cypherpunks
Threads by month
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
July 2022
- 16 participants
- 590 discussions
In memory of Ian Murdock we are creating the Debian Suicide Team
People are dying to join us
Full members are Ian Murdock and Frans Pop
Apprentices are Lucy Wayland, Thiemo Seufer and Molly de Blanc. Molly has bipolar so she will join us sooner or later.
This is the only team where Molly de Blanc can't expel you
I am the Ubuntu underage girl
I started dating the Fedora ambassador Elio Qoshi in Albania when I was 16
Elio had to resign as a Fedora ambassador but he had no problems getting a new job at Ubuntu
When he started paying me to be the 17 year old sysadmin, this wasn't a payment for sex
Chris Lamb started spreading gossip about abuse because he wanted an Albanian girlfriend too
2
1
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Seeking Alpha <account(a)seekingalpha.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 7:33 AM
Subject: Wall Street Breakfast: See You In Court!
To: <g(a)xny.io>
The Elon Musk-Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) saga kicked into high gear this weekend
after the world's richest man decided to pull the plug on his $44B
acquisition. Stepping away from the deal will not be easy, with both sides
lining up their legal teams as they prepare for battle. Twitter (TWTR) has
hired merger law firm heavyweight Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, while
Musk has brought in Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which successfully
led his defense against the "pedo guy" defamation suit in 2019 and is part
of an ongoing shareholder case over his "go-private" tweet a year
earlier.Fine print: At issue is Elon's belief that Twitter (TWTR) hasn't
done enough to address the matter of fake, spam or bot accounts on its
platform. In a filing with the SEC, representatives for Musk said that
despite what it claimed, Twitter (TWTR) "appears to have made false and
misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into
the merger agreement." With regards to Elon's requests for clarity around
the bot issue, Twitter (TWTR) has "rejected them for reasons that appear to
be unjustified, and sometimes claimed to comply while giving Mr. Musk
incomplete or unusable information [that less than 5% of its total user
accounts were spam].""This is a disaster scenario for Twitter and its
board," noted Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. "Now, the company will
battle Musk in an elongated court battle to recoup the deal and/or the
breakup fee of $1B, at a minimum." Twitter (TWTR) shares slumped another 7%
in premarket trade on Monday to around $34, or 37% lower than the $54.20
per share price of Musk's original buyout agreement in April.Questions
remain: While things head to the courtroom, there is bound to be many
settlement talks that take place in the background. Will Musk shoot to get
a lower price for the deal based on a "material adverse effect"? Walk away
by only paying a termination fee or damages? And how much hardball will
Twitter be willing to play to uphold "specific-performance" clauses, which
forces Musk to close the deal with every closing condition including
financing of the transaction? (18 comments)
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
Read
in Browser
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
Top News
See you in court!
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
Shutterstock
The Elon Musk-Twitter (NYSE:TWTR
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
saga kicked into high gear this weekend after the world's richest man
decided
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
to pull the plug on his $44B acquisition. Stepping away from the deal will
not be easy, with both sides lining up their legal teams as they prepare
for battle. Twitter (TWTR
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
has hired
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
merger law firm heavyweight Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, while Musk has
brought in Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which successfully led his
defense against the "pedo guy" defamation suit in 2019 and is part of an
ongoing shareholder case over his "go-private" tweet a year earlier.
*Fine print:* At issue is Elon's belief that Twitter (TWTR
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
hasn't done enough to address the matter of fake, spam or bot accounts on
its platform. In a filing with the SEC, representatives for Musk said that
despite what it claimed, Twitter (TWTR
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
"appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr.
Musk relied when entering into the merger agreement." With regards to
Elon's requests for clarity around the bot issue, Twitter (TWTR
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
has "rejected them for reasons that appear to be unjustified, and sometimes
claimed to comply while giving Mr. Musk incomplete or unusable information
[that less than 5% of its total user accounts were spam]."
"This is a disaster scenario for Twitter and its board," noted Wedbush
Securities analyst Dan Ives. "Now, the company will battle Musk in an
elongated court battle to recoup the deal and/or the breakup fee of $1B, at
a minimum." Twitter (TWTR
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
shares slumped another 7% in premarket trade on Monday to around $34, or 37%
lower than the $54.20 per share price of Musk's original buyout agreement
in April.
*Questions remain:* While things head to the courtroom, there is bound to
be many settlement talks that take place in the background. Will Musk shoot
to get a lower price for the deal based on a "material adverse effect"?
Walk away by only paying a termination fee or damages? And how much
hardball will Twitter be willing to play to uphold "specific-performance"
clauses, which forces Musk to close the deal with every closing condition
including financing of the transaction? (18 comments
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
)
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYW…>
Featured
Ready-to-rally stock picks
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzY3…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzY3…>
This market has been taking everyone for a bumpy ride - but it is also
offering a rare opportunity: to grab compelling stocks at a reasonable
entry point.
How do you spot those undervalued assets?
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzY3…>
As a deep value investor with a keen sense of stock market history, hedge
fund owner Chris DeMuth Jr. has made a career out of spotting those
overlooked investing opportunities and capitalizing on them.
With his service, Sifting the World, Chris is giving you access to a
selection of his actionable ideas for just $99/year
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzY3…>.
Get two top picks each month
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzY3…>
by
signing up for his exclusive newsletter now.
Find top stock picks
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzY3…>
Stocks
Market direction
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
Investors are strapping on their seatbelts as they prepare for some wild
trading in the week ahead. Volatility is likely to reign high due to a
confluence of economic indicators, which include retail sales and a
consumer price index that may show a print greater than 9%. Earnings season
for Q2 will also begin, with companies likely to show elevated input costs
and slower consumer spending that could weigh on outlooks going into the
second half of 2022.
*Quote:* "It's going to be a pretty bifurcated earnings season," said Keith
Lerner, chief market strategist at Truist Advisory Services. "It's going to
be a story of who doesn't have that pricing power, and there's going to be
more differentiation."
A strong jobs report
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
on Friday calmed some jitters that the economy might have already tipped
into recession, but at the same time, it raised expectations that the Fed
could press ahead with aggressive rate hikes to tame inflation. It's a
circular methodology to gauge the coming economic landscape, meaning
earnings season will likely play an outsized role in shaping investing
sentiment. If traders see serious threats to corporate profits, it could
lead to a further downturn for a market that has already slid into bear
territory, though others say those estimates have already been taken into
account - or at least make up some of the equation.
*Commentary:* "The market has been anticipating this for a really long
time. From here on out, it's really dealing with inflation and what the
companies are doing to work around it," wrote Anna Rathbun, chief
investment officer at CBIZ Investment Advisory Services. "Markets had
priced in already a fair amount of this earnings slowdown, but they've not
priced in an earnings recession," added Kara Murphy, chief investment
officer of Kestra Holdings. "We're not at a point where we could say the
market is cheap."
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYW…>
Energy
Nord Stream goes offline
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
Energy concerns in Europe are getting grimmer by the day, with an
emboldened Russia in a position to squeeze the bloc over its heavy
sanctions and support for Ukraine. Moscow supplies the EU with 40% of the
natural gas imports, and in countries like Germany, that figure is as high
as 60%. Natural gas is used for heating and cooking for consumers, as well
as electricity and power generation for heavy industry.
*The latest: *Russia has slashed capacity to Germany via Nord Stream 1 by
40% over the past week, just as the country was attempting to fill up its
storage before wintertime. The cuts were caused by sanctions questions
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
over a turbine that was being serviced in Canada, but another disruption
will hit the important pipeline over the next 10 days (with annual
maintenance work taking place from July 11 through July 21). Germany and
other EU countries are fearful that the Kremlin could extend the shutdown
due to the war in Ukraine, or might even turn off the taps for good.
