Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell

Where is the dispute?
My name is James Dalton Bell, the subject of the article "jim bell". I only quite recently (December 24, 2009)returned to 'cyberspace', and I am very rusty concerning the use of computers. I have never before had access to Wikipedia. Yesterday, I added a new paragraph to the article, "Jim Bell", concerning my discovery that only about 1.2% of carbon dioxide molecules (the ones with Carbon-13 and Oxygen-17 isotopes) actually contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'. This is a monumental discovery, and it should be publicized. However, today I read the article and this paragraph was not present. I had read it yesterday, and the new paragraph WAS present. Unfortunately, this is an EXTREMELY unusual case: It is quite possible that my efforts to publicize this are being suppressed. Please do not chalk this up to mere paranoia: There are some truly frightened people who may want to prevent me from getting the scientific credit. Because I have just recently (2 days) begun to use Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, I don't yet know how to determine WHY the paragraph I added disappeared, or who did that. Please tell me WHO erased that new paragraph.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example: not known "Gogo Dodo" is one of the repeat offenders.

What is the dispute?
A paragraph that I added to article 'jim bell' got deleted.

What would you like to change about this?
put the added paragraph back. Tell me who deleted that paragraph.

How do you think we can help?
Simple. Ban "Gogo Dodo" from Wikipedia. And, insist that all 'editors' apply THE SAME rules to all articles, not selectively and in a biased fashion.

We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.

Mediator notes
This is not an issue for MedCab. Please read WP:MEDCABNOT to see that we do not handle user conduct issues loke this, nor are we arbitrators. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Questions for Jim:

--Xavexgoem (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC) The editor who removed it is inconsequential. For what it's worth, it's User:Gogo Dodo, and his reason for reversion was that the added paragraph wasn't sourced. When you source it, you're likely to run into problems with the wording.
 * Was the paragraph of your discovery cited to a reliable, third-party source? Please read Reliable sources and Verifiability.
 * I think you are preparing to MISUSE a misguided, inconsistently-followed 'rule'. First, there's a large amount of content in Wiki that ISN'T 'cited to a reliable, third-party source'!!!  Don't try to deny it.  And, even when that lack is pointed out, such content is allowed for well over ONE YEAR:  See, for just one example, article "Lone Justice".

Check out that, and THEN explain how anybody would justify at least four times deleting material, WITHOUT actively bringing it to the attention of the community! —Preceding unsigned comment added by James dalton bell (talk • contribs) 01:36, January 2, 2010
 * I'd go into the edit history of the article and look at who edited it. It looks like that editor reverted because there wasn't a source- add a source and talk to the editor.  Communication is key. Mrmewe (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, in this specific case, "Communication" IS NOT 'the key'. Gogo Dodo:

1. Deleted INSTANTLY non-libelous, non-controversial content, FOUR times! 2. That was added BY THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE. 3. Did not attempt to obtain, and did not obtain, the consensus of the community before doing that. 4. Did not attempt to obtain, and did not obtain, the consensus of the community even AFTER doing that. 5. Has failed to explain or justify the double-standards involved. James dalton bell (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim,

It's quite unusual to be directly talking to someone as famous as you about their own article! As others have mentioned, the biggest issue by far right now is that the edit you want to make actually *is* quite controversial on Wikipedia - anything that relates to global warming is hotly contested. That can be a bad thing in that it makes it into a bit of a war zone, but it can also be a good thing in that it forces every new piece of information to be strongly backed up by independent evidence before it is allowed to stay.

Of course you're right that the rules about verifiable sources are not always consistently applied, but that's not an argument against applying them in this case. I think you'll find it very difficult to get other editors to agree to keeping that information in the article without at least one independent source that confirms your information. Was there any news coverage for example? Or did you have your findings published in a scientific journal? I realize that can be difficult for independent scientists who have ideas that might go against the scientific consensus to get a fair hearing in the media, and I understand that you want to get the word out about this - but the truth is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a place where new ideas get published. The job of an encyclopedia is to be very conservative, and publish what is verifiable - not to break major news stories, no matter how important.

