User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sockpuppetry case

Puppeter template.svg

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there another sockpuppet or is the accusion of Robert Young für this false?
How many false Robert Young Sockpuppets were blocked? How many damage will be done by ne sockpuppt-accusions?
Statistician 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

This whole brouhaha caught my attention because Louis Epstein is an old acquaintance. I don't 'take sides' on articles about people I know, but I don't see any 'conflict of interest' for me on the rest of this dust up. Using multiple accounts and/or calling in support was an understandable move, but a bad idea. When it becomes a battle people have a tendency to stop listening to the merits and focus on 'beating the opposition' instead. You'll have to deal with sorting that out - Carcharoth has been giving you good advice for how to accomplish that. However, going back to the actual issue which prompted the dispute, before it got sidetracked by this latest chapter in the never-ending 'war of personalities'... it seems to me that you were right. You very clearly do meet Wikipedia's standards of 'notability' for inclusion and some of the other articles in question may as well (though I take no position on Louis's). I'm going to start a new 'Robert Young' article with detailed references and sources. --CBD 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, you are entitled to your views on Robert's notability, but an AfD has only just concluded in which there was a consensus that that he was not notable. Rather than recreating an article which has just been deleted after one of the longest AfDs I have ever seen, it would be better to add a little about Robert to the article Extreme longevity tracking which Carcharoth created for exactly that purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod created that article, actually, and I only created supercentenarian tracking when following up a suggestion you made, and then later I merged it to Johnbod's article. I suggest adding the information to extreme longevity tracking, and then when the section gets too large, spin it off to form its own article. Hopefully by the time that happens, some of the dust will have settled from this. DRV is also a possibility as well at some point. I know DRV is not for this type of thing, but sometimes consensus is wrong. Simple as that. Sometimes quiet recreation (with massively improved content and sources) is the best way to improve the encyclopedia and avoid the drama. Objecting to that is process for the sake of process. Carcharoth 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Another alternative is to create the proposed article in your user space, say User:CBDunkerson/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher), reference it meticulously, and then people will be able to see whether the proposed article meets Wikipedia:Notability, without the undercurrent of personal attacks from each side that the AFD turned into. This should be about the article, not about the editors. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to Carcharoth, maybe consensus was wrong; it happens, but consensus is still consensus until a new one is formed. However there did also seem to be consensus that the subject of extreme longevity tracking was notable (sorry for confusing the history of the article), and it seems entirely proper for that article to include a bit about some of the trackers. The only thing we seem to disagree about is the spinoff-point, and I would suggest that in view of all the concerns about the hype, a cautious approach to spinoff would be appropriate here. I don't see any immediate risk of the extreme longevity tracking article bursting any time soon, but the main thing that article needs now is much more referencing of what's already there, as well as details of the trackers themselves. If the article establishes the notability of the field of research (which, being largely unreferenced, it doesn't yet do) and the notability of any the field's main practitioners is well established too, a spinoff would likely be uncontroversial. But the sources which CBD cited on Epstein at the AfD all seemed to involve trivial mentions of Epstein ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), so there is some way to go. So far, the consensus is that this doesn't amount to notability, and it's not process for the sake of process to ask that the consensus be respected, that both for Young and for Epstein, more substantial coverage is required.
AS to CBD's comment that Robert was right, I think that we are on very dangerous ground if we start accepting individuals as useful commentators on their own notability or that of their colleagues; the person concerned (or their immediate circle) is is usually ill-place to judge that, and they should be the last one to be asked about their own notability, except perhaps to identify possible sources.
I have been there myself, after a period of a few years when friends and colleagues seemed to find me everywhere on radio or TV, and every evening with friends was interrupted by press calls, and dinner guests got used to being used to a quick break while I did a brief phone interview. I had to remind them that this might just be a flash-in-the-pan, and that I might turn out to be be yet another one-minute wonder, like most people whose narrow niche provides the opportunity for the occasional soundbite. A few years on, it'd be a moot point; an article on me could cite dozens of quotes and mentions from easily-available reliable sources, and would note that putting my name into google brings me out ahead of a well-known writer of the same name, but so far as I am aware there are only two substantive articles in widely available reliable sources. Name recognition outside of the narrow niche is small, and if asked to judge my own notability, I'd say "weak delete"; but I wouldn't say it on wikipedia. That's something to be judged by folks with much more distance on the matter.
These things don't get personalised unless the subject chooses to personalise it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There is something to be said that this originally started over a dispute about whether Mary Ramsey Wood was '120' in 1908. To accept that, one would have to overturn the established world scientific and Western media consensus, which holds Sarah Knauss as the U.S. recordholder. It turned out that research discovered that she was 97 or 98 years old. Without meaning to re-ignite the issue, the question became 'on what authority' should we put that she was 'only' 97 or 98. I had argued that since Wikipolicy states that self-published sources are acceptable as references if from an established authority, questions then began about whether I was an established authority or no. It then followed, logically, to make a case that I did in fact know what I was talking about. But if I had just a user page, that wouldn't work. One thing about Wikipedia that I think makes it clearly superior, in some aspects, to a paper encyclopedia, is the use of 'wikilinks'. If one wants to find out more information, all one has to do is simply click on that link. Extraneous or off-topic material can be hidden, thus strengthening the main article's focus, while giving curious users the ability to 'click' on the link for more information.

Thus, I had made an auto-biography in response to requests for me to 'prove it'. However, it does make sense that one could use a redirect, so that if an article mentions me, it can redirect to 'extreme longevity trackers'. In a sense, given the material about GSU (not really appropriate for an article), it might be better to simply have a paragraph about each 'period' of extreme longevity tracking. This should include:

Macro-groups (Middle Ages, Intermediate Period, Modern Period)


Micro-groups (individual researchers)

William Thoms (1870's) Young (1905) Alexander Graham Bell (1918) Bowerman (1930's) A Ross Eckler Jr (1950's-1970's) Jean-Marie Robine (1980's-present) (Jeanne Calment case; individual focus) Louis Epstein (1990's-present) Robert Young (1990's-present) Filipe Prista Lucas (2000's-present)

There could be more; I have chosen the above as persons as being a good start. Due to COI, even if I were unblocked I now agree it would be better for a third party to write such an article, to avoid the 'appearance' of COI. I do note that I give credit in my database for each individual case; Mr Epstein does not.

Also, group efforts:


--Guinness World Records (began 1955) --Kannisto-Thatcher Database 1980's --Gerontology Research Group tracking began 1998 --Max Planck Institute tracking began 2000

Today, the three above groups are really the major players from a quasi-international perspective.

However, there is also the governments themselves:

Sweden (compulsory birth registration began 1749) England (compulsory birth registration began 1837)

Japan (began tracking centenarians 1963) Germany (began tracking centenarians 1990) USA (began tracking supercentenarians 2001, but only after death)

Thus, the list needs a three-part focus: individual research efforts; institutional/group research efforts; national research efforts

In fact, there is quite a bit of material that will probably be published in the next few years. In the interim, the article may be filled in, partially, by persons finding sources. Note there are even online books, such as:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/05.htm


Further, if we source the source we find even more:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/05r.htm

Interestingly, the Irish record, set in 1932, is the oldest record still in existence. Here is a detail:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/08.htm

Now, I would agree that, if we were to maintain Wikipedia as top-quality, then we shouldn't 'branch out' articles unless/until the main page becomes unwieldy. It will take quite some time to put this article together in a comprehensive manner. It is true that, sometimes, pressure can lead to higher-quality standards. I just hope the same quality demands made of extreme longevity tracking would be applied to other areas in the Wikipedia. With apologies to Jeff Zaslow, his article isn't even sourced:Jeff Zaslow. However, it is the unscholarly fields, such as football, video games, and fictional TV characters, that perhaps need the greatest cleaning: for, if we honor a football player for scoring ONE career touchdown, what is the incentive to do better? And while some insisted that Ryan Shay's article not mention that he died at 'only' 28, can we find any other reason why someone like Keeley Dorsey would be notable? In retrospect, that article only survived deletion because I nominated it too close to the death event. It should be an unspoken policy to give 'recent deaths' at least a month to cool down before they are nominated for deletion.

