This page is little more than JJBulten continuing with his POV-pushing. There are several serious problems with the current approach that ensure failure under the present circumstances:

1. JJBulten has done most of the project-building (COI)

2. Instead of a discussion of misbehavior by each side, instead we have a witch-hunt blacklist against those interested in supercentenarians.

In fact, Wikipedia editors like Brendanology started off on Wikipedia, but because they create an outside blog, that's a "conflict of interest"? I think not.

Where is the judgment on JJBulten's continued egregious misbeahavior? He continually "concludes" discussions to which he is an involved party. Something is wrong here.

Where is the analysis or proposed remedy for JJB?

Ryoung122 01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Come up with a proposed remedy for John J. Bulten and everyone else, then; that's the whole point of this workshop. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 04:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think we understand what remedy Ryoung122 would feel appropriate for JJBulten, and vice versa. Further comments by either of them about the other are not necessary. There should be a proposed decision in this case coming soon. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm flummoxed. On my talk page, JJB has alerted me that he's noticed that this edit has archived some material on the WOP talk page, but has also deleted a fair amount of material. He's noticed, for instance, that some material posted by IMJ has disappeared. I've since gone to the page and noticed that parts of one discussion, involving Brendanology, that are clearly the subject of this ArbCom case have also been "disappeared". JJB is reluctant to make the edits to fix these errors, for obvious reasons. While I haven't been the subject of the proposed decision on the workshop page to the degree JJB has, I, too am reluctant to fix this error. But the error obscures some important material to the future of the WOP project and completely erases some even more important material at the crux of this dispute, at least as to Brendanology. Please read JJB's description of the problem on my talk page and then the edit in question. Then, please advise. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, I think it's a clear-cut case of an editor who added a paragraph to an old version of the page, thinking that the current version was being edited, thus wiping out the intervening comments inadvertently. The solution is still clear, as I said, but if the talk page further degrades in the interim, it will require clerically merging the current fork and the former fork, which is why I was looking for an immediate response from anyone, anyone. It's a two-minute job, and I think my direct involvement would be rather silly, as being colorable as not directly related to the case. (No, David in DC, you're not degrading.) JJB 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I must have missed something. There are multiple diffs to show problematic behaviour on the part of a number of editors other than JJBulten and Ryoung122. Yet it is only against those editors that any sanctions are proposed. I'm concerned that the case will be over and meatpuppetry will continue. Could someone talk me through what happens next in regard to other editors? thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

This question may be better directed at the Pd talk page, particularly if workshop proposals were already made about the other editors you are alluding to (and if those proposals did not receive comments). Or haven't workshop proposals been made about the other editors you are alluding to (and if so, why not)? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Workshop proposals were made by party JJBulten in relation to DerbycountyinNZ and Nick Ornstein, but those weren't followed up in the proposals made by Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin. Should I address this to Kirill? Is it too late anyway? Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say it's too late; I'd suggest you alert all of the active arbs. Of course, you can't know what they are thinking if they did not comment on the proposals; it's possible they don't agree with the substance or it might be they missed parts of it due to the way the proposals are structured (JJB has not structured them so that each remedy corresponds to a finding; rather, each finding seem to be involving multiple users). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I can't speak for Kirill, but presumably he included in the decision sanctions against those parties he believes need to be sanctioned at this time. Beyond that, please see my comment on the Discretionary sanctions remedy in the proposed decision. The committee expects that going forward, all editors on these articles will abide by the principles set forth in the decision. Significant sanctions, including topic-bans, may be imposed through the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard if problematic behavior by any party to the case continues, or by any other editors begins. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

This helps, thank you. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Brad is correct; I've proposed sanctions against the two editors whom I considered to have been the key players in instigating this conflict. I'm hopeful that the two proposed bans will be all that is necessary to restore some semblance of order here; but, if that's not sufficient, the discretionary sanctions are included as a "second-tier" remedy that will potentially apply to anyone who persists in misbehaving. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd urge the arbs to take the opportunity of this latest incivility to beef up the decision sections that discuss civility. The post suggests that this part of the decision is not yet sufficiently robust. I'm just sayin'... David in DC ( talk) 13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Though I believe I was named as a party originally I chose not to participate here because my interaction with this was quite limited. I have followed the arbitration off and on however, and I would like to second David's urging. My impression of this situation has always been the GRG members/followers editing Wikipedia have serious ownership issues, and are frequently uncivil to anyone who opposes them. I was disturbed to read IMJ's evidence of off-wiki coordination, which shows them escalating their attitudes towards other editors online as a group. It appears rather clearly that they feel like they can act like this with impunity because they have the "truth" on their side. A wake up call is necessary. Few of these individuals edit outside of the walled garden, and when they come into contact with those who do they are often abrasive and uncivil. It's time to let them know that Wikipedia's more general rules and conventions apply to their little kingdom as well. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply