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/Jamesdbell8&offset=&limit=500&target=Jamesdbell8 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_Ja... 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_dalt... 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=history 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=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]