Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay publication https://cryptome.org/ap.htm on the Cypherpunks email list (Feb 14, 1995, but the archive for 1995 has since been forged to conceal nearly all reference to it)

Speaking of forging... Jim Bell was apparently CensorBanned off Wikipedia, which is well known by now to be: - Editorially biased - A censor and deleter of perhaps thousands of articles - Hardly a Free Speech platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/james_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesdbell8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jamesdbell8 The poorly collated pastes below all available starting from the above links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8 This user is currently blocked. 07:48, 29 July 2012 Uncle G talk contribs changed block settings for Jamesdbell8 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Improper use of this account) 05:08, 29 July 2012 SarekOfVulcan talk contribs blocked Jamesdbell8 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Block evasion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Jamesdbell8 Registered: 00:18, 9 April 2012 (10 years ago) Total edit count: 56 Number of attached accounts: 5 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8 ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesdbell8 All privileges revoked. Continuance of de facto community ban. You have done such a successful repetition of the actions and exact behaviour of james dalton bell (talk · contribs) that you have convinced me and others that you are he. If you are not that person, then you should not be here exactly mimicking the behaviour using an account named after the living person who was at the centre of things three years ago. If you are that person, you should use the routes that were supplied to you two years ago, e-mail to the Arbitration Committee and others, to discuss your expulsion from and continued exclusion from the Wikipedia community. In either case, there is no valid reason for any further use in any form of this account. Uncle G (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Having claimed to be a banned individual ([1]) an indefinite block is the correct response. As Uncle G says, you're banned until you successfully appeal the ban through the routes already notified. In the mean time I am afraid you are not welcome here. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jamesdbell8&offset=&limit=500&target=Jamesdbell8 06:51, 29 July 2012 diff hist +5,755‎ User talk:Jamesdbell8 ‎ →‎July 2012 05:56, 29 July 2012 diff hist +3,659‎ User talk:Jamesdbell8 ‎ →‎July 2012 05:29, 29 July 2012 diff hist +849‎ User talk:Jamesdbell8 ‎ →‎July 2012 05:18, 29 July 2012 diff hist +501‎ User talk:Jamesdbell8 ‎ →‎July 2012 05:03, 29 July 2012 diff hist +1,229‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎User:Jamesdbell8 04:38, 29 July 2012 diff hist +682‎ N Talk:Reston virus ‎ ←Created page with 'IS EBOLA RESTON INFECTION IMMUNIZING FOR EBOLA ZAIRE? Am I the only one in the world who is interested in the question of whether infection by the Ebola/Reston ...' 03:31, 29 July 2012 diff hist +3,645‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 03:07, 29 July 2012 diff hist +2,093‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 02:47, 29 July 2012 diff hist +429‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 01:39, 29 July 2012 diff hist +1,949‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎No edit summary 06:20, 28 July 2012 diff hist +1,055‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 05:31, 28 July 2012 diff hist +403‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 04:28, 28 July 2012 diff hist +799‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 23:36, 27 July 2012 diff hist +886‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 23:18, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,620‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎No edit summary 21:53, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,018‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 21:38, 27 July 2012 diff hist +535‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 21:31, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,720‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 19:27, 27 July 2012 diff hist +769‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 19:17, 27 July 2012 diff hist +3,068‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 17:42, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,484‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 17:17, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,394‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 07:32, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,973‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 07:05, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,562‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 06:18, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,596‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 05:35, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,476‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 05:17, 27 July 2012 diff hist +3,150‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 05:01, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,562‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 04:23, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,827‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 03:44, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,986‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎Misconceptions section is a major POV problem 03:26, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,240‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 00:55, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,287‎ Talk:Titles of Nobility Amendment ‎ →‎MISCONCEPTIONS section is a major POV problem: new section 20:58, 26 July 2012 diff hist +1,443‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎Georgia, Mass., Conn. 20:26, 26 July 2012 diff hist +696‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified? 01:39, 26 July 2012 diff hist +498‎ User talk:Tls60 ‎ →‎4 wire measurement of metallic carbon nanotubes.: new section 20:14, 25 July 2012 diff hist +897‎ Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎27th Amendment never been ratified?: new section 20:06, 25 July 2012 diff hist +18‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939 19:37, 25 July 2012 diff hist +2,875‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎BOR Only Ratified March 1939: new section 19:12, 25 July 2012 diff hist +384‎ Talk:United States Bill of Rights ‎ →‎Second Amendment 22:49, 22 July 2012 diff hist +648‎ Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎ →‎Relinquishing Federal citizenship without relinquishing state citizenship?: new section 03:31, 18 July 2012 diff hist +761‎ Talk:Alkaline battery ‎ →‎Chemistry 21:39, 14 July 2012 diff hist +236‎ Talk:Carbon nanotube ‎ →‎electronic properties 21:35, 14 July 2012 diff hist +541‎ Talk:Carbon nanotube ‎ →‎First reference? 