WP internal links were external sources, and that Brendanology has sufficient WP experience that he should have admitted this lapse, especially in an area (AFD) where newcomers (solicited or not) can be easily swayed by a misstated argument, and that this is clearly knowable to Brendanology. JJB 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I mean to say "his blog".David in DC (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidental information: The effect on newbies is nonnegligible, because new user Cam46136 immediately was emboldened to post several very poor sources to AFD, in an amateur misunderstanding of adequate sourcing which I must also confess to having indulged in during my first month here. Cam46136's 17 edits to WP were -all- to longevity AFDs, in Dec and Jan, and I quoted an established editor calling him an "obvious sock" at WT:WOP#COI list. Thus, Cam46136 is clearly an instance of new (or sock) editors carrying the water for failed arguments by more active COI editors, and relates to many other charges of unduly influenced editors at 1.5, particularly 1.5.1.4[46].

Conclusion: Brendanology's tone was unjustified given his facts and his mistake (conscious or not) was aggravated by Cam46136; both editors were unduly influenced in the AFD, and there is more significant evidence of Brendanology's unadmitted COI than previously. JJB 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims and analysis 4.5: 12.144.5.2 intentionally disregards WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V. This is a very direct and well-supported charge. The following comments should not be regarded as deprecatory of this editor at all, because I believe he has in large part managed his disregard appropriate to the community. 12.144.5.2, who remains a WP-contrarian but occasional editor, took a long time to be weaned of his belief that the spaces after periods and commas (which he eschews) should be respected as a consensus; he also continues to doggedly assert the belief that WP should adjust its OR norms, though (unlike Longevitydude as evidenced above) has ceased to proselytize this novel belief. I regard this persistent IP to be approachable and able to be negotiated with (when he is not silent), and regard his work, when he documents his sources, to be largely compliant with WP's standards (exceptions have been noted, and remedies should certainly address any offenses by managed-COI editors). The problem is, of course, other editors who are emboldened to try to change core policy from within the garden rather than holistically or (like 12.144.5.2) by going off-grid.

Claims and analysis 4.6: Sbharris intentionally disregards WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V. This charge too is carried by the linked conversation. Sbharris strikes a middle ground between disinterest and disruption. He clearly disagrees with the policies and hopes for WP's adjustment in that and many other areas through ordinary process, and he is properly patient for that hoped change. IMHO he will continue to edit and interact tolerably to current policy, and he has not been a large content provider in this area, though he has provided significant content to other WP topic areas. My concern is similar to that in the prior paragraph, that his policy disregard is echoed unattractively by other COI editors, in addition to the risk that he will make sourcing judgments against consensus; but he has managed this COI well by all evidence I've seen.

Claims and analysis 4.7: Ryoung122 continues chronic disruption of process by elaborating on off-Wiki data; imports 110C's agenda (which is contrary to WP's purposes, "policies, guidelines and norms") into WP; manifests a battleground mentality; and poses significant harm to the project. Yes; David also pithily comments toward remedy proposals in the conclusion of his evidence, particularly, "In the face of apparantly incorrigable, chronic disruption of the project, some form of remediation is mandatory."

Conclusion 4.5-7: 12.144.5.2 and Sbharris are editors whose COI is relatively well-managed by contrast, but who may unconsciously stoke the other COI editors' demonstrated antipolicy passions, and this risk should thus be addressed with topic-area solutions. Ryoung122's process contributions suggest to me that he concludes disruption is the only tool remaining to him, and David in DC specifically demands (as do I) specific and comprehensive remedy. JJB 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sjakkalle

Claims 5.1: Sjakkalle is an uninvolved AFD closer. 76.17.118.157, commenting in wrong section, found the AFD relevant. John J. Bulten nominated 2 articles in one AFD, Sjakkalle closed the AFD as "delete" and deleted one article, Sjakkalle deleted the other article after John J. Bulten's technical request, Sjakkalle declined to overturn the deletion after Ryoung122's request (reading "decision and delete" as "decision to delete"). Ryoung122 made reliability and notability arguments and cited John J. Bulten's self-disclosed background (should be "WND").

Incidental information: I add that Ryoung122 appealed to DRV, that the result was to relist both articles in separate AFDs, and that both relisted AFDs were closed as "delete".

Analysis: Straightforward narrative of one incident. My own evidence links at 1.1.5.2[35][17][19], and the IP's style ("Greetings," et al.), indicate that 76.17.118.157 is Ryoung122. I conclude that Ryoung122 did comment lengthily in the wrong place (which supports my links at 1.1.2.1[22][24][18][11] to indicate a pattern of disruption), that Sjakkalle circumspectly admits making a minor deletion lapse corrected promptly upon notification, and that Ryoung122 improperly ("not relevant"ly in Sjakkalle's response to Ryoung122) made an ad hominem argument in the AFD review process (which supports my links at 1.1.1.1[14] et al. to indicate a pattern of incivility). Sjakkalle's response also self-discloses personal unfriendliness to the POV Ryoung122 perceives in John J. Bulten (creationism), and thus proposes dispassion in one's dealings with perceiving it.

