User talk:Walton22

Welcome!

Hello, Maisaacs, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! — Cirt (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. COI edits are sourced from public records. Maisaacs (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023--regarding ownership of an autobiography on Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Maisaacs, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

• To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
• If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that you are Mark Isaacs, you should also indicate that you've read WP:COI and will follow our best practices. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am Mark Isaacs. I have read WP:COI and will follow best practices. Maisaacs (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, assuming that's true, you're not really in a position to decide that "all COI material is neutral". That's a decision for someone who doesn't have a COI to make. Surely, if you're an adult, you can see that allowing a student to determine whether they should pass their class is a bad idea. If you haven't already, you should follow the instructions above if you want to continue using this username. Otherwise, you could request a new username. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You're quite right, and I apologise for my response which contained circular reasoning as you pointed out. This is new territory for me, but I wish to be respectful of both Wikipedia policy and moderators such as yourself.

I had already immediately followed the instructions above and have emailed info-en@wikimedia.org as I wish to continue with this username.

Thank you for the edits you already did (I think it was you?) to strike the right tone which was too much like a resume.

I removed many external links myself. Maisaacs (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello NinjaRobotPirate,

Thank you for editing the Wikipedia article about my work that I had recently edited.

I realise that it can be perilous to edit a page about oneself, and that it is discouraged by Wikipedia.

Please note that I did not create this page, but I had noticed over a long time that the information it contained was scant and/or incomplete. Some time back I updated the incomplete Discography table that another user had created, and that did not seem contentious. In the last couple of days I did start to add in more information.

Though it is not up to me to say whether I succeeded, and it is already clear that in several cases I have not in your view, I did hope to be factual, non-controversial and non-subjective.

Clearly I didn't do a good enough job in distinguishing in tone between a Wikipedia biographical article and a resume.

I think I knew not to stray into "media release style" though. A staple of any publicity material is flattering quotes from famous artists. Even though it is fact that these things were said, and can be sourced on the public record, please note that I knew well not to add any quotes or testimonials to the Wikipedia post about me.

I will abide by all decisions of the Wikipedia community.

Though I feel like I am in the "naughty corner", which is affecting my sense of equilibrium as I get on with my work, I cannot help but be impressed by the dedication of people like yourself to making Wikipedia as good as it could be. I hope my transgressions are not too egregious in the scheme of things. Maisaacs (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again,

My COI edits to "Mark Isaacs" have been reverted, and everything unsourced has been removed (though it would have been possible to add references for much of it).

The template message "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" is no longer applicable as I am now not a "major contributor" due to so much material I added being removed.

The template message "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification" is no longer applicable as unsourced statements have been removed.

Is it possible you might remove those two out-of-date template messages? Maisaacs (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Walton22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

walton22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

current user name evokes my real name and has caused concern re impersonation as the current block deems me a well-known, living person.Maisaacs (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to follow the instructions above to verify your identity. Once verified, you are welcome to continue to use this username if you wish(though you are also welcome to change it). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. This statement following made me think I only had to verify if I chose to keep the username: "You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org including..." Maisaacs (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Walton22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Previous username that resembled "well-known living person", the whole reason for the block, has now been changed to not do that, so the block should be no longer applicable Maisaacs (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Previous username that resembled "well-known living person", the whole reason for the block, has now been changed to not do that, so the block should be no longer applicable [[User:Maisaacs|Maisaacs]] ([[User talk:Maisaacs#top|talk]]) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Previous username that resembled "well-known living person", the whole reason for the block, has now been changed to not do that, so the block should be no longer applicable [[User:Maisaacs|Maisaacs]] ([[User talk:Maisaacs#top|talk]]) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Previous username that resembled "well-known living person", the whole reason for the block, has now been changed to not do that, so the block should be no longer applicable [[User:Maisaacs|Maisaacs]] ([[User talk:Maisaacs#top|talk]]) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I don't understand what is going on when there is a back and forth between a series of several administrators about my most recent unblock request (one of whom appears to be a bot). This message is appearing and disappearing in fast succession "It appears this account was blocked in error. Please create a new account per WP:CLEANSTART if you wish to continue editing." Whose authority do I respond to here? What instructions to me are legitimate?

