User:John J. Bulten/DR2

This open cold case has been appealed from arbitration to the Wikipedia Community. Eventually the Community's consensus judgment will arise formally. You may contribute below.

Longevity claims/Longevity myths article
I'm not here to be "friendly" with you (a POV message). Like it not, age limits such as '100' are arbitrary (what's so different from 99?) but that's the way it is. There has to be a limit somewhere. You don't seem to understand what is being discussed, or why, or patient enough to learn what the other points of view are before you simply rail away to re-make it in your original-research image. True, you did a lot of good, but you also did a lot of bad. Please slow down and start over. Moving a case within a framework already established need not a discussion, but changing a long-established framework does.

The main point of the "longevity claims" article was to give a summary of notable claims, worldwide, that are not verified but fall within the gray area of plausible. The article list also makes it clear that many claims come from around the world (universality) and that the claimed ages are often reflective of the systems of recordkeeping (incomplete).

My research has been published and awarded in the field. I also find it highly offensive that you use the term "gerontology POV." Excuse me, do you call mathematicians the "mathematics POV." Actually, Wikipedia is NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A "WIKI-POV." It's supposed to be an encylopedia, but too often it's become little more than the whims of those who have too much time on their hands. Ryoung 122 06:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Longevity myths vs. personal preference
I'm still waiting for you to discuss this issue "civilly" rather than just disruptively make changes which run counter to Wikipolicies, including the core issues of verifiability and "no original research." Ryoung 122 08:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, my changes are per consensus at Talk:Longevity narratives. I'd love to have a long talk with you about WP:V and WP:NOR sometime, but it looks like not right now. Would you mind rereading WP:NPA before charging others with disruption et al., and then, at that talk page, please cite your independent source that states that "myths" is better in this context than "narratives"? JJB 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we start with the basics:

1. "Narratives" is too generic. Any story about longevity, true or not, would be included. The VERY PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE STORIES ARE NOT TRUE. Therefore, your renaming (which was not consensus, since it didn't include a long-enough comment period, nor did it include most of the major article contributors) of the article destroys the purpose of the article.

Since consensus was not properly established, no major changes should be made until this issue is discussed thoroughly and properly. What do you mean, "not right now"? That IS the problem: that you are simply attempting to force through changes based on rapidity of change, not giving people enough time to discuss the issue. You are, in fact, incorrect, and you know it. That's why you don't want to discuss it.

2. Some of these claims have already been proven false...what about those?

3. Do you really believe that people live to 256 years old? Ryoung 122 09:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Not right now" because I happen to be going to bed. I would be happy to discuss it in detail in the next 24 hours. JJB 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please centralize discussion at Talk:Longevity narratives. Your third question will be ignored due to not according with "focus on edits, not the editor". JJB 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity myths II
Greetings,

I think there are still a lot of issues/misunderstandings. Let's start, then, with definitions. Going to Merriam-Webster, the definition of "myth":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable, allegory2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone ; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society  b: an unfounded or false notion3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence4: the whole body of myths

The informal use of the word myth is definition 3. Stories about Alexander Hamilton would fall into that category. The sociological use is definition 1. A traditional, overarching story that is meant to explain something about a culture is a myth. That could include, for example, the myth of longevity in Azerbaijan...a story used to explain why they live so long. Of course, by definition, the story is not true.

Second, by definition 3, any individual person that has only an imaginary or unverifiable existence (such as Catherine, Countess of Desmond) is a myth.

Third, let me just say this: the claim in the Bible that David lived to 70 years is NOT a myth: it's wholly possible. The claim that Joseph lived to 110 years is a longevity claim. It's possible, but unlikely. The claim that Methuselah lived to 969 is a myth. It's not possible to be true in a scientific world (you can suspend your disbelief for religion if you like).

So, let me know what you think about the above. I would to "add back" a list of cases such as Catherine, Countess of Desmond to part II of "longevity myths." By definition, the myth can be either group-collective (part I) or individual (part II).

Fourth, let me say this: we have scientific evidence that living to age 115 is possible, but unlikely. Even in the USA, over 99% of claims to age 115 have been false. The SSA also found that 87% of claims to age 110 were false (from 1980 to 1999). Based on numbers like these, calling a claim to '125' a 'claim' and not a 'myth' is being charitable. Let's not split hairs. In reality, a longevity claim is an individual person who believes their age to be higher than it actually is, due to faulty memory and recordkeeping. Add 15 years to 110 and you get 125. On the other end of the sprectrum, a longevity myth is promoted as a community symbol (such as Old Thomas Parr). The age STARTS out ridiculously high (there is no 100th birthday story for Thomas Parr; there is no 110th birthday story; no 120th birthday story...he starts out at "152" and dies at "152"). By the way, if you research Thomas Parr, you may find it that he was probably murdered. He was a dupe used to win a court case over a land dispute. A wealthy landowner needed a local peasant to testify as to who owned some property, and the law at the time required an actual witness. Thus, a story (myth) of a 152-year-old man was concocted so that he could properly "remember" 130+ years back in the past. After trial, he was offered a meal as a reward and prompty died from eating it (poisoned?).

The bottom line: just like trying to figure out what is a tree, shrub, and bush can result in disagreement, so there are areas of overlap here. But there are also areas where case A won't fit in category B. Ryoung 122 17:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Longevity narratives. JJB 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity myths III
Greetings,

I'm only here because you have shown a partial attempt at compromise. I agree that "longevity traditions" as a backup is better than "narratives" or "stories." However, your current, stacked-deck attempt to label "longevity myth" as "original research?" when I already posted FOUR journal articles that used the term, besides my paper, cannot be taken in good faith. How can I assume good faith when you have not addressed issues such as this?

Now, I'm willing to compromise a lot, including:

A. I like photos

B. I like diversity

C. I like king-lists

What's not acceptable, however, is to ignore the major points/structure of this article. Not only was my thesis published:

http://www.amazon.com/AFRICAN-AMERICAN-LONGEVITY-ADVANTAGE-Comparison-Supercentenarian/dp/3639105702

and is NOT a "self-published source" (and thus is not 'original research'), it also won the national award for best graduate paper in gerontology by a GSA student member, 2008. But that's not the point.