For what it's worth, if Al Gore wanted to add something to his biography page, we'd be asking for a verifiable source for it too!

Thparkth (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there's a lot of confusion, here. As I see it, the issue ISN'T whether my idea is "true":  The issue is whether >>I, James Dalton Bell, SAY 'I believe it to be true'<<.   I will describe what I hope is a helpful analogy:  Suppose famous actress Shirley MacLaine wished to add to the "Shirley Maclaine" Wikipedia page (I assume there is one, though I've never looked) that she believes that she is reincarnated.  The issue ISN'T whether she REALLY is, or is not, reincarnated.  Nor is the issue whether she GENUINELY BELIEVES she is reincarnated.  (Who, other than she, can say?!?).  Rather, the issue IS whether she SAYS she believes she is reincarnated.  If there is no doubt that Shirley Maclaine has repeatedly said that she believes she is reincarnated, it would be appropriate to put such an assertion in, EVEN IF it wasn't 'sourced' to any specific third-party source.  This is particularly true if it is, indeed, Shirley MacLaine who is trying to put it in the page.  Why should SHE have to cite some third-party source?  Such a requirement is NUTS.
 * "Verifiability", in my case, is, "Did James Dalton Bell actually ASSERT that he believes that C-13 and O-17 is the source of the 'Greenhouse effect'?"  It is NOT, "Is James Dalton Bell actually CORRECT when he says he believes that C-13 and O-17 is the source of the 'Greenhouse effect"!  That is why I said, on talk:Jim Bell, that if anybody has any doubt whether >>I<< made that claim, they could simply give me a phone call!  The only issue to be 'verified' is whether I SAID it, NOT whether it's true!
 * Unfortunately, some clods like Dodo forget the distinction between these two points! (Or, perhaps he never UNDERSTOOD the difference!).   Myself, I took Debate class in high school, well over 30 years ago.  And, for the last 9 years, I've learned to be the best 'jailhouse lawyer' you've ever heard of.  Subtle (and not so subtle) logical (and legal) distinctions such as these are easy for me, even trivial.  They are obviously NOT easy for Dodo!
 * Note: I am NOT proposing placing, on the "Global Warming" page (I haven't looked at it yet: too busy), "Jim Bell HAS solved the problem".  I WOULD want a reference made, perhaps on the "Greenhouse effect" page, a reference to the fact that "Jim Bell has CLAIMED to have identified the source of Carbon Dioxide's 'Greenhouse effect'", along with a description of my assertion. This would be quite appropriate:  After all, if I'm correct, others should be alerted, and Wikipedia is a good way to do that.  Encyclopedias have to deal with CONTROVERSIAL issues, after all, and that includes making reference to claims and assertions that not everyone agrees with!  When an encyclopedia refers to a controversial, unproven claim, the question is NOT whether that claim is 'true', but instead whether that claim has been made by the person who is identified as having made that claim.
 * Please tell me you understand this reasoning. It's quite obvious to me.  I think many people inhabiting Wiki-land must have a great deal of difficulty understanding basic logic.

James dalton bell (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

After James dalton bell has alleged sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, I have opened an WP:ANI discussion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because you're a jerk, Dodo. Read the above comment that I made to Thparkth.  The article, "Jim Bell"  damn well must include factually true material about 'Jim Bell':  It is about ME, after all!   In this case, the true, VERIFIABLE material is, "Jim Bell made the following claim about the 'Greenhouse Effect' and carbon dioxide...".  The claim, that I made that assertion is TRUE.  The question of whether that assertion is 'scientifically correct' ISN'T germane to the question of whether or not such a bit of text should be removed from the site.  You obviously don't comprehend the distinction.  And, there seem to be many dolts around here who think just like you.  Fix your head.  Play a bit of Wff'n'Proof.  (I did, at age 8.)  Do you think I'm rude?  Well, I think YOU were rude, FIRST, by your ham-handed, 'control-freak', illogical drive-by deletions.

James dalton bell (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I suggest this discussion is discontinued? Obviously, there is a dispute resolution processs, which could be followed, however I don't consider continuing this discussion is worthwhile. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)