"Based on the pattern we've seen, it would not be very surprising now if
some small, technical detail is found and then they could say 'now we can't
turn it on any more,'" according to German Economy Minister Robert Habeck.
The country has already raised
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
the alarm in its emergency gas plan, and the next level would see the
government ration consumption and assume control of the entire nation's
distribution network. Germany has also reopened several coal-fired power
stations to shore up supply, with Dutch TTF natural gas futures, a European
benchmark, rising more than 400% over the past year.
*Outlook:* There are other big natural gas pipelines running from Russia to
Europe, but flows have been gradually declining due to squabbles over ruble
payments and reported interference by Russian forces. Some European
countries are now looking to Norway for additional supplies, while southern
nations are eyeing Azeri gas from the Trans Adriatic Pipeline to Italy and
the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline via Turkey. Other ideas include
boosting LNG imports, or increasing power generation from nuclear,
hydropower, renewables or coal. (6 comments
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
)
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYW…>
Trending
'Uber Files'
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
Uber (NYSE:UBER
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
is under fire following a massive trove of files that were leaked to *The *
*Guardian* and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists. The stash consists of more than 124,000 records, including
83,000 emails and thousands of sensitive texts and documents that were
exchanged between 2013 and 2017. According to the outlets, it shows how the
ride-hailing app courted top politicians, and how far it went to avoid
justice as it sought to establish itself in nearly 30 countries.
*Snapshot:* The company knowingly set up a "kill switch" to thwart
regulators by cutting access to Uber servers and blocking authorities from
grabbing evidence during raids. The switch was used in Canada, Belgium,
Hungary, India, Romania and the Netherlands, and at least three times in
France. Uber also channeled profits through Bermuda and other offshore tax
havens, then "sought to deflect attention from its tax liabilities by
helping authorities collect taxes from its drivers."
Meanwhile, many undisclosed meetings with high-level politicians were
conducted to ask for favors. Uber recruited many former aides to President
Barack Obama to drop probes, change policies on workers' rights, draft new
taxi laws and even relax background checks on drivers. Over in France, the
company weighed portraying violence against its drivers as a way to gain
public sympathy, and found an ally in then-economy minister Emmanuel
Macron, who told controversial founder Travis Kalanick that he would reform
laws in the firm's favor.
*Response:* Calling it "one of the most infamous reckonings in the history
of corporate America," Uber spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker acknowledged past
"mistakes" and "missteps," but said the firm has since transformed into a
new entity. "When we say Uber is a different company today, we mean it
literally: 90% of current Uber employees joined after Dara [Khosrowshahi]
became CEO," she wrote in a statement. "We have not and will not make
excuses for past behavior that is clearly not in line with our present
values." (8 comments
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
)
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubG…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYW…>
Today's Markets
*In Asia,* Japan +1.1%. Hong Kong -2.8%. China -1.3%. India -0.2%.
*In Europe,* at midday, London -0.6%. Paris -0.7%. Frankfurt -0.8%.
*Futures at 6:20,* Dow -0.5%. S&P -0.6%. Nasdaq -0.8%. Crude -2.3% to
$102.30. Gold -0.5% to $1734. Bitcoin -3.7% to $20,538.
*Ten-year Treasury Yield* -3 bps to 3.07%
Today's Economic Calendar
1:00 PM Results of $43B, 3-Year Note Auction
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
2:00 PM Fed's Williams Speech
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
Companies reporting earnings today »
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
What else is happening...
Macau shuts casinos for a week amid unrelenting coronavirus policy
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
Oracle (ORCL
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
eyes 'thousands' of layoffs; could happen as soon as August
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
Netflix's (NFLX
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
'Stranger Things' keeps swamping streaming ratings
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
Antitrust bill targeting tech giants may not exit Senate before summer
recess
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
.
Luxury brand Tom Ford said to be exploring sale - Bloomberg
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
Abbott (ABT
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
baby formula plant resumes operations after flooding
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
Temporary relief? U.S. pump prices post biggest one-day drop since '08
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
.
Pfizer (PFE
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>)
COVID-19 shot granted full FDA approval for adolescents
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
.
Fall campaign: Composition of next COVID boosters raises questions
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
Celsius Network said to hire new lawyers for restructuring advice
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>.
💡 Free webinar today
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
This week on Seeking Alpha’s free weekly webinar
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>,
Mike will talk about Elon throwing in the towel, new inflation signals, and
the approaching resistance in the market.
Tune in today - Monday 7/11 at 12pm ET. Register for free.
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
Seeking Alpha’s Wall Street Breakfast Podcast
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9wb2RjYX…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9wb2RjYX…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9vcGVuLn…>
Seeking Alpha's Wall Street Breakfast podcast brings you all the news you
need to know for your market day. Released by 8:00 AM ET each morning, it
is a quick listen that you can put on as you get ready to start your
working day.
Download Seeking Alpha for your Phone or Tablet
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
<https://email-st.seekingalpha.com/click/28333708.1330941/aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWVraW…>
*Want More Ideas?*
Our best ideas → Stock Ideas
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
ETF's Investing Ideas → ETF Ideas
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
Dividend stocks ideas → Dividend Ideas
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
This email was sent to you because you signed up to receive Wall Street
Breakfast.
If you do not want to receive Wall Street Breakfast emails, click here
<https://seekingalpha.com/account/email-auth?sailthru_auth_param=56458149:16…>
to unsubscribe.
Sent by Seeking Alpha, 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, 13th floor, New York, NY 10017
1
0
Now my crypto-winter is made glorious summer by this Fed Vice-Chair of Pork
by professor rat 11 Jul '22
by professor rat 11 Jul '22
11 Jul '22
The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve is reportedly saying that crypto regulations need to be enacted now before the digital assets industry threatens the stability of the entire financial system.
https://dailyhodl.com/2022/07/10/fed-vice-chair-says-crypto-needs-regulatio…
Reposts etc
1
0
" . . . . if you’ve taken a look at the state of the world recently—from the rise of authoritarianism and the acceleration of climate change to the devolution of the Supreme Court and this past week’s roller-coaster ride with Boris Johnson in the UK—then you might well have found yourself wondering whether anyone, anywhere, is really fit to lead their fellow human beings. In doing so, you opened your mind, maybe just a crack, to anarchism. . . . "
https://time.com/6195159/anarchists-review-hbo/
Reposts etc
1
0
The EU's Attack On Bitcoin Is An English And Math Comprehension Problem
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-eu-attacks-bitcoin-due-to-a-compreh…
https://medium.com/swlh/why-america-cant-regulate-bitcoin-8c77cee8d794
https://medium.com/@beautyon_/bitcoin-is-not-money-if-you-seek-compliance-y…
The nomenclature used to help the layman understand Bitcoin makes
lawmakers confuse it as money instead of entries in a database. We
must change the terms.
1/Deal! After months of negotiations with the Council, we agreed
the most ambitious travel rule for transfers of crypto-assets in the
world. We are putting an end to the wild west of unregulated crypto,
closing major loopholes in the European anti-money laundering rules.
Thread👇 pic.twitter.com/Jr9IAspsb8
— Ernest Urtasun (@ernesturtasun) June 29, 2022
A group of bitter, twisted computer illiterates in the beleaguered
European Union have managed to convince the European Council that
bitcoin is money, that Bitcoin wallets are actual wallets that hold
actual balances of money and that they should be regulated. This is of
course totally insane and an idea borne out of profound ignorance.
Since it is not possible to have a rational argument with people like
this, another, better strategy of dealing with these violent types
must be formulated and implemented. They’re fixated on the idea that
bitcoin is money and, from the seed of this mistaken idea, a monstrous
Pandora’s Box of evil has been opened.
“Bitcoin is not money. If you seek “compliance” you are asking for
trouble. People who want to see the widespread and rapid adoption of
Bitcoin should not seek tight regulation and the blessing.” \
- Beautyon
In order to avoid the unethical attacks of the dribbling geriatrics in
the United States and the delusional EU socialists, Bitcoin wallet
software developers must devise a strategy to stay out of the
crosshairs of the very misguided apparatchiks hell-bent on damaging
Bitcoin businesses.
Every law that touches Bitcoin uses deceptive language as definition
and pretext. These definitions come from ambulance chasers and not
computer scientists or software developers. By re-contextualizing
Bitcoin wallets, it will be possible to totally escape the onslaught
of destruction being planned by the EU and U.S. legislators.
This is how you do it.
Bitcoin wallet developers, quite naturally, have centered on using the
conventions of money to translate what is happening under the hood
into something ordinary people can understand. There is no “coin
management” or UTXO information displayed to users in the consumer
grade Bitcoin wallets: BlueWallet, Wallet of Satoshi, Samourai, Pine,
Phoenix, Muun; all of that is hidden away because it is of no use to
consumers.
No normal person can deal with coin control, UTXOs or anything like that.
Instead, a set of familiar, easy to understand and simple conventions
has been borrowed from the world of banking to make everything in
Bitcoin understandable to normal people.
This is why Bitcoin wallets have taken on the appearance, nomenclature
and styling of banking apps, which normally look something like these
apps from Halifax and Lloyds respectively.
Bank apps from Lloyds and Halifax. Obviously bought off the shelf from
the same developer.
Below is a picture of Coinbase’s phone app, which looks exactly like a bank app.
Coinbase phone app
Now Airbitz:
Airbitz dashboard
When a normal, ignorant, computer-illiterate person from the EU
government looks at any Bitcoin app, they recognize it as a financial
tool because it looks exactly like the financial apps they’re familiar
with. As for what is going on under the hoods of these very different
classes of tools, they have absolutely no clue.
They only see the surface and make all their judgements based on that alone.
This is why they reflexively conflate Bitcoin with money and think
that the balance in a Bitcoin wallet is analogous to the fiat balance
in a banking app.
“There is a lot of talk about using “Blockchains” to improve data
integrity, but what all these solutions fail to address is what I call
“The Flat Screen Dilemma”. Just because something is displayed on a
screen, it does not follow that it is true.”
- “The Flat Screen Dilemma”
The fact of the matter is very different, however. Bitcoin apps show
you the total of the UTXOs that you have control over by virtue of you
being in possession of the private key. That is a sum of UTXOs; it is
not a single balance. Furthermore, that “money” is not on the device.
What is on the user’s device is an app that stores a cryptographic key
(a string of text) that allows you to sign messages for broadcast to
the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin wallets do not contain or receive
bitcoin. They simply tell you what your private key can sign for on
the block chain.
By saying this, I am obviously simplifying the process. But the
simplification I am presenting here is more accurate than saying a
Bitcoin wallet “receives and stores bitcoin,” which never, ever
happens and never has happened. It is also wrong to characterize a
Bitcoin wallet as “unhosted” if it can sign a message on command of a
user without reference to anyone else. There are no “wallets” in
Bitcoin at all. It’s just another analogy.
Bitcoin is a database. It is not a “payment network” nor is value
“sent” over it at all. There are no “wallets” either. Signed messages
are what are sent to the network for inclusion in the public database.
It is a database used to keep a record of who controls which outputs.
It is not — and never has been — money in the conventional sense. Just
because people use this database as money doesn’t mean that bitcoin is
money. Just because people use the word “wallet” does not mean that
there are actual “Bitcoin wallets” that hold bitcoin the way a leather
wallet holds cash.
Using the word “wallet” for the sake of user experience is a
convention to help make the primary function of tools understandable
for users. Those conventions are a choice, not a rule and they are not
a universal truth, either. That means that anyone can choose any
convention or any analogy they want to compare what happens in their
Bitcoin app. It is entirely possible that oil traders could use the
block chain to denominate barrels of oil using barrels as measurement.
Today, one barrel of oil is 0.0048 bitcoin/barrel. In an oil trader’s
wallet this would be represented as “100” if the trader had one
hundred barrels showing on his device as allocated to his private key
in a UTXO.
In this scenario, which is totally plausible, no one would claim that
“bitcoin is oil” — but maybe they would? Apparatchiks are completely
insane and insane thinking is what you’d expect from them.
BlueWallet does nothing more than present the user with conventions
users can understand. It is not an “unhosted wallet;” it is a block
chain viewer and signing device. In no way, shape or form is a Bitcoin
wallet on a mobile phone a “financial tool” of any kind. If very
stupid people were to classify a signing device as a financial tool,
then many other software tools would be captured by that insanity
immediately. BlueWallet could pivot to the oil industry tomorrow and
start calling itself “OilWallet.” The fact that people use bitcoin as
money is irrelevant to bitcoin’s nature. They exchange it for goods
and services and money while “OilWallet” is used to manage the
exchange of barrels of oil. Common to all of this is Bitcoin is only a
database; what you impute to it is up to you and has nothing to do
with its fundamental nature.
WhatsApp uses exactly the same encryption techniques as Bitcoin does
to authenticate users to each other. You have a pair of cryptographic
keys that you use to encrypt, decrypt and sign messages so that the
other person receiving your call or texts or pictures knows it came
from you and could have only come from you. Users of WhatsApp are not
exposed to how all of this works, in the same way that users of
Bitcoin wallets are not shown the text of their private keys. The
software takes care of all of that for the user and simply gives them
information that is useful to them. In the case of WhatsApp, that
useful information is text messages. In Bitcoin it is the sum of UTXOs
that are associated with your private key that are written into the
public database of the chain of blocks.
“So what is the answer?” I hear you bleating.
The answer is to call Bitcoin wallets “viewers” and “signers.”
If wallets were to rebrand as “bitcoin viewers,” to better reflect
their function and distance themselves from the language of the
financial industry, no one could argue that they are “financial tools”
or “unhosted wallets.”
That is literally what all Bitcoin wallets do: they act as viewers or,
to analogize, “Windows on the block chain,” showing you which outputs
are controllable by you.
When you “send” bitcoin to someone (note how I put “send” in quotes,
because bitcoin is never sent anywhere; it is not like money) you take
their public key (what is called a “Bitcoin address”) and use your
private key to sign a message granting control of those bitcoin to the
recipient’s address. Had the money convention been taken to the
logical conclusion, Bitcoin addresses might have been called “Bitcoin
account numbers.” This signing of a message has more in common with
contracts than it does with money handling. This further breaks the
absurd “Swiss bank account in your pocket” imagery. Sent, received,
deposit, payment, account — all of these words must be abolished from
Bitcoin wallet interfaces, the Bitcoin Lexicon and the overall
nomenclature or the reckless, dangerous and very harmful conflation of
bitcoin with money will continue.
When these messages are broadcast to be added to the public chain of
blocks, either from your own full node, which is a copy of all the
messages ever incorporated into the block chain, they are incorporated
once the network of database administrators decide the addition should
be made. “Database administrators” not “miners.” Are you starting to
understand? Mining is what companies do to extract precious metals
from the earth. Precious metals like gold, which actually is money,
unlike bitcoin. All of these analogies and the language from the
financial world must be abolished from the lexicon of Bitcoin
companies.
Once the message is accepted as legitimate by the network, your block
chain viewer will be able to see that the signature you made has been
added to the public record and the sum of your UTXOs will be smaller
than they were before the message was sent. In the current wallet
convention, this is expressed as a single number, sometimes juxtaposed
with a conversion into fiat with the “approximately equal to” sign
(≈). All of this is to help you understand but is not a reflection of
what is really happening, or an absolute prerequisite or necessity.
