Censorship: Wikipedia CensorBanned Jim Bell Too
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 22:20:18 PDT 2022
> 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_James_dalton_bell
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_dalton_bell/Archive
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]
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list