The point of the "longevity myths" article is to explain how and why "traditions" of extreme age beyond the scientifically proven age of 122 years, 164 days exist. I had also attempted to organize these myths or traditions from the earliest to the most-recent. It is interesting that your recent reading of Guinness inspired you to add more material on P.T. Barnum, but that is no excuse to delete other sections, such as Shangri-La. The claim that a PLACE is responsible for extreme longevity is extremely common across cultures, and is prevalent even today with such popular books as the "Blue Zones." It is simply not acceptable for you to go back and delete this material. I would suggest that the Guinness material you cite fits it well with what I labelled "individual myths" of longevity, in that a father-son namesaking case (such as Pierre Joubert) is not, on its surface, a collective-group myth. However, looking closer, the article that debunks this claim (by Charbonneau, 1990) notes that the individual case was accepted into a larger, Quebecois myth of French-Canadian longevity.

So, please do some more research before carte blanche deciding to reorganize the entire article. Ryoung 122 17:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More than just a thesis
Greetings,

I already have a few publications in journals:

Manuela Costa, Jean-Marie Robine, Louis Epstein, Robert Young, Thomas Perls. 2001. Ascertaining Supercentenarians and Validating Their Ages. The Gerontologist, Vol. 41, Special Issue II, October 2001 p.40.

Characteristics of 32 Supercentenarians. By: Schoenhofen, Emily A.; Wyszynski, Diego F.; Andersen, Stacy; Pennington, JaeMi; Young, Robert; Terry, Dellara F.; Perls, Thomas T.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Aug2006, Vol. 54 Issue 8, p1237-1240, 4p, 2 charts; DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x; (AN 21767663)

Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians. By: Perls, Thomas; Kohler, Iliana V.; Andersen, Stacy; Schoenhofen, Emily; Pennington, JaeMi; Young, Robert; Terry, Dellara; Elo, Irma T.. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, Sep2007, Vol. 62A Issue 9, p1028-1034, 7p, 4 charts, 1 graph; (AN 27159724)

The "myths of longevity" is NOT the only thing I discuss regarding human longevity. Ryoung 122 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not "just in my head"
Please read up on "Hunza" and "Vilcabamba" before claiming that the "Shangri-La myth" is "just in my head." Clearly, others have noticed the patterns of connection, and the feel of this myth is NOT nationalist in tone (though it may have ethnic undertones). The key point here is that the "long-livers" can only attain great ages living in their "indigenous" terrain and maintaining their indigenous lifestyle. We even see this in the Sakhan Dosova story, whereby she promptly died after being moved from her traditional dwelling to a modern one. Old Tom Parr also died outside his normal environment (though that myth focused on a change in diet leading to his demise, rather than a change in location). Check this casual reference out:

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitylegends/p/hunza.htm

"Some say that the Hunza Valley was the basis for Shangri La in the book Lost Horizons."

Note that the point of Shangri-La is that is an original place, undespoiled by "modern" intervention...hence a mythical place that doesn't really exist (the 'good ole days') that we'd like to believe in. Ryoung 122 08:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to close "discussion"
JJBulten,

There are several reasons that I have not responded to your every claim. Let's start with your inability to admit that you might be wrong...or at least a minority view. You also don't seem to understand that simply because something is not on the internet does not mean it does not exist. But even when evidence DOES exist, you choose to ignore it.

Let's start with the most basic argument of all: how long do humans live? What is the maximum lifespan?

According to science, that answer is defined by the maximum age reached by an individual member of the species. In this case, that is Jeanne Calment, who lived for 122 years, 164 days. Now, religion may have a different answer, but is it not scientific because it is NOT based on scientific observation.

Issue #2: one of the main problems with Wikipedia is that material often reflects how stubborn someone is, rather than whether they are right or wrong. Louis Epstein may have dropped out of Wikipedia, but he remains a leading expert and his work is reflected in places such as this:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html

I find it interesting that of approximately 1,000 verified claims to age 110, 99% were dead within five years. Let's look at the scientific estimates based on an annual death rate of 50%:


 * Age 110 1,000
 * Age 111   500
 * Age 112   250
 * Age 113   125
 * Age 114    63
 * age 115    31
 * age 116    16
 * age 117     8
 * age 118     4
 * age 119     2
 * age 120     1
 * age 121     0
 * age 122     0

That is, given 1,000 persons on their 110th birthday with an annual mortality rate of 50%, we can expect exactly ONE person to reach age 120. Now, for the chance of someone living to 130, we'd need 1,000,000 persons at age 110 to have just a 50% chance of a single person reaching age 130. Do you realize how unrealistic even age 130 is?

Also, let's look at the GRG data:

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of	June 19, 2007 *data below does not include living cases mortality rate age	number surviving	deaths	yearly	Cumulative
 * 123	0
 * 122	1	-1	100.00%	100.00%
 * 121	1	0	0.00%	99.90%
 * 120	2	-1	50.00%	99.90%
 * 119	3	-1	33.33%	99.80%
 * 118	3	0	0.00%	99.70%
 * 117	5	-2	40.00%	99.70%
 * 116	10	-5	50.00%	99.50%
 * 115	23	-13	56.52%	98.99%
 * 114	62	-39	62.90%	97.69%
 * 113	126	-64	50.79%	93.77%
 * 112	264	-138	52.27%	87.34%
 * 111	508	-244	48.03%	73.47%
 * 110	995	-487	48.94%	48.94%

In fact, the above data includes a few cases that Guinness accepted, but many scientists do not...such as Izumi. When the data is cleaned to the level of "undisputed," we clearly see only one person verified to have achieved a 120th birthday (Jeanne Calment) with the second-oldest being Sarah Knauss, 119.

Based on statistics alone, demographers have estimated the chance of living to 115 to be about 1 in 2 billion; the chance of reaching 120 about 1 in 10 billion. By age 130, the chance is really in the "impossible" range.