To me, a person in an academic/scientific/scholarly field is ultimately notable if they do something that has never been done before, and/or that fits well into a 'timeline' of progress in that field. Perhaps it was my error to bring a few articles to fruition before they were ripe. Nonetheless, I do believe that Dr. Coles is notable as the first person in history to have set up a process of systematic supercentenarian autopsies (mentioned on CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc), for which he has discovered a new cause of death. This research has not yet been published due to small sample size. Thus, perhaps it was a mistake to bring 'inside knowledge' to the Wikipedia before it went through the proper channels. Nonetheless, its mentions in the press might argue that the 'cat is already out of the bag.'

Finally, again: I have been told that Dr. Coles really was a professor at UCLA and is now retired. It was an error, not a deliberate attempt to mislead. That an article needs to be cleaned up does not mean it needs to be deleted; only if the prospects of improvement are not there should the article be deleted (for example, Keeley Dorsey died at 19, so his career will not change; sad as his death was, I find it incredulous that 'one career touchdown'=notable.

Here is a recent Dr. Coles mini-bio:

http://www.agemed.org/default.asp?page=FacultyNov2007

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Supercentenarian Research Foundation Visiting Scholar, Department of Computer Science, UCLA Dr. Coles has been involved in various aspects of Age Management Medicine for over 40 years. He received his Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, his Masters Degree in Mathematics from The Carnegie Institute of Technology, and his Ph.D. in Systems and Communications Sciences from Carnegie-Mellon University. After attending medical school at Stanford University, he completed his Clinical Internship in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital. Dr. Coles has taught at a number of well-known universities throughout the country, including Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Miami, University of Maryland, UCLA, USC, Cal Tech, and UCSD. Dr. Coles is also the Director of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group, which he and three other scientists co-founded in the fall of 1990. The Group currently meets on a monthly basis at the UCLA Medical School to hear scientific experts present the latest information on either theoretical or clinical aspects of Age Management Medicine. Most recently Dr. Coles was a founding member and named Director of the Supercentenarian Foundation. Over the years the LA-GRG has grown to over 120 members with more than half having advanced degrees (MD's and PhD's).

If this is true, then Dr. Coles is a FORMER professor of quite a number of schools.

Let me also say this, regarding Rejuvenation Research: The former journal was called the "Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine". Many gerontologists didn't want to cite anything that said 'anti-aging', which has had a negative connotation due to groups such as this:

http://www.worldhealth.net/

Thus, it made sense that when the name was changed to Rejuvenation Research, suddenly it became acceptable to use this journal as a reference. Note there was also a change of editors from Michael Fossel to Aubrey de Grey. However, I do believe the 'name change' issue allowed for a better re-launch.

Note that the GRG group is a nonprofit organization, not just an 'informal discussion group'. In addition to those meeting at UCLA, membership worldwide is over 180, and a majority of these persons have advanced degrees.

I do think it is a commendable effort to check and re-check material to ensure that it is valid, as opposed to sloppily repeating mistakes made by others (for example, Dr. Coles 'was' a professor at UCLA, not 'is' a professor at UCLA). Nonetheless, one must be careful not to draw immediate conclusions without first giving those accused a chance to explain themselves. That the name 'anti-aging' is generally held as 'anathema' to citation by mainstream gerontology (as it smacks of quackery) helps to explain why a name change matters.

Note also that Aubrey de Grey has come out stronger as a result of this debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Grey_Technology_Review_controversy

A concentrated effort was made by several prominent biogerontologists and institutions to find flaws/holes in his ideas. When they were unable to expose him as a fraud, it followed that, perhaps, his ideas (if still just theory, not reality) at least had to be respected as something to discuss. In short, they could not prove fraud or hoax. Thus, his standing jumped significantly and so did citation-ability.

These two factors include 'external influences' that certainly were not or could not be manipulated by a group of 'insiders' alone. If there has been any malfeasance, I am not aware of it.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the desire to 'avoid controversy' by including information on Young in a related article, but it doesn't really fit in any of them. Possibly, some sort of 'List of longevity researchers' would work, but the fact is that most people in the field are not notable... making it a rather short list. Young IS notable because he is regularly cited by the media, has been the subject of independent articles, speaks on the issue, has contributed to books on the subject, et cetera. There are verifiable independent reliable sources galore. The deletion discussion was closed 'correctly' based on the consensus expressed... but that consensus focused on 'lack of sources', 'self promotion', and supposed 'misrepresentations' found through original research... all of which are correctable issues. The remedy actually recommended by deletion policy in such case is precisely what I am going to do... re-create the article in a form compliant with Wikipedia standards. I could start it in user space, but until moved that suggests a degree of 'ownership'... I'd rather put it out there and let others start improving it. Hopefully, the retention of the Stephen Coles article and the impending close of the Gerontology Research Group AfD, also seeming certain to retain the article, will have clearly demonstrated where the community stands on the notability of subjects with the level of reliable source verification which I intend to include on the re-created Young article. --CBD 12:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Coles AFD

An article I started (without Dr. Coles's knowledge) in March 2007 is now up for deletion. In response to some questions, first I'd like to clarify the relationship between Dr. Coles and myself:

A. I first contacted the www.grg.org website in 1999, and quickly became a group member. While at first the GRG tables were produced by Louis Epstein,over time, Dr. Coles has come to rely on me to be the go-to person in terms of deciding when to add a new case validation.

B. I live in Atlanta and Dr. Coles in the Los Angeles area. I met Dr. Coles at a Las Vegas meeting in Oct 2004 and in Inglewood, CA in Feb 2007.

C. Actually I know little about Dr. Coles's educational and employment history or the veracity of his resume. However, if one is to argue that his article meet 'verifiability', not necessarily 'truth', standards, then we can still find references such as this:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109454503323028876

Also, I believe the current boxed standard of 'academic' notability is being improperly applied. The old model of 'go to school, get a degree, publish papers, get cited,='important" fails on many levels. Quite aside from persons such as amateur astronomers, the compartmentalization of persons into separate fields belies the need for an interdisciplinary approach: hence the 'stereotype' of a 'jack of all trades, master of none.'

In the case of Dr. Coles, apparently he is a restless person, if he has taught at so many schools as are listed. Apparently bored with staying with one thing, Dr Coles has been involved in many endeavors, and has also built a network of connections that, yes, includes NASA. Note that Dr. Coles's first initial is "L", so LS Coles appears to be him (regarding the patent question).

Clearly, SOME groups/efforts have had little impact (i.e. folded). But the GRG is going strong 17 years after its founding. And of the original GRG co-founders, we see only one active in the group today, Stephen Coles. He has had a major impact on the field and thus has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, CNN, NY Times, and other national (not local) newsmedia such as CBS News:

https://leitl.org/docs/public_html/tt/msg34013.html

To give undue weight to a local UCLA Bruin news article is ignoring all of the above.

However, in regards to career:

Rather than 'staying within the lines' and playing the 'gaining academic tenure' game, maintaining a parochial existence as an average/not notable professor, Dr. Coles has instead managed to see a larger picture. Even if there were a 'Baron Munchhausen' tendency (and there's an article on him, too) we see Dr. Coles 'move the chains' (a football metaphor) from merely knowing the myths of aging, to actively tracking real supercentenarians, and from there to conducting autopsie. By taking things a step further, in the direction of autopsies which (as the above link mentions) have identified a new cause of death at the highest ages.

http://www.edmontonagingsymposium.com/files/eas/presentations/31-Stephen_Coles.ppt

Thus, is the above just an 'informal discussion' or is it research?

I don't know if this is referenced or not:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1196/annals.1297.090

The bottom line: IMO 'notability' need not be asserted through tenure but whether their career has had a significant impact on the field. The founding of the GRG and its sustained growth and development has been largely due to the efforts of Dr. Coles. Wide recognition by one's peers is evidently the case with Dr. Coles. Note also that Coles, despite being an advocate for the 'idea' of life extension, comes down squarely with the mainstream when it comes to quackery

or age misreporting:

Title:Antiaging Technology and Pseudoscience.Find More Like ThisAuthors:de Grey, Aubrey D. N. J. Gavrilov, Leonid Olshansky, S. Jay Coles, L. Stephen Cutler, Richard G. Fossel, Michael Harman, S. MitchellSource:Science; 4/26/2002, Vol. 296 Issue 5568, p656, 3/4pDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*AGING -- Prevention

  • PSEUDOSCIENCEAbstract:Comments on the article 'The Quest to Reverse Time's Toll' in the 'Science' journal published on February 8, 2002. Efficacy of anti-aging medicines; Misuse of the term anti-aging; Emergence of pseudoscientific anti-aging industry.

Coles, L. Stephen1 scoles@ucla.eduSource:Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences; Jun2004, Vol. 59A Issue 6, p579-586, 8p, 1 chartDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*OLDER people

  • AGING
  • LIFE expectancy
  • LIFE spans (Biology)
  • LONGEVITY
  • OLD ageAbstract:An international committee of demographers has created a carefully documented list of worldwide living supercentenarians (≥110 years old) that has been published by the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group on its web site and updated on a weekly basis for the past 6 years [see "snapshot" for the year 2003 in the Appendix]. What can be learned by studying this distinguished group of individuals? Also, what are the implications for understanding the fundamental biological limits to human longevity and maximum life span? Our conclusion: Although everyone agrees that average life expectancy has systematically advanced linearly over the last century, it is not realistic to expect that this pace can continue indefinitely. Our data suggest that, without the invention of some new unknown form of medical breakthrough, the Guinness Book of World Records benchmark established by French woman Jeanne Calment of 122 years, set back in 1997, will be exceedingly difficult to break in our lifetime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thus, Dr. Coles is considerably more conservative in lifespan predictions than many.

When Guinness World Records decided to cut 'longevity' records down to a single entry in 1991, the field dwindled to blog-report level. But by bringing supercentenarians in from the cold in 1998, he has done much to change the momentum in favor of both demographic and biologic investigation of supercentenarians. For this, his contributions are already immense.Ryoung122 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Epstein AFD

Comment:

you know a friend in real life (like Robert knows Louis Epstein), and everything you write about him is from memory and not sourced on the Internet. Therefore, a lot of the source for this article is Robert's brain, which fails substantial source on Wikipedia. Neal 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Actually Louis and I are not friends, we are rivals and 'acquaintances'.Ryoung122 05:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah hah. ;-). Neal 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Rants and Indiscriminate Collection of Facts

The following is an excerpt from BrownHairedGirl's talk page.

Whoever you are, I have a simple suggestion for you: don't tell me, show me. Rather than posting a diatribe, why don't you go to the top righthand corner of this page, and click on the button to create an account ... and then start writing properly-referenced articles on people whose notability is clearly established (there are plenty of supercenteranrians whose biographies coukd be written to that standard). Those articles won't be deleted, and if you need help in doing that, you'll find plenty of people eager to help you along the way, and plenty of praise too. On the other hand, if you just came to rant because you think that wikipedia should include lots of self-promotional hype by people who think citing yourself is a reliable source, or that this is the place to write puff-pieces about themselves and their colleagues, then you are going to be disappointed, because this is an encyclopedia and not an indiscrimate collection of information, and it has standards to uphold. If those standards offend you, there are zillions of blogs, myspace pages, and other sources for you to enjoy. Have a nice day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

His response.

Disclosure: I have no idea who that was. I have admitted to using the '131' IP's and the '72' IP's and Aslan119. That's it. No additional Ryoung122 'sockpuppets'.

Greetings,

Whatever you might say about 'puff pieces', please note the accusation of 'indiscriminate collection of information' (if applied to www.grg.org) seems an overreach. The GRG tables are organized into a discriminate collection of information...in fact, that's what we're there for...to do the same thing you do, to maintain standards of 'verifiabiliy,' 'reliability,' and 'notability'...as well as scientific and factual accuracy. If someone claims to be 131 but turns out to be 81, like Noah Raby, then it is essential that we not represent him as '131'. True, the sources from a hundred years ago may have indiscriminately decided that he was '131', giving him the benefit of the doubt...that's not what we're about. The issue is, if we find 'recent evidence' that this charlatan from 100+ years ago was a fake, is the New York Times going to issue a retraction for a mistake made 100+ years ago? I doubt it.

Also, I hope you will stop with the 'linkspam' accusations. Checking the www.grg.org website, we find NO ads selling any products. The GRG is a 'nonprofit organization,' not an 'informal group'. The GRG has members worldwide, not just in Los Angeles. Do we say that Wikipedia has members only in St. Petersburg, FL? I think not. Do we say that because someone communicates with Wikipedia online, that they are not members of Wikipedia? Again, no. Therefore, to conclude that someone is 'not' a member of the GRG when they are a registered member, is simply unfair. More than half of the GRG members have at least a Master's degree(note: not me, I'm a second year grad student). Eventually the articles I created have either been improved by others, or deleted.

One more compromise issue: if a redirect were created from 'Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)' to 'extreme longevity tracking,' this would allow for those who may be reading a third-party article (such as Mary Wood) who want to know more information about why her age was revised from 120 to 97 to be able to read the article and decide for themselves what they do or do not believe.

Note that www.ancestry.com requires registration and a fee. The World's Oldest People webgroup requires registration but no fee.

Please note that the '110' stubs were created by mostly teenagers, not myself...I generally waited until someone reached the top 250 all time before creating an article (at age 112 1/2), and only if more information were available than what can be found in a list. I even supported the deletion of permastubs with no chance for expansion (for example, Yasu Nishiyama).

If we stop for a moment and eliminate the heated rhetoric, we should realize that both sides here are looking for the same thing...reliability, accuracy, verifiability. I do think someone who was 115 is more notable than a mere 110. It was my 'philosophy' that creating a 'wiki stub' lets people know that an article may need to exist. After that, the article can be either be improved or deleted. It is actually better to let others continue to edit, as this removes some of the COI charges. Eventually if unblocked I will be more cautious to avoid the appearance of COI.Ryoung122 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

suggested compromise on supercentenarians

I've been looking through the PRODs, and I think we need to find some better way of handling this instead of fighting back and forth, article by article, with erratic results. May I make a suggestion--merge into articles for the record holders of each country, or survivors of each major war (oldest only, anything lesser can go in a list) , and accept that there will be articles for each world record-holder. Hows that for a compromise? We badly need one--I dont want to spend my time on this, and i think WP notability decisions should start moving into some degree of consistency. I will absolutely support all proposed merges, with redirects for the names. I've left this as a note for BHG also.DGG (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, when BrownHairedGirl nominated the oldest woman in France in 2001-2002 for deletion, it was in the AfD talk page did I mention making a table for oldest person by country article. And it will be divided into gender too. Right now, I'm not too keen on anything with the 2nd oldest person of country. Remember, this will be far from reaching 193. China and India won't even be made. Neal (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
Neal, I don't think that is the kind of 'compromise' we are looking for. First, we have the lists, but they have just very basic information: birth, death, age, race, sex. Nothing qualitative at all. The current 'Wikilink' system allows us to create articles for persons for whom there is more information.