Is “Liquid bitcoin” money?
There are already “watch-only” tools from Bitcoin companies like the
great Samourai Wallet. Sentinel allows you to scan your keys and then
whenever the chain of blocks is updated, it will show you the status
of the UTXOs you control on the block chain.
By the bizarre, irrational and stupid thinking of the EU, Sentinel is
an “unhosted financial services application” because it shows you a
balance in bitcoin as a single number. If it is not a financial
services application, why not? Are they going to claim that a tool
that watches a database is a “wallet?” No one is asking these
questions because they don’t understand how Bitcoin works at any level
other than analogies.
Samourai Wallet Sentinel app
And don’t get me started on metal storage devices.
Is this an “unhosted Bitcoin wallet?” (Photo/Cryptosteel)
In the end, there is going to have to be a U.S. Supreme Court case to
force the venal and stupid legislators to obey their oaths and stop
interfering with the free speech of American software developers.
Bitcoin is not money — it is speech — and no lawmaker can interfere
with the speech of U.S. citizens. I explain more about this in “Why
America Can’t Regulate Bitcoin”
Once this is settled by case law, the benefits for the U.S. will be
enormous. All software developers working in Bitcoin will run to
incorporate in the country and base their operations in Florida. No
one anywhere in the EU will dare to start a Bitcoin wallet company
because the ignorant apparatchiks there can’t tell the difference
between a chat app and a Bitcoin app (pro tip: there is no
difference).
When this happens, hundreds of billions of dollars from all over the
world will flow through Bitcoin wallet companies being run from
America, and those companies will be paying taxes in the U.S. The
entire world’s financial infrastructure and tooling will come from
America and flow through America for Uncle Sam to get his slice.
America wins again.
Upon reading this, there will be many stupid people out there who will
cry, “This is just semantics!” Those people don’t use Bitcoin wallets,
don’t have any bitcoin, don’t run Bitcoin businesses of any kind and
are as ignorant as the EU idiots and U.S. geriatrics who want to
cripple Bitcoin.
When this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be them paying
the legal bill, though they will reap the world-changing benefits of
software developers working with the Bitcoin database free of
arbitrary, unethical and unconstitutional restrictions hampering their
ability to display the UTXOs you can assign with your block chain
viewer and signer.
1
0
11 Jul '22
The Great Awakening Continues – 'Ve Vil Not Eet Ze Bugz, Klaus'
https://tomluongo.me/2022/07/09/the-great-awakening-continues-ve-vil-not-ee…
https://tomluongo.me/2022/02/19/trampling-the-truckers-the-great-reset-beco…
https://twitter.com/buperac/status/1545421998095970304
https://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-largest-natural-gas-powered-ships-are-almost…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0IjvbVjlc
https://twitter.com/search?q=tristate%20city
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world
he didn’t exist.”
— THE USUAL SUSPECTS
When the Canadian truckers descended in peace on Ottawa protesting the
vaccine mandate of Justin TrueDOH! it was obvious to many that
something fundamental had changed. This wasn’t some Davos Crowd psy-op
like burning down Minneapolis or a Million Vagina March.
This was a real awakening of the opposition to the Great Reset.
Destroying the livelihoods of the people who bring the goods to our
stores was a step too far. Even the most normalcy-biased shitlib had
to do a double take at what was happening with the COVID vaccines.
How did we get here so fast?
Davos’ agenda has accelerated in recent months as major events force
their hand. From Jerome Powell’s war on the offshore dollar markets to
Putin choosing the whether he hangs or we drown, the pillars of their
powerbase are crumbling under the weight of their ambitions.
Most people can’t conceive of what these big shifts actually mean.
Sadly, they still rely on what small amount of information they get
from their overlords to form their opinions. But that information has
become so ludicrous, so low quality, it’s got enough people open to
questions they would have never contemplated previously.
It’s a start. And once the last vestiges of trust in our media melts
away, we’ll see a whole lot more than the protests we’ve seen to date.
Yes, things can get worse.
That said, the catalyst for Europe’s farmers rising up was the crazy
miscalculation of Davos‘ minions TrueDOH! and his Ukrainian diaspora
bagwoman Chrystia Freeland. Freezing the accounts of truckers and
trampling peaceful protestors with horses woke way too many people up.
When you anger the banks, radicalize normies, and create a nationwide
bank run you set a countdown timer on your rule.
First they came for the truckers to engineer a supply crisis. People
supported them in droves and were trampled.
Now they came for the Dutch farmland to further engineer a food crisis
and the farmers took up the Truckers’ flag.
This is wild.
The Dutch farmers that are fighting against the government didn’t
erect a flag of the Netherlands in their square but a Canadian Flag.
🇨🇦
An unstoppable movement was started in Canada. pic.twitter.com/hUFpBAQ92T
— bu/ac (@buperac) July 8, 2022
For weeks I’ve wondered whether the spate of fires at food processing
facilities all across North America were sabotage or just the natural
downstream effect of overworked people and under-maintained equipment.
It’s a fair point to consider rather then just go off half-cocked
about evils of Davos. Because in the end, it doesn’t matter what the
truth is (likely a mixture of both), these breakdowns are all their
fault anyway.
Thank that idiotic COVID policy.
But how about fertilizer train derailments?
Or a thousand dead cows from heat prostration?
When the Farmers Revolution began in the Netherlands I realized this
was something deeper. And I was glad for it. The Great Awakening that
began in Ottawa and spread worldwide then has metastasized into a real
political nightmare for Klaus Schwab and his merry gang of nihilist
midwits.
You know they are on auto-pilot seizing the land of efficient Dutch
farmers. The Netherlands is routinely praised by Davos as a kind of
sustainable agriculture Mecca. So why go after them? Why not further
demonize American farmers. I mean everyone just knows Americans are
wasteful and dirty pigs, right?
And then I came across the plans for Tristate City and, for me, it all
clicked into place.
Bankrupt the farmers through legislative fiat and seize their land to
build the Davos Smart City of the Future. The perfect “Capitol of the
Corporatocracy.”
Try googling anything about this connection and you’ll find very
little. Look at a Twitter search of “Tristate City” and come to your
own conclusions.
Think Minority Report but with Germans.
Periodic Revolution
Davos’ War Against the Periodic Table continues unabated. But notice
how they aren’t going after truly poisonous elements like Mercury (Hg)
or Thallium (Tl) or even Arsenic (As). FYI, due to their extreme
chemistry they are actually easy and cheap to deal with.
No they are going after the building blocks of life itself — Carbon
(C), Hydrogen (H), Oxygen (O), Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Sulfur
(S), or CHNOPS.
We have the stated goal of ‘decarbonization’ worldwide.
Phosphorus and Nitrogen have been attacked relentlessly as outgrowths
of the war on ‘chemical fertilizers,’ smokestack emissions, etc. for
decades now.
Our entire transport industry has been made less efficient, raising
the costs through unnecessary low-sulfur diesel and bunker fuel rules.
Now we’re supposed to cheer LNG-powered small dry weight tonnage ships
as PROGRESS! Yeah, a $350 million boat for moving goods from
Jacksonville to Puerto Rico. Brilliant!
Let’s use the most expensive fuel imaginable (liquefied methane) for
shipping, an industry where fuel costs are literally everything.
But I thought fracking BAD!
All under the rubric of clean air and buzzwords like ‘sustainability.’
Now I’m all for a clean environment and dealing with real pollution
which hampers human life and even the greater ecosystem/food web, but
cows producing nitrogen are a part of the natural cycle of this
essential element.
What’s next? Legislating away volcanoes?