16:04, 14 July 2012 diff hist +492‎ Talk:Light-emitting diode ‎ →‎Index of Refraction of Silicon may be wrong.: new section 16:00, 14 July 2012 diff hist +592‎ Talk:Light-emitting diode ‎ →‎Pulsed LEDs 21:07, 9 July 2012 diff hist −138‎ Talk:Assassination market ‎ →‎The discussion is not quite historically correct 21:04, 9 July 2012 diff hist −22‎ Assassination market ‎No edit summary 16:41, 5 July 2012 diff hist +26‎ Assassination market ‎ Since I, James Dalton Bell, know when my essay was written, I am correcting the facts, and I am also correcting the "Operation Soft Drill" claim. 04:03, 5 July 2012 diff hist +754‎ Talk:Assassination market ‎ →‎The discussion is not quite historically correct 16:38, 4 July 2012 diff hist −5‎ Talk:The Hot Zone ‎ →‎Did those infected with Ebola Reston become immune to Ebola Zaire? 16:33, 4 July 2012 diff hist +244‎ Talk:Cyanoacrylate ‎ →‎DMF: Dimethyl Formamide as solvent. 16:31, 4 July 2012 diff hist +380‎ Talk:Cyanoacrylate ‎ →‎DMF: Dimethyl Formamide as solvent.: new section 14:03, 1 July 2012 diff hist +432‎ Talk:Lorcaserin ‎ →‎Structural question: new section 02:23, 16 June 2012 diff hist +313‎ Talk:Spring Session M ‎ Morse Code Error on Album 19:55, 21 May 2012 diff hist +1,015‎ Talk:The Hot Zone ‎ →‎Did those infected with Ebola Reston become immune to Ebola Zaire?: new section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/James_dalton_bell Registered: 03:06, 26 December 2009 (12 years ago) Total edit count: 67 Number of attached accounts: 1 This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by the community, as no administrator is willing to unblock the user. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. Local wiki Attached on Method Blocked Edit count Groups en.wikipedia.org 03:06, 26 December 2009 new account(?) Blocked indefinitely. Reason: OTRS ticket indicates subject needs to make comments re article, talk page access required to do this without violating ban. editing (sitewide) account creation disabled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ja... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/james_dalton_bell 21:05, 1 April 2010 JzG talk contribs changed block settings for James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (OTRS ticket indicates subject needs to make comments re article, talk page access required to do this without violating ban.) 04:32, 25 January 2010 Jéské Couriano talk contribs changed block settings for James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (No intent to appeal block) 10:52, 18 January 2010 Tbsdy lives talk contribs blocked James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Incivility, personal attacks and general disruption) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_dalt... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James dalton bell/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations‎ | James dalton bell Jump to navigation Jump to search Contents

1 James dalton bell 1.1 03 September 2013 1.1.1 Comments by other users 1.1.2 Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments James dalton bell James dalton bell (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) 03 September 2013 Suspected sockpuppets 24.21.41.211 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block log · cross-wiki contribs) User compare report Auto-generated every hour. Editor interaction utility Admits to it here. "The fact that I am not 'yet' notable for the patent doesn't change a thing." Note sockpuppeteer is banned. NeilN talk to me 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comments by other users Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I would also note that the IP has a fairly similar style to Bell's self-named account. Argumentative, prone to personal attacks and declarations of conspiracies and cabals against him. I'll freely admit my first few responses to the IP were a bit snarky as I was a bit taken aback at the tone of their initial posts but they continued in that vein regardless of you respond to them. I think that even without the self-declaration the behavior is enough to match. Not listed here is User:Pro2rat who I don't believe is a sock but almost certainly a meatpuppet of Bell. Some internet searches find some conversations between them. NeilN has warned Pro2rat and for now I think that's enough. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment to Bbb23: I was involved with Bell's last go-round here and he certainly did use sockpuppet IP's [1] [2]. He was indef blocked because of this and other ANI threads. Per WP:INDEF, "In particularly serious cases where no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community." --NeilN talk to me 00:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments I am very puzzled by the history of Bell. If you look at Bell's block log, he was never blocked for sock puppetry. As far as I know, this is the first official report on Bell. Tagging Bell as a sock puppeteer was done by User:Daedalus969, who is not an admin and had no obvious authority to add the tag. Plus, there are many both suspected and "confirmed" puppets of Bell, and at least the ones I looked at were also tagged by the same user. There are many, many IPs that are tagged, and they geolocate to a lot of different places. I haven't, of course, looked at the history of each, but it certainly looks unusual. Finally, Bell has never been banned. The one thing I do see is the reported IP's assertion that he is Bell. Assuming we take that at face value (I certainly wouldn't endorse a CU), I suppose we could block him for block evasion, but I'm pondering how to fix all the history so it doesn't document things that aren't accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Neil, none of what you've said (I appreciate the link to the discussion) changes the fact that the tagging history is wrong. As for the alleged de facto ban, that is historically a contentious issue. I have blocked the IP for block evasion. I'll try to fix the history when I have a bit more time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] I have corrected all the tags. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesdbell8&action=history User talk:Jamesdbell8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jamesdbell8 (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 29 July 2012 (→‎July 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Jump to navigation Jump to search Welcome! Hello, Jamesdbell8, 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 and How to develop articles How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish) Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! bd2412 T 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC).[reply] July 2012 Sock block.svg This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Jamesdbell8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • filter log • creation log) Request reason: Apparently, some message claimed that I am using more than one account. In fact, I am only using one account. Also, if I am accused of some other thing, I feel it is rude and improper to 'block' me without an opportunity to adjudicate the matter thoroughly. To do otherwise amounts to giving your hired-guns a "license to kill" prior to giving the victim a trial. Does that make sense? Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Decline reason: It's patently obvious who you are, as even a cursory glance will show; if you would like to be unblocked, you will need to do so from your original account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Another comment: I got an automatically generated message which claims: Dear Jamesdbell8, "The Wikipedia page "User talk:Jamesdbell8" has been changed on 29 July 2012 by SarekOfVulcan, with the edit summary: You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account is being used only for sock puppetry. (TW) Let's be precise: It says the account is being used ONLY for "sock puppetry". I'd like to see that PROVEN. In other words, to prove that somebody would have to show that there were no usages that were NOT "sock puppetry". That would be a very tough nut to crack, I think. And, if anyone in your staff blocked me without proof of what they claim, they should be indefinitely blocked as well. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Another comment: I just downloaded it from WP:BLP. Its applicability MAY be obvious to some people, but I will show it anyway: Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.[8]" You need to ask a few questions that I derive from the above BLP policy: 1. Was "leniency showed" to a person to tried to fix what they saw as errors or unfair material"? 2. Did that person "remove unsources or poorly sourced material"? 3. Was vandalism ever alleged? 4. Were edits by the subject of a BLP repeatedly reverted, with no explanation at all to the subject? 5. Was the subject invited to explain his concerns? 6. Was the subject a 'newcomer'? Was he 'bitten'? 7. Did the material that the subject was trying to remove or correct eventually get removed or corrected by OTHER WP users, demonstrating violations of the BLP policy even then? 8. Was the subject 'bitten' by being banned without any such warning, notice, or other consideration appropriate to: a: A newbie of less than 2 weeks experience? b: Was the mistake actually by the 'newbie', or was it a trolling move by an administrator who didn't even explain himself? 9. Do you realize that the reason you (WP) had to fix your BLP policy is that it was seriously 'broken'? 9a Do you realize that the fact you fixed your BLP policy was an ADMISSION that it was seriously 'broken'? 10. Did the subject actually have an opportunity to appeal the ban? (In other words, did any administrator ACTUALLY grant the subject an appeal? (Your policy on ban appeals was also flawed, because it required that some administrator step forward to 'allow' the appeal to occur.) 11 Is an indefinite block proper at all, particularly under the circumstances you will find when you investigate? 12. Are you (WP) willing to actually enforce your WP:BLP policy by expelling administrators who egregiously violate the BLP policy, even if their actions are found to have occurred 2.5 years ago? 13 If you are not, why then would it be proper to enforce an "indef ban" for over 2 years of somebody who was actually denied the opportunity to have a genuine appeal? Etc. Etc. Etc. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I was just rudely denied an appeal of my block by a person "Northern Lights". He said: 29 July 2012 (UTC)|decline=It's patently obvious who you are, as even a cursory glance will show; if you would like to be unblocked, you will need to do so from your original account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply] However, any administrator who merely says 'it's patently obvious' needs first to be denied the opportunity to actually adjudicate disputes, in fact he needs to be completely removed from WP as well. As you can see, I have already objected to WHY I need a true appeal. I will quote from the appropriate WP Policy on Appeals: This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed: Jamesdbell8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • filter log • creation log) Request reason: See above too. I'm rather familiar with Federal law, both civil and criminal. They don't just say, "You're guilty! It's obvious!. Any judge who would claim that would be thrown off the bench, and quickly too. (They are trained to be more much subtle than to obviously display their biases.) Your administrators don't seem to have the same judicial training. 1. There has been no evidence presented that I have two accounts at all, let alone two active accounts. 2. An accusation (perhaps in an automatic message? Seems to claim I am using an account "ONLY for sock-puppetry" That would be very hard to prove! And no, it hasn't been proved. Go through my contributions, and see which (if any) are alleged to be 'sock-puppetry'. If hypothetically, 90% of the subjects on which I post AREN'T "sock puppetry" then the allegation against me ("ONLY for 'sock puppetry') is clearly false. The accuser has the burden of proof to explain why the accused 'sock puppet' is making many postings which clearly have no connection to any 'sock puppetry' involved. If that's the case, why should he/she even suspect 'sock puppetry'? 3. "Blade of Northern Lights" seems to say that if I want to appeal using my account for 'sock puppetry', I have to appeal on my OTHER account. That would be quite difficult, if I really didn't have another account! This reminds me of the 'trial' used for accused witches 300-400 years ago: Weight them down with rocks, tie their hands, and throw them in a lake. If the somehow float, that PROVES they're guilty. So they killed them. If they CAN'T float, and they drown and die, then they're NOT guilty! Yay!!! Can "Dull Blade" show that this other account he claims I have is ALSO actively used? Even for READING ONLY? When was it last used? If he can't show that, then how does he intend to go about his 'appeal' in a realistic, fair manner? Maybe he doesn't. That's the problem! 4. There exists a new WP:BLP policy. I allege that a thorough, proper adjudication of this 'indef ban' must employ that policy, to find out if there was ever a proper ban on the other account that 'Dull Blade' claims I am a 'sock puppet' of. 5. Maybe a lot of 'politics' got involved? How do we know that these administrators (in their 'day jobs') are not 'sock puppets' of the United States Dept of Justice, or the ATF, or the FBI, or the IRS? Does WP actually check to see if any of their administrators have a 'conflict of interest', or perhaps were sent to 'do a job' on a victim, maybe a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh time? Ordinarily, it might not be a problem (and I'm NOT just talking on WP!) Ordinarily, it might not be a problem 6. WP seems to have a very defective appeal policy. One 'troll' administrator can apply a block, and a 'friendly' (to the 'troll') can 'deny' an appeal to that same block. OTHER administrators are apparently warned away from giving the victim of a block an actual appeal. In effect, it only takes the collusion of TWO (2) administrators to deny the victim 'block-ee' any justice at all. That leads to a conclusion that WP is run like a 'cabal', not anything like a fair administration. 7. The accusing person (whether administrator or user) should be required to disclose exactly HOW he came to such a conclusion. Lack of a good 'cover story' may indicate that some kind of 'political' (governmental) action was involved. One of the reasons that in "the real world" cops must say HOW they know something, to get search warrants, is that without them, the cop might simply plant the evidence during a search. (Or, he may know from a colluding informant that something, i.e. drugs, have ALREADY been stealthily planted by that informant, to 'frame' the search-victim.) The requirement to disclose sources in a warrant affidavit makes such malicious behavior harder to accomplish. In the WP world, I suggest that WP DOESN'T REALLY KNOW WHO THEIR ADMINISTRATORS ARE, they open themselves up letting 'troll' administrators do a 'normal' adminstrator job 95%+ of the time, but very occasionally 'do a job' on a victim. If the person who originally complained can't explain WHY he knows what he claims to have seen, even after the fact, it may be reasonably supposed that that complainant was either a troll him or herself, or he or she was colluding with a troll, who may be a police department or three-letter agency. Don't you think the CIA may actually READ Facebook? And USE it?!? And, you should fire any administrator who simply says, "It's patently obvious you're guilty!" I am afraid that WP is thoroughly proving that it has a very 'justice-hostile' policy, one that is thoroughly abusable by resident trolls/administrators. I hope to be proven wrong! Jamesdbell8 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Notes: In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator. Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time. User contributions for James dalton bell For James dalton bell talk block log uploads logs filter log Jump to navigation Jump to search This account is currently blocked. (Show block details) The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 21:05, 1 April 2010 JzG talk contribs changed block settings for James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (OTRS ticket indicates subject needs to make comments re article, talk page access required to do this without violating ban.) View full log 25 January 2010 03:10, 25 January 2010 diff hist +8,700‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Consensus 24 January 2010 18:03, 24 January 2010 diff hist +3,338‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Consensus 20 January 2010 10:51, 20 January 2010 diff hist +119‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Meatpuppets and sockpuppets, 10:48, 20 January 2010 diff hist +9,906‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Meatpuppets and sockpuppets, 03:57, 20 January 2010 diff hist +2,331‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Meatpuppets and sockpuppets, 03:24, 20 January 2010 diff hist +1,749‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Meatpuppets and sockpuppets, 03:00, 20 January 2010 diff hist +304‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Meatpuppets and sockpuppets, 02:47, 20 January 2010 diff hist +9,466‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Meatpuppets and sockpuppets, 18 January 2010 08:50, 18 January 2010 diff hist +1,571‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎User:James dalton bell 08:36, 18 January 2010 diff hist +206‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Suggestion 08:35, 18 January 2010 diff hist −1‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Apology 08:34, 18 January 2010 diff hist +2,517‎ User talk:Daedalus969 ‎No edit summary 08:30, 18 January 2010 diff hist +1,687‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎No edit summary 08:08, 18 January 2010 diff hist +774‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Jim Bell 17 January 2010 01:45, 17 January 2010 diff hist +3,147‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Is Dodo extinct? 16 January 2010 10:23, 16 January 2010 diff hist +1,128‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Is Dodo extinct?: new section 10:10, 16 January 2010 diff hist +1,682‎ User talk:Daedalus969 ‎No edit summary 09:31, 16 January 2010 diff hist +4,223‎ Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell ‎No edit summary 13 January 2010 01:09, 13 January 2010 diff hist +1,154‎ User talk:NeilN ‎No edit summary 11 January 2010 03:15, 11 January 2010 diff hist +1,640‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589 ‎ →‎Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}} 7 January 2010 11:57, 7 January 2010 diff hist +15,462‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Issues relating to article Jim Hill 5 January 2010 09:21, 5 January 2010 diff hist +3,570‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Issues relating to article Jim Hill: Further objection to failure of 'community' to object to 'Dodo's misconduct. 05:16, 5 January 2010 diff hist +1,295‎ Talk:Hunger strike ‎ →‎Actual record?: My recent hunger strike 4 January 2010 10:13, 4 January 2010 diff hist +1,106‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Double Standard in enforcement of "Rules": Another 'meat puppet' 06:11, 4 January 2010 diff hist +5,788‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Regarding your edits to Jim Bell 05:25, 4 January 2010 diff hist +905‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Issues relating to article Jim Hill 05:17, 4 January 2010 diff hist +1,083‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎January 2010 05:08, 4 January 2010 diff hist +490‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎WP:ANI notice 05:05, 4 January 2010 diff hist +6,000‎ User talk:James dalton bell ‎ →‎Re: Deafening silence 05:00, 4 January 2010 diff hist −2‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}} 04:57, 4 January 2010 diff hist +39‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}} 04:49, 4 January 2010 diff hist +5,805‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}} 3 January 