DGG,

Before we can have a compromise, however, first we need to have me unblocked, and we need to be given a chance to self-clean the current articles. That is, if we created a page "French supercentenarians", we could create a list of the 90+ validated French persons who reached age 110 or greater. However, I'd still like to have separate articles for those aged 113+. We should try to convert the articles 'one nation at a time.'

For example, from (not most updated data, but Apr 12 2007), we have 90 French verified supercentenarians:

        VERIFIED SUPERCENTENARIAN CASES-                                                        
        CHRONOLOGY      FRANCE                                          
        as of Apr. 12, 2007                     Age                             place of
        Three or More Documents (three-stars)1                                                  
nation  name    born    died    years   days    R       S       death
France  Marie-Virginie Duhem    Aug.  2, 1866   Apr. 25, 1978   111     266     W       F       France
France  Jean Teillet    Nov.  6, 1866   Mar. 17, 1977   110     131     W       M       France
France  Caroline Campistron     May 27, 1867    Mar.  2, 1978   110     279     W       F       France
France  Frederique Noel June 19, 1868   Apr. 14, 1979   110     299     W       F       France
France  Augustine Teissier      Jan.  2, 1869   Mar.  8, 1981   112     65      W       F       France
France  Annette Faron   Feb. 15, 1869   May 12, 1979    110     86      W       F       France
France  Elisa Esnault   Dec. 10, 1870   Apr. 25, 1981   110     136     W       F       France
France  Eugenie Roux    Jan. 24, 1874   June 20, 1986   112     147     W       F       France
France  Jeanne Calment  Feb. 21, 1875   Aug.  4, 1997   122     164     W       F       France
France  Lydie Vellard   Mar. 18, 1875   Sept. 17, 1989  114     183     W       F       France
France  Marie-Louise Jeancard   Sept.  5, 1876  Nov. 25, 1988   112     81      W       F       France
France  Marie-Celine Maisonniaud        Oct. 26, 1876   June 17, 1987   110     234     W       F       France
France  Marie Mougin    June 25, 1877   Nov. 17, 1987   110     145     W       F       France
France  Josephine Choquet       June  6, 1878   Feb. 14, 1991   112     253     W       F       France
France  Mathilde Gauchou        Mar.  19, 1879  Dec. 30, 1990   111     286     W       F       France
France  Henri Perignon  Oct. 14, 1879   June 18, 1990   110     247     W       M       France
France  Eva Jourdan     Mar. 25,1880    May  6, 1992    112     42      W       F       France
Guadeloupe (FR) Felicite Jandia Feb. 12, 1881   Dec.  7, 1992   111     299     B       F       Guadeloupe (FR)
France  Pauline Chabanny        Aug. 20, 1881   Aug. 13, 1994   112     358     W       f       France
France  Marie-Louise Antelme    Dec. 28, 1881   Feb. 19, 1992   110     53      W       F       France
France  Maria-Anna Higelin      Nov. 18, 1882   Mar. 21, 1994   111     123     W       F       France
France  Juliette Baudouin       Feb. 19, 1883   Aug. 24, 1993   110     186     W       F       France
France  Marthe Bellecour        Apr. 18, 1883   Aug.  4, 1993   110     108     W       F       France
France  Marguerite Petit        July  3, 1883   Dec. 21, 1995   112     171     W       F       France
France  Marie Bouvier   Nov. 26, 1883   Dec. 30, 1993   110     34      W       F       France
France  name withheld   Jan.  9,  1884  Feb. 21, 1994   110     43      W       F       France
France  Zoe Verot       Feb. 15, 1884   Jan.  4, 1996   111     323     W       F       France
France  Celestine Colombeau     Feb. 17, 1884   May  9, 1996    112     82      W       F       France
France  Sophie Dernoncourt      May  9, 1884    June  7, 1994   110     29      W       F       France
France  Nouria Hutin    July 12, 1884   Aug. 23, 1994   110     42      W       F       France
Algeria (FR)    Emile Fourcade  July 29, 1884   Dec. 29, 1995   111     153     W       M       France
France  Bernard Delhom  July  9, 1885   Feb.  7, 1996   110     213     W       M       France
Spain   Elisa Cubells   Aug. 20, 1885   Nov.  16, 1995  110     88      W       F       France
France  Marie-Helene Chanteperdrix      Mar.  5, 1886   Mar.  9, 1998   112     4       W       F       France
France  Jeanne Dumaine  Mar. 19, 1886   Jan.  3, 1999   112     290     W       F       France
France  Marie Bremont   Apr. 25, 1886   June 6, 2001    115     42      W       F       France
Guadeloupe (FR) Luce Maced      May  2, 1886    Feb. 25, 2000   113     299     B?      F       Martinique (FR)
France  Jeanne Colas    June  9, 1886   Oct. 15, 1998   112     128     W       F       France
France  Maria Bigue     Sept. 10, 1886  Mar. 12, 1998   111     183     W       F       France
France  Maria Laborie   Apr. 26, 1887   Nov. 22, 1997   110     210     W       F       France
France  Henriette Megevand      June 24, 1887   Jan.  7, 1999   111     197     W       F       France
France  Melanie Dormois July  8, 1887   Dec. 13, 1997   110     158     W       F       France
France  Alexandrine Renaud      Sept.  8, 1887  Jan. 18, 1998   110     132     W       F       France
France  Berthe Sadron   Feb. 18, 1888   Feb. 27, 1999   111     9       W       F       France
France  Louise Mallet   Mar.  8, 1888   Mar.  9, 2000   112     1       W       F       France
France  Marie-Louise Lambert    Apr.  9, 1888   Dec. 11, 1999   111     246     W       F       France
France  Juliette Merceron       Apr. 23, 1888   Sept. 16, 1998  110     146     W       F       France
France  Marie Fastayre  May 17, 1888    May 30, 1998    110     13      W       F       France
France  Marie-Louise Thurneyssen        Aug. 21, 1888   June 27, 1999   110     310     W       F       France
France  Germaine Haye   Oct. 10, 1888   Apr. 18, 2002   113     190     W       F       France
France  Marthe Denis    Dec.  7, 1888   May 20, 1999    110     164     W       F       France
France  Jeanne Violette Jan. 12, 1889   Nov. 27, 1999   110     319     W       F       France
France  Marie-Isabelle Tuffal   Jan. 14, 1889   Nov. 12, 1999   110     302     W       F       France
France  Elizabeth Seube Apr.  8, 1889   Mar.  6, 2000   110     333     W       F       France
France  Marie Combeleran        June  8, 1889   May 23, 2001    111     349     W       F       France
France  Anna Boulet     June 28, 1889   Oct. 19, 1999   110     113     W       F       France
France  Anne-Marie Hemery       July 25, 1889   Mar.  6, 2000   110     225     W       F       France
France  Blanche Marie Grosdidier        Oct.  3, 1889   Oct. 10, 2001   112     7       W       F       France
France  Clothilde Roy   Oct. 23, 1889   Oct. 13, 2001   111     355     W       F       France
France  Adeline Soboul  Feb.  8, 1890   Mar.  6, 2000   110     27      W       F       France
France  Alexis Daigneau Aug.  4, 1890   Apr.  3, 2001   110     242     W       M       France
France  Anne Primout    Oct.  5, 1890   Mar. 26, 2005   114     172     W       F       France
France  Jeanne Samson   Nov.  5, 1890   Dec.  4, 2000   110     29      W       F       France
France  Pauline Sevaille        Nov. 20, 1890   Aug. 29, 2002   111     282     W       F       France
France  Marguerite Bellion      Feb. 12, 1891   Jan. 29, 2002   110     351     W       F       France
France  Yvonne Bory     Mar. 14, 1891   Aug.  7, 2003   112     146     W       F       France
France  Camille Loiseau Feb. 13, 1892   Aug. 12, 2006   114     180     W       F       France
France  Jeannette Gayraud       May 12, 1892    Mar. 31, 2004   111     324     W       F       France
Reunion (France)        Julia Sinedia-Cazour    July 12, 1892   Oct.  6, 2005   113     86      B       F       Reunion (France)
France  Germaine Stadler        Mar. 29, 1893   Feb. 14, 2005   111     322     W       F       France
France  Marthe Ardouin-Schmid   July 12, 1893   Aug. 13, 2003   110     32      W       F       France
France  Lucie Pere-Pucheu       Aug. 13, 1893   Apr. 6, 2006    112     236     W       F       France
France  Marthe Gojon    Nov.  1, 1893   Nov. 28, 2004   111     27      W       F       France
France  Marie-Simone Capony     Mar. 14, 1894           113*            W       F       lives in France
France  Marie Mornet    Apr.  4, 1894   Jan.  5, 2007   112     276     W       F       France
France  Marie-Louise Bernede    Apr.  6, 1894   Dec. 11, 2005   111     249     W       F       France
France  Clementine Solignac     Sept.  7, 1894          112*            W       F       lives in France
France  Marie Vigne-Ben Cimon   Sept. 23, 1894  Dec.  7, 2004   110     75      W       F       France
France  Agnes Fagoo     Dec. 19, 1894   Apr. 12, 2007   112     114     W       F       France
France  Maurice Floquet Dec. 25, 1894   Nov. 10, 2006   111     320     W       M       France
Guadeloupe (FR) Mathilde Octavie Tafna  Mar. 16, 1895           112*            B?      F       lives in Guadeloupe
Germany (Alsace)        Catherine Trompeter     Mar. 26, 1895   Nov. 18, 2006   111     237     W       F       France (Alsace)
France  Constance Cariou        May  8, 1895            111*            W       F       lives in France
New Caledonia (FR)      Marie-Louise L'Hullier  June 26, 1895           111*            W       F       lives in New Caledonia (FR)
France  Mathilde Rouene Aug. 13, 1895   May 20, 2006    110     280     W       F       France
France  Jeanne Vuillemot        Sept. 23, 1895  Jan.  3, 2006   110     102     W       F       France
France  Madeleine Delmotte      Apr. 20, 1896   Mar. 31, 2007   110     345     W       F       France
France  Aime Avignon    Feb.  2, 1897           110*            W       M       lives in France
        emigrant cases                                                  
France  Marie-Rose Mueller      Sept. 20, 1896          110*            W       F       lives in U.S. (CT)
Germany (Alsace)        Jeanne Rose Meyer Zettel        Dec.  6, 1896   Jan. 12, 2007   110     37      W       F       Italy

