Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by John J. Bulten

• Preliminaries, introduction, Itsmejudith's introduction, stipulations.

Ryoung122 repeated indeffable violations

• Reference.

Harassment

• Incivility: charging irrationality, self-delusion, unbrilliance, idiocy, self-deification, ridiculousness, ravaging, inconsideration, egotism.
• Comparing opponents to witch-hunters.
• Attack: charging subversion, manipulation, canvassing/recruiting, bullying, lies, intimidation, cabal (misstyling all names), forum-shopping, sockpuppetry, warring, machination.
• Presumptiveness: claiming to know my POV, my political party, my links to AlterNet (it's WorldNetDaily).

Disruption

• Talkpages: Manhandling chaotically, maladjusting other users' talk, commenting lengthily in wrong place, interrupting, hiding comments and signature offscreen. Defended previously.
• Threatening (24-hour block).
• Threading: Often confusingly indenting first graf threaded, but later grafs flush.
• Mass reversion.
• Wikilawyering.

POV-pushing

• Alerting others to all-caps "FACTS".
• Baldly asserting fringiness.

Unverifiability

• Continued thesis-citing; found unreliable for purpose.
• Unsourced/unexplained edits, tag removal.

Socking

• After block.
• Appearance of double-voting, consensus. 76.17.118.157 is Ryoung122.

Ryoung122 broke restoration conditions

• Reference.

Unsourceability

• Within 100 days.

Ownership

• (Nonlongevity) list-presentation control, edit-warring.

COI

• Self-identification.
• Editing about GRG and Young.

Canvassing

• Stealth. Defended.

Editors had COI

• 12.144.5.2, Bart Versieck, Longevitydude, NealIRC, Plyjacks, Sbharris, StanPrimmer, TML.
• Petervermaelen COI is per NickOrnstein.
• Cjeales COI is per NealIRC.
• Kletetschka found as sock or meatpuppet.

Editors were unduly influenced

Unquestioningly advocating for Ryoung122

• Bart Versieck.
• Brendanology (I "ignore"d IAR!).
• Canada Jack, openly.
• Kitia.
• Longevitydude.
• NickOrnstein.
• ResidentAnthropologist.
• Sbharris.

Unquestioningly supporting COI sources

• Bart Versieck.
• NealIRC.
• ResidentAnthropologist.
• Sbharris.

Editors duplicated Ryoung122's violations

Harassment

• Bart Versieck: Charging irrationality.
• Canada Jack: Incivility, charging threats.
• ResidentAnthropologist: Charging forum-shopping.
• Sbharris: Charging admin abuse.

Disruption

• Bart Versieck: Threatening, adjusting other users' talk, disruptive tagging.
• Brendanology: Wikilawyering.
• Canada Jack: Commenting in wrong place.
• Kitia: Noncommunication.
• Sbharris: Talk diatribe, strawman.

POV

Unverifiability

Socking

• Kitia.

Unsourceability

Ownership

• 218.109.112.0x12, Brendanology, DerbyCountyinNZ, Dhanson317: Edit warring.

COI

Canvassing

• Kitia.

BLP violations endangered the project

• Premature and/or unreliably-sourced death reports.
• Ryoung122: defending report disputed by self-identified family.

References

JJB 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by timneu22

LongevityDude made bad-faith/stalking edits.

I hope this is a correct place to put this information; in any case, it does seem relevant to any discussion about LongevityDude. Copied from recent ANI that was archived: A while ago, User:Longevitydude stated that it was good advice to take the opposing side for any of my AfDs. It seems that this has been happening recently, and also note some inappropriate edit comments. It's fine that people can have differing opinions at AfD, but this is a clear case of a user intentionally voting the opposite of me, just because of who I am. (I explained to the user when it was suggested he would take this course of action, that I would report it, and here I am.) An example is this AfD, which has only one non-delete vote (the author of the page) and then the LongevityDude comment, who says the AfD is "in bad faith and makes no sense". Based on other votes of that page, clearly the LongevityDude comment is about spite of the nominator (me), not article content. — Timneu22 · talk 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all true, and this can be seen by viewing my edits over a long period of time. There's no question this was intentional on your part, as you seem to have no history at all of voting on AfDs outside the narrow scope of World's Oldest People. — Timneu22 · talk 13:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

