Talk:2010 Pentagon shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current[edit]

This article is about a current event - it is being filled right now. Please do contribute. Toitoine (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs etc[edit]

Appears he had an account (now 'blocked') http://mediaelites.com/2010/03/05/j-patrick-bedell-on-wikipedia/

See User:JPatrickBedell --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. Patrick BedellMSEE Student

San Francisco Bay Area Contact J. Patrick Bedell Add J. Patrick Bedell to your network

Education San Jose State University University of California, Santa Cruz Connections 25 connections Industry Consumer Electronics Websites My Website http://infoeng.sourceforge.net/

J. Patrick Bedell’s Education San Jose State University none , Biochemistry , 1995 — 1996

University of California, Santa Cruz B.S. , Physics , 1992 — 1994

Additional Information

J. Patrick Bedell’s Websites:

My Website

J. Patrick Bedell’s Groups: 

   Telecom Professionals 
   Electrical/Electronics and Computer Development Engineers Group 
   Analog Mixed-Signal and RF (AMS/RF) IC Design and Development Group 
   Semiconductor Professional's Group 
   StepBeyond Electronic Industry Network 
   Wireless Telecommunications Worldwide 
   ASIC & FPGA Engineers 
   ASIC CONSULTANTS NETWORK 
   FPGA/CPLD Design Group 
   Fabless Global - ASIC/FPGA/IP (5000+ members) 
   HVL (SystemC/C++/Verilog /Vera/Specman) Experts 
   Southern California Electronics 
   Northern California Electronics 
   HackerDojo 
   Members

J. Patrick Bedell’s Contact Settings Interested In: consulting offers new ventures expertise requests reference requests getting back in touch

AMAZON http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1S137X4WZFNZO --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en DOT metapedia DOT org/wiki/John_Patrick_Bedell --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LRC and LvMI[edit]

gee, wikipedia being used to smear LRC and LvMI with guilt by association? you don't say. and in the only factoid on the page that have no citation, during the article's first few hours of life, no less. 128.128.98.71 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I have removed unreferenced assertions. The article will probably be moved to something like 2010 Pentagon shooting anyway due to WP:ONEEVENT. Copana2002 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a name change would probably be the way to go. If it isn't deleted first! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Question: Should a "See Also" with referene to his user page be added? Also, should a redirect be created for "JPatrickBedell"?--v/r - TP 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the user page was deleted (though talk and contribs still exist) and self-references in themselves aren't permitted. I'd say a JPatrickBedell redirect (in the article space, obviously not userspace) would be warranted, considering that is a plausible search term with the media coverage of his online activities. Joshdboz (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case where self references probably would be allowed, so long as it's written as an external footnote, not internal wikilinks, with an included quote of the relevant text in case it is ever deleted in the future, and a "Last accessed date". As it is currently, a Wall Street Journal article is referring to a quote on his Wikipedia user page, and this Wikipedia article is referring to the WSJ article for the quote source - which is pretty silly. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I meant that self-references aren't allowed just because they exist and are relevant - there should ideally be a third party source in between us and that primary WP source, which the media is helpfully providing. Joshdboz (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabow beliefs at center of attack[edit]

