User talk:Bluelobe

April 22

As as well as wp:soap and wp:rs I think you need to read wp:fringe and wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also at this stage wp:spa might be worth your time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19" - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-are-covid-19-deaths-counted-and-what-does-this-mean#Died-of-or-with-COVID-19?

"Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

"Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs) for COVID-19 in Ontario: December 13, 2020 to May 8, 2022" - https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en Bluelobe (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that unless you are in fact Mr Campbell or you are a legal representative you can't issue legal threats on his behalf, only he (or his legal council) can do that. So all of your lible threads are in fact pointless as well as violations of wp:legal, please read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not issue a legal threat. I merely said that the John Campbell entry opens up Wikipedia to getting sued and should therefore be removed or modified to remove the defamatory material. Bluelobe (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine going to a medical conference or meeting with patients or colleagues and them seeing the entry on your Wikipedia page that you engage in misinformation. That is an attack on your character and livelihood and clearly defamatory so Wikipedia should follow its guidelines on biographies of living persons and remove such defamatory language. Bluelobe (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Campbell is also aware of the Wikipedia entry and you can see his reaction to it in his video (starts at 19:06): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve42PHy7O00&t=1151s Bluelobe (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are using an implied threat of possible legal action to get us to change an article. That is using legal threats to get your way. If (and when) Mr Campbell sues the WMF we might be told to remove it (by them). But a user trying to bludgeon us with repeated threats of legal action will not get us to move. Mr. Cambpell (and his supporters) would be better off targeting the news organizations that have made the comments we merely comment on. When (and if) he gets court mandates retractions we can repeat that. But as long as RS say X we say RS say X. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zaathras (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from this video of Dr. Campbell that he is clearly dismayed and felt harmed by the Wikipedia entry: (starts at 19:06) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve42PHy7O00&t=1151s. Quote from the video: "...it is actually quite serious...people writing these Wikipedia page...I don't know who it is...I don't know of any redress that I have".

In fact, it was due to this video that I was made aware of his negative Wikipedia entry and so tried to correct this wrong. Unfortunately, the editors of the page, refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons and continue to let stay the defamatory statements. Bluelobe (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not defamatory until he takes the sources we use to court, and wins. Then new can even say they defamed him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how defamation suits work. Those sources didn't use his name and say his videos contained misinformation. Only Wikipedia did. Bluelobe (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RS (reliable source) cited to validate the Wikipedia entry on John Campbell that his videos spread misinformation does not actually claim John Campbell spreads misinformation. The RS cites Jimmy Dore as spreading misinformation not Dr. Campbell. From the RS: "Our rating

The title of a (Jimmy Dore) YouTube video shared on Facebook read, "Total deaths from COVID MUCH LOWER than reported." As evidence, the video points to numbers from England and Wales showing that 17,371 deaths were attributed to COVID-19 alone.

But that’s a misleading interpretation of the data (from Dr. Campbell). The U.K. report cited in the video (from Dr. Campbell) clearly states that all 131,641 deaths — more than seven times what the video claims — were "due to COVID-19," meaning the virus was the underlying cause of death, even if the patients had preexisting health conditions that may have contributed.

We rate this claim (of Jimmy Dore, not Dr. Campbell) Pants on Fire." - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/24/youtube-videos/no-death-totals-covid-19-england-have-not-been-ove/ Bluelobe (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My last post here before I get accused of badgering you

The source we use say "Another example is a YouTube video by John Campbell", "YouTube video from a Britain named John Campbell", "And a video posted on Nov. 25 by John Campbell". Yes the source name him. Yes that is how defamation works, you have to prove it in court. We only repeat what RS have said (by name) about him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your source cites Jimmy Dore as spreading misinformation, not Dr. John Campbell. If you actually watch Dr. Campbell's video, he just cites "a new freedom of information request release from the United Kingdom that shows the number of deaths actually, SOLELY attributable to COVID may be way lower..." How the information is used by other personalities is not Dr. Campbell's fault or responsibility, thus the source does not back up your claim that it is the one that defamed Dr. Campbell. Your source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/24/youtube-videos/no-death-totals-covid-19-england-have-not-been-ove/. Dr. Campbell's actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw Bluelobe (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