LongevityDude claims this is untrue, because he voted on an AfD 8 months ago. I stand by my claim that his two recent edits are absolutely intentional, and my evidence shows this. — Timneu22 · talk 01:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And now he's voting in my favor, as if to show some sort of atonement. — Timneu22 · talk 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Recently: more unwanted messages on my talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 14:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • More recently, the user continues to stalk my edits. It is not random that he's commenting on my AfDs, which are otherwise not in this user's general field of interest. Appears to be obvious WP:POINT. — Timneu22 · talk 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Longevitydude

Timneu22 assumes bad faith accusing me and other members

I was a part of the Elizabeth Kucinich afd, thats out side of the project. Longevitydude (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

this diff is proff that im not voting because of who he is Longevitydude (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Theres no appeasing this guy, even when I acknowledge he does something right he thinks im trying to atone, this isnt about atonement, its about expressing my views on something. Longevitydude (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whenever one of your decisions made sense I acknowledged that, its you who make a bigger deal out of this than needs to be made out of it, and yes, 23 minutes in hell is something that interests me, and how would you know what interests me or not, I can be interested in whatever I want thank you very much. Longevitydude (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My advice is you dont know what im interested in, and if I couldnt comment on your section then you cant comment on mine. I know what im interested in, and you would save a lot of time just not worrying about coincidental stuff.

• Look everybody, im loyal to the GRG/WOP and ill do just about anything they want me to do, Robert young has more brain and experience in the subject of Gerontology than any of us put together, and hes actually a nice guy once you get to know him, and with all due respect, its not Ryoung122 that got a warning for incivility, he was just being frank.

Leave Sumbuddi out of this

I will admit some of the arguements are understandable, I mean some of my edits are wierd, but other than 23 minutes in hell, none of those articles are in my public interests, you didnt know that until I admitted that, but other than that one afd I would say timneu22 has a valid point in his accusations, ban me however long, i deserve it, but Robert young and the grg/wop will NEVER be silenced, we have science on our side. Longevitydude (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by David in DC

WOP WikiProject's peculiar view of its role, and the role of the GRG Yahoo group

My view of the relationship among WP, the GRG Yahoo group, the World's Oldest People WikiProject, RYoung and his colleagues on both the GRG Yahoo Group and WOP WikiProject can be found here in responses to LongevityDude in an AfD discussion.

LongevityDude's response reflects the problem well.

Here's LongevityDude's honest, if misguided, view of how other editors should work with GRG/WOP. Here's Griswaldo's apt response. But, somehow, LongevityDude digs in deeper.

My summation at the closing of the JV AfD helps summarizes the whole WOP/GRG problem. David in DC (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The WOP Wikiproject uses two "sources" routinely. One is the GRG tables. Enough electrons have already been expended on that. It's obscured an even worser source.

The Louis Epstein Oldest Human Being (OHB) list carries an introductory disclaimer that makes it abundently clear that it is not a reliable source as we define reliability here on WP. It's hosted here. C'mon. How does one argue, in good faith, for sourcing things on Wikipedia to here David in DC (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

SPA's, puppets and drones. Oh, my!

Here's some fairly typical WOP/GRG sock- or meat-puppetry.David in DC (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And here's an SPA whose edits, and guidance to LD (and clerks) suggest that at least one party may not be quite as unavailable as we've been told. The focus on death dates, the interest in helping LD present his case, and the additional contacts with the clerks about oversighting two edits on the intitial request page for this case may well be coincidence. My wholly inadmissible spider sense says otherwise. David in DC (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SPA used over two days, with only one topic of edits: Contesting AfD nominations of centenarian bios. It could be sheer coincidence. But I wouldn't bet my pennies, marbles or pet froggie that it is. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and name-calling

The same AfD features fine samples of RYoung's unique approach to collaboration.

And this edit summarizes my experiences with RY. Over time he's accused me of being a homophobic, anti-porn cabalist.