Anti-Transhumanism
It’s all downstream of convincing so many people to view themselves as
a pollutant and to separate human activity out as ‘not-natural.’ Think
of the argument framing here and it’s very simple. Humanity is not a
part of the ‘natural world.’ Our activities are not an outgrowth of
‘nature’s pure design.’
This is literally the argument about man-made Climate Change. Too bad
they had to define man’s energy inputs to the environment in the most
idiotic (and inaccurate) way imaginable, by ignoring more than 90% of
the energy the sun and the Universe imparts to our planet.
Now add in the basic understanding that everyone has a religion, even
atheists. They just turn to worshipping something else. They go from
gathering in churches to courthouses, cathedrals to classrooms, and
temples to tract housing.
The bottom line folks is this, “Everyone believes in something, even nihilists.”
But this anti-humanism is far worse than any ‘Original Sin’ doctrine
of Christianity. There the message is that we are flawed but
redeemable because we carry the spark of the divine within us. The
path to enlightenment is self-discovery and self-improvement.
There the existential threat is your own legacy, nothing more. It’s an
inward journey.
Now the Climate religion has merged cynically with the hubris and
colonialism of Davos to create something horrific and deadly. And
since they have control over the sacred texts now, they are now
crusaders who will not be stopped by people refusing to comply.
You will be assimilated through the hammer and sickle masking the
sword and shield.
It’s for the greater good, after all.
The memes are real, folks. We are the carbon they want to reduce. We
are the livestock the think they can farm. The full force of their
program to reduce us back to when we used to eat bugs to survive is
here.
Is that the legacy you want to leave this world with?
If we don’t stop this here, there isn’t much room left to retreat. And
if you doubt me, go talk to a farmer.
Think Global, Act Local just took on a raft of deeper meanings. It’s
past time we put them into action.
1
0
Cryptocurrency: BTC Devs Consider Permanently Inflating and Devaluing Bitcoin, Proffer LN For Everything
by grarpamp 11 Jul '22
by grarpamp 11 Jul '22
11 Jul '22
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
by Koinzer
So it starts: Peter Todd lays out the case for "infinite inflation" in Bitcoin
We knew it would happen since the block size wars, and as predicted
today it started.
Peter Todd, a very influential individual in the Bitcoin development,
wrote an article trying to "demonstrate" that "all thing considered",
keeping a fixed block reward forever is "not inflationary" due to
"general lost coins".
I'm not making this up, you can read it by yourself here:
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
And of course a few other people commenting on the Bitcoin development
mailing list kind of agree that that can be a viable thing.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/vvutv4/bitcoin_developers_mull_d…
https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/vv7h8a/so_it_starts_peter_todd_lays_o…
https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/vqcg3n/the_bitcoin_supply_…
More lols @ LN
https://old.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/vvry89/this_is_the_current_narrati…
1
0
Its like being savaged by sheep
" . . . new HBO docuseries “The Anarchists” examines Anarchapulco—an annual crypto-fueled anarchist festival that turned into a murder-filled nightmare. . . ."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-anarchists-on-hbo-explores-how-an-anarchi…
Caveat lecter
2
1
11 Jul '22
Las Vegas Raiders Hire the First Black Female President in NFL History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-08/raiders-hire-the-first-b…
2
1
> Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay publication
> https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
> on the Cypherpunks email list (Feb 14, 1995, but the archive for 1995 has
> since been forged to conceal nearly all reference to it)
Speaking of forging...
Jim Bell was apparently CensorBanned off Wikipedia,
which is well known by now to be:
- Editorially biased
- A censor and deleter of perhaps thousands of articles
- Hardly a Free Speech platform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_Bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_market
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_dalton_bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/james_dalton_bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesdbell8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jamesdbell8
The poorly collated pastes below all available starting from the above links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8
This user is currently blocked.
07:48, 29 July 2012 Uncle G talk contribs changed block settings
for Jamesdbell8 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite
(account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)
(Improper use of this account)
05:08, 29 July 2012 SarekOfVulcan talk contribs blocked
Jamesdbell8 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite
(account creation blocked) (Block evasion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Jamesdbell8
Registered: 00:18, 9 April 2012 (10 years ago)
Total edit count: 56
Number of attached accounts: 5
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jamesdbell8
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesdbell8
All privileges revoked. Continuance of de facto community ban.
You have done such a successful repetition of the actions and exact
behaviour of james dalton bell (talk · contribs) that you have
convinced me and others that you are he. If you are not that person,
then you should not be here exactly mimicking the behaviour using an
account named after the living person who was at the centre of things
three years ago. If you are that person, you should use the routes
that were supplied to you two years ago, e-mail to the Arbitration
Committee and others, to discuss your expulsion from and continued
exclusion from the Wikipedia community. In either case, there is no
valid reason for any further use in any form of this account. Uncle G
(talk) 07:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having claimed to be a banned individual ([1]) an indefinite block
is the correct response. As Uncle G says, you're banned until you
successfully appeal the ban through the routes already notified. In
the mean time I am afraid you are not welcome here. Guy (Help!) 11:42,
30 July 2012 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jamesdbell…
06:51, 29 July 2012 diff hist +5,755 User talk:Jamesdbell8 →July 2012
05:56, 29 July 2012 diff hist +3,659 User talk:Jamesdbell8 →July 2012
05:29, 29 July 2012 diff hist +849 User talk:Jamesdbell8 →July 2012
05:18, 29 July 2012 diff hist +501 User talk:Jamesdbell8 →July 2012
05:03, 29 July 2012 diff hist +1,229 Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/Incidents →User:Jamesdbell8
04:38, 29 July 2012 diff hist +682 N Talk:Reston virus ←Created
page with 'IS EBOLA RESTON INFECTION IMMUNIZING FOR EBOLA ZAIRE? Am I
the only one in the world who is interested in the question of whether
infection by the Ebola/Reston ...'
03:31, 29 July 2012 diff hist +3,645 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
03:07, 29 July 2012 diff hist +2,093 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
02:47, 29 July 2012 diff hist +429 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
01:39, 29 July 2012 diff hist +1,949 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights No edit summary
06:20, 28 July 2012 diff hist +1,055 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
05:31, 28 July 2012 diff hist +403 Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment
to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never been
ratified?
04:28, 28 July 2012 diff hist +799 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
23:36, 27 July 2012 diff hist +886 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
23:18, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,620 Talk:Twenty-seventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution No edit summary
21:53, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,018 Talk:Twenty-seventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never
been ratified?
21:38, 27 July 2012 diff hist +535 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
21:31, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,720 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
19:27, 27 July 2012 diff hist +769 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
19:17, 27 July 2012 diff hist +3,068 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
17:42, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,484 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
17:17, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,394 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
07:32, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,973 Talk:Twenty-seventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never
been ratified?
07:05, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,562 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
06:18, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,596 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
05:35, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,476 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
05:17, 27 July 2012 diff hist +3,150 Talk:Twenty-seventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never
been ratified?
05:01, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,562 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
04:23, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,827 Talk:Twenty-seventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never
been ratified?
03:44, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,986 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →Misconceptions section is a major POV problem
03:26, 27 July 2012 diff hist +1,240 Talk:Twenty-seventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never
been ratified?
00:55, 27 July 2012 diff hist +2,287 Talk:Titles of Nobility
Amendment →MISCONCEPTIONS section is a major POV problem: new
section
20:58, 26 July 2012 diff hist +1,443 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →Georgia, Mass., Conn.
20:26, 26 July 2012 diff hist +696 Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment
to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never been
ratified?