Yet checking Wikipedia, there are about 21 French supercentenarians with separate articles. I don't support a complete merge. I'd favor making the French list, bolding the titleholders, and keeping articles for those whom at least a paragraph or two can be written. I would support merging those, such as Felicite Jandia, for whom not much info. is given. Note if we made one 'master' French supercentenarian article, kept the ten most interesting bios, and merged 11, we'd have:21 bios+one main article=22minus11merges=11 articles. Scientifically, we need a multidisciplinary approach that contributes both quantitative and qualitative data. Not all people respond to mere lists, and mere lists do nothing to explain how a person lived their life and managed to live to 113, which is the main rationale for an article about them...human interest. Note the side benefits also come when small towns and villages not normally heard of are given their '15 minutes of fame'...places like New Sharon, Maine, birthplace of Fred Hale.

That is the type of compromise I'm looking for...pruning, not beheading. There is a difference. Ryoung122 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, so you're copying/pasting from MicroSoft Excel. The table actually looks neat in the edit page (that's the time to view it). Let me think about making it look neat in the next few minutes. Neal (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
Okay, fixed! Now it looks neat. Neal (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

I just got done talking with Robert Young on the phone. What he proposed for compromise is the table above. It's a supercentenarian by country list. However, we haven't decided whether we want the list to be like that (all gender), or to divide the males and females. Obviously, it will be formatted for Wikipedia.

What I propose (well I don't propose anything, but technically, wouldn't mind) is something below. And yes, both tables are out dated. Neal (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

The oldest woman in France.

Name From To Age Death Age Born
Marie-Ernestine Compain September 4, 1975 109 years 316 days October 23, 1865
Marie-Virginie Duhem * September 4, 1975 April 25, 1978 111 years 266 days August 2, 1866
Frederique Noël April 25, 1978 April 14, 1979 110 years 299 days June 19, 1868
Augustine Tessier * April 14, 1979 March 8, 1981 112 years 65 days January 2, 1869
Elisa Esnault March 8, 1981 April 25, 1981 110 years 136 days December 10, 1870
Eugenie Roux April 25, 1981 June 20, 1986 112 years 147 days January 24, 1874
Jeanne Louise Calment June 20, 1986 August 4, 1997 10:45 A.M. 122 years 164 days 15 hours ~45 minutes February 21, 1875 ~7:00 A.M.
Marie-Helene Chanteperdrix August 4, 1997 10:45 A.M. March 9, 1998 112 years 4 days March 5, 1886
Jeanne Dumaine March 9, 1998 January 3, 1999 112 years 290 days March 19, 1886
Marie Brémont January 3, 1999 June 6, 2001 115 years 42 days April 25, 1886
Germaine Haye June 6, 2001 April 18, 2002 113 years 190 days October 10, 1888
Anne Primout April 18, 2002 March 26, 2005 114 years 172 days October 5, 1890
Camille Loiseau March 26, 2005 August 12, 2006 114 years 180 days February 13, 1892
Marie-Simone Capony August 12, 2006 March 14, 1894

The oldest man in France.

Name From To Age Death Age Born
Henri Perignon * June 18, 1990 110 years 247 days October 14, 1879
Emile Fourcade June 18, 1990? December 29, 1995 111 years 153 days July 29, 1884
Bernard Delhom December 29, 1995 February 7, 1996 110 years 213 days July 9, 1885
Theophane Rifosta February 7, 1996? June 16, 1999 109 years 283 days September 6, 1889
Alexis Daigneau June 16, 1999 April 3, 2001 110 years 242 days August 4, 1890
Raymond Abescat April 3, 2001? August 25, 2001 109 years 349 days September 10, 1891
Maurice Floquet August 25, 2001 November 10, 2006 111 years 320 days December 25, 1894
Aime Avignon November 10, 2006 February 2, 1897

Neal (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

'List' of French supercentenarians

Hmmn, this is not the sort of 'compromise' I call a compromise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Loiseau#Camille_Loiseau

Where is the discussion first? I see none. Also, it's not really a 'list' either which is a major point of contention. Considering there are 90 French supercentenarian cases, it does not appear that having a 'table/list' of the 90, with separate, Wikilinked articles for about 10 or even 20 of them, is really over-doing it. Also, this appears to be a sneaky attempt to get around the AFD process, which most of the articles passed even though I am still blocked and Bart and several others (Stan Primmer, Cjeales) were blocked as well.

