Talk:David Bean (judge)

No subject

Wasn't he the inspiration for Mr Bean? 82.68.202.214 (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Adding section header. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

About the reverts

Moved from User talk:Just-justice23 § September 2023

Your edit has been reverted again. Please use the article's talk page to discuss your changes before implementing them again. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

I understand very well why Lord Justice Bean is unhappy with the fact of his biography that is mentioned in my update. And I understand perfectly well that you are instructed to ensure that this fact is not mentioned in Wikipedia (it’s hard for me to imagine that you, on your own initiative, constantly monitor this particular Wkipedia page, which is rarely visited).

But, unfortunately, Lord Justice Bean, really, in his decision in the case against Russian oligarchs close to Putin, recognized "totally without merit" (without any argumentation) the words of the plaintiff that he is a victim in two criminal cases initiated on the facts of death threats with demands to drop the lawsuit, as well as in connection with information about the ordering of the murder of the plaintiff by these oligarchs in connection with the case considered by Lord Justice Bean. These facts are confirmed by numerous publications in the press and I can additionally provide official supporting documents, the decision of the Lord Justice Bean, and so on.

In addition, I noticed that initially (on 23 September) my link to the Daily Mail was recognised unreliable. That same day I removed it and added a link to the BBC. Today you deleted my version motiving by the fact that the BBC is not reliable source (which sounds already comical). I removed the link to the BBC, after which you began to delete my text (which, by the way, was in neutral tones) without any explanation at all.

What exactly do you doubt and what supporting documents do you need for Wikipedia to reflect the real fact from the biography of the Honorable Lord Justice Bean? Moreover, I am sure that this fact must be reflected in Wikipedia, since this corresponds to public interests, and, accordingly, to the goals for which Wikipedia was created. Just-justice23 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Since you were unable to respond to my previous comment, I added the text that you did not like. If you want to delete it again, please respond to my previous comment first.

In addition, the added text consists of several paragraphs and sentences. Do you have complaints about absolutely all sentences or about a specific one? Just-justice23 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Just-justice23: I asked you to begin a discussion on this talk page so other editors contributing to the article can discuss the changes you're making. Neither I nor, presumably, anyone else is likely to see messages that you post to your own talk page. In any case, I have reverted your edits again because they are in violation of a few different Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The content you have added does always maintain the encyclopedic tone expected of Wikipedia articles, contradicts the external links guideline by inserting links directly into the prose, and violates WP:BLPPRIMARY by using court documents as references in an article about a living person. Also, I don't see any references to the BBC in your edits, only one to Mirror and one to gov.uk. Please establish consensus with other editors here before implementing your edits again. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Firstly, the fact that you change your argument every time to justify the removal of truthful information confirms once again only one thing - you are acting on instructions of Lord Justice Bean and/or PhosAgro, in whose interests he acted. By the way, you didn’t even deny that you are acting not on your own initiative, but in fulfillment of an order - you pretended that you didn’t notice my words about this in the previous message. In such conditions, it is quite obvious that no matter how I reformulate the text, you will still delete it, giving new reasons every time or not giving them at all, which has already happened.

You don’t even notice (don’t remember) the reasons why you remove information again and again. Deleting the penultimate time, you did not even pay attention to the fact that the text contained a link to the BBC and you deleted the text, citing (without paying attention to this) that this particular source (BBC) is supposedly unreliable. After that I replaced the link to the BBC with a link to a government website about sanctions imposed on Guryev due to his closeness to Putin.

Secondly, you suggest that my additions be discussed with community members first. But, firstly, this page is of little interest to anyone, and secondly, you, as a member of the community, will in any case block this text in accordance with the instructions received. Therefore, the consensus you write about is impossible in principle. Under the described conditions, it makes sense to discuss a possible consensus only with those people who so diligently resist the appearance of my text on Wikipedia. And this is Lord Justice Bean himself and the Russian oligarchs in whose interests he acted. But of course, such a discussion on a Wikipedia page is impossible - to find consensus in trials, other mechanisms are used, which the listed persons will also never agree to - they have no arguments for discussion and that is why they use corruption (please pay attention, that I don’t use this word in the text added, but here it’s possible to talk about the reality).