Here's the result of junior members of WOP adopting more senior members' editing style. David in DC (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's some brand-spanking new incivility, and an indication of what "unavailable until after December 15th" means. David in DC (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Still more name-calling while unavailable. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And still more. David in DC (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I reply to a reiteration of previously imputed callousness. I grant that the castigation factor has been ramped down to "callous". Historically, the castigator has demonstated a far more robust repertoire of invective. But it keeps happening while he's putatively unavailable. It's kinda galling. David in DC (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Still more invective although not directed at me. David in DC (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brendanology misrepresents sources, including one that mirrors his blog

Here's my response when Brendanology told me to review the sources on a page.

And here he says there are sources in external links on the same article's page. There are none. David in DC (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: There's one now, inserted by someone else. David in DC (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

12.144.5.2 intentionally disregards WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V

This approach, elucidated on my talk page and signed L.E., is startling. David in DC (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: Even the edit summary is startling. Here 'tis, cut-and-pasted, verbatim: (→Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records:

Original research is the gold standard,anything else is second best.)

David in DC (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A jaw-dropping policy proposal re WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V on the World's Oldest Person Wikiproject

This essay on the WOP Wikiproject talk page, explains a great deal about why the project's approach and goals are at odds with those of en.wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

Some notes concerning List of African supercentenarians

I am not a party to this case, but I have noticed that an AFD I closed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians has been brought up, and that an IP mentioned it on the main case page. December 4, 2010 at 06:58 (This edit appears to be misplaced in the section for User:Itsmejudith, and I believe a clerk may want to move it to a separate section or talkpage.)

• 10 November 2010 04:58, 05:27 List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians nominated for deletion by John J. Bulten.
• 25 November 2010, 11:57 I closed the AFD as "delete" with a rationale where I cited the reliability of the GRG website.
• 25 November 2010, 14:33 JJB requests that I delete a second article (South American supercentenarians) which was also nominated in the aforementioned AFD. I complied with that request.
• 3 December 2008, 20:24 Ryoung122 requests that I overturn the decision and delete, citing the reliability of GRG, the political WDN background of JJB, and the notability of the article. I declined this request.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sandstein

Ryoung122 uses Wikipedia as a battleground during this RFAR

On 3 December 2010, after the start of these proceedings, Ryoung122 wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii:

"Aside from the fact that the "zero sources" assertion is a lie, both JJBulten and DavidinDC have previously collaborated in an anti-supercentenarian cabal (...)" ([37]).

Casting such aspersions without evidence is inappropriate; and such comments violate WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA.  Sandstein  09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by The Blade of the Northern Lights

WikiProject World's Oldest People was/is fundamentally flawed

I don't have a huge amount of evidence to give, save my involvement in fairly recent discussions. My involvement began with the Jan Goossenaerts AfD, in which I voted to delete and commented on the vitriolic responses from some of the "keep" voters; my comment is here (which I had slightly refactored after realizing that hounding could be misinterpreted as WP:HOUND). I have an extremely high threshold for invective- I have PDD-NOS, and in real-life I can be rather abrasive at times- and due to my real-life interest in history I'm capable of cutting through such invective to the heart of an issue, so I'm not normally one to worry about people's tempers flaring; however, I could tell that things there were getting out of hand, and that people coming to this AfD without a lot of experience dealing with screeds of angry text would have a hard time separating out the real arguments from the ranting (in my opinion, Timneu22 made quite a valiant effort, and should be commended for it). A couple of days later, I happened across a thread on the WikiProject World's Oldest People talkpage (how I got there I don't remember), and I realized that the users belonging to it were the source of most of the ranting at the Jan Goossenaerts AfD. My comments are still there, specifically in the End COI section, which I stand by. My primary involvement there was to provide a fresh voice, as I saw evidence of a huge walled garden that wouldn't be fixed without outside voices. Thanks to the efforts of editors like Itsmejudith, the situation there is definitely getting better; however, the fact that this wikiproject was able to maintain this huge walled garden for such a long time is somewhat disconcerting.