Ryoung 122 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJB 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering my edits were first, and your position represents ORIGINAL RESEARCH and thus a double violation (if not more), this is more appropriate on YOUR talk page. Ryoung 122 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you have violated the 3-revert rule, I have reported you to the admininstrator's noticeboard (below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Ryoung 122 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Longevity myths. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFOWR 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This arose due to a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which you should have been informed about. Your input there would be very welcome. TFOWR 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Prediction
I'm going to register my prediction that Ryoung122 or another Yahoo World's Oldest People member will revert the next change I make to longevity claims, probably back to the same stale copy as has been done four times already. Even though he has had notice at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, edit request 1, of my intent to reinstate "my" version minus what I believe he perceives as the most offensive part, as a compromise attempt, these editors are likely to regard it as "OR" and to revert the whole thing, even though what remains is only basic article improvements with the apparent biggest offense removed. I believe this will start to tip the scales toward indicating bad faith on the group's part. I also believe Ryoung122 probably won't watchlist the paragraph I'm typing now and so it's safe to say here. Of course, he could surprise me and let the article stand or, even more nobly, revert another editor who blows my improvements back into oblivion and thus admit that he takes more than a momentary glance at the name of the editor before being judgmental. He is hereby given that chance to surprise me. JJB 04:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop
JJBulten, your recent edits at longevity myths, longevity claims, and elsewhere have been unconstructive and against scientific consensus. Please stop.

Let's be honest: myths as ideas have survived into the present-day. You are proof of that.

The pre-1955/post-1955 divide is NOT acceptable or tenable. Even though Guinness began in 1955, they cited cases from the 1800s.

The earliest centenarian case validations date to the 1700s.

The real divide is between fact (proven ages in the 110-122 realm), fiction (claimed ages in the 113-130 realm), and fantasy (dreamed ages in the 131+ realm, especially claims to 140+).

I'm going to say something. Think about this. Moses's age claim is both a myth and a claim. His age is mythical in that it was a symbol (the same can be said for St. Patrick). The idea is that 40 years=a generation, and Moses's life consisted of 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian, and 40 years in the Wilderness. Such ages are allegorical, not literal.

But his age was also scientifically possible. The main reason he's not on the claims page is because, with no claimed birthdate and no claimed death date, his age isn't specific enough.

So, let's think about this:

1. Myths can exist in the past or the present.

2. Verified ages began when adequate recordkeeping began. While no one reached a proven age of 110 until 1898, records go back further than that: for example, the record in 1837 was 108.

3. Myths aren't just about whether they are true; they are in fact stories made to explain how things are or came to be that are not based on evidence.

So, here's a carrot: I'm not against all Biblical claims. That's not the point. The point is, scientists believe that we should be skeptical of what cannot be proven, and it would do everyone some good to separate the scientific material from the religous.

Now, I thought you were going to wait until the merge proposal was over before we went forward with a compromise, but I see that is not the case. What is your problem?

My goal is to educate. Your goal seems to be to spread an ideology. Ryoung 122 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Copied. JJB 04:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Supercentenarian Claimants
Greetings,

There are both citation and semantic/organizational issues I have with some of your changes.

There is such a mess, I think we should start with points we might find agreement on.

1. Why did you separate the "living" from the "deceased" claims?

2. Why are some cases listed in a separate "other" list?

3. A lot of the cases you separated out are in fact citable. Here's an easy example, Frank Calloway:

http://www.grg.org/FCalloway.htm

Aside from those, I'm wondering about these deeper issues:

4. You claim, on longevity myths, to divide "historical" from "recent" traditions, yet I see you adding historical cases to the disputed claimants page? Is that just a trojan horse to get a merger going? Because each article is long enough.

The truth is, most disputed cases are fairly recent, by definition, because evidence to contest claims only begins with written documentation. I don't see a need to mix these up.

Do we have a citation that Katherine, Countess of Desmond wasn't 140? Or that Christian Drakenberg was found to be just age X?

While, as skeptics, we doubt these cases and others, some people (Nick Ornstein included) have been overenthusiastic in adding cases that, in fact, don't qualify for the lists. To qualify, there must be a citable discrepant/discordant age that does not agree with the claim to 110+. Simply thinking the person is an example of a double life is not enough.

We can cite proof that Pierre Joubert (alleged to be 113 in 1814) was a double life...

Charbonneau, 1990. H. Charbonneau, Pierre Joubert a-t-il vécu 113 ans?. Mémoires de la Société Généalogique Canadienne-Française 41 (1990), pp. 45–48.

Ryoung 122 05:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some questions are answered at article talk. 2. The "other" list is those not WP-verified at all (as opposed to marginally WP-verified by GRG). This allows editors to determine which cases need more verification, as well as an easier comparison of the GRG and WP tables. If the article were generally well-verified by WP standards, this division would not be necessary. 4. The distinction between modern-or-complete (claim) and historical-and-incomplete (tradition) is for uncontroverted cases. I did not propose such a distinction for controverted cases, but instead taken them out of the whole set of unverifieds off the top. Nick agrees with this, in that he added St. Patrick and FitzGerald himself. In terms of getting a merger going as to the various sections of controverteds, there is no Trojan horse of setting up some other surprise task. There is always, of course, the natural process of completing policy compliances to which I have often referred. While there are other articles I would delete or merge, I agree with the breakdown of unverified supercentenarian claims into 3 categories of controverted, claim, and tradition, as defined above; I don't know if you yet realize my proposal was only a section merge, not an article merge. "5". The analysis and recommendation that FitzGerald was roughly 104 based on all primary sources was cited some time ago and appears in the current unverifieds cite (Dublin Review) at page 69. Nothing on Drackenberg, see article talk on that and on double lives. Please continue there. Also, if you'd like to add your Joubert cite to mine (OR ANY OTHER CITE), I'd prefer it if you do so directly in the article (with links or source quotation if available), rather than at any talk, thanks. JJB 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Excuse me, John Bulten, but I have no idea what you're talking about on my talk page. I have been accused by you of edit warring on List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. Where is your justification? I have not edited that page in several months already. Where is your proof that I have been edit warring? Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 00:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Go and see the talk page. I've already taken this matter to it. Brendan  (TalK|ContriB) 01:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer to your comment at Talk:List of the verified oldest people:
 *  If you're really 15, 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.
 * The above comment is a violation of WP:NPA. WP:NPA states that in talk pages, editors are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. You have, with this comment regarding my age, crossed a line here. You appear to me to be suggesting that the fact that I'm 15 means that I don't need to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. That is wrong. You know, JJBulten, there are editors here as young as 9 and they do a pretty darn good job at their work. Brendan  (TalK|ContriB) 07:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * JJBulten, please see Ryoung122's message regarding your edit warring notice at here. Brendan  (TalK|ContriB) 08:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Friends" list
Greetings,