Thirdly, if you are proposing a discussion here, I suggest going step by step. I propose to start with the following phrases:

(1) In August 2023, as a judge of the Court of Appeal, he considered a civil case against one of Russian largest companies, PhosAgro, and its major owners, including Russian oligarch Andrey Guryev, who was sanctioned by the UK and other countries in relation to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine due to his (Andrey Guryev's) closeness to Putin. Andrey Guryev owns the second largest palace after Buckingham Palace in the UK (Witanhurst), valued at 350 million pounds.

(2) The plaintiff is Russian refugee Igor Sychev, who has been living in Europe since 2016, due to repeated attempts on his life committed in a generally dangerous way in Russia.

(3) Igor Sychev is a victim in a criminal case opened in Latvia in October 2022 on death threats made against him, accompanied by demands to drop the lawsuit against PhosAgro and Andrey Guryev.

(4) In addition, the plaintiff is a victim in a criminal case opened in June 2023 by the London police in connection with information about Andrey Guryev's ordering his murder by poisoning in connection with this lawsuit.

Do you have any complaints about these phrases? Just-justice23 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I'd like to direct you to the assume good faith guideline, which you are not following in your comments. I am acting under nobody's orders but my own, and had literally never heard of the subject of this article before I reverted your edit. The reasoning for my reverts has not changed even once — all I want is for you to familiarize yourself with the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of which I mentioned and linked above, and follow them. With that in mind, I'm not going to comment on each individual sentence that you've proposed above; feel free to include them, as long as each sentence is supported by a reliable source and the references are correctly formatted. If you feel that you would like additional attention in this discussion, you can consider the third opinion system, where an experienced editor will assess the situation and contribute to the consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Your belated denial that you are acting on Lord Justice Bean's instructions (transmitted apparently through the Russian oligarchs in whose favor he has ruled) no longer sounds convincing. And it would be strange to expect you to admit that you are acting on someone’s instructions.

There are indisputable facts confirming that your goal is precisely to prevent the publication of my update. For example, the page of Lord Justice Bean mentions many other facts that are confirmed by absolutely no sources, but you do not delete them. Examples of such unconfirmed facts - starting from the date of birth and ending with this - «On 4 November 2015 he was made an Honorary Fellow of The Academy of Experts in recognition of his contribution to The Academy's Judicial Committee and work for Expert Witnesses».

Therefore, the version that supposedly you suddenly wanted to put the page about Lord Justice Bean in order as a whole completely disappears.

Since it so happened that thanks to you a platform (this) has appeared where one can express his or her thoughts, I will take advantage of the opportunity you provided. Moreover, as I understand it, this discussion is public.

The most important thing I wanted to say is that there is nothing bad about him in my update to Lord Justice Bean's biography. There are no accusations of corruption (his bribing by Putin's oligarchs), there is no criticism at all, but a presentation of dry facts.

But the fact is that these facts are such that everything becomes clear without additional explanation - namely, that this is the result of corruption. This is explained in detail in this post

In short, Lord Justice Bean recognised “totally without merit” the dry facts - namely, that the plaintiff is a victim in two criminal cases of threats to kill him and information about the ordering of the plaintiff’s murder by the defendants in connection with the court case under consideration of Lord Justice Bean.

The next thing I wanted to say. The fact that Lord Justice Bean chose the method you are doing (cleansing the information space) to defend against accusations of corruption very eloquently confirms that we are talking about corruption. If Lord Justice Bean had not received a bribe from Putin's oligarchs, then a case of contempt of court or questioning the independence of the judiciary would have been initiated long ago. This is described in detail in this post

Therefore, your persistent efforts to clean up the information space (which looks childish) played a bad joke - this once again eloquently confirms that we are talking about corruption. Just-justice23 (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I will not be explaining myself again. Please click on the links and read the policies and guidelines I've provided above, as well as on the notices on your talk page. Your conduct is in violation of multiple of those, and you risk being blocked if you edit-war again. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)