Note: Brendanology's presentation of evidence is indicative of the behavior I noticed from some of the WikiProject World's Oldest People members at the Jan Goossenaerts AfD. While he has valid points to make, the way he presents them (especially some of the headers) serves to poison the well. Instead of aiming to come to a consensus, his presentation is inflammatory and divisive; it causes people to form opinions before even reading his actual arguments. This is extraordinarily unhelpful in an already heated situation, and is a problem that pervades this area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 misrepresents the arguments of people who disagree with him

When this issue was brought to ANI, a couple of users had made claims that this was an attempt to sabotage an expert in the field. To rebut this claim, I stated that experts were welcome, but that they had to adhere to policies like WP:N and WP:V like everyone else. To demonstrate my point, I repeated an analogy I had initially made at the WikiProject World's Oldest People talkpage here (with a slight addition in my next edit here); we don't and wouldn't allow Moonies to take total control over articles on the Unification Church, nor should we allow gerontology experts to take total control over articles relating to their field. His response, "Comparing material on supercentenarians to articles on Moonies is like Bishop Eddie Long claiming to be David, when he is in fact Goliath", was a complete misrepresentation of what I had said. I responded with this, where I pointed out that in fact I was not comparing the content of the two types of articles, but trying to point out why experts don't have the last word on notability or verifiability within their field.

Timneu22's assertions about Longevitydude are correct

This will be extremely brief; however, I would just like to say that Timneu22 has a valid point about Longevitydude's new-found interest in Timneu22's AfDs. Timneu22 and I are both New Page Patrollers, so we communicate on a fairly regular basis, and I've noticed much of what he's said in his section. There was a brief AN thread that fizzled out, which I'm surprised and disappointed didn't garner more attention then, and I think that Longevitydude's behavior warrants further scrutiny. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Longevitydude's rather bizarre response to this has only bolstered my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Matchups

Brendanology was uncivil

• This edit reverted the addition of a person supported by a reliable source with the edit summary "What is this trash?"
• This edit removed some possibly useful, if somewhat awkwardly phrased, information with the edit summary "What trash is this?"
• This edit, similar to the previous, with edit summary "Removed trashy, unconstructive edits."
• A large percentage of his (infrequent) edit summaries are in all caps. See here for example.

Ma^t_chups 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion of this here on my talk page.Ma^t_chups 11:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Brendanology

John J. Bulten behaved inappropriately

• Following a failed ArbCom request, I would like to present evidence that Bulten has behaved inappropriately on multiple longevity-related articles; I will name them below.

He went around intimidating and attempting to convert editors:[38]; he also went around threatening editors with blocks without prior attempts to seek consensus [39]. The dispute was on whether or not some words were to be bolded. The article originally came WITH those bolded words; JJB elected to change them and attempted to pass it off almost immediately as new consensus, which was extremely rude and inconsiderate; etiquette dictates that the opposition should take the matter to talk and propose the new change there, not the defendant. Reading off from the timestamp of the warning, only one prior attempt by John J. Bulten was attempted to propose change to that article, to which no replies had yet been made. [40]

John J. Bulten abused multiple Wikipedia policies related to AfDs

JJB did the following: (1) submitting batches of biographies on long-lived people for deletion under near-identical criteria; [41][42][43][44] (2) spamming the same AfD message with minimal differences, [see beginning of each AfD listed for (1)], (3) broken multiple AfD contributing policies (such as not voting on your own AfD,[see beginning of each AfD listed for (1)], and (4) attempts, using spammed messages more than once to the same editor, and often to several different editors as well, to scare off editors who voted "keep" on articles he nominated for deletion.[45][46][47].

John J. Bulten displayed hypocritical behaviour

In this diff[48] Bulten attacks User:Petervermaelen for making identical comments on five AfDs when he has also spammed identical messages (see above). This has led to confusion and misconceptions about his aims owing to his hypocrisy.

JJBulten displays poor conduct and malformed understanding of notablility guidelines on AfDs

Several things are telling from his diatribe [49]:

- Pointing out that User:DHanson317 replied on six AfDs (User:Jc iindyysgvxc at least three AfDs) seems to be a suggestion by him that DHanson317 and jc had contributed to "too many" AfDs and ought to 'stop'.

