Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Case information

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]

Requests for comment

[edit]

Preliminary statements

[edit]

Statement by John J. Bulten

[edit]

For full statement, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

ArbCom will be shown evidence that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), indeffed 2007-11 and restored 2008-08, both by Maxim (talk · contribs · logs · block log), has violated every policy for which he was indeffed and every condition of his restoration. ArbCom will be shown evidence that Ryoung122 (repeatedly found with significant professional COI) and his professional colleagues have significantly influenced other editors to mimic his behavior on WP, particularly in policy violation areas. The incomparable resultant semiwalled garden (per FTN 3) goes back five or more years and is not easily managed by nonbinding resolution methods due to antipolicy majoritarianism.

Specifically, following the order in the two links above and using illustrative diffs only, Ryoung122 has (A) harassed with extreme incivility and personal attack, (B) disrupted with chaotic talkpage edits and failure to discuss his reverts, (C) pushed POV (biasing GRG over other verifiers, verified cases over unverified, and various age claims over others with math-abusive criteria), (D) inserted unverified information, often attributed to his inaccessible Yahoo group or not found in cited sources (including one death report of a living supercentenarian), (E) continued to edit the same areas through IP account 76.17.118.157 (probably et al.) without clarifying it is him, (1) continued to demand 100 days' time to locate sources and failed to deliver even then, (2) continued to exert ownership over discussion aspects without respecting other ways of seeing things, (3) edited many COI articles while claiming only one or two articles are COI for him rather than a wide range, and (4) canvassed online and offline.

The influenced editors have also been uncivil and attacking, failed to discuss reverts, pushed POV, inserted unverified info, possibly used sock or meat puppets, refused to provide sources for such areas as data layout, exerted ownership and declined to see alternatives, edited COI articles, and canvassed online. Several such violations appear here. Unblocking Kitia for discussion might be useful, per Kitia's talk request for ArbCom.

Some of the many other issues were submitted to ArbCom for private guidance about mentioning publicly.

The arbitration will provide direct solutions to potential future conflicted edits and remove other barriers to policy-based consensus in the longevity topic area. JJB 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David in DC

[edit]
Statement was titled Comment by David in DC but was renamed for consistency. AGK [•] 21:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Itsmejudith

[edit]

I first became aware of Longevity myths when it was raised at the fringe theories noticeboard in February of this year, here. The problem raised was the insertion of biblical literalist views. It seemed to me that there were much deeper problems, and that the whole article was synthesis. A way out was suggested; it seemed that there were two articles that needed looking at together: Longevity myths, and Longevity claims, but there was already some muddle about the scope of each. Discussion fizzled out at that point.

The problems with this suite of articles go back a very long way, before I started editing, to a time when policies were still much more fluid. The original 2003 version of Longevity myths, here is an exercise in debunking. The creating IP added the name Louis Epstein to his post. Epstein was in a constant state of warfare in 2003 about his right not to put a space after a full stop or comma and has contributed sporadically since then. In a very recent post, he [1] explains that he created Wikipedia’s coverage of supercentenarians from scratch and left when his viewpoint on some articles was not upheld. That’s basically accurate. It’s a pity that we haven’t managed to engage an editor like this and keep him on board and editing to the rules.

Robert Young has been editing as User:Ryoung122 since 2005. He had his own article, deleted after an AfD in which he intervened, in August 2007. The article on Louis Epstein was merged around the same time. Ryoung122 was indeffed November 2007 after this thread, and this one related to meat puppetry on ANI. He was allowed back again in August 2008. Young and Epstein work with Stephen Coles in the Gerontology Research Group. They publish lists on wwww.grg.org, and in the fringe science journal (probably) Rejuvenation Research. Young wrote his master's thesis on longevity, and appears to have posted chunks of it in our articles.

In the meantime, in March 2008 User:NealIRC created WP:WOP. This WikiProject got off on the wrong footing, with discussion still visible on the project talk page about the "group leader", and similar misguided attempts to run the project as a cabal. The founding editor was later blocked for a month for harassment, and hasn’t returned since. The recent bolding war on List of the verified oldest people, kicked off by a minor edit of mine, shows the extent of the ownership that is part of the culture on the project. It does indeed seem that, as JJB has said, the project operates as an extension of the World's Oldest People Yahoo! group.

Longevity myths was tagged as essay-like in April 2008 and for refimprove in July 2008. The article was still unsourced SYNTH of a myth-debunking character in April 2009 when John J Bulten came to it. By that point it had acquired a reference to a work by Lucian Boia, the nearest it has ever come to a reliable secondary source, and to William Thoms' work of 1879, as well as ELs to GRG and others. JJB cleaned up some very confused paragraphs and added some dubiously sourced material on Biblical longevity.

JJB edits under his own name, which makes it easy to find out that he is active elsewhere on the web, and is puzzles editor of World Net Daily. This allows Robert Young to accuse him of being a biblical literalist and POV-pusher. Both JJB and Young wish to see the Longevity myths article remain in more or less the same shape, however much they disagree about the title. For different reasons they both want to see a sweep from the Sumerian king lists through to cases of people who died in the last decades, although there doesn't seem to be a single expert on myth who thinks that there is a single phenomenon (of exaggerating ages) from early civilisation through to the present.

Although I instituted the COIN post and the ANI about Ryoung122's activity, that doesn't mean that I agree with JJBulten about the future shape of longevity-related articles. Biblical literalism is a viewpoint that needs to be covered in the encyclopedia, but it isn’t generally a notable viewpoint in articles relating to human longevity. In contributing to this ArbCom proposal, I’m not aligning myself with JJB’s point of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/1/0)

[edit]
  • Without prejudice to considering this case, could a clerk please work with the filing party to significantly limit the number of "parties" in this case? Please note that there's a difference between someone who is actively involved in the dispute being brought forward, and those who have expressed an opinion on the matter at some point. Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I think the list of parties can still be narrowed further (all editors are welcome to present evidence without being parties), but it is clear that there is a long-running dispute here which has wended its way through various dispute resolution processes. Risker (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@John J. Bulten - The GRG is not a party to this arbitration case, mainly because they are an outside group that has no standing on Wikipedia, and there is no purpose to notifying them. Individual Wikipedia editors who may also be part of that group have already been notified by you through the usual process. Risker (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I join in Risker's request. I also find the classification of the proposed parties to be unnecessarily confrontational and unhelpful in assuming the things that, if we accept the case, would have to be proved. It should be noted that if accepted, a case would examine the behavior of all parties. Awaiting further statements before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

(There was no temporary injunction for this case.)

Final decision

[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Conduct and decorum

[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Conflicts of interest

[edit]

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

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Editorial process

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Fait accompli

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Treatment of scientific topics

[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 1 at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Good intentions

[edit]

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

Passed 6 to 4 with 1 abstention at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Content disputes

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Questions of content

[edit]

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

Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 21:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Group affiliations and conflicts of interest

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Ryoung122

[edit]

4) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([2], [3], [4]); sustained edit-warring ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]); and inappropriate canvassing ([21]).

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

John J. Bulten

[edit]

5) John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including sustained edit-warring ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]); misuse of edit summaries ([28]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([29], [30]); repeated deletion nominations that could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to overwhelm through sheer volume ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]); and attempts to unduly advance a fringe point of view ([51], [52], [53]).

Passed 9 to 2 at 21:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Remedies

[edit]

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.

Contentious topic designation

[edit]
Superseded version
Former title: "Discretionary sanctions"

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Amended to change "articles" to "pages"

Passed 7 to 1 by Motion, 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion

1) All pages related to longevity, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ryoung122 topic-banned

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

John J. Bulten banned

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject World's Oldest People urged

[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Deletion of evidence sub-pages

[edit]

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

Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).


Enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions

[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
Rescinded by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement of decision sanctions

[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Amendments by motion

[edit]

Discretionary sanctions rescinded (November 2014)

[edit]

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

  1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
  4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
  5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
  6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
  9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
Passed 11 to 0 by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity (August 2015)

[edit]

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 22:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

[edit]
As part of the 2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following motion to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Longevity (October 2023)

[edit]

Remedy 1 of Longevity ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Notifications

[edit]

Sanctions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity&oldid=1180831927"