That was indeed not a real administrator but a LTA vandal who did that. I'll read over the page as well to see what steps can be take regarding your request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, RickinBaltimore In all the back and forth the nature of my request above has changed. I was not simply asking for a review of the block. The reason for the block was that my username resembled a real, well-known person. The instructions said I could either verify that I am that person (which I am) or take away the reason for the block by changing my username. After starting the verification process which seems to be going nowhere, I decided to invoke the latter option. I also requested the new, available username. All that has been lost now after the multiple "vandalism" and reversion incidents. Maisaacs (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I would be ok with the name change, I do not have the role to make this change for you, but if the name change is made by a steward I would be happy to unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. How do I reach out for a steward, will it happen routinely, or could you do this? Maisaacs (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, RickinBaltimore, apart from the block/username change point, would you perhaps be able to address this following?

The template message at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Isaacs: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" is no longer applicable as I am now not a "major contributor" due to the material I had added being removed by another editor/s. Apart from the fact that this template warning is no longer true, it is embarrassing to me that it remains so prominent longer than it ought to at an article about me, as it by implication points to me personally or someone close to me.

Also the template message at the same article: "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification" is no longer applicable as all information without citation has now been been removed by another editor/s. Some of that removed material I myself had added, and could have provided citations quite easily, but in my earlier ignorance had not done so.

In the short term, is it possible you might remove those two out-of-date template messages? It seems someone needs to do it, and obviously I can't. Maisaacs (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello RickinBaltimore, a name change has been put in place now by 331dot: would you be so kind as to unblock as you suggested, since the reason for the block no longer exists. Walton22 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Rick,

Re this message on Conflict of Interest Noticeboard which I can't respond to directly of course:

"An update: user has been granted a name change, and is now Walton22 (talk · contribs). Their talk page is protected because of unrelated vandalism (!), but Mr. Isaacs is lobbying RickinBaltimore to be unblocked. The only interest appears to be a return to WP:OWNERSHIP of the biography, at least to remove maintenance templates that are still relevant. A mere name change does not exempt the user from COI and all the fun stuff that goes with it. If unblocked, I'm requesting a topic ban for Mark Isaacs. Thanks." 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I have studied WP:OWNERSHIP and would like to counter the assumption that I want to return to it. I have acknowledged my mistakes. I want to seek guidance as to whether templates could be removed, not just unilaterally remove them. I would prefer someone else to do it without COI *if* they felt it was justified. While I certainly do not own the biography page, I do have an interest in my personal public reputation, not only in terms of the biography content, but the COI template itself which Wikipedia readers will deduce likely refers to me personally as editor. I fail to see how that template is still "relevant" when the vast bulk of my previous edits have been reverted and it simply becomes untrue that a COI editor is a "major contributor" to the article. I am hoping I may be given a probationary period rather than being moved straight into a topic ban. COI editing is not forbidden and I must question whether editors should enforce a de facto policy to forbid it with the blunt instrument of a topic ban. I have previously strayed from the code, that's true enough, and have been called out once, but I am dismayed at the assumption that I cannot learn from my mistakes. I would be cautious and ask advice about any minor edits to the biography if this comes up. Again, I request a probationary period to see if I can become a better Wikipedian. A leopard can change its spots. Walton22 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Message for 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) in response to your reply to me via Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