Do we see anyone merging the Irish politician or British baron permastubs or Catholic bishops or college football players into a single list, at least by district or by title or by team? I think not. Therefore, to insist that these articles be sandwiched into one is clearly against consensus, formatting, and tradition on Wikipedia. It also fails to adequately balance the quantitative and qualitative approaches to the information, creating a mish-mash which is neither. For example, a 'list of the 100 oldest persons' neatly organizes everyone, equally, into a quantitative approach. Creating articles that are wikilinked from the main page for the individuals allows for a qualitative approach that does not take away from the main-page focus or quantitative presentation. We also see complaints in the past about articles 'being too long'. Thus, this most recent switch smacks of one person imposing her will while violating consensus, formatting, and tradition on Wikipedia. Offers of 'compromise' are just that, but we don't see the other side offering any attempt at compromise whatsoever. Considering the number of supercentenarian articles is far smaller than, say, the number of high schools in the USA, it beggars belief that one person should insist on these forced mergers, without any attempt at consensus-building or discussion before these efforts were taken.Ryoung122 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course saving the info. is a 'compromise', but the information is NOT being organized in a scientific fashion (by birthdate, or by age) or in an administrative fashion (by alphabetical order). This could get ugly, especially for the 'American' page, and forgets that a 'list of' should have a list of everyone (I have over 500 American supercentenarians) and that we need a quantitative list, not a 'qualitative list' which is any oxymoron. Nonetheless, I shall wait to see what becomes of all this. Note also that those articles that meet 'notability' guidelines by themselves should stand alone.Ryoung122 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it appears that some of my concerns have been lifted...the information is being rearranged by date of birth. However, in the future we do need to add a 'quantitative list' section to go with the 'qualitative list' section, that clearly establishes the succession of titleholders (see Neal's proposal in section above this one).Ryoung122 20:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed at BrownHairedGirl's effort. She said somewhere she wasn't even interested in supercentenarians. Well,, Robert, I guess that article is a start. I've added some stuff to the talk page there. Neal (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Ok, we can 'compromise' here. I suggest that FIRST you add a 'quantitative list' (like the one above). I note that 'national longevity recordholders' compromised by having both a quantitative list and a qualitative list. I would support re-splitting out Camille Loiseau but I agree that it may not be worth arguing over someone like Anne Pere-Pucheu. Thus, perhaps we can turn BHG's massive efforts into something positive. The pages as currently organized need work. So, happy editing! Remember two points:

A. A quantitative list B. We can re-split out those who take up more than one paragraph (i.e. Camille Loiseau, Anne Primout). I would support re-splitting out anyone over 113 and for whom sufficient info. to establish WP:BIO is available. That seems like a compromise to me. Ryoung122 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous Merging

Greetings,

The 'merging' offer was intended for those stubs, such as Jean Teillet, where establishing separate 'notability' may be difficult, impossible, or undesirable. It was never intended to merge for a 'world's oldest person':

19:33, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marie Marthe Augustine Mesange Lemaitre Brémont‎ (←Redirected page to List of French supercentenarians#Marie Br.C3.A9mont) (top) 19:33, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marie Bremont‎ (←Redirected page to List of French supercentenarians#Marie Br.C3.A9mont) (top) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marie Brémont‎ (notability not established per WP:BIO, merged to List of French supercentenarians#Marie_Br.C3.A9mont) (top) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) List of French supercentenarians‎ (→Marie Brémont - merge overly short paras) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) List of French supercentenarians‎ (→Marie Brémont - merge from Marie Brémont)

I'm quite sure that, even if I remain blocked and not a single person from my web group chimed in, that a separate, standalone article for Marie Bremont would easily pass AFD and that the result would be 'keep', not 'merge'. However, we have seen that once again, user BHG insists on having her own way on a subject that she claims to not care about.

Now, I don't care too much for short permastubs for barons, peerages, etc...why have separate articles for each new person? Whether representatives from district 13 or players for a college football program, however, we don't see ANY other field insist on merging all the players or peers or representatives into one article. This new campaign is, once again, going way, way too far and NOT in the spirit of compromise that had been offered.Ryoung122 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Young hasn't been checking before making sweeping assertions. He doesn't seem to have noticed that, for example, a large part of the work of User:Carcharoth's work at WikiProject Middle-earth is merging articles, or that the same thing is being systematically done within the baronets project, or that I have strenuously argued for such mergers (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Lauder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup).
Young is still trying to seek an exemption for supercentenarians from WP:BIO, or at least for some of them. I have absolutely no doubt that it in the current climate of simplifying notability guideines, that crating any further proposal for automatic presumption notability would go down like a lead balloon, just as happened to WP:NOBLE (rightly, in my view). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, you are replying to Young while he is blocked and cannot edit the page (because you protected it). If you are going to respond to points he has made (ie. discuss the matter), then at least have the courtesy to unprotect the page so he can reply. Otherwise you are just lecturing to a gagged person. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If you re-read my comment, you will see that I was not replying to Young. I was correcting the record for the benefit of other editors who might have been misled.
Carcharoth, I'm amazed too that your main concern here seems to be that a blocked disruprive editor should not be impeded from holding discussions on wikipedia. Have you considered, for example, to what extent Young has had the courtesy to retract the attacks against me which he has been circulating about me on his mailing list, and which he has blocked me from reading directly, so that I know about them only because they have been forwarded by others? Or that he is continuing to ask other editors to edit on his behalf, as confirmed today by the references to phone conversations in deletion review? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the off-wiki harassment was so bad. I sympathise with you there, but I do tend to restrict myself to what happens on-wiki. I find that once people start getting involved in what is happening off-wiki, it opens up a whole new can of worms - part of the reason I choose not to do that. It is also harder to verify as well, which is why I find looking at on-wiki behaviour is best - and I agree, the on-wiki behaviour was not acceptable. But that merited a warning and a long block, in my opinion, not an indefinite block. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been repeatedly used the blocked editor Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to continue discussing the content of wikipedia. The purpose of allowing a blocked editor to post to their talk page is to make it easier for them to request an unblock, not to allow them to continue to converse as before.

I have therefore protected the page so that only administrators can edit it. I suggest that all Young's contributions since his block should be archived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think some of the material posted here is useful and could be used in articles. I intend to do this, at the same time double-checking what has been provided. Could you please unblock so Robert can continue using this talk page? I'm already uneasy at the prospect of forcing people to discuss articles on their talk pages. If the discussion is calm and coherent, as it has been here for the past few days, why not just unblock him? Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, are you forgetting that Young was blocked for widespread COI, for votestacking, for massive disruption and a long series of personal attacks? If Young wants to request unblocking he can so by email, but the block was for a serious pattern of disruption, and should not be overturned lightly, particularly in view of the fact that he systematically used sockpuppets to evade the block and recruited as many meatpuppets as he could. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You keep asking me if I've forgotten this that and the other, or if I'm overlooking something. Could you assume good faith and not keep asking if I've forgotten things? I've been following this as closely as you have, if not more so, and I disagree with large parts of what Ryoung122 has done. The trouble is that I also disagree with parts of how this has been handled. What I disagreed with, from the very beginning, was the immediate jump to 'indefinite' on what was only his second block and the first concerning these incidents. Another consequence of the block was a failure to allow anyone else to work with him. I was just starting to engage in what might have been productive discussion, maybe even a mentoring, when the block was put in place. And before you ask, yes, I agree the behaviour was unacceptable and the block was justified. It is really only the length that I'm concerned about. People responded to my concerns with a "it's not really indefinite - it can be undone", but this doesn't give the blocked editor any idea of how long they should wait before calming down, seeing the error of their ways, and requesting an unblock. Theoretically it could be straight away, but the problem is that indefinite blocks can end up as defacto bans without community discussion. If you think there should be a long block (eg. a year), or a ban, then I suggest that ArbCom or a community discussion is the right route. From what I can see, indefinite blocks are usually handed out to trolling throwaway accounts, or when a serious editor has escalated through a series of blocks and shown no signs of changing their behaviour. Neither is the case here. I'm glad to see, at least, that you have remembered to put the "can request unblock by e-mail" information on the page, even if that is nearly two days after you protected the page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
How long should the person wait? I suggest that Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process is relevant on that point, as wella s wrt to the abuse of the talk page for substantive discussion.
I am particularly struck by the final para, which begins "Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding". Young doesn't seem to have gained much understanding: he's still arguing for exemptions to the notability guidelines; the best he can say on COI is "eventually if unblocked I will be more cautious to avoid the appearance of COI", rather than promising to stop; he's still trying to evade the block by phoning other editors and asking them to edit for him. This leopard hasn't changed his spots, he's just toned down his on-wiki rhetoric.
And I'm sorry if you feel I'm not assuming good faith, but assuming forgetfulness seemed to me like a AGF way of noting that the rush to bring him back into the fold seems very very odd in view of Young's behaviour. I have never before seen a case of some who repeatedly evaded blocks and recruited having an admin who is apparently trying to do everything possible to bring them back. It's very very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Some other relevant quotes from WP:AAB might be: "so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, whilst the block is active" and "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past." What I feel here is that Robert Young did not get enough warning that an indefinite block was coming, that he was not warned that the talk page would be protected, that the situation could have been handled better. I'll repeat - I felt I was starting to get somewhere before the block was put in place - that is my motivation here, and a faint hope of maybe demonstrating to you (and others) that there is a different way to handle things. Your comments about me trying to do "everything possible to bring them back" and this being "very very odd" are (again) mischaracterizing what is happening here. Read what I wrote and what you wrote in reply. You didn't respond at all to what I said about the length of the block. Now look at what Moondyne wrote below: "On the positive side, I do think he could be a good editor based on his past contributions and Carcharoth's offer of mentorship, which is both generous and brave, may achieve a good outcome. I think an indefinite block is too long but "a block of a week or a month" is way too short. Perhaps a three month block after which he agrees to a three month probationary period during which he cannot edit anything to do with longevity issues." - that is what is called a compromise. That would allay my concerns that an indefinite block is excessive here. I'm not "rushing to bring him back into the fold", but I am arguing for a definite block length to be decided on, as indefinite is too vague in a case like this. So how about it? Would Moondyne's proposal be acceptable to you? Would you consider unprotecting the page to see if Robert Young wants to say anything? Oh, and about the "I have never before seen" bit - the encyclopedia has been around a lot longer than either of us have been editing it, and is a lot bigger than most people realise, so I for one never assume that I've seen everything there is to see around here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