Your talk-page structure is a bit complicated, and somewhat disconcerting. Is Brendanology really a "friend"? The word "friend" has a positive connotation, but also in the age of social networking, it can also connote "ally" and thus imply bias and self-importance by listing a long list of Wiki-"friends". Perhaps a more neutral tone, such as "editors I commune with regularly," would be more appropriate. Ryoung 122 20:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ryoung122 made a point there. If you, by adding me to your friends list, am hoping to curry my favour or anything, you are sadly mistaken. You have made me very uncomfortable by adding my name to your wretched list. I've removed it and don't ever want to see it appear there ever again. Brendan  ( TalK | ContriB ) 15:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Jan Goossenaerts
Your comments are out of turn. I am not a SPA. In case you haven't noticed, I also fight vandalism.

Regarding your scientific/religious arguments, sorry, I have to bring you back to reality. Scientific arguments win over religious ones as far as your business here is concerned. SiameseTurtle has the most knowledge and Ryoung122 the most experience. In addition I notice your irritating habit of threatening people with Wikipedia policies all over the place, and then proceeding to break each of them in turn. WP:OWN, WP:CANVASSING and WP:NPA. These are just a few of the policies you have broken right before my eyes. You are only too block-happy, giving me belligerent warnings for edit warring on List of the verified oldest people when the argument was in its infancy. Brendan ( talk,  contribs ) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Statements regarding "longevity myth," science, and your beliefs regarding Noah
Greetings,

I would like to clarify: Did you make this statment?

“there’s nary a scientific paper anywhere on the myths of longevity, only occasional colloquial mentions”.

Also, did you, in fact, say that you believe that Noah lived to 950 "because the Bible said so."

Personally, I'm OK with you believing that...it's not the issue. Like believing that Noah's Ark is on Mount Ararat, that's OK. The question is whether that an idea such as that can be called or labelled a "myth". Ryoung 122 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Ryoung122 has made my answering these questions an issue elsewhere, I don't recall making either statement. At the Search Everything page, the first yields only this page, the second (with "950") yields only this page and an Ryoung122 use of the phrase in mediation cabal. JJB 02:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanology (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 December 2010

There IS current WOP guidance
It's this: WP:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People David in DC (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd agree with that. I th ink ought your edit summary, "Error in your BNL analysis. I'm a member. I rewrote what you'd started, with the explicit edit summary that others should edit it further unless this represented consensus. No one ever did." is correct except for charging me with an error. I th ink ought I stated the situation correctly in incidentals here: "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." You joined 20 Dec right at the midpoint of your edits to WP:WOP, so this statement was not intended to deprecate your "member" contributions or to say all members freely ignore.
 * Now that I have charged you with error in charging me with error, according to all the heavy reading I've done this week the member code of ethics requires me to heap invective on you (you pile of epidermis) and allude to your belief that I'm a HOMOPHONE! Frankly, DiDC, you're the homophone! It's written all over your posts!
 * Anyway, I say that as a segue, because I'm actually hopeful that you're not offended that in my reams of analysis I snuck in one profession of belief that you once mentioned homophones inappropriately in an AFD, which some homophones might consider to be "bating" Ryoung122. His difficulty dealing with homophones is well-attested by his amply documented spelling problems (unsourced aspersion). So I decided to get the jump on you and call you a homophone first so that you can accuse me of bating you in your evidence analysis so we can all be "fare".
 * What, did I misread the AFD? JJB 23:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing's first. You're a master baiter.
 * Now, it's this that I was trying to correct: "This creates a situation in which project guidance appears on its talkpage...." Project guidance is on the Project page. Anyone who wants to can modify it, but no one has, despite explicit invitation. It's minor. No worries.
 * Visualize Whirrled Peas! David in DC (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honored. You caught me in an unconscious word swap; striking some halfwords. JJB 17:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Blog

 * The blog carries this disclaimer:

"Disclaimer This blog is a solo project maintained from Singapore. While every effort has been made to verify and check the accuracy of supercentenarian-related information contained within this blog, I cannot be held responsible for any errors that may appear in any of the posts. If you spot a possible error and would like to verify it with me, please feel free to drop a comment at my message board above. Thank you for your understanding and happy reading! All information concerning ordinal ranks of supercentenarians is correct as of the date of publication. Archives follow below. The author can be contacted at [his email]@yahoo.com. [Emphasis added]"

"26 Oct 10, 12:20 PM Brendan: Btw, please contact me privately by email at [same email]@yahoo.com. [Emphasis added.] I'd like to discuss something with you in private."
 * All of the spam warnings and deletions are announced by Brendan.
 * In an October 2010 comment, Brendan says:

It's his blog. David in DC (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Passes duck test, thanks, but ArbCom requires more circuitous tests. I should have called you first; rather than blaming late-night analyses and coping via sequential processing, let's blame Brendan's color choices (you brought your glasses). Will address. JJB 17:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of Kirill Lokshin proposed finding 5
Claims 5.1-5: Straightforwardly, sustained edit-warring; misuse of edit summaries; misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground; repeated deletion nominations that could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to overwhelm through sheer volume; attempts to unduly advance a fringe point of view, all by John J. Bulten.