2010 11:38, 3 January 2010 diff hist +262‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Your silence is deafening.: new section 11:36, 3 January 2010 diff hist +1,906‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article 11:26, 3 January 2010 diff hist +1,728‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Double Standard in enforcement of "Rules" 2 January 2010 11:45, 2 January 2010 diff hist +1,671‎ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Gogo Dodo 02:46, 2 January 2010 diff hist +36‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article 02:31, 2 January 2010 diff hist +3,657‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article 01:36, 2 January 2010 diff hist +1,301‎ Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell ‎No edit summary 1 January 2010 17:01, 1 January 2010 diff hist +204‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article 16:51, 1 January 2010 diff hist +1,806‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article 31 December 2009 22:50, 31 December 2009 diff hist +795‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article: Complained about 'dodo's' biased and presumptuous editing practices on 'jim bell'. 22:36, 31 December 2009 diff hist +1,815‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article: new section 03:50, 31 December 2009 diff hist +115‎ m Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Current Climate Change Research 03:49, 31 December 2009 diff hist +1‎ m Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Current Climate Change Research 03:22, 31 December 2009 diff hist +370‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Release, harassment and conviction 03:07, 31 December 2009 diff hist +807‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Release, harassment and conviction: The commentary previously posted was misleading, because it implied that the government had been required to disclose all surveillance: not true. 01:58, 31 December 2009 diff hist +1,177‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Current Climate Change Research: Objected to sabotage by busybodies. 28 December 2009 08:40, 28 December 2009 diff hist +1,698‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal' 27 December 2009 17:45, 27 December 2009 diff hist +2‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal' 17:35, 27 December 2009 diff hist −2‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal' 17:34, 27 December 2009 diff hist +2‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal' 17:32, 27 December 2009 diff hist +1,948‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎ →‎Bell has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal' 09:05, 27 December 2009 diff hist +931‎ Talk:Jim Bell ‎No edit summary 08:25, 27 December 2009 diff hist +545‎ User talk:Gogo Dodo ‎ →‎jim bell article: new section 00:26, 27 December 2009 diff hist +1‎ m Jim Bell ‎ →‎Forged Appeal Case: Bell adds further information concerning forged appeal case. 00:26, 27 December 2009 diff hist +1,715‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Release, harassment and conviction 26 December 2009 22:55, 26 December 2009 diff hist +1‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Recent Events: Global Warming Solution 22:46, 26 December 2009 diff hist +964‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Background: Jim Bell describes his efforts to publicize his solution to the alleged 'global warming' problem. 20:52, 26 December 2009 diff hist +2,074‎ N Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell ‎ ←Created page with '{{medcabstatus |article={{SUBPAGENAME}} |status=New |date=~~~~~ |parties=<!-- List the main parties involved in the dispute --> |mediators= |comment=<!-- For mediat...' 08:03, 26 December 2009 diff hist +358‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Recent Events: Global Warming Solution 07:50, 26 December 2009 diff hist +604‎ Jim Bell ‎No edit summary 07:40, 26 December 2009 diff hist −14‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Headline text 07:39, 26 December 2009 diff hist +19‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Headline text 07:38, 26 December 2009 diff hist +624‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Investigation, prosecution and imprisonment 07:31, 26 December 2009 diff hist +2‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Background 07:30, 26 December 2009 diff hist +1,354‎ Jim Bell ‎ →‎Background: Jim Bell describes his efforts to publicize his solution to the alleged 'global warming' problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell Jump to navigation Jump to search Mr. Bell, your access to this page should be restored. Please be aware that we can and will deal only with two specific types of request here: Present and ongoing violations of our policy on biographies Factual errors, either unsourced material or corrections sourced from reliable independent sources Issues of past conduct will be handled only by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I have already asked that they review the conduct of all parties, myself included. Any legal complaints, including (specifically) complaints of libel will be handled only by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal advisers, whose contact details I believe you have but are available at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us - we have an absolute prohibition on legal threats so please respect this restriction. You also have an email address and ticket reference. The same applies there. We will deal with present and ongoing misconduct, and provable factual errors. I'm afraid we have to be firm on this as otherwise any attempt at resolution will rapidly become bogged down. Those of us who man the OTRS queues are committed to fixing problems here-and-now, we cannot, for a lot of reasons, get into long term issues. I hope you can understand why that is. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] An uncivil policy Jim Bell, a potentially invaluable contributor to Wikipedia with unique insights, was indefinitely banned after a grand total of 67 edits over less than a month, for "Incivility, personal attacks and general disruption". He was primarily interested in expressing his own point of view about his own article, which sounds a lot like one long personal attack. It is clear that some of his edits diverged from Wikipedia editorial guidelines, but what happened to WP:BITE? Where is WP:AGF (or WP:BLP, or WP:NPA) when editors at ANI talk about him as if he were a terrorist? Every common vandal who replaces the text of an article with the word "penis" gets blocked three or four times before the blocks go up to months or a year. Someone could have tried to work with him to make things right. Now I should point out that other less famous but more wealthy citizens receive a very different reception - for example, I've just come from debating at length against the deletion of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo. Sources such as a U.S. Senate committeee majority and minority report were cited,[1] but administrators claim that these cannot be mentioned, because explaining what these sources say would make it an "attack article". (see Talk:Jimbo Wales#At the margins) It looks like there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor on Wikipedia, like anywhere else. I also am rather disgusted by the notice that Bell has used "sockpuppets". His "sockpuppets" are just a list of IP addresses he edited from after his account was blocked. That's "evading a block", yes, but it has nothing to do with the multi-voting and multi-RRs and faked discussions that are implied when people speak of "sockpuppets" in the traditional Usenet sense of the term. Wikipedia is shrinking, and there's a reason - because pompous, rude policy templates, automated notices, threats, and overwrought disciplinary procedures have been allowed to drive away interested newbies. Bell is the third or fourth such trampled newbie I've encountered in the past week - any one of which, properly greeted, would likely have been more productive for the project than I am. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please actually take time to read up on all relevant material. He was not blocked for expressing his view on his article. He was blocked for insulting everyone that tried to help him.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] How many insults can you make in 67 edits? And isn't a permanent ban kind of ... insulting? Wnt (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] "How many insults can you make in 67 edits?", in response, you obviously didn't read his WP:TLDR rants. Bell was shown plenty of WP:AGF by several editors. He didn't end up banned because of his misunderstood overtures for peace and love. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] What kind of civility are you showing when you use some cute acronym to make fun of the fact that you're not reading what an editor says? I have to wonder whether Jim Bell was really being any more offensive than the people he was responding to. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] I read them when he was posting them, and was one of the editors who tried to offer helpful advice and pointers to appropriate policy pages to help clear up his misunderstandings concerning our editing policies. I was remarking on the fact that maybe you hadn't read them because of their length. As for the 67 edits, he also IP socked quit a few more after his block. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)Plenty. His posts were tl;dr, but that doesn't mean we didn't read them. If you're not going to help, then why bother contributing. The only thing you've done since you've got here is throw around baseless accusations. If you aren't going to take the time to read through all relevant material, don't bother commenting.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I said above, my main objection is that when I read his block log, the first block is an indefinite ban still ongoing. I don't think a user under 100 edits should ever get an indefinite ban - they should get a series of brief bans to give them time to stand back and reconsider. And I haven't even accused anyone of anything. I just wish WP:BITE had some teeth. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Guys, can we move this conversation somewhere else? I doubt this is improving his mood. --NeilN talk to me 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually you did, you accused us of biting a newbie when all we had been was nice to him. We weren't rude, we weren't uncivil. We calmly tried to explain policy to him, and all we got were cries of abuse.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)Here, since you refuse to read before commenting, I've found some insults for you, in his last contribution to this page, no less: Read the damn article, 'Jim Bell', if you numbskulls want to understand WHY In fact, I want most of you to (first) stop interfering and abuse, and (second) go away As a note, none of us who have tried to help this user were ever abusive to them. For the below, he continuously refers to 'the abuse by Dodo' and 'the abuse by others'. He has also, numerous times called us meatpuppets, just because we tried to explain to him why his edits were reverted(they violated BLP as they were negative material without a source, and calling the material 'negative' is light for what it was) Also, Falcon falsely accused me of falsely accusing Dodo of being a [sock?] puppet. Actually, the reality (remember reality, guys?) is that Dodo was the first 'control freak' to even show up, At that time, I hadn't even heard the term, 'sock puppet': I believe that I first read of it from somebody else's message. So, as I (now) understand your word-usage, Dodo wasn't the 'sock puppet': Hypothetically, someone else would have been called 'sock puppet', one who (seemed to) follow Dodo's footsteps. But I now understand that there's another term, 'meat puppet', a term that I haven't seen explicitly defined, but appears to be a person who (sorta secretly) is brought in to back up the opinions of another person. Somewhat like happened after I began to criticize Dodo for repeatedly reverting my edits without allowing any consensus to develop! Such a coincidence! Calling us meatpuppets because he was violating BLP and was surprised when people started reverting him. We have tried to explain numerous times that he doesn't get his way before consensus is achieved, not after. Falcon was especially clueless when he said, "Gogo Dodo had an issue with one of your edits, clearly. Well, then, explain that calmly and politely and ask their views on why it wasn't useful to Wikipedia. If you had done that, you would not have found yourself blocked (banning is entirely separate to blocking)". Do I really need to explain this one? He calls another editor clueless. I take strong exception to 'falcon's' abusive article. But weeks ago, I realized that the rest of the control freaks won't do anthing about this: The way they didn't do anything about Dodo, or Daedalus, etc. At least, 'falcon' admitted, right off the bat, that he didn't know 'anything' about me! Big mistake. If WP worked in anything like a logical fashion, 'falcon' would have been ejected, permanently, for knowingly and intentionally commenting in an area he knew nothing about, to a person he admitted he knew nothing about, based on a history (4 weeks, approx) that he also knows nothing about. This one's great. Here he suggests that a user be indefblocked for commenting on an article he wasn't familiar with. Right. So again, instead of commenting here, telling us we bit this user, when we did no such thing, and then claiming they never attacked anyone(when they quite clearly did), read all relevant material. Read all of his posts, then come back and comment only after you have done so. The above came from a single diff. His last contribution to this page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't know which person bit the newbie, or whether it is bad Wikipedia policy or procedure in general; only that he was bitten. I have not named any specific wrongdoer(s) because I don't understand exactly what happened. I just know that what happened can't be right. Wnt (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Are you asserting that the guy who invented "assassination politics" and who spent 10 yrs in federal prison upon a conviction for intimidating and stalking the family members of federal agents couldn't possibly be at fault in this situation? Even if his initial contact on WP was a BITE, he had plenty of helping hands offered afterward, which he declined to accept. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Here's a tip, stop claiming that any of us bit this person. None of us did. Were were civil with him, when all he did is cry abuse and cry for bans of anyone that tried to help him. Don't say that any of us bit him, unless you can back it up with a diff, but I'm quite sure you will never find such a diff, as it never happened.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] I haven't seen an edit war on Wikipedia that doesn't involve comparable amounts of abuse. I'm sorry, but "numskulls", "clueless" and such are not even the harshest words I've seen uttered in anger around here. I do recognize that most of you (and in particular those currently replying here) spoke civilly, though there were some who did not - e.g. from the final ANI we have things like "Nobody's gonna bother even reading the above as it comes across as a rant." and "Then there is a very long rant about how he is being harassed and there is a conspiracy against him by some unknown group or individual, which to be frank I gave up reading because I've read this sort of drivel on hundreds, if not thousands, of long winded posts from people who don't understand how Wikipedia works"[2] I think that the main "bite" was that Bell was hit with an indefinite ban for incivility when people are talking to him like that in the ANI itself! For the record, I should add that I do recognize that we cannot add unsourced material about living persons based only on the assumption that the user is actually the subject of the article; nor can we cite a telephone call or an e-mail. I am also highly suspicious that Bell's "discovery" of isotopic differences in the infrared spectrum amounts to anything more than his (mis)reading of some sources - I doubt he measured the absorption personally. I recognize that even if he cited these sources in their appropriate article, he could not have added the "original research" connecting them under Wikipedia policy. However, had he started a website in his own name, he could have cited that as a primary source and used it, per BLP, to cite a statement about what he was saying. This is not that far from his original intent. Though it is irrelevant at this point I'll also mention that I wish I had convenient online access to [3] [4] [5] but I suspect that they would show that while there are differences in frequency of absorption that the overall effect on infrared would be similar. But I can't say that without looking. And doing isotopic separation on carbon monoxide can't be cheap enough to be practical. I think that prison has deprived him of a chance to make the intellectual advances his mind is designed to accomplish, producing such disorientation until he can accumulate more data. That said, I find that the more I read the more sympathy I find I have for his raw and innocent outrage at the rapid and total reverting of content that occurs around here with no attempt made to salvage the point. The blizzard of policies with which newbies are hit is indeed confusing, especially when OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used to tell them that they can't complain if they're the only one targeted. I just ran into a different newbie trample at User:VictimsWife in which an editor tried to add content that was objected to for encyclopedic reasons - in her case I was around and was able to rephrase and cite some parts of her content that I found before they were deleted, in such a way that they then were left intact, but in the meanwhile we lost another contributor. Wnt (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I don't agree with "...had he started a website in his own name, he could have cited that as a primary source and used it, per BLP, to cite a statement about what he was saying". BLP is not a license to turn your article into a WP:SOAPBOX which would happen to thousands of articles if we followed your interpretation unquestioningly. BLP is balanced by WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG and, to a certain extent, WP:SPIP. --NeilN talk to me 10:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] (OD)He was talking like that before the ANI thread was even created. The incivility Bell met on ANI only happened after people grew tired of him calling everyone who tried to explain policy to him a meatpuppet. Again, instead of accusing us of things, like biting this user, which we haven't done, why don't you read all relevant material. Why don't you read Dodo's reply to him, on this very page, which not only explained policy, but did so extraordinarily politely after Bell was abusive to him on his talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't know about this other case, or even if it has any similarities to this one. But if that newbie was trampled, it doesn't mean it also happened in this case. As for the bewildering preponderance of things you need to learn to edit, I've been on WP for 2 years, and I don't think there is much more to learn now than when I started. Bell seems like a very intelligent guy, I'm sure if inclined he could have picked it up as well, probably faster than I did. He was not so inclined. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Wnt, with respect, you have no real idea of the background on either of these cases. This much is obvious from your input. I am not prepared to discuss the details of the Bell case on-wiki because I can't without violating privacy (of several people) and causing even more drama, I referred it to the Arbitration Committee some time ago for review and I still think that was the right thing to do. This much I will say: in my opinion his comments were overboard but for understandable reasons; however, having exchanged a fair number of emails with him I do not think that any amount of kindness and patience would result in his becoming a productive member of the community, I think he is temperamentally unsuited to the Wikipedia environment. And yes that is a shame because he has, as you say, a unique perspective. If you want to track down some other OTRS volunteers whose opinion you respect and ask them to verify what I say then you are free to do so, you can also email the Arbitration Committee to express your views on this, I am sure they will give you some sort of reply. As to Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, I have no real opinion on whether a neutral, sourced, compliant biography could be written, but I do know that this wasn't one which is why Coren deleted it. I will note in passing that when someone is emailing you in obvious distress, telling them to wait a week while we examine our navels is not a very satisfactory response, but discussion does not belong here and is indeed underway elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your response - I understand that you and other OTRS people may have your own history with him, and I can sympathize: the thing is, I don't really think of that as part of Wikipedia. If I can't know the full story about something then I don't even want to pay attention to it. And while everyone says that they made so much effort to help this person, so far I haven't seen any sign that someone even tried to rephrase his contributions to pass WP guidelines the way I did (to a limited extent) with VictimsWife [though admittedly in this case I think setting up some third-party site to reference as a primary source would be needed]. So I don't feel like people really tried hard enough. I don't see what the harm would be in unbanning him every three to six months and seeing what happens, even if it does mean that four or five nasty comments slip into our bottomless talk archives each time. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] OTRS volunteers are tasked with helping people, and I am doing my best to help Mr. Bell. I can't say he's the most co-operative customer I've ever had, but neither is he the worst, and I can see his perspective quite easily even while simultaneously seeing the problems pointed out by others here. I actually don't think it would be in his best interests to be unblocked (a view with which I know he strongly disagrees) because I am pretty confident that the result would be a flame war which would end with no chance of him ever being unblocked. At least this way once the article is fixed it might be safe to unblock him. I've asked ArbCom to review all conduct, including mine, and I've also noticed that there is some discussion on the Foundation wiki about a proposal which is informed by this case and other recent incidents. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to review the article in detail and make or propose improvements. That is, I think, the most important thing here. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] A comment from Jim Bell: It sounds to me like one MAJOR improvement you (WP) need is a declaration that BLP policy is not "optional": It is utterly mandatory, and --->anybody<--- who becomes aware of a BLP violation MUST act immediately to repair it. It is not a matter about which one can 'volunteer' to do (or fail to 'volunteer'). Anybody who fails to do so needs to be blocked for a month or two, and anybody who tries to cover it up (as NeilN did on WP:BLPN a few weeks ago; including reverting material which violates BLP) needs to be blocked for at least 1 year. Once the first dozen Administrators get blocked, I think the word will get around. BTW, make the policy RETROACTIVE. Posted by request. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Uh, yeah, I "covered it up" by explaining my rationale here: Talk:Jim_Bell#Edits_not_neutral. Keystroke came up with alternate wording and Ravensfire later agreed completely with one of my points. Again, Bell is trying to block anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view - subjects of BLP articles don't get to solely decide what is a BLP violation. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BLP already non-negotiable? —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but if a subject doesn't like something in their article (which is sourced), is that a BLP violation? --NeilN talk to me 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, it isn't, and his suggestion about how to handle it is nothing but disruptive.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Recent conversations have left me very perplexed what the BLP policy really is. Originally I thought it was very simple: any good source you can find, you describe, trying to cover all sides fairly. But in a variety of long discussions including some at Talk:Jimbo Wales I've been presented with a very different view of WP:BLP where editors look at all the sources and judge which allegations are confirmed or unreliable, and where even articles that are well sourced but entirely negative get deleted. See WP:ATTACK versus WP:BLP#Attack pages. The result, as I commented above and at User talk:Coren#Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, is that I don't see any large difference between a largely negative page that was speedy-deleted and the largely negative Jim Bell page. So while I wanted to keep both pages, I feel as if the policy as presently enforced would support the outright deletion of both. So how do I improve the Jim Bell article? I just don't know. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Do you really not see the difference between an article which only serves to disparage its subject and an article which neutrally describes a subject's controversial activities? Are, for example, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and Manuel Noriega attack articles? --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, in the case of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, Jimbo himself not merely supported deletion, but said there was no way to make it neutral without extra off-line or French language research, despite at least five reliable sources to quote, because they were all about controversies. So I really don't know where the line is supposed to be now. Wnt (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, because they were tabloid stories about not much or primary sources which were then interpreted by Wikipedia editors in a way not fully supported by the source. Jim Bell, by contrast, seems to me to have actively courted publicity and set himself up as a figure in the public eye. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to be prepared for the fact that not everything everybody says about you will be flattering. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] One lesson from this might be that even if someone is acting irate, their critical concerns about an article should be investigated regardless of their demeanor, even if they are to be banned. Keystroke (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]