There was some discussion on my talk page (see User talk:Carcharoth#Mentoring?) about possible mentoring. I will have time over the next few days to consider this. I am proposing to unprotect the talk page so Robert can discuss this with me, and then possibly file an unblock request. Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And to allay any concerns, my first proposal will be that Robert takes a short break to allow the above material to be assessed, digested and incorporated by uninvolved editors, thus avoiding COI concerns. Once that has been done, I propose unblocking to allow Robert to participate in discussions about the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As above, strong oppose. WP:BLOCK says that people who evade a block through sockpuppetry have their blocks extended, not shortened. Surely those who, like Young, set out to try to recruit hordes of meatpuppets as well as using a mailing list to broadcast a long series dozens of personal attacks on wikipedia editors should not be rewarded by having their blocks lifted? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you opposing the unblock or the mentoring? If you look at the block log, you will see that there was one block of 31 hours in August 2006, followed by an indefinite block in November 2007. Are you saying you want to extend the indefinite block to something more than indefinite? I still maintain that a block of a week or a month would have been sufficient, and after that block expired we could have seen whether the behaviour had changed. Let me ask you a frank question - what would it take for you to agree to an unblock (though really I should be asking Maxim this), and if you feel you could never agree to an unblock, can I ask that you start a formal process for a community ban (or an Arbcom case) to get wider input on this?
As for lifting the block, the lifting of a block is not a reward to the editor (as you should know), but should be done with consideration to the benefits to the encyclopedia. You may disagree, but I think that Robert's contributions here on the talk page show that he has the knowledge and motivation to, with the appropriate help and guidance, produce some good overview articles on the subject. Can you respect my view on that, even if you disagree with it?
Now, the good content (from above) is the following plan for an article:

"Macro-groups (Middle Ages, Intermediate Period, Modern Period); Micro-groups (individual researchers); William Thoms (1870's) Young (1905) Alexander Graham Bell (1918) Bowerman (1930's) A Ross Eckler Jr (1950's-1970's) Jean-Marie Robine (1980's-present) (Jeanne Calment case; individual focus) Louis Epstein (1990's-present) Robert Young (1990's-present) Filipe Prista Lucas (2000's-present); There could be more; I have chosen the above as persons as being a good start. Due to COI, even if I were unblocked I now agree it would be better for a third party to write such an article, to avoid the 'appearance' of COI. I do note that I give credit in my database for each individual case; Mr Epstein does not. Also, group efforts: --Guinness World Records (began 1955) --Kannisto-Thatcher Database 1980's --Gerontology Research Group tracking began 1998 --Max Planck Institute tracking began 2000; Today, the three above groups are really the major players from a quasi-international perspective. However, there is also the governments themselves: Sweden (compulsory birth registration began 1749) England (compulsory birth registration began 1837); Japan (began tracking centenarians 1963) Germany (began tracking centenarians 1990) USA (began tracking supercentenarians 2001, but only after death). Thus, the list needs a three-part focus: individual research efforts; institutional/group research efforts; national research efforts"