How best to address the conspiracy theories at the center? This was published a couple of days ago[1] And additionally, the Christian Science Monitor is also explicitly covering the angle here:[2] Interestingly Congress has even enacted legislation[3](Pages: 6, 66, & 102) ordering a formal "Reinvestigation of Death of Col. Sabow". Personally I don't have the desire to write these articles, but there are some quite notable mentions to be found there. Also, some reports indicate they were next door neighbors, but I'm unable to ref that.99.151.172.170 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there was also a trove of information and references here at Wikipedia under the shooter's user account. Much of it, including his user page and extensive work on a Col. James E. Sabow article was deleted this morning. Don't expect to find much useful stuff there - from what little hints remain it looks quite ranty and OR. Probably not unexpected given the quite unbalanced actions alleged. Here's the User page[4], and what remains of the Ed's contrib's:[5] Almost everything Sabow related has been scrubbed. 99.151.172.170 (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be useful, it looks like his user page may have been his suicide note and gives his reasons for attacking the Pentagon - specifically to bring "Justice" as he has put it elsewhere to a Col. Sabow. How exactly though would we ref a Wiki user page?99.151.172.170 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too well scrubbed to find - along with the deleted pages each and every record even of any edit he ever did to his user page, or Sabow has vanished. No way of telling what else may have been hidden.99.151.172.170 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The web is being scrubbed of all traces of this guy (his facebook account has been deleted, for example), but references to his beliefs should be kept here. For a screen capture of his facebook page: http://mediaelites.com/2010/03/05/j-patrick-bedell-on-wikipedia/ showing, among other things, his association with the LvMI (see also his postings on the mises institute website: http://blog.mises.org/?p=006071). Wikipedia is not the internet archive, but we do not have to follow the "scrubbers" in deleting valuable information. Toitoine (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean anybody can "scrub" an article and nobody can recover an archive copy, repost it and semi-protect or protect it outright? Who did the scrubbing? Who decided not to repost the material? On what grounds? Is there public log of other scrubs or do entire articles simply disappear like this? --Arthur Borges 18:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs)

They're not supposed to oversight stuff in this type of situation. I filed a complaint with the Audit Subcommittee, so it's in their hands now. But other interested parties can email them also. Tisane (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this page[edit]

We generally don't name these sorts of things after the person, but rather after the incident, e.g. Joe Stack is a redirect to 2010 Austin plane crash, Russell Eugene Weston Jr. redirects to United States Capitol shooting incident (1998), and so on. Unless there are better suggestions, 2010 Pentagon shooting would IMO be the most fitting choice. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold WP:Bold. Llamabr (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for It, and while you're at it can someone please restore the "shooting" section? NB I wrote entered and formatted a lot of this article, I know I don't WP:OWN it but its' disheartening to be literally up all night fighting off crap to make a decent article and now some registered editors seem to be edit warring a little. Another IP 99.151.172.170 who had been reverting a real vandal has been accused of vandalism themself. Silly! Whinge OVER!
This is what is missing DIFF Please? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restored by Toitoin, thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed as such. NW (Talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The current picture (arrest file) is crappy to say the least - and its copyright status is not very clear either (police? Bedell?). His facebook picture is much better:

File:Jpbedell.jpg
Picture from Facebook profile of suspect

. What should be the copyright status of a facebook picture of a dead person? Should we restore this picture?

Toitoine (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AOL News photo is much better. I'm not sure who has the rights to it; presumably Bedell's heirs. Tisane (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that picture is from the Washoe county jail - I am not familiar with copyright laws, but isn't it supposed to be public domain if it comes from the government? Toitoine (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to the federal government only. State or county governments are not covered. I believe that in these cases non-free photos can be used when there no is free equivalent available, but I would check with someone more familiar with copyright policy. Copana2002 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Openinsurgent project?[edit]

Bedell created this project, hosted on google code: http://code.google.com/p/openinsurgent/ It went nowhere, but does contain some valuable information about his beliefs and associations. I think a short blurb would belong in the article. Thoughts? Toitoine (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was in there, I think even before I started expanding the article about 10+ hours ago! and was removed!. No, it wasn't YOU started this article! (I just noticed, sorry!) It was going fine until the edit warring started! Hope you have slept I havent! MAybe YOU couls restore the "Shooting" section An remove all that blog crap!? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting section has been restored - as for the blog links and facebook profile, we could probably improve it, but I feel it belongs here. His long rambling drivels serve as evidence that he, shall I say, wasn't playing with a full deck. Toitoine (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, message on your talk. Thing is the Facebook will go, and remember WP:RS too! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bedell created another google code project: http://code.google.com/p/rothbardix/ Rothbardix Linux is a distribution of which Bedell was the sole contributor. It is also the name of one of his blogs. "Rothbardix Linux realizes the ideas of Murray Rothbard in easy-to-use systems for secure financial cooperation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs[edit]