1
Analysis 5.1a: One diff from 2010-09-15, in context here: ; five from an event on 2010-09-23, all seen in context here:. On the 14th, since Ryoung122 believes the article is about "myths (in the technical sense)" (a sense defined at WP:RNPOV), I added the parenthetical phrase to the article as an attempt to compromise to his view while leaving a tag so that his view could be sourced (and an attempt to compromise with another editor who pointed out correctly that the previous tag placement was ambiguous). Ryoung122 deleted the parenthetical phrase while accusing me of lying and deleting the appropriate sources (this diff was not counted by Kirill Lokshin within Ryoung122's edit-warring diffs), and I readded the phrase and tag while asking for the sources. I considered this to be an ordinary revert of a removal of tags, because Ryoung122 had had almost 18 months at that point to find sources, and I had never deleted any of his sources (he only found one for the phrase "longevity myth", which was in its colloquial, nontechnical sense, a fact that he never challenged after I added that source to the article last year). Restoring the lack of tagging, on a compromise phrase with which the other editor agrees, where the untagged version would tread heavily on NPOV and NOR, and where the other editor has long agreed that the sources requested by the tag are appropriate needs, does not strike me as warring, nor as sufficient to combine with the other event for a charge of "sustained" warring. However, it's certainly colorable that inserting a qualifier parenthesis and a tag to satisfy a notification of potential NPOV failure might not be sufficient "overriding policies" to justify a revert; but, if so, nobody regarded this as warring at the time, nor notified me.

Analysis 5.1b: On the 23rd, after discussion with him, Ryoung122 had just finally appeared at mediation, giving me hope that he was ready to discuss our content disagreement. However, 4 of his next 7 edits were cold reverts (1 of which called my adjustment of the word "myths" as "vandalism", which I waived responding to). 2 of these undid a week's worth of new sourcing work in a manner Ryoung122 had done to me several times previously: apparently, it involved picking a former deletion at random with a friendly name on it and cold-reverting to that date (incidentally, his revert to "myths" was a date later than the diff in 5.1a, indicating that he had accepted my version by the time of the later event). My diffs show that I immediately identified the old revert in both cases, and gave the editors' names and timestamps to show Ryoung122 via edit summary. We continued reverting, both stopping at three on both articles. I regarded that, since Ryoung122 had previously admitted that many of my former such changes were helpful, when I was doing case research as opposed to disputing myth categorization, he had clearly not reviewed the work in any detail and was simply reacting reflexively: and that, immediately after appearing at mediation. Again, the overriding policy of V (against blanket removal of noncontroversial sourced material), and the obviousness of the improvements made in many cases, were my rationale for regarding myself within policy. (One of the six reverts for Ryoung122's versions was by NickOrnstein, who apparently committed the same error of not looking at the diff to determine the obviousness of this improvement, with its new sources, straightforward date and rank corrections, and the like, suggesting undue influence.) My holding the line did have the intended effect of immediately obtaining Ryoung122's clear agreement to mediate. Having obtained that, I proposed a compromise by identifying 9 sentences I believed Ryoung122 was primarily objecting to, surgically separating them from the noncontroversial improvements I'd made, and Ryoung122 accepted this recognition of a primary objection of his (no "sustained" war). I also trod very lightly on these articles for the next week, as the mediation case makes clear, ensuring my newly researched changes were vetted and sufficiently noncontroversial to make. I thought I saw Ryoung122's reporting me for 3RR in evidence (where he proposed his own 3 reverts repeatedly as 2 reverts), but no remedy occurred and mediation went forward.

Conclusion: The first diff referred to a single revert that was policy-based, shortly accepted, and never considered a war until it was submitted in a proposed finding here. The diffs showing the two-article "war" indicate differences between Ryoung122 and myself in how much we relied on policy for our edits; no warring remedy occurred; and a compromise was reached shortly after the third revert; but this is not necessarily enough to clear a single warring charge, although the idea of "sustained" warring appears unjustified. However, Ryoung122's being listed with a greater number of edit-warring diffs suggests that a harsher penalty for me than for him, as was proposed alongside these findings, is unjustified in at least this point.

2
Analysis and conclusion 5.2:

3
Analysis 5.3: Charges of battleground editing rely solely on links to my evidence sections 1.5.1-2, "Unquestioningly advocating for Ryoung122" and "Unquestioningly supporting COI sources", and the talk section largely constructed by me, WT:WOP. My evidence section straightforwardly lists editors who clearly promoted a position or argument as proxy for Ryoung122 (some while he was blocked), indicating a pattern of meatpuppetry, and those who promoted sources with which they had a conflicting personal relationship (i.e., membership in an advocacy group), indicating a pattern of COI abuse. Particularly, I obtained permission, given directly by the presenter of this proposed finding, that "negative commentary is permitted": so it is unclear to me how this negative commentary supports a finding of battlegrounding. "Us vs. them" because I listed similar editors together? But some unduly influenced editors committed no policy violations themselves, like Bduke and Cjeales, so there was no faction creation in my mind at all (any name appearing in any section stood solely based on whether evidence appeared presentable for that editor). Grudge or personal conflict? Ideological battle? Those phrases have floated above the evidence but never settled down with diffs showing I ever had such a state of mind. So I don't know. As for the COI list, its rationale was stated in its first paragraph and never directly disputed at any point: evidence already indicated many antipolicy edits requiring remediation. I was never told that collecting voluntary self-identifications and reasonable inferences was a form of battle, and the section in fact had broad consensus, as most editors (including self-identifiers) accepted it wholly, and those that disagreed with its perceived shortcomings respected its structure and the facts it laid out. If perhaps battlegrounding refers to the forcefulness of my proposals, well, I advised that they would be presented extra-strong (as, in fact, Kirill Lokshin's proposals are also); if it refers to the suggestion of banning Ryoung122, I would be happy to return instead to the content mediation he abandoned, if binding.

Conclusion: These diffs are too vague, and the battleground policy too broad, for me to particularize the charges to any actions that may be remediated. As with 5.1, the difference in penalties and difference in diffs between me and Ryoung122 is inexplicably out of balance.

