StanPrimmer

Sockpuppetry case

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) 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an exact copy of what I sent by E-mail. I didn't realize that I had been logged out which was why I was unable to access this edit.

I have been erroneously accused of being a sockpuppet of Robert Young. I assure you that I am not Robert Young. Robert lives in Georgia. I live in Florida. A comparison of our IP addresses proves that we are two different people. BrownHairedGirl acknowledged as much when she referred to a presentation I made at the American Aging Association in Oakland, CA, on June 4, 2005. To see a picture of me during that presentation go to http://www.grg.org/resources/ and search for primmer. The actual date was June 4, 2005, not June 3 as stated on the web page. For a picture of Robert Young go to http://www.grg.org/Calment4A.html and search for gibson. The picture on the right is of Robert Young with Susie Gibson when she was 113. You can also readily note that we have different E-mail addresses. This provides you with abundant proof that I am not a sockpuppet of Robert Young. To accuse me of being a sockpuppet and therefore a liar is a personal attack that is contrary to the policies of Wikipedia.

BrownHairedGirl then indicates that because both Robert and I are associated with the Gerontology Research Group that this fits the definition of “meatpupptery” [sic]. I clearly stated in my post that I am personally acquainted with Robert. I am not, however, anyone’s meatpuppet. Robert did not ask me to post on his behalf; I did not tell him that I was going to post; and I did not consult with him about the content of my posting. I am more than twice Robert’s age, and he is not capable of manipulating me to come to his defense.

I appreciate the remarks that SBHarris has made on my behalf. However, I have never met him, nor have I ever had any communication with him of any kind at any time.

I can only conclude that I was blocked because I supported someone who BrownHairedGirl and a few other administrators don’t like. I did not support Robert because he is likable. I supported him because of the quality and quantity of the significant work that he does in identifying and validating supercentenarians. When someone reads about him in their local newspaper in connection with a supercentenarian, they would be well served to be able to go to Wikipedia and see a brief bio about him, but because of the antipathy of a few individuals, this bio has been deleted.

Robert, Dr. L. Stephen Coles, many others, and I are trying to build a positive understanding of the aging process as demonstrated in those approaching the maximum in human life span. We would appreciate your facilitating this endeavor rather than opposing it.

With due respect kindly remove the block from my name.

Stanley R. Primmer StanPrimmer 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Accepted. I'm guessing that Mr. Young invited you to contribute to the deletion debates currently in progress? Unfortunately, Mr. Young has been exceptionally disruptive in his attempts to promote his interests. It might be an idea if you were to leave that particular mess alone for now. Do you want to be unblocked? If so I will see about it. Thanks for being reasonable about this, and we apologise for the inconvenience. Given Mr. Young's past behaviour and offsite solicitation of votes, I'm afraid it was a rather easy mistake to make. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it helps to expedite matters, StanPrimmer has explicitly asked above "kindly remove the block from my name". I don't think you are asking for his assurance that he will "leave that particular mess alone for now" but simply suggesting (in my view wisely) that he should do just that. Thincat 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I never read past the 40th word :o) Guy (Help!) 15:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you, JzG, for your voice of moderation in the middle of this discussion. Robert Young did not invite me to contribute to the deletion debate. He did post information about the issue to a couple of news groups which I read. Because I have first-hand knowledge about his activities and competence as an investigator of claims to extreme age, and because we share an interest in this topic, I felt it appropriate for me to support his continued existence on Wikipedia. You state that he "has been exceptionally disruptive," but weren't his "disruptive" comments made in defense of attacks against him and against an issue of importance to him and to many others of us? I would like to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, so please remove the block from my edits.

StanPrimmer 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your patience, I'll give Maxim a couple more hours to come online, if you'll excuse the further delay, and then I think we should all be square. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stan, it wasn't just a few comments, it was a massive campaign of disruption :(

Young's disruption was in response to a debate on the deletion of an article which he had written about himself, in breach of wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines. Despite the COI guidance about restraint in participating in AfD debates in which you have an interest, Young spammed the debate with screenfuls of ill-formatted and largely irrelevant text which severely disrupted the discussion, amounting to over 4,000 words. He then set canvassing others for support, both on wikipedia and off wikipedia (in breach of the guidelines at WP:CANVASS), and mounting personal attacks on editors who disagreed with him. Now that he is blocked, he has used sockpuppets to try to evade the block, and continue to use his yahoogroups mailing list to call for people to join wikipedia to push his position.

I think that a large part of the difficulty arises from the way that Young really didn't want to engage with the principle that wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself, your friends, or your your colleagues. Removing unverified material and articles on non-notable people is a major ongoing part of maintaining wikipedia, and it is mostly a fairly calm process where assesments of notability can be done in a consensual manner. Unfortunately if people have broken the COI principle and abused wikipedia for self-promotion, they can then perceive the housekeeping as a personal attack; but even when that has happened before, I don't think I have ever seen any self-promoter react so aggressively and disruptively as Young.

I am concerned now that you say you have joined to "support his continued existence on Wikipedia" after Young had posted info to newsgroups. That's precisely what I and others have been concerned about: that the effect of Young's campaign would be encourage many of his contacts to join wikipedia with the express intent of supporting him, rather than of contributing tpo the project and trying to uphold wikipedia's policies, including those wrt to notability and verifiability. I think that there is a lot of wisdom in the advice above to "leave that particular mess alone for now".

In this context, I hope you will understand why, when Young had already been using sockpuppets, it was quite reasonable to conclude that further new participants were probably also socks. At this point, I can't see any justification for a continue block, and I apologise for my mistake while under fire. I look forward to your contributions to wikipedia, and I do hope that you'll do your own reading of our policies and guidelines rather than accepting Young's word on these matters. Good luck!

If you haven't already been unblocked, please use the {{unblock}} template to request unblocking. (I'd suggest that just citing the discussion should be sufficient). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving steadily on...

I see you're unblocked. This is good. Perhaps you'll forgive me throwing in the standard welcome template, as it has some good links on policy and cultural mores. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions, Guy (Help!) 12:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Welcome!

Hello, StanPrimmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Guy (Help!) 12:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Working together

Stan, thanks for your friendly msg on my talk page. I prefer keeping discussions in one place, so I have replied there: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Unblocking_of_StanPrimmer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken a few days to get back to you, but I have just posted a long reply to your comments on my talk page: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Unblocking_of_StanPrimmer. If you have time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my comments there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)