Under the "Educational Philosophy" section of JPatrickBedell's Wikiversity page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:JPatrickBedell/Educational_philosophy, he states "My goal in this development is to implement in free software new economic mechanisms that will validate the truth of scholars such as Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was his Wikipedia page taken down?[edit]

There was (past tense) a wealth of information on Bedell's Wiki page (see Google Cache) to show what his beliefs were. However, it was, for some "unknown" reason, taken down and now we have this page... which lists his beliefs as "Libertarian". 911 Truthers aren't Libertarian.

The most well-know 911 truther is Alex Jones, a libertarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing (the sudden appearance of this page and the taking down of Bidell's page) shows so vividly how Wikipedia has violated their own ethics and have ground into dust their reason for existing... they have ceased to be facilitators of knowledge and have become purveyors of what THEY want people to see.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." cheers, Jamie24.108.77.192 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sickening... however, a very good example of why people don't trust Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHiJump (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Google cache, for those who are interested. There is not even a deletion log entry for his page. I guess it was oversighted as an office action. I agree that it would have been better if the Wikimedia Foundation had been more transparent in their decisionmaking on this matter. Tisane (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that it was not an OFFICE action - Alison ❤ 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then what was it? Divine intervention? The tooth fairy? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The oversight team are discussing the matter right now - Alison ❤ 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tooth fairy? Now, now WP:Civil please. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NSOH? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, NSOH? Acronym meaning? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Sense Of Humor, I believe. WWGB (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Needed to have one of these or small type--220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bazpedia.com/en/j/p/a/User~JPatrickBedell_18fb.html http://www.bazpedia.com/en/j/p/a/User_talk~JPatrickBedell_9db3.html FYI 173.13.135.101 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC) plus don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JPatrickBedell **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.135.101 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting commentary: http://thewikipedian.net/tag/james-sabow/ Tisane (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbardix[edit]

Do we know for sure that Rothbardix was this guy's site? This article says:

The fact that he posted to the Murray Rothbard-affiliated Mises blog and that his Google Code project has Rothbard's Man, Economy and State with Power and Market (a book that appears in our article on anarcho-capitalist literature) as a download suggests that he may have written that blog. Tisane (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Wikipedia-related content[edit]

I just got into an edit conflict with this content deletion while I was about to post this:

I didn't want to proceed to add my change lest it be perceived as edit warring, so I am posting it here in case else wants to comment or add the content. Tisane (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how relevant it is, but there was discussion re deletion of the Meta-Wiki content as long ago as 2007 ie 3years+ Here and the cached "Suppressionism" content(as of 3 Jan 2010) is still HERE. Not much of great interest. Ironic that it is about "deletionism" and mentions conspiracy theories!. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above cache link now leads to 5 March and has/had text saying "Ummm..Deleting this the morning after he shoots people at the Pentagon really isn't the best move...." --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Oversight

Editor from Wikimedia who removed the original content is removing content here, too[edit]

Alison, who is the editor that removed the page on the Meta Wiki is the one who reverted the page here.

She in engaged in an edit war pattern where discussion of the deletion is itself in turn deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhare (talk • contribs)