4
Analysis 5.4: Twenty diffs of AFDs, regarded as an attempt to overwhelm and thus disruptive in some sense. All are also listed at WT:WOP, which I compiled and studied for some time before making any bold nominations. In particular, Dolan, McConnell, and Quinn (the last three listed) were nominated by me on 2010-10-22 after NickOrnstein proposed them for speedy and was declined, that is, I was simply seconding his own proposal. (The speedy decliner immediately made one delete comment challenging the notability of two of them; all three were deleted, along with four others marked by NickOrnstein on that date.) One month later, after more collation and study, I nominated eight articles on 2010-11-27; six were deleted, one redirected, and one relisted, indicating I had correctly read the prior consensus toward "common deletion outcomes" and correctly nominated poorly-sourced, nonnotable articles (14 out of 14). I proceeded to nominate a very similar next batch of nine on 2010-12-05, but by this time Ryoung122 and other named parties made the AFDs quite a different character, and only two of the ten (including the relist) were deleted. That is all 20 nominations; I essentially stopped at that point. Of course, during the weeklong period 08-13 Dec 2007, there were 45 longevity AFDs, almost all by BrownHairedGirl, the vast majority deleted, and this action has always been regarded well by community consensus, with the obvious exceptions.

Conclusion: Nomination of small batches of AFDs at once is standard WP practice. These AFDs were all nominated with careful research and selection and with advertisement to the WikiProject in advance of the criteria in use. All articles but the last batch were deleted (one redirected) by strong consensus, while the last batch contained a largely different editor set and had a different result, after which these batch nominations ceased. I don't even know what policy violation is intended here, if any. Additional conclusions:

5
Analysis 5.5: Charges of unduly advancing fringe POV refer to Itsmejudith's opening statement generally, Itsmejudith's evidence generally, and my restoration of science sources that Itsmejudith deleted from "longevity myths" (and which have been longtime consensus at Longevity claims). Only recently Itsmejudith suggested her view as being that these sources in the last diff were precluded from her idea of the topic "longevity myths" because, e.g., parthenogenesis science does not belong in the Virgin Birth article. (Note also that there has never been a consensus view of what the scope of "longevity myths" should be.) I responded by asking her to interact with the last sentence of WP:ONEWAY, and that is where the intramural discussion stands. The sources (Gavrilov, and Greenwood and Irwin) have never been held to be fringe by anyone, and they were cited identically to their appearance in "longevity claims", the "nonfringe" article; but the "fringiness" appears to arise from her view expressed above, and this is also true of the other two references to her statements generally. I already alluded to her mistaken memory that I had added Christian sources to "longevity myths" when in fact I had added scientific sources to balance extant Christian sources, and it seems her objection then was the same, though not as clearly expressed. If adding scientific sources to an article constitutes advancing a fringe POV (apparently on the rationale that any science at all in an article judged fringe makes it look like the fringe view is more accepted than it is), at minimum I don't understand why WP:ONEWAY says that we should note that mainstream science appears in fringe articles.

Conclusion: Undue advance of fringe POV seems to arise solely from my adding mainstream science sources to the "longevity myths" article and relates to a discussion that Itsmejudith and I have not yet completed. A finding that I somehow advanced fringe POV by copying the mainstream scientific position from one article to the next would seem to preclude such a content discussion.

Incidental information: I was never told that any of the above incidents were bannable offenses. These two revert events, one poor edit summary, allegedly "battleground" presentations of relevant information, a relatively modest set of deletions with thorough attempts to seek wider community consensus, and a reliance on scientific sources in the myths article, were never charged by any of the involved editors to constitute the policy violations that Kirill Lokshin has presented them to be, nor did anyone raise any of these incidents as such in two months of evidence collection. Further, the relative weighting of diffs presented in Ryoung122's and my sections of Kirill Lokshin's proposal do not seem to support a lesser sanction for Ryoung122. Without making a final judgment, the most natural explanation to me is, as I hinted, that ArbCom has perhaps asked Kirill Lokshin to "write for the enemy" and propose what would be the best guess at Ryoung122's proposed remedies, in his stead, to honor (among other things) my request that he be given a full and fair hearing. It is in this sense I present my analysis. If of course this is merely a "denial" phase on my part, I suppose we move to "bargaining" next. JJB 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum
It's possible that diffs listed against me are in one sense intended as reflective of diffs I listed against others: as I hinted, shouldn't I face the same penalty I asked for others if I committed the same offenses? The very pertinent question is: writing for the enemy, if these behaviors were theoretically attributed to a GRG member editor instead of myself, would I have listed them for topic-banning, SPA, or COI? Another inferable side question is this: did I in fact link significant diffs not brought up in evidence (which would be dodgy)? After all, this current proposal's diffs had not been brought up in evidence, with the exception of two unexplained generic links to evidence sections and two to other talk sections. I admit that there were a few fresh diffs in my proposal, but they all relied on lines of evidence already submitted, and I would be happy to be presented with any counterexamples to this assertion. On the other hand, all of this current proposal's diffs relied on unsubmitted evidence, except for generic references. So I don't think my use of diffs not strictly linked from the evidence section is inappropriate.
 * 1) I would have noted the edit-war report, and noted that reverting ceased within moments, that the editor was defending a large amount of material against cold reversion without explanation, that the editor relied on the policy of not deleting sourced material without rationale, and that mediation agreement on the content was swiftly reached. Note that all these elements were missing from the bolding war that I did report, which included 13+ revert cycles, fighting over a tiny stylistic difference, failure to address MOS, and additional unaddressed reverting even after a block warning.
 * 2) A single edit summary would not have been noted.
 * 3) I see nothing "battly" about listing editors who were unduly influenced by Ryoung122 or COI sources; if an editor had listed, say, self-ID'd religious affiliations, demonstrations of commitment to those affiliations greater than that of billions of other religionists, links to denominational policies, and rationales about the relationship between fundamentalist creeds and longevity, why, I would've admitted a colorable case of COI, just as I did for my relationship with Eckler. (But no editor has found any evidence that I've admitted a religious view on WP, let alone construct a colorable case of COI except by foregone conclusion; in particular, WND admits editors of all stripes.) So my listings would seem within any editor's evidence-presentation rights, just as Brendanology listed several charges against me but was not cited for battlegrounding for that reason. (There was an issue in my first posting to ArbCom, relating to admissibility of self-ID's, which I immediately dealt with, never bringing self-ID's directly to ArbCom again.) Accordingly, not only do I find this to be not battlegrounding if other editors had done it, I am still mystified as to how an attempt to solve a community-identified COI problem would be sanctionable. Us versus them, because listing of COI editors places them in a different class than others? The policy itself already places them in a different class! If collation of self-ID's is improper due to some reference to editor privacy, I would think this should have been told me by email, as an editor violating some secret privacy rule is likely to keep doing so if not notified.
 * 4) If an editor nominates batches of AFDs, with full notification to a WikiProject in which the same thing has happened on a much more massive scale in the past, and the common deletion outcomes were proposed prior to any bold nominations, you can be sure I would've been right there at the project seeking to contribute to consensus before anything sudden happened. If consensus went against me there, I certainly would not have ignored it and argued in every case that that consensus was a derail of what the topic area really needed. Well-advertised batching occurs all the time and is in no way a gaming of the system. I would instead do my best to merge material so as not to lose anything I thought encyclopedic, without fighting that consensus as such by AFD jabs.
 * 5) Would I have proposed topic ban because an editor copied sourced science material from one article to another? Assuming I believe the material was unduly weighted in an article perceived as fringe? Really? Is that the whole charge? If it's unduly weighted, I'd discuss guidance with the other editor who was invoking other guidance (WP:ONEWAY), and reach a consensus. If I sought a topic ban for fringe editing, I'd certainly rely on better diffs than generic links to statements and one insertion of sourced scientific material elsewhere on WP.

