User talk:Benjaminwilliamchesley

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because.. everything I have stated is factually correct and provable via stated information in the page I am attempting to edit --Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Your recent editing history at James Holmes (mass murderer) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Greyjoy^talk 13:39, 14 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I am a primary source of information in the matters being discussed and wikipedia is actively engaged in an abusive attempt to prevent justice from occuring Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:58, 14 November 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.

information is factually correct as stated

1. I am a primary source of information in this matter and will affirm it via affidavit if requested

2. An edit war is justified because you have needlessly suppressed the information I intend to spread to help victims families

3. I have scheduled a consultation with a lawyer over this matter

4. Given that I have reported on this numerous times, and wikipedia refuses to publish the information for whatever reason, they may become liable if they continue to do so

5.The talk page for James Eagan Holmes will show that I have attempted to disclose in the past and then informed wikipedia that they should suppress the disclosure because of an existing gag order on the case preventing media disclosure of certain facts, which I know and you don't, because I am telling the truth

6. What gives you the right to attempt to gaslight me when I have been attempting to prove what I am saying is true ever sense I personally encountered this mass murderer and attempted to stop him?

7. I will continue to edit the page by whatever means necessary to publish the information as intended, I am capable of white hat hacking

8. Any further discussion on this matter is now closed until after my legal consultation with the lawyers tomorrow at 9:40 AM MDT

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).

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

Request reason:

wikipedias liability in this matter is increased if they continue to suppress primary source information Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 14 November 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.

Hello, I'm Moops. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Benjaminwilliamchesley have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you are clearly here not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting a campaign, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter.JBW (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.

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).

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

Request reason:

what better source of information do you require to accept the facts of the matter? because I have provided communications between the city manager of the crisis intervention team and myself to wikipedia Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you have made legal threats in violation of Wikipedia policy, there is nothing more we can do for you. Please see WP:LEGAL for information on contacting the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. Once your legal matters are resolved, we can consider unblocking you and at that time if you want to help us build this encyclopedia of human knowledge knowledge, instead of publicizing your legal issues, you can tell us what contributions you will make. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 14 November 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.

I am not interested in further building wikipedia until it publishes the information I wish to be made public in the public's interest for the sake of public safety knowledge knowledge

Then you will not be unblocked. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to tell the world about your cause(regardless of the merits). As I said, there is nothing more we can do for you until your legal matters are resolved. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable evidence of my status as a primary source for James Egan Holmes

Hello Benjamin,

My name is Courtney, and I am the Crisis Intervention Program Manager for the City of Aurora. I was forwarded your email and wanted to reach out and let you know about some of the programs that Aurora offers to address the exact concern that you have.

In 2018, the City of Aurora created the "Crisis Response Team." This program pairs mental health professionals and law enforcement officers to respond to behavioral health calls for service. Within this program we created the "Targeted Violence Prevention" program. This program also pairs a mental health professional, law enforcement officer and a case manager to conduct threat assessments and complete threat management plans to actively work to prevent mass violence and events such as the Aurora theatre shooting. This program has seen great success and works with multiple agencies in the area by doing community outreach, bringing in trainings on threat assessment and warning signs, and providing direct intervention to individuals who may be planning or are at risk of engaging in mass violence.

While this program was created after the theatre shooting and is unable to reverse the damage and trauma that emerged from that event- the City of Aurora and the Aurora Police Department recognized the need for intervention and now has the skill set to do exactly that. I hope that this information provides such reassurance about the proactivity of the department to keep its citizens safe.

Thank you and have a great day,

Courtney Tassin, MA, LPC

Crisis Intervention Program Manager

Housing and Community Services | City of Aurora

Office: 303.739.6627 Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I will stand by or affirm the facts of this matter in any way that will help provide relief to the terrible atrocity James Eagan Holmes inflicted upon the people he murdered, maimed, and harmed because of his selfish non-sense. Approximately 3-6 months before he did what he did, I confronted him because of the way he looked and acted upon me seeing him. During this confrontation which lasted approximately ten minutes in the north building of the Auraria campus in Denver, Colorado he admitted to me his entire plan with various specifics that are likely still not available to the public. This police department was aware of the attack that was coming and did nothing to prevent it.

I believe the APD should admit to their culpability in not being able to prevent this atrocity from occurring freely because the damages to the victims families are likely in the millions. We both know I reported what was going to happen and the 4th amendment, laziness, complacency, and the fact that I am bipolar prevented any meaningful prevention, mitigation, harm reduction, or anything of that nature which should’ve occurred did not occur. I am not threatening the APD by any means, but if I do not receive a response explaining the lack of agency, foresight, and duty that prevented the APD from preventing a mass murder from occurring, I will continue to speak publicly to anyone who will listen to me about the utter and object failure of this police department from saving countless lives including one of a young child from being needlessly wasted.