- JJB's line, "While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria", is saying one thing and then another.

He admits that consensus was still sought with regards to biography-level notability, and then presents completely unevidenced belief that makes his own sentences seem self-important when there is actually no real meaning or vaild point made from that argument.

- Highlighting my previous statement, JJB also mentioned that Yukichi Chuganji, Margaret Skeete, and who knows else were in an average of seven Wikipedia lists under different criteria (likely 100 oldest men ever, list of Japanese supercentenarians, etc.), and deemed their appearance in those lists to "already be excessive" and proceeded to declare this as one of his supporting reasons for getting rid of Chuganji's and Skeete's articles, among others; JJB labours under the delusion that he creates policies on Wikipedia and that they are supposed to be followed blindly. Since it is argued that since outside sources choose to grant coverage of "world's oldest persons", it is only proper that Wikipedia articles be created and/or considered for them as long as enough information has been established, among other reasons. John J. Bulten believes that as they were all supercentenarians, it is thus appropriate for their articles to be deleted as batches, rather than as individual entities considered separately. As stated, in the batch of articles mass-nominated for deletion shown above, JJB attacked other users for submitting identical comments to each of those AfDs, whereas, as stated, he himself submitted identical comments to each of those AfDs with minimal changes to suit the article in a "one-size-fits-all" style, and voted on his own AfDs in a similar "one-size-fits-all" style.

John J. Bulten smears RejRes to push his point

Rejuvenation Research is stated to be a highly and peer-reviewed journal with reliability established[50]; JJB smeared RejRes as "unreliable GRG published" [51] in order to push his point without first validating the reliability of the source.

John J. Bulten establishes inappropriate friends network à la Facebook

As seen here, John J. Bulten establishes a friends network on Wikipedia which is inappropriate and disruptive given the nature of his behaviour. Despite stating "add your name here", he has been known to add names himself [52]. The word "friends" can be taken to mean editors he has corresponded regularly with, but in an Internet-ish sense it can also be taken to mean an ally; Thus his behaviour, in addition associated with his tendency to add names himself, can be considered WP:CANVASSING and I see this to be highly disruptive.

→ Brendan (talk, contribs) 09:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

John J. Bulten was uncivil

JJB started negotiations by calling[53] a dispute on Wikipedia over bolding words (touched upon previously above) a "war". That is a violation of WP:CIVIL. → Brendan (talk, contribs) 07:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ryoung122

First off, I am going to say this: that to categorically report every unfair/incorrect/false assertion made against me and others that believe that Wikipedia policies on notability and verifiability should result in a fair amount of coverage of supercentenarians on Wikipedia, would be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and perhaps detrimental to those who would not care to read a laborious list of misdeeds.

Nonetheless, I intend to fully state my position here by January 15. This section should be construed as "under construction" until that date arrives.

I. Response to JJBulten

It has been clear, from the beginning, that JJBulten's motivations and operations on Wikipedia have been contrary to Wikipedia policy, and have involved POV-pushing, canvassing, scheming, plotting, bullying, intimidation, misuse of the system, wasting people's time, and most of all, editing in a manner which is over-all detrimental to the subject matter on Wikipedia.

Far from attempting to find common ground or assume good faith, JJBulten has attempted to fan the controversy by opening old wounds and pouring salt on them.

From an outside source:

(note:InvisionFree is on Wikipedia's blacklist, but it is a mere site host for group blogs, which vary in content and quality).

DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Group: Members Posts: 40 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10

User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.

JJB

 Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM

Report Post Group: Members Posts: 1 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.

John J. Bulten

From the above comments, we have evidence of conspiracy. That's a strong word, and I direct it primarily at the current motivator behind it, JJBulten. Please consider analyzing and digesting the above statement:

"By taking away flags, she's showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation"

FALSE. Notability of an article is not disestablished by editorial decisions to remove flags. However, this is evidence that JJBulten (who brought BHG to this Arbitration Request, even though she was not actively editing these articles for about 3 years now) has attempted to influence other editors to remove material and degrade articles, in preparation for his plan to delete them.