In short, let's assume these diffs were all the negative behavior I'd experienced from this editor (in addition to a few of my lapses I already admitted in my analysis of others' comments about me). I note the complete absence of evidence of incivility or personal attack, casting unsupported aspersions, disruptive removal, BLP violation, tag-teaming, bad faith, pointy disruption, legal threats, POV-pushing, unreliable sourcing or verification failure, or intimidation by using personally identifiable information. In my collation of findings, I was guided by former ArbCom decisions listing all these latter behaviors as sanctionable, and I found and listed much specific evidence of them. If I had found an editor with the former behaviors, even the ones colorable as sanctionable if sustained and damaging, I would have bypassed the editor completely in the sanctions section for lack of ability to defend my characterizations at any length. Even if the editor had an SPA or COI account he would not have been listed in the SPA/COI section, as in fact I pointed out three SPA/COI accounts that had no issues. So in this gedankenexperiment, I still find that my request not to be formally sanctioned, and to rely on my voluntary ban, is completely sufficient to answer the concerns raised in Workshop. As always, I invite comments. JJB 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary ban
I hereby place myself on voluntary ban from Wikipedia, with the exception of activity directly related to the open ArbCom and MedCab cases, effective retroactive to 7 Feb 2011, 00:00 GMT, and effective until the ArbCom case closes. This ban is entered into unilaterally and voluntarily, without influence from another party, and I hereby authorize administrators to enforce this ban if broken. (My withdrawals from WikiProjects, being part of this ban, are, of course, activity directly related to the ArbCom.)

I further hereby place myself on contingent voluntary topic-area and interaction ban after the ArbCom closes and for the next six months after that date, as follows. I will not edit in the longevity topic area, broadly construed (though with exceptions for only tangentially related pages such as WP:BLP and Biblical characters' pages, and for this dispute resolution page), including article and talk pages, BLPs, and processes particularly affecting or discussions substantially relating to the longevity topic area. I will not interact with any of the 17 parties I listed in my "index" at the ArbCom cases as being "apparently conflicted" or "apparently unduly influenced". This interaction ban extends to commenting on pages not related to longevity in relation to interaction with the editors named, but does not extend to commenting on those pages in relation to other matters or parties. I hereby authorize administrators to enforce this ban if broken, after one proximate warning. However, these topic-area and interaction bans are contingent upon my not being named in the final ArbCom decision; if I am named there, this contingent ban would be inoperative and superseded by that decision.

Because utter silence on a matter can confuse other editors, this voluntary ban does not extend to forbid me from a boilerplate answer, e.g., "You mention a topic I have chosen not to discuss except on a dispute-resolution page," with a link to this page, nor does it forbid me from brief, nondisruptive discussions on this page. JJB 06:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC) This ban also will be in effect, for 6 months from the case closure date, if ArbCom sanctions me and if the sanction is later stricken. JJB 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hereby change the contingent voluntary ban to the following text, but with the same contingency as above: " is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted. He could always appeal the restriction, if needed." The interaction ban is stricken based on my interpretation of ArbCom consensus (but of course doesn't mean I plan on doing anything rash). This voluntary contingent ban will, accordingly, be in effect if I am not named in the final ArbCom decision, or if ArbCom sanctions me and if the sanction is later stricken. "Broadly interpreted" continues to be defined by the above qualifying text. JJB 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Prior to this proposal, The Blade of the Northern Lights suggested a 1RR restriction as a component. I considered this and thought it somewhat redundant to what I would propose, but I have certainly already resolved to look very carefully at alternatives to edits that go beyond 1RR, and I may be able to formalize this if it appears appropriate. JJB 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Amendments discussion

David in DC has said at Workshop both that this is overbroad in range and that it might be better as one year in length. Narrowing the range would not be suitable for me to comment on. Lengthening it to one year might be something I could work my mind around before the final proposal is revealed; it is technically not excluded. JJB 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith said at Workshop that volunteering for mentorship is appropriate. It appears from WP:MENTOR that mentorship for experienced users has no formal procedure and would require some potential "solicitation" or "canvassing". Carcharoth's unique situation in this case brings him to mind as the first person who might be contacted about finding a good mentor candidate, but I would hold off on doing much solicitation until ArbCom's position in re this voluntary ban is clearer. At any rate, a unilateral commitment to seek a mentor could be added above, but such seeking would need to take place after the ArbCom decision closes so as not to risk being interpreted as disrupting. JJB 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just deleted all 24 longevity-related pages from my watchlist (excluding the ArbCom, of course, as per above). JJB 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cam46136
Since Cam46136 seems to want a question answered, I make note of the implied question I asked first. Cam46136 provided some diffs, but insisting that "myth" be used consistently with WP:RNPOV is not being a censorious religious fanatic, and deleting unsourced 5-year-old, 1-year-tagged OR is not removing references nor preventing knowledge from dissemination (other than OR knowledge). Question to Cam46136: Would you please consider the possibility I might not fit Ryoung122's description, and the possibility that your carrying the banner for that description might be undue influence? You'll need to answer based on other methods than asking me to testify on my own account. JJB 13:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is this, John. I always question the motives of those who seek to censor, that is remove articles, be it on the grounds of religion, ideology (political correctness in all its forms) and, even, science.