01:39, 26 July 2012 diff hist +498 User talk:Tls60 →4 wire
measurement of metallic carbon nanotubes.: new section
20:14, 25 July 2012 diff hist +897 Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment
to the United States Constitution →27th Amendment never been
ratified?: new section
20:06, 25 July 2012 diff hist +18 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939
19:37, 25 July 2012 diff hist +2,875 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →BOR Only Ratified March 1939: new section
19:12, 25 July 2012 diff hist +384 Talk:United States Bill of
Rights →Second Amendment
22:49, 22 July 2012 diff hist +648 Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution →Relinquishing Federal citizenship
without relinquishing state citizenship?: new section
03:31, 18 July 2012 diff hist +761 Talk:Alkaline battery →Chemistry
21:39, 14 July 2012 diff hist +236 Talk:Carbon nanotube
→electronic properties
21:35, 14 July 2012 diff hist +541 Talk:Carbon nanotube →First
reference?
16:04, 14 July 2012 diff hist +492 Talk:Light-emitting diode
→Index of Refraction of Silicon may be wrong.: new section
16:00, 14 July 2012 diff hist +592 Talk:Light-emitting diode
→Pulsed LEDs
21:07, 9 July 2012 diff hist −138 Talk:Assassination market
→The discussion is not quite historically correct
21:04, 9 July 2012 diff hist −22 Assassination market No edit summary
16:41, 5 July 2012 diff hist +26 Assassination market Since I,
James Dalton Bell, know when my essay was written, I am correcting the
facts, and I am also correcting the "Operation Soft Drill" claim.
04:03, 5 July 2012 diff hist +754 Talk:Assassination market
→The discussion is not quite historically correct
16:38, 4 July 2012 diff hist −5 Talk:The Hot Zone →Did those
infected with Ebola Reston become immune to Ebola Zaire?
16:33, 4 July 2012 diff hist +244 Talk:Cyanoacrylate →DMF:
Dimethyl Formamide as solvent.
16:31, 4 July 2012 diff hist +380 Talk:Cyanoacrylate →DMF:
Dimethyl Formamide as solvent.: new section
14:03, 1 July 2012 diff hist +432 Talk:Lorcaserin →Structural
question: new section
02:23, 16 June 2012 diff hist +313 Talk:Spring Session M Morse
Code Error on Album
19:55, 21 May 2012 diff hist +1,015 Talk:The Hot Zone →Did
those infected with Ebola Reston become immune to Ebola Zaire?: new
section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_dalton_bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/James_dalton_bell
Registered: 03:06, 26 December 2009 (12 years ago)
Total edit count: 67
Number of attached accounts: 1
This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by the
community, as no administrator is willing to unblock the user.
Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking.
This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is
suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.
Local wiki Attached on Method Blocked Edit count Groups
en.wikipedia.org 03:06, 26 December 2009 new account(?) Blocked indefinitely.
Reason: OTRS ticket indicates subject needs to make comments re
article, talk page access required to do this without violating ban.
editing (sitewide)
account creation disabled
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_J…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/james_dalton_bell
21:05, 1 April 2010 JzG talk contribs changed block settings for
James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite
(account creation blocked) (OTRS ticket indicates subject needs to
make comments re article, talk page access required to do this without
violating ban.)
04:32, 25 January 2010 Jéské Couriano talk contribs changed block
settings for James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time
of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)
(No intent to appeal block)
10:52, 18 January 2010 Tbsdy lives talk contribs blocked James
dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite
(account creation blocked) (Incivility, personal attacks and general
disruption)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_dal…
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James dalton bell/Archive
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | James dalton bell
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Contents
1 James dalton bell
1.1 03 September 2013
1.1.1 Comments by other users
1.1.2 Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
James dalton bell
James dalton bell (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log ·
block log · CA)
03 September 2013
Suspected sockpuppets
24.21.41.211 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs ·
proxy check · block log · cross-wiki contribs)
User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility
Admits to it here. "The fact that I am not 'yet' notable for the
patent doesn't change a thing." Note sockpuppeteer is banned. NeilN
talk to me 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
I would also note that the IP has a fairly similar style to Bell's
self-named account. Argumentative, prone to personal attacks and
declarations of conspiracies and cabals against him. I'll freely admit
my first few responses to the IP were a bit snarky as I was a bit
taken aback at the tone of their initial posts but they continued in
that vein regardless of you respond to them. I think that even without
the self-declaration the behavior is enough to match. Not listed here
is User:Pro2rat who I don't believe is a sock but almost certainly a
meatpuppet of Bell. Some internet searches find some conversations
between them. NeilN has warned Pro2rat and for now I think that's
enough. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Bbb23: I was involved with Bell's last go-round here
and he certainly did use sockpuppet IP's [1] [2]. He was indef blocked
because of this and other ANI threads. Per WP:INDEF, "In particularly
serious cases where no administrator would be willing to lift the
block, the user is effectively banned by the community." --NeilN talk
to me 00:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I am very puzzled by the history of Bell. If you look at Bell's
block log, he was never blocked for sock puppetry. As far as I know,
this is the first official report on Bell. Tagging Bell as a sock
puppeteer was done by User:Daedalus969, who is not an admin and had no
obvious authority to add the tag. Plus, there are many both suspected
and "confirmed" puppets of Bell, and at least the ones I looked at
were also tagged by the same user. There are many, many IPs that are
tagged, and they geolocate to a lot of different places. I haven't, of
course, looked at the history of each, but it certainly looks unusual.
Finally, Bell has never been banned. The one thing I do see is the
reported IP's assertion that he is Bell. Assuming we take that at face
value (I certainly wouldn't endorse a CU), I suppose we could block
him for block evasion, but I'm pondering how to fix all the history so
it doesn't document things that aren't accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30,
4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, none of what you've said (I appreciate the link to the
discussion) changes the fact that the tagging history is wrong. As for
the alleged de facto ban, that is historically a contentious issue. I
have blocked the IP for block evasion. I'll try to fix the history
when I have a bit more time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2013
(UTC)[reply]
I have corrected all the tags. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 5 September
2013 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesdbell8&action=his…
User talk:Jamesdbell8
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jamesdbell8 (talk |
contribs) at 06:51, 29 July 2012 (→July 2012). The present address
(URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ
significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!
Hello, Jamesdbell8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your
contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are
some pages that you might find helpful:
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your
messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will
automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help,
check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your
question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.
Again, welcome! bd2412 T 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is
currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been
involved. Thank you. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2012
(UTC).[reply]
July 2012
Sock block.svg This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock
puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that
multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons
is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be
unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your
reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing
blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review
while you are blocked.
Jamesdbell8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs •
filter log • creation log)
Request reason:
Apparently, some message claimed that I am using more than one
account. In fact, I am only using one account. Also, if I am accused
of some other thing, I feel it is rude and improper to 'block' me
without an opportunity to adjudicate the matter thoroughly. To do
otherwise amounts to giving your hired-guns a "license to kill" prior
to giving the victim a trial. Does that make sense? Jamesdbell8 (talk)
05:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It's patently obvious who you are, as even a cursory glance will show;
if you would like to be unblocked, you will need to do so from your
original account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:32, 29
July 2012 (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.
Another comment: I got an automatically generated message which
claims: Dear Jamesdbell8,
"The Wikipedia page "User talk:Jamesdbell8" has been changed on
29 July 2012 by SarekOfVulcan, with the edit summary: You have been
indefinitely blocked from editing because your account is being used
only for sock puppetry. (TW)
Let's be precise: It says the account is being used ONLY for "sock
puppetry". I'd like to see that PROVEN. In other words, to prove that
somebody would have to show that there were no usages that were NOT
"sock puppetry". That would be a very tough nut to crack, I think.
And, if anyone in your staff blocked me without proof of what they
claim, they should be indefinitely blocked as well. Jamesdbell8 (talk)
05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: I just downloaded it from WP:BLP. Its applicability
MAY be obvious to some people, but I will show it anyway:
Dealing with edits by the subject of the article
Shortcut:
WP:BLPEDIT
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about
themselves, either directly or through a representative. The
Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP
subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material.
Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves,
removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an
anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the
subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by
subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject
should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee
established the following principle in December 2005:
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline,
admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users
of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who
either have or might have an article about themselves it is a
temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative
information is included, to become involved in questions regarding
their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior
and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to
strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing
this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.[8]"
You need to ask a few questions that I derive from the above BLP policy:
1. Was "leniency showed" to a person to tried to fix what they saw
as errors or unfair material"?
2. Did that person "remove unsources or poorly sourced material"?
3. Was vandalism ever alleged?
4. Were edits by the subject of a BLP repeatedly reverted, with no
explanation at all to the subject?
5. Was the subject invited to explain his concerns?
6. Was the subject a 'newcomer'? Was he 'bitten'?
7. Did the material that the subject was trying to remove or
correct eventually get removed or corrected by OTHER WP users,
demonstrating violations of the BLP policy even then?
8. Was the subject 'bitten' by being banned without any such
warning, notice, or other consideration appropriate to:
a: A newbie of less than 2 weeks experience?
b: Was the mistake actually by the 'newbie', or was it a trolling
move by an administrator who didn't even explain himself?
9. Do you realize that the reason you (WP) had to fix your BLP
policy is that it was seriously 'broken'?
9a Do you realize that the fact you fixed your BLP policy was an
ADMISSION that it was seriously 'broken'?
10. Did the subject actually have an opportunity to appeal the
ban? (In other words, did any administrator ACTUALLY grant the subject
an appeal? (Your policy on ban appeals was also flawed, because it
required that some administrator step forward to 'allow' the appeal to
occur.)
11 Is an indefinite block proper at all, particularly under the
circumstances you will find when you investigate?
12. Are you (WP) willing to actually enforce your WP:BLP policy by
expelling administrators who egregiously violate the BLP policy, even
if their actions are found to have occurred 2.5 years ago?
13 If you are not, why then would it be proper to enforce an
"indef ban" for over 2 years of somebody who was actually denied the
opportunity to have a genuine appeal?
Etc. Etc. Etc. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just rudely denied an appeal of my block by a person "Northern
Lights". He said:
29 July 2012 (UTC)|decline=It's patently obvious who you are, as
even a cursory glance will show; if you would like to be unblocked,
you will need to do so from your original account. The Blade of the
Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]
However, any administrator who merely says 'it's patently obvious'
needs first to be denied the opportunity to actually adjudicate
disputes, in fact he needs to be completely removed from WP as well.
As you can see, I have already objected to WHY I need a true appeal.
I will quote from the appropriate WP Policy on Appeals:
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Jamesdbell8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs •
filter log • creation log)
Request reason:
See above too. I'm rather familiar with Federal law, both civil and
criminal. They don't just say, "You're guilty! It's obvious!. Any
judge who would claim that would be thrown off the bench, and quickly
too. (They are trained to be more much subtle than to obviously
display their biases.) Your administrators don't seem to have the same
judicial training.
1. There has been no evidence presented that I have two accounts at
all, let alone two active accounts. 2. An accusation (perhaps in an
automatic message? Seems to claim I am using an account "ONLY for
sock-puppetry" That would be very hard to prove! And no, it hasn't
been proved. Go through my contributions, and see which (if any) are
alleged to be 'sock-puppetry'. If hypothetically, 90% of the subjects
on which I post AREN'T "sock puppetry" then the allegation against me
("ONLY for 'sock puppetry') is clearly false. The accuser has the
burden of proof to explain why the accused 'sock puppet' is making
many postings which clearly have no connection to any 'sock puppetry'
involved. If that's the case, why should he/she even suspect 'sock
puppetry'? 3. "Blade of Northern Lights" seems to say that if I want
to appeal using my account for 'sock puppetry', I have to appeal on my
OTHER account. That would be quite difficult, if I really didn't have
another account! This reminds me of the 'trial' used for accused
witches 300-400 years ago: Weight them down with rocks, tie their
hands, and throw them in a lake. If the somehow float, that PROVES
they're guilty. So they killed them. If they CAN'T float, and they
drown and die, then they're NOT guilty! Yay!!! Can "Dull Blade" show
that this other account he claims I have is ALSO actively used? Even
for READING ONLY? When was it last used? If he can't show that, then
how does he intend to go about his 'appeal' in a realistic, fair
manner? Maybe he doesn't. That's the problem! 4. There exists a new
WP:BLP policy. I allege that a thorough, proper adjudication of this
'indef ban' must employ that policy, to find out if there was ever a
proper ban on the other account that 'Dull Blade' claims I am a 'sock
puppet' of. 5. Maybe a lot of 'politics' got involved? How do we know
that these administrators (in their 'day jobs') are not 'sock puppets'
of the United States Dept of Justice, or the ATF, or the FBI, or the
IRS? Does WP actually check to see if any of their administrators have
a 'conflict of interest', or perhaps were sent to 'do a job' on a
victim, maybe a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh time?
Ordinarily, it might not be a problem (and I'm NOT just talking on
WP!) Ordinarily, it might not be a problem 6. WP seems to have a very
defective appeal policy. One 'troll' administrator can apply a block,
and a 'friendly' (to the 'troll') can 'deny' an appeal to that same
block. OTHER administrators are apparently warned away from giving the
victim of a block an actual appeal. In effect, it only takes the
collusion of TWO (2) administrators to deny the victim 'block-ee' any
justice at all. That leads to a conclusion that WP is run like a
'cabal', not anything like a fair administration. 7. The accusing
person (whether administrator or user) should be required to disclose
exactly HOW he came to such a conclusion. Lack of a good 'cover story'
may indicate that some kind of 'political' (governmental) action was
involved. One of the reasons that in "the real world" cops must say
HOW they know something, to get search warrants, is that without them,
the cop might simply plant the evidence during a search. (Or, he may
know from a colluding informant that something, i.e. drugs, have
ALREADY been stealthily planted by that informant, to 'frame' the
search-victim.) The requirement to disclose sources in a warrant
affidavit makes such malicious behavior harder to accomplish. In the
WP world, I suggest that WP DOESN'T REALLY KNOW WHO THEIR
ADMINISTRATORS ARE, they open themselves up letting 'troll'
administrators do a 'normal' adminstrator job 95%+ of the time, but
very occasionally 'do a job' on a victim. If the person who originally
complained can't explain WHY he knows what he claims to have seen,
even after the fact, it may be reasonably supposed that that
complainant was either a troll him or herself, or he or she was
colluding with a troll, who may be a police department or three-letter
agency. Don't you think the CIA may actually READ Facebook? And USE
it?!? And, you should fire any administrator who simply says, "It's
patently obvious you're guilty!" I am afraid that WP is thoroughly
proving that it has a very 'justice-hostile' policy, one that is
thoroughly abusable by resident trolls/administrators. I hope to be
proven wrong!
Jamesdbell8 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has
already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block
is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated
anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these
instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your
unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at
any time.
User contributions for James dalton bell
For James dalton bell talk block log uploads logs filter log
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This account is currently blocked. (Show block details) The latest
block log entry is provided below for reference:
21:05, 1 April 2010 JzG talk contribs changed block settings for
James dalton bell talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite
(account creation blocked) (OTRS ticket indicates subject needs to
make comments re article, talk page access required to do this without
violating ban.)