Please work with me on this instead of against me. This is not a threat, it is a promise that I know the truth of what you failed to do and I will die before I let it slide that the city of Aurora knew about the attack that was coming on the countless innocent and gentle souls that simply wanted to enjoy a very good movie and lost their lives to an utter loser that got caught so up in video games that he thought his life worked like a game of Call of Duty. You know you owe all of the people who lost their lives or were maimed more then the city of Aurora could ever hope to pay back to them. I confronted him, I warned you, you did nothing. This is an open letter that I am posting to the Denver reddit community after I send it to you.

Thank you, Benjamin William Chesley ...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Ben Chesley <darkbenrg@gmail.com> Nov 2, 2022, 7:22 PM (12 days ago)

to Courtney

I'm available for a free consultation by phone or in person if you'd like. It's just that within minutes of seeing this person, I confronted him, debriefed him of his future plan, advised him he would wind up in prison or put down by the state of CO, and then informed the police that the threat was credible. I admire your new system but the thing is this could've been prevented if he had simply been detained by me and sent to a mental hospital in an ambulance or the back of a police car. At the time I was 22 and he was 24 so no one took us seriously, and I did not realize how to react properly. If you're interested in further discussing this matter, please contact me via one of the following: Benjaminwilliamchesley (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and advice relating to your unblock requests and the associated messages

Wikipedia is not "actively engaged in an abusive attempt to prevent justice from occuring": it is just activelyengaged to prevent Wikipedia from being used for that purpose, because that isn't what Wikipedia is for.

---As an agent of Wikipedia you or others have attempted to gaslight me, insulted me, will not accept the truth as it is stated. Do you see where this is going?

Wikipedia does not use information from primary sources, but requires reliable secondary sources.

---A reliable secondary source like the city manager of the Aurora crisis response team?????

I note your threat to evade the block. I have never yet, in my sixteen years as a Wikipedia editor, known a single case of an administrator accepting an unblock request while there is an outstanding threat to evade the block if it isn't lifted.

---Great call me back 303 931 2806

Wikipedia policy is that anyone who is involved in, or who has indicated that they are contemplating, legal action relating to Wikipedia, is not permitted to edit while legal action is pending or in progress.

---To Avoid Legal liability, I strongly advise you publish my information immediately

You appear to be under the impression that for some reason the owners of Wikipedia are legally obliged to publish anything you want them to. They are under no such legal obligation; they are free to make their own decisions as to how to determine what material to accept for publication and what to reject, exactly like any other publishing business, whether publishing through the medium of books, newspapers, television, radio, internet, or otherwise.

---English, do you speak it? Because your command of this language appears to be inferior to mine

Please don't have more than one unblock request open at a time. Doing so serves no useful purpose, and takes up extra time for the reviewing administrator, who has to close each of them.

---Then approve my request to publish the information since I have provided written evidence

Did you read the guide to appealing blocks before posting unblock requests? If you didn't then you may like to do so now, and you will see several reasons why your requests had no chance of success. Reading that guideline really is likely to be helpful to anyone contemplating an unblock request.

---Yes JBW (talk) 16:31, 14 November 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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 15 November 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.

OK, since you are doing nothing but posting rants, there's no point in leaving you talk page access, so I have removed it. When some administrator deals with your latest unblock request they are welcome to restore your talk page access if they feel fit, without consulting me.
There's almost certainly no point in saying this, for reasons you can read all about at WP:IDHT if you like, but I'll try once more. "To Avoid Legal liability, I strongly advise you publish my information immediately" is a misunderstanding, because nobody is legally required to publish your information. Get that? The law does not say that Fox News has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that CNN has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that The Washington Post has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that Disney Publishing Worldwide has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that Cambridge University Press has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that HarperCollins has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that Abilene Christian University Press has to publish anything that anyone submits; the law does not say that Wikipedia has to publish anything that anyone submits. All of those businesses, every one of them, including Wikipedia, have total legal right to decide to publish or not to publish anything submitted to them. There is no special law saying that Wikipedia has fewer rights than other privately owned businesses. I hope that makes it clearer for you.
Nobody has to do anything "to Avoid Legal liability", because there is no legal liability. There is no legal requirement for anyone to publish your material. Again, I hope that makes it clearer for you. If not then unfortunately I can't think of anything else I could say which might help you. JBW (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What my problem is with you is that from my perspective an encylopedia that doesn't accept a primary source backed up by a secondary source because they are projecting their personal problems with the information onto an article i wrote that is completely stated from a neutral point of view and has received notice of my intent to publish the information regardless of whatever stupid policies they have in place for no real reason is contrary to the point of any enyclopedia which is to document established facts. Also, idgaf about the law, you feel me? Because as you stated, there is no real threat to wikipedia here. So what's your problem now? 98.38.55.214 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's called CI, I'm clearly a criminal informant in this case and I feel the city should acknowledge their obvious misdeeds in ignoring my assesment of the situation based on the fact that whatever I was up to at the time that is now legal in the city anyways and the statute of limitations on anything they could have gone after me for has passed. 98.38.55.214 (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked, and as such may not edit under any account or IP address until the block is removed. Further appeals may be made via WP:UTRS, but you will quickly lose access to that too should this sort of appeal persist. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #65680 is now closed. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]