Particular analysis of Sjakkalle's IP diff suggests to me that Ryoung122 as IP also engaged in identity confusion that may rise to the level of socking; professing knowledge of my opinions without sourcing them; charging me with POV-pushing; comparing me to those who use force to modify government-school curricula; promoting himself as a policy-compliant source; claiming a source consensus supporting his versions of the "longevity myths" article; charging lying and laziness about lack of sourcing (relating to Itsmejudith's opening statement, and possibly to my point that became 1.2.1[37], "Unsourceability"); claiming sources without citing them; promoting GRG; and claiming "2007 ArbCom discussions decided that the GRG was a reliable source" without citing any such decision (I believe he means some noticeboard finding that I recall faintly (though I, like Sjakkalle, could not find one at ArbCom; nor at RSN), and if such finding were extant, it was later essentially reversed per sublink [1] in my miscellaneous evidence link 1.3[40]). He goes on to engage in charging generic misinformation in my AFD nomination; charging me with warring, as evidenced by my term "bolding war" for a then-ongoing edit war (as policy-defined) involving bolding; charging Wikipedia with becoming less encyclopedic and making an OTHERSTUFF argument; and claiming that the AFD articles had a purpose "to show that, in fact, there was coverage (even if not great) worldwide, and that these areas of coverage reflect the state of recordkeeping and national organization 100+ years ago, and that as time goes on, more and more of the world will be covered", which is in short a declaration of intent to promote an unsourced POV and supports my point 1.7.3[11], POV-gardening.

Conclusion: Uninvolved closer with testimony supportive to John J. Bulten's and providing additional links, inviting one to draw one's own conclusion. JJB 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein

Claims 6.1: Ryoung122 casts aspersions without evidence (similarly to ArbCom case ChildofMidnight), edits as battleground during ArbCom request, and makes personal attacks (charging lying, cabal, and POV).

Analysis: Ryoung122's charges of lying ("zero sources") relate either to my AFD statement, "without reliable sources" (which would be a misrepresentation of me by deleting "reliable"), or to David in DC's use of the words "zero sources" as a clear expression of dismissive opinion through contextualized exaggeration, as David in DC had just said "There is only one source", quoting it in its entirety. If so, Ryoung122 appears tone-deaf and selective in calling this phrase a lie, and this conclusion is consistent with Ryoung122's description of the incident at 10.II-2 (Ryoung122's evidence contains two II's, so I break it accordingly into (10. followed by) I, II-1.1, II-1.2, II-2, and III). The charges of cabal (echoing my 1.1.1.3[19][9]) and anti-supercentenarian POV (echoing my 1.1 generally) are unsourced and indicate a pattern. David in DC's evidence (paragraphs 3.3.2, 3.3.10) indicates that lack of evidence of cabal is so obvious on reviewing edit histories as not to need a diff, which I affirm on different grounds, in that unsupported charges do not need rebutting via diff, due to unmet burden of proof. All Sandstein's charges of personal attacks and casting aspersions appear to be evidenced, and Sandstein's conclusion of battlegrounding appears met by the entire first sentence of WP:BATTLE, particularly grudges and personal conflicts ("have previously collaborated").

Conclusion: Uninvolved editor inviting a fact-finding that "Ryoung122 cast aspersions without evidence", providing sufficient testimony, and also establishing patterns supported by John J. Bulten's and David in DC's testimony. JJB 19:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

JJB: you're not supposed to be drawing conclusions here. Again, another violation of Wiki policies on your part. Are you judging your own case?

Ryoung122 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights

Claims 7.1: WP:WOP was created as, and may still be, not a true WikiProject. (1) AFD-keep editors at Jan Goossenaerts were vitriolic, cast heat not light (17:45, 9 Nov), and wrote disruptive, angry screeds. The Blade of the Northern Lights [Blade] then discovered that the same editor cluster was active at WP:WOP (21:00, 11 Nov) and commented there that editors disregarded NPOV, COI, and N; they also created an obvious walled garden. (2) Examples of this pervasive problem include: Brendanology's evidence section obscures his valid points by being well-poisoning, inflammatory, divisive, and not consensus-seeking; (3) Brendanology accused Blade of heavily implied cabalism ("please behave"), which failed AGF, cast unevidenced aspersions, and personally attacked ad hominem; (4) Brendanology, aware of Blade's charges, continued by saying that starting an AFD vote with charges of destructive collaboration is not well-poisoning, stated that David in DC's denials strengthen the charge, quotes an unevidenced 2007 ArbCom longevity decision, generically charges ill-tempered politicking, and objects to charges of "'zero' sources" without evidencing the quotation. (5) Ryoung122 posted "enormous reams" to Blade's talk, exculpating himself due to alleged provocation by two antipolicy agendas. Ryoung122 charged Itsmejudith (anonymously), without evidence, with believing "supercentenarians were not notable" and two other N misjudgments; he stated that WP editors admit GRG is reliable and that WP:WOP editors are objective and fair "if fair standards [are] applied". He charged me with religious fanaticism akin to teaching creation in schools, with imposing my alleged fundamentalism on others, and with religious warring for over a year. The remainder of Ryoung122's post is another statement of the two postings at 110C, which Ryoung122 has now retracted.

Analysis: (1) Though policy failures at Jan's AFD were generically rather than specifically cited, Blade has evidenced the fact he rapidly made a judgment overlapping well with my own on the evidence he saw, believing it on first impression to be so obvious as not to need citation. Blade then backs this up with specifics that support his first impression as follows. (2) I believe it is appropriate for Brendanology's evidence (see separate analysis below) to begin with bold statements of charges, which only in this forum is not actually well-poisoning as Blade thinks (although point (4) is, and words like "diatribe" and "delusion" are). It is also hard for me to characterize Brendanology's evidence as inflammatory, divisive, or nonconsensus, due to the unique nature of ArbCom evidence postings as opposed to other processes. However, Blade is clearly using this jumping-off point to provide more specifics about behavior similar to what he observed in point (1). (3) Brendanology's failure to evidence charges of cabalism after David in DC asked Ryoung122 for the charges to stop is a very telling fulfillment of Blade's charges, and also evidence of Brendanology's being unduly influenced. (4) Brendanology clearly learned about well-poisoning but not about what it is, because beginning an AFD with ad hominem attacks rather than content arguments is a classic case of the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well". It is so classic that the poison's effect on Brendanology himself is manifest: if denial of a charge strengthens it, nothing will weaken it, indicating that the charge itself and not the evidence is what has taken hold of (poisoned) the proponent's thinking. Brendanology further makes two statements already advised elsewhere, about a nonextant 2007 ArbCom and about "'zero' sources" in that AFD, which instead of relying on evidence rely on Ryoung122's word on both counts, indicating extreme undue influence and extreme reliance on Ryoung122's word, a COI source, alone. The word "zero" was first brought to this twice-nommed AFD by Brendanology, though it may be a misquote of my statement, "Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG." (5) In addition to yet another instance of Ryoung122's broadcasting his uncritial acceptance of the off-Wiki 110C posts, which was retracted, Ryoung122's lengthiness, personal attacks, and uncooperative appeal to "fairness" are clearly supported.