Hardly. I removed it once only as it's pretty-much the worst of Wikipedia introspection and largely irrelevant to the article (is it encyclopedic?) - Alison ❤ 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the (inevitably) non-transparent nature of the oversight process, it probably would be better, for appearance's sake, for those admins involved in the situation to leave reversions of the article for others to make. Remember when Jimbo edited his birthdate? It has the potential to cause a similar uproar. Just my opinion. Tisane (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I didn't oversight anything. All my actions re. this event are visible - Alison ❤ 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a lot of confusion because people can't tell who is involved in the oversight process (including discussions) and who isn't. Your comment above, about the oversight team considering the matter, created the impression (in my mind, anyway) that you might have some kind of inside knowledge/involvement. So if you remove that type of content from the page, it's more likely to spur concerns about there being a cabal than if Joe Schmoe removes it. Tisane (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but such is the nature of oversight; dealing with sensitive information needs discretion and privacy. Even the oversight log, if visible, could lead to a release of sensitive information. In this case, I do have 'inside information', but am not directly involved. BTW, I just suppressed an edit a few minutes ago that relates to a serious legal matter and you won't find an inkling of it on here now, nor of its discussion. It's confusing for everyone, I guess ... - Alison ❤ 02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not confusing at all - you're supressing knowledge and going against what this project is all about. How about you revert all your changes and step away completely from this topic? --Kkania (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing non-public, personal information relating to a child on a certain unrelated article has nothing to do with "suppressing knowledge", and everything to do with child safety. I've neither revision-deleted nor suppressed anything related to this subject - Alison ❤ 06:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's swallow a Chill Pill or two here, and take care with the "OMG coverup!" kinda stuff. I removed the passage as it amounts to original research; we aren't going to be our own detective force here, ferreting out "the truth". Slow down, give the story time to develop and be covered by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Wikipedia's meta-data (e.g. user pages, logs, talk pages) count as a primary source on what is happening on Wikipedia itself (whereas the content in our article space is usually a tertiary source on various subjects)? Note that Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Notes contains "Log entry of the rewriting of the official biography" as a reference. I think that including the content is not contrary to the spirit of WP:OR. Tisane (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to concede that my edit may not belong on the 2010 Pentagon shooting page (and so will not re-revert it), but I am substantially disturbed by the instant removal of my discussion of the original page deletion from the *Talk* pages of the people involved and the subsequent immediate removal here by the *same* person who removed the original page in question on Wiki Meta.

There is a fundamental dishonesty to the behavior. You can't expect people to trust administrators who appear to be making self-serving edits. Benjamin Franz (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! And how is that 'self-serving'? We're all volunteers here, and I've nothing invested in this story. Posting stuff on the dead guy's talk page was irrelevant not to mention crass in the extreme - Alison ❤ 03:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, what is really crass is how someone deleted his talk page, that shows absolutely no respect for his memory, it is crass censorship to remove his writings.

cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc: You are being selective in seeing personal attacks. Such as the one against me immediately above where you decided to slice and dice. Benjamin Franz (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks and general commentary not related to article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alison, you, personally, deleted a page that would definitely be of interest to anyone wanting to understand the shooter mere hours after the shooting with a offhanded 'offtopic'. But the page had been there for months - it magically became 'offtopic' mere hours after the shooting? Since then you and other editors on Meta Wiki have been actively suppressing any commentary about that deletion. For you to revert the edit *here* about something directly involving yourself with an airy wave of your hand without even acknowledging your own direct involvment is dishonest. Benjamin Franz (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now a 1 YEAR block has been put on the IP address I used to post to Meta. Strangely, this happened after I posted here - and without any additional posts to Meta. Allegedly my home computer is a 'Open Proxy' or a 'Zombie'. News to me. I had ignored the political whinging over the last few years about how Wikipedia had descended into blatant abuse of power by admins and sysops. Evidently I was wrong. Benjamin Franz (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison is abusing the newly implemented single revision deletion functionality that was enabled into wikipedia with VERY strict usage parameters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion Note to admins new to RevisionDelete: RevisionDelete should not be used to redact block logs and admin actions, or to cover up or remove mistakes, poor wordings, "ordinary" incivility, and contentious criticisms (whether or not justified). Such usage without a formal process may lead to arbitration or desysopping even for a first incident.