And yes, I do realise this is not a perfect plan, and care has to be taken to avoid original research, but again, I ask you to respect my opinion on this and not try and enforce your opinion before an attempt has been made to write such an article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If he is ever unblocked, then I definitely agree that mentoring is needed. Careful mentoring.
But to get unblocked, I will continue to argue that he needs to demonstrate a clear understanding of why he was blocked, and to give unequivocal assurances that he won't repeat that stuff. In other words that he will learn how to use talkpages properly, that he will not edit any articles related to himself or his colleagues, that he will stop adding his own publications as sources to wikipedia articles, that he will stop using wikipedia to publish more of his original research, that he will not canvass or votestack discussions, that he will stop making malicious and unfounded allegations of votestacking by others, that he will not use sockpuppets, that he understands that if blocked he should not ask other editors to edit on his behalf, and that he understands that AfD discussions on the notability of articles are a routine part of wikipedia maintenance rather than grounds for calling on hundreds of people to abuse wikipedia admin.
I know that's a long list, but it's simply what every other wikipedia editor has to abide by. I have been quite shocked by the harassment to which I have been subjected by Young (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment). I will not repost here everything which has been said, and I don't even have all if it because my sources have deliberately witheld from me the worst of it, but if the long history of misconduct is brushed aside simply because Young has an idea for an article, I will consider taking out an arbcom case or whatever.
However, I ask you to consider whether it is fair to ask me, as the victim of the harassment, to have to go through all the prolonged hassle of an arbcom, on top of what has been done. It's bad enough to have been subjected to barrage, but an arbcom on top if it all seems like too much.
I have already considered simply quitting wikipedia and scrambling access to my accounts (this one plus BHGbot), simply because of the harassment. I don't think that I should have to do that, but if wikipedia is to be an environment where a systematic harasser has such a determined advocate that I have to constantly choose between sodding off or reminding him of what's going on, then I have to wonder what's the right course. I'm not a quitter, and I have in my time told more than one eejit who put a gun to my head to get lost and grow up, and I have lived at various points in dangerous circumstances, with several death threats and one actual arson attack on my home ... but I now choose a quieter life.
Editing wikipedia has had its good points and its bad points, but I have stuck with it because overall it has been fun and I have enjoyed it, and as a result I have had the chance to work with some great people, with a huge variety of approaches. But if it's going to be a place where a man can set about his sort of sustained harassment of a woman, I'll have to wonder whether I'm in the right place. I can see now why so many women on wikipedia choose gender-neutral usernames and take care not to reveal their gender. I used to think that was unnecessary, that wikipedia was a civilised enough place that I didn't have to adopt that sort of gender-neutral pseudonyms which I use elsewhere, but I'm now beginning to think that I made a very big mistake in that respect.
But if all the history of harassment is set aside just because the harasser has an idea for an article which interests an admin, I'll have conclude that I was wrong, and take time to consider what I do next. Sometimes, it's best to accept that one is in a places which it is best to get out of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I wasn't aware of the full extent of off-wiki harassment. I would note however that off-wiki harassment is best handled through systems like Arbcom, because they can handle more extensive evidence that often can't, or shouldn't, be posted on-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122's recent behaviour is at the high end of bad and a strong signal needs to be sent that creating sockpuppets, mobilising meatpuppets and hurling personal attacks at those he sees as his opponents is not the way things are done. Similarly, he needs to improve on his communication skills in that copy-pasting reams of text and rants into talk pages does not help him get his message across. Also, I have yet to see a serious statement of contrition or apology or how he would behave in respect of WP policies if he was eventually unblocked (other than: "eventually if unblocked I will be more cautious to avoid the appearance of COI", which means very little).
On the positive side, I do think he could be a good editor based on his past contributions and Carcharoth's offer of mentorship, which is both generous and brave, may achieve a good outcome. I think an indefinite block is too long but "a block of a week or a month" is way too short. Perhaps a three month block after which he agrees to a three month probationary period during which he cannot edit anything to do with longevity issues. I've seen this work before and it forces the blockee to open their eyes to other parts of WP and a new set of contributors. People do sometimes deserve a second chance but they do also need to understand that they are not bigger than our policies. But the details of such an arrangement must only be considered AFTER a clear and unambiguous statement by Ryoung of how he sees himself editing in the future and AFTER the community has considered that such assurances are sufficient. —Moondyne 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like the first step is to unprotect the talk page and see what Robert Young has to say. I am glad that at least one other person agrees with me that an indefinite block is excessive. BrownHairedGirl, I suggest you archive the talk page stuff before this latest stuff, and leave a clear message to Robert Young detailing what is required (part of what you wrote above would be appropriate). Or you can ask someone else to undo your protection, if you prefer. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, after reading BHG's description of the extent of the off-wiki harassment I am considering retracting my suggestion. I've sent her an email regarding this. In the meantime I see no urgency in unprotecting this page. RY can email a statement to any of the admins who can post it here, or he could post here as an IP with an email verification to an admin. —Moondyne 03:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Having considered the email below it is my view is that the indefinite block should stay. Robert, you had a lifeline handed to you but you responded with the same old rhetoric about YOU being attacked and victimised and conveniently forgetting it was YOU that started this whole sorry saga because it was YOU who responded to questions of notability and COI on the Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) article with personal attacks and sockpuppets. Your email shows me you've learnt nothing new regarding Wikipedia policies as a result of your break and that if you returned you would continue your disruption. I suggest that you go away for several months and if after that you think you've seen the light, send an email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting an unblock. —Moondyne 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is where the problem arises. I read Robert's e-mail that you posted below, and I see the points you are making, but I can see the other side as well. To be frank, my response to an e-mail like the one below would have been to unblock and reblock for a month to give the cooling off period that Robert has requested. I think the point that is being forgotten here is that a block can be re-imposed with little trouble if Robert starts making trouble after that block expires. He has shown contrition and regret. Maybe not as much as some people would like, and he is still upset about some things, but that still doesn't equate to an indefinite block in my view. It feels like indefinite block are being used to extract apologies and reform, when apologies and reform should come naturally through learning and experience (which can only happen if someone is unblocked). You can't really tell whether someone has reformed until you unblock them and see how they act. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Robert has been around here plenty long enough to know policy. His email showed me he still does not understand it and continues to hold the view that there's some sort of vendetta against him and that its not his fault he is where he is. Robert needs an indefinite amount of time off and when he feels the time is right for him to make a new start, come back and offer evidence of wanting to make an new start according to the way everyone else here contributes. To unblock and reblock for a month just invites him to come back with his current state of mind. —Moondyne 23:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to leave this for now, but I will start a general discussion at WP:AN about how indefinite blocks are being used. I wasn't aware that indefinite blocks were now being used at the whim of blocking admins to defer a final decision until some undefined future moment. I think it makes more sense to make a decision on the length of a block now. One possibility I think is that as the project gets bigger, people don't feel they are able to come back and check up on behaviour after a block has expired, and either are unsure that later admins will correctly handle a reoccurrence of the behaviour, or think that an indefinite block is an easier option that deciding on the length of a block. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Else we're just talking in circles. —Moondyne 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've posted my general thoughts at WP:AN. I'd also like to thank you specifically, as things got a lot easier around here once you turned up. I tend to disagree rather a lot with BHG for some reason. If you are reading this, BHG, it's nothing personal. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests may be made by email

Because this page is protected, it is no longer possible for Young to make an unblock request here.

I am posting this notice per WP:BLOCK so that Young knows that an unblock request made made by email to the Unblock-en-l mailing list.

The email address for posting to the list is: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Email received from Robert Young

Formatting (bolding) preserved as received.

Dear Moondyne,

I do not wish to request 'unblocking' my edits privileges at this time. I do believe a period of 'cooling off' would be best for everyone. Perhaps unblocking my talk page and user page would be a small gesture towards reconciliation. I do hope to one day return to Wikipedia.

However, I would ask that the latest comments added by BHG be removed. The accusations and insinuations made against me are completely false and inflammatory. Disagreements in policy and whether articles should be deleted or kept should never be rewritten so as to compare them with much more serious issues, such as threats of violence or sexual harassment. The disputes were never about gender; they were about AGE...and whether it was important to study and catalog the world's oldest people, including on Wikipedia. The insinuations and accusations which compared defending articles for deletion to overt threats of violence and sexual harassment are 100% false and defamatory. The fact that your mind may have been changed due to such false charges is simply another example of the recent 'railroading' of me out of Wikipedia. I have NOT engaged in a campaign of 'offsite harassment'. Rather, I have defended myself and others from attacks by BHG where appropriate. A check of the records (Nov 11 2007, BHG's user contribs and talk page) shows I had attempted reconciliation and compromise several times, even going so far as to ask 'will this make you happy'. The response was for her to launch WP:POINT attacks on virtually every article of interest to me and my colleagues. I was blocked for requesting an ANI...how ironic. I thought that would solve a problem, not make it bigger.

I would look forward to working with Charcaroth, but to me the false accusations and unfair blocking of my talk page by the same person (BHG) that made such charges is a far larger issue and must be dealt with first. When/if this is cleared up, then I would be happy to work with someone whose considered opinions I very much respect.

I do regret using IP addresses after I was blocked. In those cases, I readily admitted that it was me. I did not engage in vandalism, nor did I condone it...rather I was attempting to rescue articles which had been prodded for deletion (due to lack of sources) but how could I add sources if blocked? I did not 'vote' using more than one identify in any AFD debate.I also note that four times I was accused of sockpuppetry, and those four turned out to be a 71-year-old man, a NASA scientist, and persons in England and Canada. Prior to the current dispute (beginning Nov 1 2007), I had made over 7,000 contributions to Wikipedia, with a 98.5% retention rate and a 96% article retention rate. Those numbers, obviously, would be lower after the current dispute.

I do hope you will post this message and that, after a period of cooling off by both sides, we can then discuss whether I should return to Wikipedia as an editor.

Sincerely
Robert Young

P.S. Please note that User Kitia, apparently around 15 years old, made a gallant but unwise attempt to provide me with a 'talk page' on Wikipedia. Rather than violate Wiki policies, I chose to instead ask that I could contact you directly.

Moondyne 08:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail from Ryoung122

Hi Robert. Thanks for the e-mail you sent me. I prefer to reply to people by clicking the "E-mail this user" link, but you haven't enabled an e-mail address. Not sure if you can do that while blocked. It would be under the "my preferences" tab at the top of the page. E-mail me again if you have problems with that, and also e-mail me if it works. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)