Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-21/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

Open cases

Monty Hall problem (Week 2)

During the week, 11 editors submitted over 67 kilobytes in on-wiki evidence. One of these editors also submitted several workshop proposals.

Kehrli 2 (Week 2)

During the week, another editor submitted an additional 15 kilobytes in on-wiki evidence. No workshop proposals were submitted.

Closed cases

Shakespeare authorship question (Week 5)

This case concerns allegations about disruptive editing on articles relating to the Shakespeare authorship question. Evidence was submitted on-wiki by 27 editors, including co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). During the case, Smatprt (talk · contribs) also appealed the Community's restriction which topic-banned Smatprt from William Shakespeare related articles until 3 November 2011. Although drafters Newyorkbrad and SirFozzie did not submit their proposed decision to the workshop, arbitrators Cool Hand Luke and Elen of the Roads submitted a new principle to work on, which built on the proposals made in the workshop (cf. Signpost coverage). The case came to a close during the week, after a total of 15 arbitrators voted on the proposed decision.

What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?

The collaborative editing environment on Shakespeare authorship question has been dysfunctional for several years; the 21 talk page archives at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption.
Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.
Articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question are subject to "standard" discretionary sanctions. The Committee has instructed that such sanctions should be administered in such a fashion as to treat all contributors fairly, while, at the same time, ensuring that future editing of the pages adheres to high standards of both Wikipedia behavior and Shakespearean scholarship.
The Committee endorsed the Community restriction that was imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs) on 3 November 2010; Smatprt remains topic-banned from any article which relates to William Shakespeare until 3 November 2011.
NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from any article which relates to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
- NinaGreen is banned from editing Wikipedia until 16 February 2012.
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be subject to bans, either by community consensus or by the Committee. While the Committee is permitted to lessen the effect of a Community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

Longevity (Week 13)

The case concerns allegations about problematic conduct, conflicts of interests, notability, and sourcing in relation to longevity articles. Evidence was submitted on-wiki by 12 editors over several weeks after parties requested for additional time to submit evidence (cf. Signpost coverage). Drafter Kirill Lokshin submitted a proposed decision in the workshop, before it was submitted for arbitrators to vote on. The case came to a close during the week, after a total of 11 arbitrators voted on the proposed decision.

What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?

Articles related to the longevity articles are subject to "standard" discretionary sanctions.
Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from the longevity topic.
John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia until 17 February 2012.
Affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to the case, does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest when editing the longevity topics. Similarly, editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic. 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.
It is not the role of the Committee to decide the outcome of content disputes. Whether or not any individual longevity-related topic is within Wikipedia's notability policies is a question for Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Whether or not materials produced by the Gerontology Research Group and affiliated groups are within Wikipedia's sourcing policies is a question for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
WikiProject World's Oldest People was urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the WikiProject and assist its members: in improving their understanding of Wikipedia norms and editing of Wikipedia.

Other

The Committee invited further comments in the RfC on Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) (cf. Signpost coverage).
Yesterday, a call for applications was also made; the Committee seeks to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to AUSC. Applications will close on 7 March 2011. Further information about the appointment process will be published in next week's Signpost.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

21 February 2011 (all comments)

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I believe the clause above "including founder of Wikipedia ..." should instead read "including co-founder of Wikipedia ...". What is the etiquette for such a revision to the main article? (please note, before the inevitable, that the designation of "co-founder" is the hard-won usage in many other articles) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to say "co-founder." Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, accuracy matters. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major or substantive edits are usually not approved, but it's fine to fix typos and so on (particularly as the typo in this instance resulted in an meaning that was not desired or intended by the authors). Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course leaving the definite article out leaves wiggle room for those that want it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About