Notability is not established/disestablished by the behavior of editors on Wikipedia; notability is established by outside sources.

Walter Breuning, for example, is not a world's oldest person yet, but he has received substantial continuing coverage well beyond the local and "one event" rationale of a single line-item obituary:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Yet I suppose by JJ Bulten's illogical assertion, all we would have to do is to delete an American flag by his name and "voila!", now he's not notable and his article should be deleted.

But the bigger issue is not that Bulten's comment is illogical. The bigger issue is that his editing (involving article degradation and deletion), POV-pushing, anti-scientific agenda (he claims that Biblical ages such as "Noah lived to 950" are literally correct, and thus people living to 114 today are not notable) is detrimental to Wikipedia's fair and efficient operation. BHG herself created the "list of supercentenarians by nation" idea in 2007, as a compromise for articles that were on the cusp of notability. It was also seen as a more-efficient organization scheme (by nation). We see a lot of categorization on Wikipedia by nation for topics outside supercentenarians, whether it be "Canadian actors" or what have you.

Now, we have an editor who has identified past disputed, re-opened them, and attempted to fan the flames of controversy by merging disputes about supercentenarian articles from 2007 with JJBulten's own far-far-right, radical conservative agenda (I note that even Christian apologist Arthur Custance believed that humans once lived hundreds of years, but not in modern times, while JJBulten has stated he believes people can live to 950 today).

Update: On December 25, JJBulten confessed to his mission, to delete all articles on supercentenarians that he can (he's actually deleted articles on World's Oldest Person titleholders too, such as Elizabeth Watkins).

Now, today he confesses why:

II. Message 2

1. What Alexandr said (and quoting Brendanology):

Alexsandr Posted: Dec 17 2010, 10:18 AM Report Post

Supercentenarian

Group: Members Posts: 149 Member No.: 1,021 Joined: 29-July 10

QUOTE (Brendanology @ Dec 17 2010, 10:07 AM) JJB has employed a number of tactics on Wikipedia, including:

-POV pushing -converting editors -use of flowery language to scare editors (like DHanson317) -smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distort facts -and a number of others.

I feel that as long as he presents his arguments in a RATIONAL manner, he can stay. But if he begins trying to convert or recruit members here who are also editors on Wikipedia (such as myself, DHanson317, and NickOrnstein), out he goes. The 110 Club is a place to discuss supercentenarians, and is not a recruiting ground or an extension of his practices on Wikipedia.

If I were him, I'd find it strange to be banned from the 110 Club before I have even made my first post.

It's a free forum; we should let him stay for at least a while. If he causes disruption, criticises, or offends members who edit on Wikipedia, then it's straight to Complaints.

Just my 2 cents.

You right: here be place for the discuss of supercentenarians. but JJb is not beings interested in that. Has anything ever that he do on wikipedia indicate that he has interest like us?

No.

All he do there is try destroy all work for maintain coverage of not-bible supercentenarians. If it be JJB then he not here for right reason.

2. JJB's response:

JJB Posted: Dec 27 2010, 12:15 PM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

QUOTE (Alexsandr @ Dec 27 2010, 11:43 AM) Read what he posts yesterday. he not here for good. Delete his account I think.

Alexsandr, are you trying to say I should be banned because I disagree with you? I'm standing up for the Bible and you can call me narrow-minded all you want, I am proud of it, by pursecuting me you'll only increase my reward.

From the above message, JJBulten admits that what he THINKS he is doing is "standing up for the Bible" by destroying the scientific standard. Can we allow this kind of agenda-pusshing on Wikipedia?

II. Response to Sandstein

What part of telling the truth do you have a problem with, Sandstein? The article had more than zero sources, therefore the claim to have had "zero sources" is, at best, an incorrect falsehood. I was actually giving the editors some credit, that perhaps they were intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between "zero" and "one" or "zero" and "two," etc. I therefore concluded that the falsehoods were deliberate, not mistakes.Ryoung122 01:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have a lot more to say...to be continued.Ryoung122 01:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.