User talk:JamesRussels

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes about this block

 * This user could be the same person as, but the checkuser data is stale, so it's just a hunch.
 * It seems this user was editing while logged out.
 * The general approach of this editor was to revert way too much.

Anyway, if any admin wants to unblock, then feel free to go ahead without contacting me. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My 'indefinite block'
Writing a message here to Phil who blocked my account in December and Ponyo, the guy who just turned down my unblock appeal. As Ponyo has read an hour ago or so, I've made a long unblock request which explains that I hadn't used my account, this one, for months since around October. Yet I found out suddenly a few days ago it was blocked when I decided to use it again after not feeling like getting into drawn-out discussions for a while over people's virtual kingdoms. This block apparently had to do with me using my IP in December when I came back to wikipedia again, and got into exactly such a discussion. Forgoing I had my actual inactive account and just not bothering to make it active again, I made edits from my IP. I then got suspended on it by another admin, whose virtual kingdom the article was, because I shared "too similar opinions" with the "English Patriot Man" sockmaster and his (sometimes like here alleged) puppet accounts. After that, I don't know how or why, this account got suspended by PhilKnight. Presumely because it's the only account that my IP has logged into, as it's my only account. The other admin could not back herself up in her assertions that I was a sock of the English guy and only blocked my IP for two weeks. I then took another break from wikipedia because of the nonsense I perceive is going on here, including that old block. When I came back I was IP unblocked but still not even aware that my account here was indefinitely blocked, otherwise I would have appealed right away in December. The first time I became aware of it was as said before, a few days ago when I logged into it FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 7 MONTHS, since my first break, and saw a daunting "You're currently blocked" message.

And now the 'Ponyo' character turns down my appeal on the basis that I "am dodging my block with IPs" and "have a disingenous request at best". Well, I'm sure he knows better than I when it concerns my own static Dutch IP which has never been used for any other account and probably stayed the same since I moved into my house in September 2009. He sure knows I have malicious intent when I do a damn appeal for my only account here, on my only damn IP in existence (under risk of both getting blocked under miscarriage of justice like here). If I am that sockmaster I sure have suddenly changed to using the same IP for a period of over 5 years and combating blocks to one of my worthless sock accounts. In case you haven't noticed, that was all supposed to be sarcasm. It makes no sense and zero people have had any valid reason to block me. It only comes from a witchhunt on that guy, and the only real reason I've heard was that I shared him opinions, which I in the areas I got blocked for mostly do indeed. However, it is not a crime to agree with somebody, even if he's a devious sockmaster. And there's certainly zero evidence for me being him in any way, besides it not actually making sense.

Please, use a little common sense or you will just embitter my experience in this place further. What gives, admins?JamesRussels (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You say that you haven't used your account since October and "I found out suddenly a few days ago it was blocked", yet you appealed the block via this account using the UTRS system in December (where you equated Wikipedia to Nazism and accused admins of censorship). As you continued to evade the block your request was declined by an uninvolved admin and you were pointed to WP:STANDARD OFFER. As recently as last week you continued to evade your block by editing while logged out, negating any chance you have of an unblock using our standard processes. You write "I took another break from wikipedia". You're not taking a break, you are blocked from editing it, and every time you do so the clock resets on the standard offer. As I noted in your most recent decline at UTRS, as you continue to evade the block on your account and don't appear to want to accept the terms of the standard offer, your final route of appeal is through WP:BASC. You can present your appeal to them, they will review all of the details surrounding the block, and will make a decision as to whether to grant the appeal. As I've given you the information you need to move forward with an unblock request via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, please don't continue to ping me as I have nothing further to add. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do in fact have things to add however. One of those is that you know fully well what I meant when I said I hadn't used my account since October, I haven't edited on it at all and haven't logged in except for that isolated occasion then (although unlike you I don't have the luxury to exactly check whenever I did so). I was under the impression I appealed through my IP address instead of here, because the block was regarding my IP where I was accused of sockpuppeting (lifted after two weeks). The appeals are located on my usertalk of my IP. I cannot remember in the slightest that I got a block on my account when I logged in, which is why it was only discovered by me a few days ago and filed then. If I have filed one for my very account here before as you seem to claim, I sure as hell have never heard from it again and recall nothing of it. As you also been able to see, I do have taken large breaks from wikipedia; my editing is sporadic after October and limited to a few small changes and such on my IP until beginning December; which is what I always do if I come to this site for general information about something. Afterwards I got accused of being a sockpuppet or whatever by the admin after I made larger edits on my IP, and I got blocked and it was lifted after two weeks like I told before. Then I took another break of over a month until end-January and sporadically edited small discrepancies throughout February and March, a counted 11 times. Same thing throughout April. I was not waiting for any "cooldown of my account" as I had none by the end of December. Regardless, the point remains that back then I also argued the same matters, that there's zero substantiation to accusations of sockpuppeting besides me sharing the guy's opinion, and this entire illogical situation proves it further. You're supposed to look at the case again when you're part of an 'appeal committee' aren't you? Seems like you haven't and instead just labeled it what the other admins did with full prejudice and even gave me a slap in the face more for my honesty, by blocking my IP for no reason again, claiming that I deliberately try to circumvent the block or whatever even though it goes against common sense in the situation for me, the accused super-slimey IP-changing (with a static IP lol) sockmaster to get my working IP blocked. The only logical explanation is that I wanted this misunderstanding and all lies rectified.

And as of now you're failing at your volunteer job by refusing to even examine my case critically. JamesRussels (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I just checked back again, to notice not a single response from you lot. Not only that, but the guy I'm accused of being a sock of got another of his account's blocked on the relevant 2-3 articles I also edited. I will for the purpose of this case assume he is actually a sockpuppet and not a random guy like me who just shares an opinion with the sockmaster. What's damning for your accusations against me though, is that his sockpuppet was convicted on the basis of the IP being in the same (English?) location again, and his account name being done in a similar style again, with his edits also being extremely similar all over the board. On the other hand, none of these are true with me; I have a static IP address for many years, located in a completely different country, and an account that has touched on various subjects, and not created in his style or with his edit style.

So to clarify and accentuate what I said weeks ago, the admin that blocked that guy's sockpuppets' blocked my IP too, because of my agreeing edits, then unblocked after two weeks because of lack of evidence. On the other hand, my account also got blocked by ANOTHER admin at the same time, who said another admin could do what he/she would see fit to do. As I got unblocked on my IP, I had been inactive on my account and unaware of the indefinite block. And now, months later, when I first noticed again that my accoun was blocked, I tried to get it unblocked but ended up getting my IP blocked as well, for absolutely no reason other than "well your account was blocked too". So my honest search for justice was rewarded with even more injustice.

I have also implicated the original admin again, "Diannaa". This seems like a perfect moment to sort this nonsense.JamesRussels (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)