Conclusion: Blade is correct about his ability to cut to the heart: he rapidly identified a central problem, not Ryoung122 per se, but the endemic policy failures cooperatively indulged in by WP:WOP members, provably COI editors, and SPAs. He carries this charge generally for Brendanology and Ryoung122, and provides supportive evidence for a pattern, not just of Ryoung122 behavior, but of the conflicted editor set in general.

Incidental information: I infer Blade agrees that WP:WOP was stillborn and resurrection is incomplete. Interestingly, while Itsmejudith, David in DC and I have developed policy-compliant proposals on WP:WOP's page, editors like Sbharris and Ryoung122 have largely criticized without providing substantive alternate proposals or editing boldly. This creates a situation in which project guidance appears on its ~~talk~~page, created by nonmembers seeking neutrality, but project members, COI editors, and SPAs in abudance freely ignore the guidance (witness the last 30-40 AFDs) without bothering to improve it. JJB 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is clear guidance on the WOP WikiProject page, and not just on the talk page. David in DC (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims 7.2: (1) Editors charged sabotage of an expert. (Now pay attention:) Blade then compared COI editors to Moonies (to illustrate similarity of COI). Ryoung122 then stated that Eddie Long compared opponents to Goliath. Ryoung122 then meta-compared Eddie Long to Goliath; Ryoung122 then meta-meta-compared Blade to Eddie Long (all 20:07, 12 Nov at ANI). This last comparison misrepresented Blade's comparison. (2) Editors at the African AFD misrepresented David in DC's position, and Ryoung122 made a borderline legal threat.

Analysis: (1) Charges of sabotage clearly refer to those made by DerbyCountyinNZ (reference link) at WT:WOP, and ResidentAnthropologist at ANI. These charges in both cases were unsupported appeals to experience, presented to trump appeals to policy, and in ResidentAnthropologist's case also began with an appeal to consensus that clearly failed and led him to exclamatory defensiveness. Blade's analogy obviously said COI editors had the characteristic of desire to WP:MILL every member of an interest class into WP, against NPOV and N, and he chose Moonies as similar bearers of this characteristic. Ryoung122's analogy said that Blade making that comparison was like Long making a misrepresentative comparison to Goliath. The validity of Ryoung122's analogy depends on the degree to which Blade misrepresents in the same way as Ryoung122 sees Long doing; but Blade's WP:MILL comments, while slightly rhetorically exaggerated ("every"), do not rise to the level of an inversion of David and Goliath. Thus, Ryoung122 misrepresented while accusing Blade of misrepresenting, or, put another way, Ryoung122 compared Blade to a caricature while accusing Blade of comparing Ryoung122 to a caricature; Ryoung122 also compared (BLP) Eddie Long unfavorably, while Blade did not compare the Moonies unfavorably; and, if readers remain undizzied, I should close by meta^3-comparing Ryoung122's misrepresentations to, well, other COI editors' misrepresentations: particularly 1.6.1, 1.6.3-5, 1.6.9.3[52].

(2) Misrepresentation of David in DC refers (I was surprised) only to one edit set of Ryoung122 (reference link), which David in DC immediately reflowed as having created (interruptive) disruptive talk-page chaos. I observe that Ryoung122 misrepresents the phrase "calls me a homophobe ... without powerful reliable sources" as instead "call you out on [making] homophobic remarks" (unqualified, not mentioning sourcing), which is a misreading. Naturally David in DC's repeating a past flareup inappropriately can be considered baiting, I'm disappointed to report; this appears offhand to be the largest lapse of any of the non-COI editors, though David in DC's desire for resolution of the past obviously prompts it. In part 2 of Ryoung122's response, he says that David in DC's characterization of GRG and E.HTM as WP:SPS is "knowingly-false" and that his characterization of OHB as stunningly unreliable is a "put-down". He cites five links about himself (two of which are also about Epstein, maintainer of OHB) to demonstrate GRG is not SPS and/or OHB is not unreliable. He appeals to 2007 ArbCom, which is either unsourced or misrepresentation, to show GRG is reliable; refers unhelpfully to GWR; and closes with several invective adjectives. It appears that David in DC's judgment of GRG as an SPS set of web spreadsheets, in accord with RSN, is within a spectrum of consensus judgments about GRG, unaddressed by Ryoung122's unsourced and sourced appeals; and that David in DC's position (and mine) that OHB freely invites corrections and improvements and is thus no RS is not mitigated by its author having two articles in a journal found by RSN to be "somewhat fringy". After that in my diff, Ryoung122's final comment sequentially charges David in DC with cabalism and maintaining a list of articles to attack since 2007 (aha, perhaps he means my WT:WOP list "#Deletion recommendations", which I began only months ago, and which I and David in DC kept updated with discoveries of old and new AFDs); he cuts and pastes three Google mentions for GRG to affirm its reliability (such links are actually an N argument for GRG not an RS argument for any list of African supercentenarians); and accuses David in DC of libel, which in my judgment is "far across the line" of becoming a legal threat. Thus, while I see one instance of Ryoung122 misrepresenting David in DC's words, and I find myself compelled to admit one lapse on David in DC's part, the more interesting behavior is about 11 counts of Ryoung122 laying charges that are not found in the sources cited or alluded to (or, conversely, believing that sources say what they don't: misrepresentation of people who do agree with him).