Once she realizes her hunger for deleting is endless and can't be fulfilled she will exert more self control hopefully and not try to control other people's speech, otherwise she should soon lose her privileges. Personally I think the single revision deletion functionality is a really bad idea, just because of this situation, regular people get frustrated by having their access to information, and even the record of the deletions being erased by power freaks like Alison, and then people's manners fall by the wayside. It is a centralization of control in wikipedia that MANY people are going to find extremely annoying if it is allowed to stay, and it will cause more "noise" (offtopic useless posts like this thread) in the wikipedia discussion/history logs than it removes (vulgarity/libel etc). Wikipedia was COMPLETELY FINE before this functionality was added. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc I don't appreciate you "hiding" part of this section, the criticisms of Alison and the Wikipedia "single revision deletion" functionality are applicable to this article as the revision delete functionality is being used to remove information from the article. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point out where "the revision delete functionality is being used to remove information from the article", please, 'coz I'm not seeing it. No revdel, no suppression - least of all by me - Alison ❤ 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible for me to point out instances of you using the revision delete functionality as you can cover your tracks and erase the logs of the deletion. Not saying that you did this, but this new revision delete system can make admins suspects in censorship from a general user perspective. I understand the need for wikipedia to remove some types of stuff in very limited cases, but it is VERY prone to abuse and takes away some of the spirit of wikipedia I think.

I think most people don't like censorship even if it is done with good intentions. And erasing stuff about this guy mentioned in the article seems unnecessary. Why erase his wikipedia user page? You can't erase the sad events that already occurred, people can handle to see the information, and it can help people who are writing the article. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly added the fact, cited to a RS third party, that the James Sabow quote, came from a Wikipedia page. I could not say exactly where b/c that was not in the cited source. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia about criminal conspiracies among government officials[edit]

A lot of media accounts (including some quoted in the article) are describing Bedell as having paranoid ideas about a criminal conspiracy to control the government. It should be noted that "mainstream" anarcho-capitalist theory, which Bedell evidently took an interest in, describes taxation as theft and government as an organization of criminals. Note Rothbard's comments that "the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large" and that "the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large." The idea Bedell set forth of our rulers being criminal conspirators thus should probably be interpreted as a libertarian perspective on the world, rather than Truthism or something along those lines. Tisane (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Democrat?[edit]

If you pay the fee to buy voter registration lists ([6]) we might confirm that John Patrick Bedell is/was a registered Democrat.

  • EMID 15324137
  • STATESOURCE California
  • DATAACQUIRED 20080121
  • PrefixTitle MR
  • LASTNAME,FIRSTNAME,MIDDLENAME Bedell,John,Patrick
  • SOURCEIDVOTER 30048
  • DATEOFBIRTH 5/20/1973
  • PLACEOFBIRTH CA
  • REGDATE 20051006
  • GENDER M
  • PARTY Democrat
  • ACTIVECODE ACTIVE
  • STATUS
  • ResAddr1,ResAddr2,ResCity,ResState,ResZip 110 Georges Dr Hollister,CA
  • STATEHOUSE 28
  • STATESENATE 12
  • USCONGRESS 17
  • LASTDATEVOTED 20051108
    • Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell was an anti-Bush registered Democrat who believed 9/11 was planned and carried out by the US government Richard (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Notable Wikipedians[edit]

    I added this category per this. When/if the part on John Patrick Bedell becomes its own article, the category should be moved with it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've revamped the entry with NPOV in mind. Bedell is an interesting case inasmuch as he is the first notorious Wikipedian whose notoriety doesn't stem entirely from the ambit of Wikipedia itself. kencf0618 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the category even though he does not and likely will not have an article. This page is "Talk:2010 Pentagon shooting". "Talk:2010 Pentagon shooting" is not a Notable Wikipedian and therefore should not use the category. The logical place for it to go would be on the John Patrick Bedell redirect. I did not place it there either because Bedell himself is not notable even if the incident he caused may be. As the notablity of Bedell is debatable, he cannot be put into "Category:Notable Wikipedians" unless notability is established. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    article section about his wikipedia account[edit]

    There was a section on the article about his wikipedia account, that Alison removed from the article (She also removed the info from the Meta-Wiki apparently) so I thought I'd post it here as I think it is notable that this should be included in the main article, but wikipedia appears too self conscious to allow that at the current moment. cheers, Jamie24.108.77.192 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Wikipedia / Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

    He was a poster on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and on Wikipedia. His page on the Wikipedia was blocked as per standard procedure after the story broke. Some of his edits on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki were deleted as 'offtopic' a few hours after the story broke. Since then, editors at the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki have been deleting discussion of him and about the deletions."