Bluelobe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When Wikipedia creates a biography of a living person entry that makes it liable for getting sued by the subject, pointing this out is considered a legal threat? Doesn't pointing this out make Wikipedia aware and thus take the appropriate actions? I, myself, did not make the legal threat. I merely pointed out that, according to Wikipedia's guidelines for Biography of Living Persons, defaming is not allowed, especially when not backed up by sources. I pointed this out, and whoever blocked me, didn't like the fact that I pointed this out because they were called on their actions. At any rate, I tried my best to do the decent thing, to live up to the ideals of Wikipedia's founder which was to spread knowledge rather than enmity, but it seems persons with agendas that that don't include decency and ethics have taken over Wikipedia and wield their power to stifle any kind of descent that points out their mistakes and bullying actions. I'll let karma take care of them. At their death bed, looking back at their life, they'll remember defaming a decent, innocent person and bullying others who tried to stop their defamation. Maybe they should move to Xi Jinping's China, they'll feel more at home there and be a member Xi's censor squad. Bluelobe (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an actual unblock request, which should at minimum indicate that you understand why you are blocked, and agree to retract any statements you made which could be perceived to be a legal threat. Couching your threat as a warning does not substantively change what it is; you clearly used the prospect of legal action as a means to gain the upper hand in an editing dispute. "Nice house you have... It'd be a shame if something happened to it" is still a threat, whether or not you directly state your own intent. If you wish to be unblocked, you're going to need, at minimum, to retract your prior statements and assure us that you will no longer use any prospect of legal action to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Jayron 32 13:15, 19 May 2022 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

Bluelobe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reason to request unblocking me is ethics. Wikipedia, by maligning a decent, honest, hard working, good Samaritan like Dr. John Campbell, is plain unethical, and you need to unblock me to correct this. What right have you, who don't even know Dr. John Campbell and obviously have not watched most of his videos from start to finish like we have, judge him and make him lose face and credibility? You haven't worked as hard as him. You don't have an iota of his talent, decency and perseverance. And yet you deign to assign yourself as judge, jury, executioner of this innocent bright spot in the world. This whole episode reminds me of this quote from Harper Lee's book: "'Remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.' That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.

'Your father's right,' she said. 'Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy…but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." You guys are killing a Mockingbird and I hope you have the ethics and decency to face up to it. Bluelobe (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That does not address the legal threat. PhilKnight (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2022 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bluelobe (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

Bluelobe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"The clear consensus of the community (at this time)" does not address the issues I cited, the lack of an RS justifying the statement in the entry that John Campbell spreads misinformation. Could someone address that issue? Bluelobe (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request which is not an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2022 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bluelobe (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

Bluelobe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not make a legal threat, I merely stated the fact that Wikipedia is opening itself up to a defamation suit by John Campbell, the subject of the Wikipedia entry, because he showed he felt harmed by the Wikipedia entry: (starts at 19:06) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve42PHy7O00&t=1151s and the RS (reliable source) cited by Wikipedia to justify in its entry that "Some of his videos contained misinformation" does not actually cite John Campbell as spreading misinformation, rather it cites Jimmy Dore: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/24/youtube-videos/no-death-totals-covid-19-england-have-not-been-ove/ The other sources that do not name John Campbell but are cited in the entry (on the subject of vaccine safety and Ivermectin) also cannot be relied on as they are incomplete and controversial: new data, new studies, new researches have shown contrary conclusions). By not removing the defamatory language on John Campbell's entry despite not having an RS that specifically cites John Campbell as engaging in spreading misinformation, Wikipedia is breaking its own rules with regards to entries on Biographies of Living Persons: there must be an RS that cites John Campbell, by name, that he engages in misinformation, rather than a biased Wikipedia editor, disagreeing with John Campbell's content, implying he engages in misinformation. Bluelobe (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The clear consensus of the community (at this time) as reflected by the discussion at WP:ANI is that you did indeed make a legal threat. On that basis, I am prohibited from lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2022 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

Bluelobe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The people who blocked me did so to prevent correction of the Dr. John Campbell article. The real reason they blocked me is because I pointed out that their "reliable source" for including the defaming statement that Dr. Campbell's videos engage in misinformation does not actually cite Dr. Campbell but rather Jimmy Dore. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the statement that Dr. Campbell (living biography) misinforms must be backed by direct sources and not as opinion/interpretation of the Wikipedia writer. The continued blocking of any person who points this out is downright nefarious and destructive to Wikipedia's mission of sticking to facts: Your source cites Jimmy Dore as spreading misinformation, not Dr. John Campbell. If you actually watch Dr. Campbell's video, he just cites "a new freedom of information request release from the United Kingdom that shows the number of deaths actually, SOLELY attributable to COVID may be way lower..." How the information is used by other personalities is not Dr. Campbell's fault or responsibility, thus the source does not back up your claim that it is the one that defamed Dr. Campbell. Your source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/24/youtube-videos/no-death-totals-covid-19-england-have-not-been-ove/. Dr. Campbell's actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw Bluelobe (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you made a legal threat, not for anything else. You used the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to influence a discussion. Since you seem to think you acted properly, there are no grounds to remove the block. Furthermore, it seems that these requests are becoming unproductive, so I am removing talk page access. If you are prepared to stop making legal threats, you may use WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2022 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.