User talk:James dalton bell

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BLP already non-negotiable? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

No, it isn't, and his suggestion about how to handle it is nothing but disruptive.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)