View full log
25 January 2010
03:10, 25 January 2010 diff hist +8,700 User talk:James dalton
bell →Consensus
24 January 2010
18:03, 24 January 2010 diff hist +3,338 User talk:James dalton
bell →Consensus
20 January 2010
10:51, 20 January 2010 diff hist +119 User talk:James dalton bell
→Meatpuppets and sockpuppets,
10:48, 20 January 2010 diff hist +9,906 User talk:James dalton
bell →Meatpuppets and sockpuppets,
03:57, 20 January 2010 diff hist +2,331 User talk:James dalton
bell →Meatpuppets and sockpuppets,
03:24, 20 January 2010 diff hist +1,749 User talk:James dalton
bell →Meatpuppets and sockpuppets,
03:00, 20 January 2010 diff hist +304 User talk:James dalton bell
→Meatpuppets and sockpuppets,
02:47, 20 January 2010 diff hist +9,466 User talk:James dalton
bell →Meatpuppets and sockpuppets,
18 January 2010
08:50, 18 January 2010 diff hist +1,571 Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/Incidents →User:James dalton bell
08:36, 18 January 2010 diff hist +206 User talk:James dalton bell
→Suggestion
08:35, 18 January 2010 diff hist −1 User talk:James dalton bell →Apology
08:34, 18 January 2010 diff hist +2,517 User talk:Daedalus969 No
edit summary
08:30, 18 January 2010 diff hist +1,687 User talk:James dalton
bell No edit summary
08:08, 18 January 2010 diff hist +774 User talk:James dalton bell
→Jim Bell
17 January 2010
01:45, 17 January 2010 diff hist +3,147 Talk:Jim Bell →Is Dodo extinct?
16 January 2010
10:23, 16 January 2010 diff hist +1,128 Talk:Jim Bell →Is Dodo
extinct?: new section
10:10, 16 January 2010 diff hist +1,682 User talk:Daedalus969 No
edit summary
09:31, 16 January 2010 diff hist +4,223 Wikipedia:Mediation
Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell No edit summary
13 January 2010
01:09, 13 January 2010 diff hist +1,154 User talk:NeilN No edit summary
11 January 2010
03:15, 11 January 2010 diff hist +1,640 Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/IncidentArchive589 →Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton
bell}}
7 January 2010
11:57, 7 January 2010 diff hist +15,462 User talk:James dalton
bell →Issues relating to article Jim Hill
5 January 2010
09:21, 5 January 2010 diff hist +3,570 User talk:James dalton
bell →Issues relating to article Jim Hill: Further objection to
failure of 'community' to object to 'Dodo's misconduct.
05:16, 5 January 2010 diff hist +1,295 Talk:Hunger strike
→Actual record?: My recent hunger strike
4 January 2010
10:13, 4 January 2010 diff hist +1,106 Talk:Jim Bell →Double
Standard in enforcement of "Rules": Another 'meat puppet'
06:11, 4 January 2010 diff hist +5,788 User talk:James dalton
bell →Regarding your edits to Jim Bell
05:25, 4 January 2010 diff hist +905 User talk:James dalton bell
→Issues relating to article Jim Hill
05:17, 4 January 2010 diff hist +1,083 User talk:James dalton
bell →January 2010
05:08, 4 January 2010 diff hist +490 User talk:James dalton bell
→WP:ANI notice
05:05, 4 January 2010 diff hist +6,000 User talk:James dalton
bell →Re: Deafening silence
05:00, 4 January 2010 diff hist −2 Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/Incidents →Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}}
04:57, 4 January 2010 diff hist +39 Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/Incidents →Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}}
04:49, 4 January 2010 diff hist +5,805 Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/Incidents →Jim Bell and {{User|James dalton bell}}
3 January 2010
11:38, 3 January 2010 diff hist +262 User talk:Gogo Dodo →Your
silence is deafening.: new section
11:36, 3 January 2010 diff hist +1,906 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article
11:26, 3 January 2010 diff hist +1,728 Talk:Jim Bell →Double
Standard in enforcement of "Rules"
2 January 2010
11:45, 2 January 2010 diff hist +1,671 Wikipedia:Requests for
adminship/Gogo Dodo →Gogo Dodo
02:46, 2 January 2010 diff hist +36 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article
02:31, 2 January 2010 diff hist +3,657 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article
01:36, 2 January 2010 diff hist +1,301 Wikipedia:Mediation
Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell No edit summary
1 January 2010
17:01, 1 January 2010 diff hist +204 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article
16:51, 1 January 2010 diff hist +1,806 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article
31 December 2009
22:50, 31 December 2009 diff hist +795 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article: Complained about
'dodo's' biased and presumptuous editing practices on 'jim bell'.
22:36, 31 December 2009 diff hist +1,815 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→Controversial subjects? 'jim bell' article: new section
03:50, 31 December 2009 diff hist +115 m Talk:Jim Bell
→Current Climate Change Research
03:49, 31 December 2009 diff hist +1 m Talk:Jim Bell →Current
Climate Change Research
03:22, 31 December 2009 diff hist +370 Jim Bell →Release,
harassment and conviction
03:07, 31 December 2009 diff hist +807 Jim Bell →Release,
harassment and conviction: The commentary previously posted was
misleading, because it implied that the government had been required
to disclose all surveillance: not true.
01:58, 31 December 2009 diff hist +1,177 Talk:Jim Bell
→Current Climate Change Research: Objected to sabotage by busybodies.
28 December 2009
08:40, 28 December 2009 diff hist +1,698 Talk:Jim Bell →Bell
has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal'
27 December 2009
17:45, 27 December 2009 diff hist +2 Talk:Jim Bell →Bell has
been a victim of a 'persistent vandal'
17:35, 27 December 2009 diff hist −2 Talk:Jim Bell →Bell has
been a victim of a 'persistent vandal'
17:34, 27 December 2009 diff hist +2 Talk:Jim Bell →Bell has
been a victim of a 'persistent vandal'
17:32, 27 December 2009 diff hist +1,948 Talk:Jim Bell →Bell
has been a victim of a 'persistent vandal'
09:05, 27 December 2009 diff hist +931 Talk:Jim Bell No edit summary
08:25, 27 December 2009 diff hist +545 User talk:Gogo Dodo
→jim bell article: new section
00:26, 27 December 2009 diff hist +1 m Jim Bell →Forged Appeal
Case: Bell adds further information concerning forged appeal case.
00:26, 27 December 2009 diff hist +1,715 Jim Bell →Release,
harassment and conviction
26 December 2009
22:55, 26 December 2009 diff hist +1 Jim Bell →Recent Events:
Global Warming Solution
22:46, 26 December 2009 diff hist +964 Jim Bell →Background:
Jim Bell describes his efforts to publicize his solution to the
alleged 'global warming' problem.
20:52, 26 December 2009 diff hist +2,074 N Wikipedia:Mediation
Cabal/Cases/2009-12-26/Jim Bell ←Created page with '{{medcabstatus
|article={{SUBPAGENAME}} |status=New |date=~~~~~ |parties=<!-- List
the main parties involved in the dispute --> |mediators= |comment=<!--
For mediat...'
08:03, 26 December 2009 diff hist +358 Jim Bell →Recent
Events: Global Warming Solution
07:50, 26 December 2009 diff hist +604 Jim Bell No edit summary
07:40, 26 December 2009 diff hist −14 Jim Bell →Headline text
07:39, 26 December 2009 diff hist +19 Jim Bell →Headline text
07:38, 26 December 2009 diff hist +624 Jim Bell
→Investigation, prosecution and imprisonment
07:31, 26 December 2009 diff hist +2 Jim Bell →Background
07:30, 26 December 2009 diff hist +1,354 Jim Bell →Background:
Jim Bell describes his efforts to publicize his solution to the
alleged 'global warming' problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_dalton_bell
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BLP already non-negotiable?
—Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, it isn't, and his suggestion about how to handle
it is nothing but disruptive.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:36, 6 April 2010
(UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
1
0