- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

You opened your crack to anarchism.
by professor rat 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

" . . . . 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

Cryptocurrency: Govts Attack Due To Comprehension Problem
by grarpamp 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

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

Davos Tristate City: You Are Their Livestock, a Carbon to be Eliminated
by grarpamp 11 Jul '22

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

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

HBO attack anarchism
by professor rat 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

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

Las Vegas Raiders Hire the First Black Female President in NFL History
by Gunnar Larson 11 Jul '22

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

Censorship: Wikipedia CensorBanned Jim Bell Too
by grarpamp 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

> 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= |mediators= |comment=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

Who controls the present controls the past
by professor rat 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

And who controls our past controls our future " . . . Cypherpunks, like John Gilmore, Julian Assange, Eric Hughes, Hal Finney, and Timothy C. May, held libertarian-esque ideas about privacy, limited government, and freedom of speech, and some eventually became involved in the growth of Bitcoin itself. . . .' https://fee.org/articles/the-ideological-origins-of-bitcoin/ Why its called ' Cyber-liberty ' donchaknow

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Sri Lanka Collapsed... People Desperate For Usable Currency, Run On Chinese Banks
by grarpamp 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

Which cryptos will they adopt? "Sri Lanka has collapsed. The results of socialism + MMT + eco fanaticism + ESG approved policies. -- dossier.substack.com" Are you prepared? Chinese Banks experience massive bank run, violent protests ensue. Chinese Bank Run Turns Violent After Angry Crowd Storms Bank of China Branch Over Frozen Deposits While the world of high, and not so high finance, is obsessing over the volatility of cryptos and recent painful losses for overlevered players who - much to the amazement of plain vanilla equity investors - were not bailed out by a magnanimous Fed (which however only rescues stock markets, not cryptos), things in China with its $54 trillion financial system, or more than double the size of assets across US commercial banks, are once again getting heated. As Reuters reports, a large crowd of angry Chinese bank depositors faced off with police Sunday in the city of Zhengzhou, and many were injured as they were taken away, amid the freezing of their deposits by some rural-based banks. The banks froze millions of dollars worth of deposits in April, telling customers they were upgrading their internal systems. The banks have not issued any communication on the matter since, depositors said. According to Chinese media the frozen deposits across the various local banks could be worth up to $1.5 billion and authorities are investigating the three banks. On Sunday, about 1,000 people gathered outside the Zhengzhou branch of China's central bank on Sunday to demand action; they held up banners and chanted slogans on the wide steps of the entrance to a branch of China’s central bank in the city of Zhengzhou in Henan province, about 620 kilometers (380 miles) southwest of Beijing. People hold banners and chant slogans during a protest at the entrance to a branch of China’s central bank in Zhengzhou in central China’s Henan Province. A large crowd of angry Chinese bank depositors faced off with police Sunday, some reportedly injured as they were roughly taken away The protesters are among thousands of customers who opened accounts at six rural banks in Henan and neighboring Anhui province that offered higher interest rates. They later found they could not withdraw their funds after media reports that the head of the banks’ parent company was on the run and wanted for financial crimes. Videos and photographs on social media showed depositors waving banners and throwing plastic bottles at approaching security guards who then roughly dragged some of the protesters away. Citizens storm the Bank of China in Zhengzhou over bank account freezes. Banks froze millions of dollars in deposits last April, simply explaining to savers that they need to upgrade their internal systems. Since then, customers have not received any kind of communication. pic.twitter.com/XS9zuXRuEK — RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) July 10, 2022 Besides uniformed police, there were the teams of men in plain T-shirts. A banking regulator and a local government official arrived, but their attempts to talk to the crowd were shouted down. “We came today and wanted to get our savings back, because I have elderly people and children at home, and the inability to withdraw savings has seriously affected my life,” said a woman from Shandong province, who only gave her last name, Zhang, out of fear of retribution. Zhang and another protester, a man from Beijing surnamed Yang, told the AP the protesters had heard from the officials before and don’t believe what they say. The police then announced to the protesters from a vehicle with a megaphone that they were an illegal assembly and would be detained and fined if they didn’t leave. Around 10 a.m., the men in T-shirts rushed the crowd and dispersed them. Zhang said she saw women dragged down the stairs of the bank entrance. Zhang herself was hit, and said she asked the officer, “Why did you hit me?” According to her, he responded: “What’s wrong with beating you?” Yang said he was hit by two security officers including one who had fallen off the stairs and mistakenly thought in the chaos that Yang had hit or pushed him. 中国女性储户勇敢冲塔，对面虽然不是坦克，但是比坦克还要厉害 pic.twitter.com/dqR4OUm9Wr — 河南村镇银行维权 (@Qwaszx179730654) July 10, 2022 “Although repeated protests and demonstrations don’t necessarily have a big impact, I think it is still helpful if more people get to know about us, and understand or sympathize with us,” Yang said. “Each time you do it, you might make a difference. Although you will get hit, they can’t really do anything to you, right?” "I feel so aggrieved I can't even explain it to you," Zhang, 40, told Reuters. Zhang said he had been hoping to retrieve about 170,000 yuan ($25,000) deposited with one of the banks, the Zhecheng Huanghuai Community Bank. Zhang said he had suffered injuries to his foot and thumb, and was taken away by four unidentified security personnel at around midday. Security personnel outnumbered protesters by around three to one, he said. "They did not say they would beat us if we refused to leave. They just used the loudspeaker to say that we were breaking the law by petitioning. That's ridiculous. It's the banks that are breaking the law." This is huge. Don't know how this will end. Henan bank is NOT the only one that is having problems with liquidity. All four Chinese banks are having the same issue. Some depositors found they can save and can NOT withdraw money with their bank cards. #bankrun #China #CCP pic.twitter.com/5WYYgpmIWP — Jennifer Zeng 曾錚 (@jenniferatntd) July 10, 2022 The banks, which include the Yuzhou Xinminsheng Village Bank and the Shangcai Huimin Country Bank, are under investigation by the authorities for illegal fundraising, the state-run Global Times reported. The protesters were eventually bused to various sites where Zhang said they were forced to sign a letter guaranteeing they would not gather anymore. Late Sunday, Henan banking regulators posted a short notice on their website saying that authorities are speeding up the verification of customer funds in four of the banks and the formulation of a plan to resolve the situation to protect the rights and interests of the public. More than 1,000 depositors from across the country had planned to gather in Zhengzhou last month to try to withdraw their money but they were unable to when their COVID-19 health codes, which determine if one can travel, switched to a "no travel" status.

1 0

Shut Down list Trolls
by professor rat 11 Jul '22

11 Jul '22

ShutDownDC, a liberal advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said on Friday that it will offer up to $250 to service industry workers in the district for every sighting of the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Similar to my offer to pay a similar amount to Dox, DdoS and Destroy list pests, Gramps, Skunk and Semich. Plenty of time before CYPHERPUNK 2027 to take out the trash!

1 0