Conclusion: Ryoung122 failing to accurately report what others are saying is amply evidenced (I think this inability stems partly from lack of desire to learn wikimarkup and partly from the human desire to believe people agree with you when they haven't said so), along with an indiscretion of David in DC and an aspersion cast in an attack characterization made by DerbyCountyinNZ.

Claims 7.3: (1) Timneu22's claims 2.1 are largely validated by Blade's contemporaneous observation of the same events (without repeating diffs). (2) Longevitydude's claims 3.2 are bizarre and supportive of Blade's conclusion.

Analysis: This is actually Blade's analysis of the other evidence sections, which agrees strongly with my conclusions in the relevant sections above in more detail, conclusions which I made prior to recognizing the application of Blade's comments to them. Thus nothing need be added in this graf.

Conclusion: Blade reached largely the same conclusion I made above after reviewing evidence sections 2-3, indicating its validity as an independent judgment. JJB 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say; John J. Bulten's summation of my evidence is spot on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matchups

Incidental information: I have very high regard for the judgment of Matchups in all areas, even in those where we agree to disagree.

Claims 8.1: Brendanology was uncivil in edit summaries (citing three mentioning "trash" and four in all caps), used edit summaries infrequently, and (implied) failed to assume good faith.

Analysis: This charge is straightforward, as the only question would be whether other editors' behavior necessitates such edit summaries. The talk page discussion and the edits themselves do not appear to warrant such summaries, because the other editors' "trash" edits appear to be in good faith and the all-caps comments appear to be either pleading (two) or directive (two), both of which are inappropriate for summary caps. Certainly the three "trash" edits involved one out of place for a project-technical reason, and two unsourced, but Matchups's reply emphasizes the escalatory nature of the responses. Matchups seems to have carried the burden of proof, and also to have obtained the civility-based response at talk, without mention of the issue recurring. However, the permanence of such civility is in question due to several other evidence links, particularly the discussion at my link 1.6.2.2[45] in which, in one thread 15-29 Oct, Brendanology makes 9 comments containing caps or bold emphasis and at least 4 that I consider attacks or insults. Since Matchups refers to the aggregate of Brendanology's summaries (under 1000 at evidence date), a review is appropriate and shows a disappointing but not excessive amount of blank edits and section-title-only edits, and several all-caps phrases, but primarily in the most recent months, indicating a growing dissatisfaction with other editors. My feeling is that Brendanology sometimes remains civil and sometimes doesn't, and analysis of edit content rather than summaries may indicate further direction.

Incidental information: At User talk:Matchups, Brendanology on 22 Dec regards it doubtful whether Jan Goossenaerts had turned 110, seeming to have blissfully forgotten making four comments on a quite well-traveled AFD on that name 4-8 Nov in which he repeatedly recognized Jan had reached age 110.

Conclusion: Several suggestions of incivility, aptly responded to on a one-off basis and in the specific, but which appear symptomatic and supportive of other evidence of larger problems. JJB 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Brendanology

Claims 9.1: John J. Bulten [1] intimidated and attempted to convert, [2] threatened without seeking consensus, [3] attempted presenting recent changes suddenly as new consensus against etiquette and warned with only one prior unanswered attempt to propose the change, all against Brendanology.

Analysis: See the full-context "bolding-war" talk section at my link 1.6.2.2[45] and 3RR report at 1.6.7.1[38]. I promptly apologized, and reaffirm the apology, for two lapses: making an appeal that included reference to a person's stated age, and naming the wrong article in a user warning.

9.1[1] refers to the first minor misjudgment, fully addressed by the first apology. Also, "attempting to convert" is a normal function of WP consensus-building, while "intimidating" refers my failed attempt to be WP:BOLDly direct.
9.1[2] refers to my using Template:uw-3rr on Brendanology for edit war (22:32, 14 Oct) after the first 8 full bold-revert cycles later mentioned in the 3RR report, and after my article talk compromise proposal (18:37, 14 Oct) went unheeded by Brendanology's 2nd revert (the 8th in the report, 22:20, 14 Oct). It appears to me that my proposing a compromise is seeking consensus, contrary to this charge.
9.1[3] refers to my judgment of "new consensus" at 01:00, 15 Oct, in link 9.1[2]: the edit summaries plus the discussion thus far (particularly outside editors Tcncv and Frank) indicated to me a nascent consensus change. ("Our" summaries included: my "do not bold nontitles", "Who is this IP that keeps reverting to deprecated styles?", and "WP:MOSBOLD, applies I think."; Itsmejudith's "rm bold", "rm inappropriate bold per MoS", and "italics per MoS" (an attempt at the compromise I'd suggested); and two unrelated. "Their" summaries: DHanson317's "Just stop..."; Brendanology's "These words should be bolded." and "THE CONSENSUS HAS BEEN TO BOLD THESE WORDS. DO NOT REVERT."; Ryoung122's "the bolding here is used for differentiation purposes"; and three blank and one unrelated. By that time on talk, Brendanology and DHanson317 had responded to me with "don't see your point at all"; Tcncv affirmed me compellingly; and Frank affirmed WP:CCC. At that point it was four editors citing policy "against" three editors and an IP citing nothing repeatedly.) My statement "new consensus" was a hasty reaction to the vindication I perceived in the latest two comments at article talk. However, since I had already taken the matter to talk, I did not breach the etiquette Brendanology cites, as his last sentence in fact admits; rather, it appears his upshot is to imply that not waiting for a reply on talk before posting a user warning was the breach (as in 9.1[2]). This action of mine appears consistent with WP:EDITWAR (summary, then article talk, then user talk), and is believed justified on that procedure's rationale that the warrior may not have seen the summaries or article talk (certainly, having me wait for a response on a neglectable talk page instead seems inappropriate). Thus it appears that, though there were minor lapses (including hastiness), to whatever degree one believes my actions accorded with Brendanology's subjective language, they did not rise to the level of breaking any objective policy.