    See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 73#Oversighting_of_User:JPatrickBedell. Tisane (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Tisane, could you post a link to the oversighting abuse complaint you filed at the audit subcommittee? I couldn't find it. Thanks! cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was submitted by email, and the subcommittee acknowledged receipt. Here is the text of it:
    Hello, everyone.
    It would appear from the logs that the userpage for User:JPatrickBedell was oversighted. I am not sure why deletion would not have sufficed. For one thing, the cat is already out of the bag, in that the page was mirrored on Bazpedia. Links to that mirror have been posted on various blogs and mainstream news websites around the Internet. There is no suppressing the facts regarding what he posted on his Wikipedia userpage.
    Secondly, the material posted to his userpage was not particularly inflammatory in and of itself. That is why it was not oversighted or even deleted or blanked until after the shooting happened. His comments could be taken as either a suicide note explaining his motive for the shooting, or quite plausibly as mere expressions of opinions regarding events and efforts on Wikipedia (e.g. his campaign to include content about Col. James Sabow in Wikipedia, which, although ultimately unsuccessful, was joined by several users; see links below). Bedell was a Wikipedian in good standing at the time of his death. In my opinion, the content on his page did not meet the criteria for oversighting per WP:OVERSIGHT.
    There is nothing to be gained by oversighting this page. But we have a lot to lose if we abandon our standards in reference to the oversight procedure. Overturning this decision will send a message that Wikipedia is serious about the importance of adherence to the oversighting policy's high requirements for suppression. I recommend that the oversighting be reversed and that the page then be deleted, as seems to be the community consensus. This will remove it from being viewed by everyone except 1,720 administrators. I see no harm that can come out of that.
    Here are some pertinent links:
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    -Tisane
    However, per this log, the oversighting has been reversed and it is now back down to admin-level deletion.
    Resolved
    Tisane (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Tisane, Did the audit subcommittee also look into the abuse of oversight allegation? Since oversight is such a powerful tool, and prone to censorship as shown in this case, when it is abused someone should be accountable. I think suspension of oversight privileges should be considered. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing against accountability, but lets not create more drama over this than necessary. It's reversed, let's just move on. I still have complete trust in the oversighter in question. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but lets not forget that abuse of the oversight tool is what caused this drama to begin with. If there is accountability to its misuse then it will be less likely to be misused. Anyways I prefer "drama" over unaccounted censorship.

    cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'll pardon, how do you know who the 'oversighter in question' is? (hint: I'm the only one commenting here, but it's not me. Just BTW) - Alison ❤ 01:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The audit subcommittee can probably find that out right? I would hope there is some committee that can. cheers, Jamie24.108.77.192 (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The subcommittee is supposed to respond by email to me after they complete their review. If you want to file your own complaint, then they will presumably respond to you as well; and if your goal is to have some sort of sanction imposed for the oversighting, then you probably should file your own complaint requesting that, because I didn't ask for such a measure. My guess is that if they decide that the oversighting was wrong, and it is not someone with a history of faulty oversighting decisions, they would just issue an admonition if anything. In accordance with our general principles of assuming good faith, the assumption would be presumably that no intent to harm the encyclopedia existed. Then again, none of us besides Alison knows exactly what the heck was said behind the scenes or who was involved or what their history is, so who knows what will happen. Tisane (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to file a complaint, but I think it is worthwhile to spend time to consider a Wikipedia Constitution to put some limits to the centralization of control in Wikipedia! :) cheers, Jamie24.108.77.192 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Competition is a better safeguard against abuse. Notice it was bazpedia and Google caches that nullified the impact of Wikipedia's attempts at suppression, not any internal checks and balances. There is a marketplace for online information, and censorship does not thrive in that capitalistic environment. Wikipedia's competitors will always put information out there if it will help them make a buck (e.g. on site advertising). It is much faster and surer than having to go through politicized forums like the ArbCom and our public fora such as the Village Pump. Tisane (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget we all are Wikipedia, I think some of our joints are just getting a bit brittle in their old age. Power to the people! :) cheers, Jamie24.108.77.192 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    His website/blog[edit]