 * Regarding Mr Young, I might have fundamental disagreements with him concerning certain events that occur on the sigmoid function of the human survival curve. Remember your view (presumably, because you won’t say what it is) — that there is no theoretical limit to human longevity — might be right!


 * The only way to resolve our differing views is to publish the data. And that is what I will actively defend, whoever the censors are. The issue at stake is the primary right to publish. It’s called FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!Cam46136 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Well OK then, I am all in favor of publishing data, in accord with WP:NOR. If removing articles were censoring, I would not defend it. The data in the articles removed still exists in an average of seven other WP articles each, except for what the person eats for breakfast and how often she walks. I have never opposed merge when there was anything of value to merge. Also that "no limit" view is actually Gavrilov's; when I asked Ryoung122 for more sources about views, he refused to provide any and generalized, such as when he said (above) that 1000*(.5^10) rounds to 1, as if that's applicable. If you have sources, add them! JJB 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to reply also to Cam46136's statement at User talk:Newyorkbrad:
 * I don’t quite know what you mean by being a bit “ducky” and you feel that my comments have been “inflammatory” and unhelpful. I certainly have strong opinions on the above, as I see it as censoring the works of science in the same tradition as the reaction to Charles Darwin and the Scopes Monkey Trial. There are important issues at stake, and I have expressed my opinion. What else am I supposed to do?

I see David in DC explained WP:DUCK. You have chosen that your WP account has certain characteristics: you have not edited mainspace at all; you have concentrated solely on WP processes, relating to longevity; you admit knowing Ryoung122 and you adopt similar argumentation and language. These markers generally indicate that a person is unduly influenced by another. As you learn more about WP, it is the hope of the community of Wikipedians that you will also begin to pursue interests clearly distinguishing you from Ryoung122, such as editing mainspace on nonlongevity articles, and sometimes backing off from arguments if you perceive multiple editors disagreeing with you, as it may indicate a WP:CONSENSUS. Particularly, now that you know that you have stepped into a long-discussed problem area in which processes have been invoked, it would be appropriate to tread slowly; while we encourage WP:BOLD editing, boldness is expected to take present concerns into account, as obliviousness to such concerns could give rise to those charges of inflammation.

As to your particulars, there may still be time for me to convince you that there is no censorship of works of science going on, nor fundamentalist reaction as appears in caricatures of the Scopes trial. Deletion discussions are not always about deleting data, often they are about whether the data is too redundant with other copies of the same data on WP – so redundant that a separate article would be WP:UNDUE weight on its subject. This was the case with the various supercentenarians and lists we removed: in most cases, the data itself appeared an average of seven times elsewhere on WP, and the only thing added by a biographical article was details about breakfasts and such, which are generally considered unencyclopedic. Ura Koyama is a good example of data that is unduly redundant with several other articles and not sufficient to constitute a biographical article. (Full consensus for this view has not arisen, but consensus can change.)

If you believe I have some kind of anti-science bias, it would be best for you to discuss with me how you perceive that in my edits to, say, longevity myths. This would allow me to learn from your beliefs. However, sweeping statements about my beliefs, without actual proof, are perhaps generalizations you have heard from a third party rather than evidenced by my actual behavior. I'd be happy to discuss your concerns on this page on a detail level, thanks. JJB 19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's simple. What do you believe?Cam46136 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Fun. As stated in my userpage, I believe in striving for NPOV. Now, any specific concerns that I have not done so? JJB 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You call this fun? I’d hate to see you have a bad time!
 * But your argument on NPOV doesn’t stand up. Articles in Wikipedia on the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are about facts, not points of view!Cam46136 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Um, you appear not to have read WP:NPOV, a core content policy and pillar of WP. NPOV policy agrees, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." In WP's language, NPOV applies to everything; undisputed "facts" are granted as NPOV. But my question, which you haven't answered, is: Would you please consider the possibility I might not fit Ryoung122's description? If you continue to assert that I am some kind of biased ideologue, without proving it, that is considered a personal attack, and I'd appreciate it if you could answer this question instead of continue the implications, thanks. JJB 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that human beings do, can or did live to 900 years; and please firmly state whether you believe that Noah lived to 950 (literal) years, because the Bible says so? Cam46136 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Well, we don't have to go circular, your repetition doesn't seem to respect my prior answer's position of neutrality. Why do you believe (if so) that a person who wishes to remain neutral on a neutrality-seeking forum is some kind of biased ideologue? JJB 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ninety-nine percent of most people presented with the above question would answer “no”.


 * The mere fact you won’t answer the question shows that there is a high probability that you do believe the above.


 * Therefore, there is a high probability that you are biased. Cam46136 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Without granting your statistic, why do you believe persons with religious beliefs are biased differently from other people, i.e., in such a way that creates greater nonneutrality than people with equally passionate antireligious beliefs? (Incidentally, my current interpretation of the ArbCom is that this conversation might be curtailed at any moment for third-party reasons.) JJB 22:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, I've changed my mind: while I enjoy seeking consensus that might result in both editors learning something, I'm going to waive continuing this conversation at this time. Maybe something else will have the effect I had hoped for from this conversation instead. JJB 23:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
 * 2) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
 * 3) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
 * 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;
 * 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 template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per remedy 3.1 (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity), I have blocked your account for one year. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ban expired
FYI, your one year ban has expired and you are free to resume editing. Night Ranger (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)