Claims 9.2: John J. Bulten (1) submitted AFDs in batches of articles with similar criteria (1[1]-[4]), (2) used boilerplate therein, (3) voted on his own AFDs, (4) used boilerplate replies to editors to scare them (4[5]-[7]), all against policy.

Analysis: Brendanology links ([1]-[4]) 4 articles I nominated on 5 Dec, my second batch of two; both batches contained articles with similar criteria and partially boilerplated nominations. In this second batch I followed the first-graf boilerplate nomination with an article-specific second-graf source analysis, different for each article, which each also included the bold phrase "Delete as nom". Brendanology links ([5]-[7]) 1 of my 3 identical messages to Jc iindyysgvxc and 2 of my 6 identical messages to DHanson317, who had both voted with article-specific rationales but all with the same reliance on inherent notability, addressed by my boilerplate response. With the burden of proof on him, Brendanology has not indicated any policy that prohibits AFD batching, boilerplate noms, vote grafs distinct from nom grafs, or boilerplate replies (intended so that any editor arriving at any of the AFDs would be aware there were several others in the batch, and so that the similarity rather than the differences in the various votes would be emphasized). I am uncertain how my messages would "scare off" editors; presumably they dissuade editors from continuing to debate, although if so that is part of the consensus-seeking methodology of AFD discussion (if my reasons are valid, dissuasion is proper, and if invalid, they would not be dissuasive to anyone who understands AFD policy, viz., that valid reasons would trump them), nor is there evidence any respondent was harmed or offended at the time.

Claims 9.3: [1] John J. Bulten attacked Petervermaelen for boilerplating after doing it himself, indicating hypocrisy and causing confusion and misconception.

Analysis: Brendanology links my response to Petervermaelen, who (in the same batch) had voted on 5 AFDs with one boilerplate paragraph that did not address the article but instead his views of my beliefs and AFD motivations. I believed (WP:DUCK) he had been influenced offline by Ryoung122, and said so without naming names, very moderately and constructively I thought, and without boilerplate. I began, "Welcome Peter, I'm going to reply only once to this identical comment you made on 5 AFDs, because you aren't saying anything about any of the articles themselves." I see no attack on a person for boilerplating, unless the bare mention of his acts is an attack, or unless a tone is inferred; I believed Peter's one vote, copied onto 5 AFDs, needed only one response (unlike the article-specific votes of other editors). Thus the related charges have no foundation either, nor is there evidence that anyone was harmed or offended at the time.

Claims 9.4: [1] (link identical to 9.2.4[5]) John J. Bulten suggested two editors should stop replying on the same AFD batch, contradicted himself about consensus, stated that AFD subjects' appearing in several other lists was excessive and grounds for deletion, believes he creates WP policy to be followed blindly, and believes that supercentenarians are appropriate for batched deletion without individual consideration. Claims from 9.2-3 are also repeated in slightly different fashion.

Analysis: I bypass words like "diatribe" and "delusion". Brendanology repeat-links and describes my response to Jc iindyysgvxc. In particular, indirectly suggesting editors stop replying (even if it were extant, conscious, and inferred) is again part of AFD discussion; describing "established consensus" on one point and "further consensus sought" on another point does not appear contradictory, though perhaps solecistically brief; the statement that a marginally sourced AFD subject appears in seven or more other WP articles appears a valid redundancy-deletion argument from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; I see no appeal to blind followers, and proposing policy and listening for silent and verbal consensus appears to be part of WP's processes, particularly where the relevant WikiProject had not established any consistent policy without my input; and it appears my article-specific vote grafs did not seem to Brendanology to be individual consideration.

Incidental information: I considered nominating one article per day, but decided that batching would be much more clearly understood and less likely to be misinterpreted.

Claims 9.5: [1] Rejuvenation Research (RejRes), an "established" RS journal, [2] was smeared by John J. Bulten as "unreliable GRG published" to push a POV without determining reliability.

Analysis: Brendanology's first link 9.5[1] shows only that SiameseTurtle considers RejRes an RS, in re deletion of an article that did not in fact cite RejRes: hardly an establishment of reliability (I have stated I consider SiameseTurtle to have potentially conflicted interests). 9.5[2] shows that I used the phrase "unreliable RejRes (GRG-authored)" in a different AFD. This was perhaps poor shorthand for "a RejRes article unreliable because the article was GRG-authored" (I also omitted the word "article" in related AFDs), which was an opinion primarily on the reliability of GRG, and secondarily on the likelihood of RejRes adopting GRG's article uncritically. However, even if Brendanology's gloss were correct, the discussion at my miscellaneous link 1.3[40] sublink [1] indicates that GRuban of WP:RSN had previously found RejRes "somewhat fringy", basing my judgment. Brendanology's judgment about reliability and smearing is not supported by the evidence.