    Has he got one? What about adding it for reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.203.203 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOT#NEWS[edit]

    The event described in this article is not encyclopedic; it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:Notability (events). It is not "enduring", it does not have a "lasting impact", its "geographic scope" is small (not like a hurricane or similar), the "depth of coverage" is typical news coverage: the Five Ws without probing analysis, and the "duration of coverage" is already showing itself to be over. Basically, a lone, mentally ill guy got himself killed in a suicide by cop event. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Such a concern is not able to be addressed on the article's talk page. WP:AFD is thataway. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if one looks at the edit history, one will see that another editor requested I take this to talk. Also, I have never heard of a rule on Wikipedia that one cannot discuss the notability of a topic on the talk page. Could you link to the rule? I am operating under a rule I know to exist; WP:BEFORE. I wish to discuss the sourcing with people here, as part of WP:BEFORE. Finally, I plan on taking this article to AfD (perhaps when news outlets cease all coverage). Doing it sooner would be premature, and of course I could be talked out of it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't much point in discussing the notability here; the talk page is generally for discussions of how to improve the article, while the approach you wish to take is to delete it. But there is already one flaw to note with your point of view, i.e. "perhaps when news outlets cease all coverage". Notability is not temporary. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, the talk page is definitely the right place for this. The reason I was against the tag is because this isn't the kind of topic where the notability is unknown or questionable, like for an obscure singer claimed to be popular in Bulgaria but that lacks a reference as to the veracity of that fact; the notability is a very well-established quantity, meaning that the only question is whether it meets Wikipedia standards or not.

    Anyway, short version: This is notable because people treated it like it could be the start of something major. It turns out to have been one crazy guy, sure, but that wasn't obvious at the time - maybe it was the start of some coordinated attack? Additionally, Pentagon security is pretty important, and it's quite possible we'll be reading articles 3 months from now on how the Pentagon has changed its security in response. So the location definitely ramps up the notability here. By way of comparison, if an anarchist tossed flaming whiskey bottles onto the White House lawn in 1910 and caused a brief scare, sure, it'd be obscure by today's standards, but it's entirely possible a good encyclopedia article could be written on it. This incident will be obscure in 2110 but still of interest to those studying the time period. Think of it as similar to the 2006 New York City plane crash article, which also had people arguing against its existence at the time, but the fact that it was a plane crash in New York City put the event in an entirely different light (along with carrying a Yankee pitcher). SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    His entrepreneurial/technical ideas[edit]

    Did he have any proposals that were workable/worth implementing, or were they all junk? Tisane talk/stalk 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on 2010 Pentagon shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Revaluation needed[edit]

    The CSM tried to whitewash this as non-partisan rather than as an example of right wing violence. This was a very common thing for the media to do in the mid-2000s. And while the description of the position of the CSM is fairly neutral and well written, I went back to read the original source and found that much of it doesn’t hold up today and is filled with inaccuracies that most people would laugh at today. We know now, in 2023, that the majority of political violence and extremism in the US is committed by people holding right wing beliefs. In 2010, when Bedell committed these acts, there was a tendency to ignore or whitewash this connection. I would like to see these motives reevaluated. Bedell’s obsession with libertarianism was clearly of the right wing persuasion and his 2004 proposal for smart weapons development was not motivated by his love for peace. This story has a lot of loose ends. I would like to see an update and revision. Viriditas (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Pentagon_shooting&oldid=1212404900"