Incidental information: As noted at WT:WOP, I contribute to Word Ways: The Journal of Recreational Linguistics, a journal long edited by A. Ross Eckler, Jr., who also happens to be a supercentenary researcher. I do not regard many of its articles WP-reliable even for articles about its subject (wordplay), because its practice is to publish material largely as submitted, placing responsibility for errors or omissions on the authors. However, I consider Eckler's published statements on both these pursuits, wordplay and gerontology, very WP-reliable. This experience seems very similar to my understanding of RejRes and backgrounds my statements above.

Claims 9.6: [1] John J. Bulten's user subpage list of "Friends" is a disruptive "inappropriate friends network à la Facebook", is inappropriately updated by himself despite saying "add your name here", and can be interpreted as listing allies and canvassing.

Analysis: My best guess is that Brendanology first mistakenly believed some 60 editors had self-enrolled as my allies and then felt hurt upon being disabused, thus explaining the charge of inappropriateness. He perhaps also felt I was misrepresenting him as a self-enrollee. Certain charges, namely that a name list constitutes a Spacebook or Myface network, or that the word "friends" improperly connotes "ally" (I infer a form of "meatpuppet"), appear to be misinferences that do not carry the burden of proof. Even if the (passive, solicited) message were compared against (active, unsolicited) inappropriate canvassing, my message seems to pass the classic 4 WP:CANVASS pillars of being limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open, and the attribution of canvassing policy to it appears another misjudgment by Brendanology.

Incidental information: This is simply a list of people who have left friendly messages, broadly interpreted, on my talkpage. I believe I have added every single name myself, and I do so primarily to keep up an idiosyncratic archiving and talk-management style. I find Brendanology's objection to how I design my talk page more bemusing than constructive.

Claims 9.7: John J. Bulten uncivilly used the word "war".

Analysis: Brendanology apparently copied the wrong link, 9.6[1], when 9.1[3] appears intended. At that link I used the word "war" at 18:37, 14 Oct, to describe seven complete bold-revert cycles over the boldfacing of two terms since 22:04, 11 Oct (the last four of those seven cycles occuring within 24 hours, from 19:43, 13 Oct). Umm, I believe this phrasing agrees with guidance at WP:EDITWAR. Reference 1.6.7.1[38].

Short conclusion: No burdens of proof have been carried beyond admited minor lapses.

Longer conclusion: At risk of Brendanology taking offense, I believe in stating my speculations that these charges largely constitute unstudied and occasionally studied misinterpretation of my words, compounded by a picture of "User:John J. Bulten" that I reasonably suspect is circulating off-Wiki. My comments to Petervermaelen obliquely but precisely explain what I believe is happening. Although ArbCom is presumably uninterested in discussions at WOP, 110C, et al., and I am well-familiar with the vagaries of being misunderstood in controversial-opinion fora, I believe WP should not abide comments reasonably attributable half to off-Wiki stoking and half to lack of inclination to hear and understand. When one perceives having done no wrong or negligible wrong, apology can only go so far before it becomes "I'm sorry you haven't solved your problems you have with my existence". One can choose between tiptoeing and bluntness. Here I believe in adopting the latter and taking up two more lines of text to say straight and bold: 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. JJB 09:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryoung122

Evidence of impersonation at WOP or 100C

Incidental information: For my first point of analysis, it is necessary to state that I discovered today that someone is impersonating me on either 110C or WOP or both, as indicated by Ryoung122's claim of two postings to one of those two chatsites, probably the former (1, 2). I suppose I am honored to have been impersonated (imitation being flattery and all), although the chatsite operator(s) (and WP editors) should probably take note of the risk of further off-Wiki disruption of this WP process by the impostor. I merely note, for review by others, the stylistic differences from myself such as the party's use of such nonwords as "shes" and "pursecuting", and the party's insistence on such fundamentalism as "I'm standing up for the Bible" while I have been careful in my WP account to stick with neutral presentation of all POVs irrespective of my own beliefs about the Bible. Anyway, enough on that, it takes time away from real evidence I am preparing to post. JJB 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryoung122 analysis

Claims 10.I-III: Someone with the online name "JJB" made two posts on a blacklisted chatsite, which I believe I can escape summarizing on the grounds that they are outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction and have been retracted at Ryoung122's talk without anything replacing them. Oh, and Sandstein, John J. Bulten, and David in DC lied intentionally in re an AFD; David in DC speaks extraneously, has COI, teamed with John J. Bulten on AFDs, misstates source reliability and availability, and ignores evidence.

Analysis: Zero diff-supported claims. Not one. Categorical denial (made hereby) suffices to carry my burden of rebuttal. Ryoung122's views on WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:V must be understood before they can be responded to. I note in passing that Ryoung122 speaks of editors' inability to distinguish "one" from "zero" when he himself is unable to see that David in DC described the article's one source as "one source" (see analysis of Sandstein); he spends precious screenfuls of evidence before he gets around to accusing David in DC of speaking extraneously; he believes it an extreme cabal that a public list of deletion discussions at WT:WOP whereby one editor can quickly inform a second via watchlist that a new AFD has occurred, and privately bemoans just that to his list of hundreds of receptive listeners, telling them just what to do about it; and he sees no evidence against his view that David in DC ignores all evidence. Some call this projection.

Incidental information: David in DC answered a similar post, res ipsa loquitur, to which I reply, verbum sat.

Conclusion: Epic fail, followed by denial. Antipolicy coping mechanism may follow. JJB 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith

Claims and Analysis 11.1-31:

Introduction: Claims appear chronologically by paragraph. My summary of Itsmejudith's claims is italic, my analysis is in roman.
User:NealIRC was comfortable with all but two WP:WOP members being [Yahoo] WOP members. Context: 1.7.2[52], where we find (generically stated) he had added several "members" himself and committed other project creation gaffes.
Ryoung122 returned from break. Context: 1.2.0[36], where he agreed to restrictions to end his indef, and 1.2.1-4, where he broke his promises.
His first mainspace edit on return was adding a potentially dubious source. Rather than dubious source I'd say potentially unverifiable and potentially misrepresented.
He claimed the "Young 2008" thesis as a published source, declining to judge reliability.
He re-overlinked an article many times. Only one diff is provided, but it is misleadingly titled "rvt (page became corrupted with incorrect information)" when only one lifespan and one "Russia vs. Russian Empire" quibble were corrected, but dozens of re-overlinks were done. Per diff [20] below, this was during a (cough) war in which Ryoung122 stood fast against a consensus favoring removing date links.
He was uncivil (shouting) and boastful. It also appears, browbeating, citing his history expertise as exportable to WP policy expertise, and Wikilawyering a plain policy statement.
He was uncivil (shouting) and boastful again, plus an accusation of hidden agenda and an appeal to his history expertise, on a controversial topic. And he was reinserting unsourced challenged data without an appeal to a source.
He accused [Canadian Paul] of persecution. He also charged David in DC and Juliancolton with canvassing in an AFD, and Canadian Paul with a COI, by which he means Canadian Paul's inability to judge an AFD in which Ryoung122 spoke because of prior bad relations.
That day he described himself as bullied. "by certain persons on Wikipedia".
He criticizes the GRG article as "stunted, POV, even silly". While he seems here to still respect COI by not editing the article, he does not seem to feel a need to provide sources for other editors to work from, as he previously did on that page.
Canadian Paul stated Ryoung122 accused him of meatpuppetry. User talk:Carcharoth, link. It appears that, more accurately, the just-created Orderofthehouse agreed with Canadian Paul on something, and Ryoung122 said Orderofthehouse could be a sockpuppet; but, even if Canadian Paul was inaccurate, he felt compelled to seek a resolution that would remove even the reasonable inference attaching to Ryoung122's words. In this conversation Ryoung122 responded by Wikilawyering immediately. Canadian Paul then made various charges with diffs, and misstated "one year ban" when Ryoung122 actually had a 10.5-month indef block (I confused ban and block once, once). Ryoung122 in reply created talk-page chaos by interrupting repeatedly without templating, affirmed his right not to source when asked (which should be compared with his feelings about his unsourced material being deleted, a "holocaust" per 1.1.1.3[13]), and charged Canadian Paul with scaring away Bart Versieck, obsessing over Ruby Muhammad, beating a dead horse, and not informing Ryoung122 he had asked Carcharoth about him. When Canadian Paul asked Carcharoth's role as mentor, Ryoung122 lamented problems with Local church and LGBT articles, and then chopped up Canadian Paul's next comment (as Carcharoth noted) more chaotically than the previous, charging him with threatening to leave WP, "retiring" and coming back, being disruptive, rebuffing Ryoung122's attempts at improvement, and mistakenly charging Ryoung122 with incivility. In short, Canadian Paul did not maintain total cool under provocation, Ryoung122 behaved consistently with other diffs, and Carcharoth made an attempt and then for time's sake referred them elsewhere.
Ryoung122 stated a free registration-only source (WOP) is no V problem. And often more reliable than the media.
John J. Bulten discovered Longevity myths, which then included an unsourced copy-paste merge from Longevity. He rewrote, adding "a number of Christian theological, primary Bible, and other non-academic sources. References are incomplete." Itsmejudith and I politely disagree on some characterizations relating to this article. First, since the entire copy-paste had been Biblical-related data, somewhat redundant, it should be noted that comparing the before and after versions of Itsmejudith's diff of my work, there was significantly less Biblical material after ("#Biblical") than before ("#Patriarchal longevity myth"). I hardly rewrote anything, I mostly deleted redundancy, moved data out, rearranged, and added sources from elsewhere in WP. Comparing diffs shows I added Joeng, Weinstein, Leaf, Luth, NNDb, zero of which were Biblically-based sources, and moved out three news articles (to Longevity claims), without changing the six Biblically-based sources already in the article. I also added two newly-created templates (the smaller one was Biblical) and six photos (only one was Biblical). References remained incomplete on my first pass because the sorry original state required months of avocational work before the article was reasonable. Thus Itsmejudith's characterization is not consistent with her diff nor my careful attempt to remain neutral with controversial material from the very start.
Ryoung122 cited a Japanese journal abstract translation using the phrase "longevity myth" on 9 May 2009. This is his first sourced defense of the phrase since I challenged it, in that diff, on 24 Apr, and at about this point I have begun to realize Ryoung122 and I don't source the same way. Incidentally, I later discovered the phrase was first challenged in 2004 but has never successfully bowed to the policy guidance now at WP:RNPOV.
The same day, Ryoung122 cited Young 2008 as award-winning, which it is, and an RS. More than RS, I seem him as saying Young 2008 is NOR. However, Ryoung122's 2005 "essay" edits to "longevity myths" (1.3[40] sublinks [2][3]), of which a major section of Young 2008 is largely duplicative, were OR at the time, and I challenged the alleged transmutation of that essay into a citable source simply because it was a printed fork rather than the usual electronic kind. Incidentally, consensus at the article supported my eventual deletion of all 60-odd unsourced sentences from that essay.
Longevitydude, Kingcouey, and IPs voted suspiciously in an AFD, Kingcouey is indeffed as a puppeteer, and Longevitydude's explanation of shared computer is honored.
Canadian Paul presented Longevitydude with evidence of further socking. Four paragraphs down Itsmejudith refers to the upshot of this conversation, diff [22], which I provide there based on her description.
Ryoung122 deleted sourced material from L. Stephen Coles with summary "what is he known for? Founding the GRG, that's what!" Clearly implied to be a COI edit contrary to unblock promises.
Ryoung122 shouted while defending date overlinking. Reference link to all edits that date. He starts the show with "What a grossly misinformed comment", makes several comments colorable as uncivil, and charges Tony1's appearance to canvassing.
DerbyCountyinNZ and Ryoung122 argued about Epstein. Rather, I see DerbyCountyinNZ asking a question that affects how he would prefer the data presented, and Ryoung122 advocating for a specialized meaning of the word "debunk". The only oddity here to me is the tendency seen in many project participants to advocate heavily for others to define words the same way they do, which I perceive as an OR magnet, though this particular case is only indirect.
Retaining datestamps, Longevitydude changed Canadian Paul's evidence of socking to a vandalism comment, changed his own response to the text "Dont you ever send me messages like this again.", and deleted Canadian Paul's original reply back. 100 minutes later Longevitydude blanked the page. Reference link 1, 2. Unusable joke, test edit, or aborted malfeasance: unclear which. But note the original responses in the thread, which taken together with the joke edits suggest Canadian Paul struck a nerve.
Ryoung122 stated a version of GRG's E.HTM is available, plainly advocating its use, and "an anonymous IP editor noticed this already". Talk:List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010, reference link. This is coming close to COI-breaking, and should also be checked for socking potential.
During a bolding war, Brendanology shouted in edit summary. Ryoung122 accused John J. Bulten of stirring up trouble. DerbyCountyinNZ accused Griswaldo of being part of a tag team. Talk:List of the verified oldest people, reference 1.6.2.2[45]. Itsmejudith agrees with my characterization, challenged by Brendanology as uncivil.
"Ryoung122 pushe[d] for inclusion of material he has authored himself, in response to posts by uninvolved editors." 2010-09-23. Here I'd say DerbyCountyinNZ and I were very involved, Active Banana was temporarily quite involved, and Fences and windows was not involved. And Ryoung122 was (still) pushing for retention, not inclusion, of his still-unsourced essay, which is a COI; and I was by that time in mediation with him. As linked in the steps prior to this ArbCom case, MedCab was unsuccessful in opening up discussion on this point, but Ryoung122 silently accepted my gradual and carefully advertised progress toward final removal of all unsourced material from "longevity myths", and that aspect was successful and unchallenged by other editors.
"Ryoung122 shrugged off a friendly warning by me about conflict of interest." Reference link. And accused me of making accusations and politicizing WP.
Ryoung122 reverted Itsmejudith's edits that reflect fringe-theory practices. 2010-02-20. I was offline during this gyration so do not know whether reversion was better or worse on balance, between two editors with concerns different from mine. However, Ryoung122 also cold-reverted repeatedly at this article in 2009, as seen at 1.1.1.1[14]. I find it telling that Itsmejudith uses "Virgin birth of Jesus" as an example of "fringe theory article good practice", though it is not my purpose at this case to tell what. Nor do I agree with removing all science, but I have not protested the repeat of the removal of the science sources I added, Joeng and Weinstein. In dealing with Itsmejudith, I find it hard to define the balance she wishes to strike, as here she deletes science sources, but above objected to a perceived addition of religious sources. But we have agreed, and agree in this case, on most matters concerning Ryoung122.
Ryoung122 created an improperly capped, problematically encyclopedic section title with a plaintext expansion note in mainspace in lieu of a template. 2010-02-20. Not sure of the purpose, but this recalls Ryoung122's statement that he doesn't do sourcing (diff [12] above); it indicates he can't be troubled to look up the correct template either, nor ask someone politely to insert it at talk. JJB 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ryoung122 ignored an accusation of canvassing. Reference link. 2010-11-12.
When Itsmejudith indicated support for an NPOV "Longevity myths" at WP:COIN, Ryoung122 accused her of successfully canvassing Griswaldo into a merge discussion she initiated by asking, "What on earth do we do?" (18:24, 6 Oct). 2010-10-12. Actually, as linked in the steps prior to ArbCom, the FTN discussion (reference link), begun by Dougweller, attracted Griswaldo 1 Oct, 3 days before Itsmejudith on 4 Oct, who had prior involvement unrelated to Griswaldo.
Ryoung122 stated that his 2005 essay inserted into "Longevity myths" preceded his 2005 hiring by GWR, so he saw no COI. 2010-10-12. Reference link. This is basic Wikilawyering, because Ryoung122's own user page starts out describing his senior status with GRG since 1999, his junior consultant status with GWR since 2000, and his founding of WOP in 2002.

Overall analysis: Sorting of these analyses into categories is intended to be combined with sorting the other analyses into proposed findings of fact relating to Ryoung122.

Conclusion: While agreeing to disagree on certain points, Itsmejudith provides much evidence of Ryoung122's behavior supportive to that of other editors, and some evidence of the endemic and insidious nature of longevity-related policy violation that will be broken by the just resolution of this case. JJB 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On the use of science sources, e.g. Virgin birth of Jesus, it's quite simple. The sources should be chosen for their expertise in the topic of the article. Virgin birth of Jesus is a tenet of Christianity and is correctly treated as such. A discussion of parthenogenesis in animals, no matter how well sourced, is off-topic and misleading in that article. Similarly for an article on someone who was reported to have lived beyond, say, 150. The scientific debate about how long people can live isn't relevant. The sources will explain the circumstances of the report and we just follow them, with perhaps the briefest of statements that the longest known attested livespan was that of Jeanne Calment, 122. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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]

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)

Comment by others:

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 This template must be substituted.[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]

@@ Line 1,325: / Line 1,325: @@
 :'''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. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
-::
 :'''Comment by others:'''