Please don't assume I do not intend to walk away from the article about me for a good while if I am unblocked. Please don't assume my only interest in being a Wikipedian is to edit that article (I have edited other articles in the past, and may do so in the future). Re the templates on the biography page: it seems to me that really nothing much, if anything, currently there is unsourced (I note that Discographies do not require in-line citation, presumably Filmographies neither). Be that as it may, that template was not my focus. The template that says a COI editor is a "major contributor" to the article as it stands is simply untrue now because of all the reversions of my contributions. I commit to not removing that template, but I do not commit to not lobbying other editors to remove that outdated template, which makes a past misdemeanour of mine that has been resolved into a present one that personally reflects on me adversely in a public way. Walton22 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B, you reference the potential for more COI editing provoking "another" block if I am unblocked. My current block is NOT for COI editing as you imply it is. It is for potential impersonation, and was to *protect* me, not punish me. There was never in fact any impersonation, though I appreciate the concern about it, but it is now moot as my username no longer resembles the name of a well-known living person. I have not yet been blocked for COI editing.Walton22 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I am finding the Wikipedian experience pretty surreal. I know I have needed to learn to be careful and respectful of Wikipedia policy when editing a page that is about me (a page I didn't start), and I think I have learned it. I've shown contrition here, I hope is clear. But the "punishment" is swift with little follow up. The issue that is related to the block just will not advance. I'm being blocked not because I did COI edits, but because my user name resembles my real name. A week ago I followed the instructions to verify my identity by sending an initial email, but no reply has come. Since then, I have seen the clear instructions that I can also change my user name and thus not need to verify my identity, so this seemed more expedient. But my first request to change my user name was denied in a way that contradicted the instructions. I've reapplied to change my user name, but that request now ping pongs back and forth many times to being edited and reverted over more that one day now; I get instructions, they're removed, rinse and repeat. I've been told that one party is vandalising, but how do I know that the vandalism is not coming from the other side? I don't know who any of these people are, nor whom to trust! One editor has called for a topic ban on me editing the page about me. I would have hoped I would have been tested with a warning, not "one strike and you're out". But I can't see where that proposed topic ban is going, will it be in place if the "username matches well-known living person" block is lifted? COI editing is not banned. I believe that if I might be permitted to do a little in the future, I can do so within the rules. And see above re the templates at the top of the page that it is about me, one of which is embarrassing to me personally is points back to me, and both are a week out of date. Nobody seems to be prepared to review them even though the issues they pertain have been rectified Maisaacs (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Another edit to my username change request, "it appears this account was blocked in error. Please create a new account per WP:CLEANSTART if you wish to continue editing. Thank you for your contributions --CrazyAdministrator (talk)" this message has appeared several times, it always gets reverted by another administrator who might tell me it was done by a vandal. Whose instructions do I believe around here? Are people messing with me? Starts to feel like gaslighting! Maisaacs (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a vandal who obviously monitors the unblock requests list and attempts to trick blocked users into creating other accounts, in order to get those users into further trouble by socking. You can check to see if a user is an administrator by looking at Special:ListUsers/sysop, which is based on user permissions which the vandal cannot give themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And it just happened again, as you can see. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, how do I know who to believe here? Maisaacs (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to believe 331dot (talk) since instructions have been provided to sort out who is a vandal or not. Maisaacs (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And these vandals post messages that the people who blocked me are "clowns" who did it for fun. This feels like psychological warfare: good cop/bad cop stuff. Maisaacs (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Another clue is checking to see when the account involved was created(such as when your account was created) or when it made its first edit; if these were both within a short period of time, the user is not an administrator. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY I don't wish to say any more about the person than I already have, but it's good to be skeptical of anyone telling you to just create a new account, which is clearly against policy. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that "Deny recognition" article. The least said the better then, but I appreciate the tips. Maisaacs (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• I can rename your account, is it "Walton22" that you still want? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, please. Walton22 is the new name I want. I appreciate it. Maisaacs (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for that. Now I am unblocked would it be acceptable for me to remove the templates at the top of the article about Mark Isaacs which are now out-of-date. The one that talks about COI editing is embarrassing back to me personally but more importantly no longer applies as my previous "major" COI edits have been removed. The one about needing citations is also out of date for that matter as my material without in-line citations has also been removed. No problem with all that, but when the issue is fixed, I assume the templates goes, and may I do that? Walton22 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The username is changed but the block is still there. The block was because my previous user name resembled a living well-known person, and changing the username is put forward as a solution to the block. So shouldn't the block lift now? Or is there another step I or someone else has to take? Walton22 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, hope I have done the right thing. I see the unblock request is still current, so I edited the reason for the appeal to unblock to the change of username being successfully completed. Walton22 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: May I please flag my most recent unblock request of many days ago not yet actioned and still awaiting a decision? The only reason for the block was that my previous username resembled a "well-known living person". The username has now been changed to not do that, so the block should be no longer applicable, and I cannot see any reason why it has not been lifted. The block by its nature was not punitive and was intended to *protect* me from possible impersonation, which was actually not the case, but is now completely moot.

Separately, I am keen to demonstrate I can be a good Wikipedian, and also hope that an immediate topic ban re the article about me will not be imposed, denying me the opportunity to prove this. I fully understand and intend to the best of my abilities not to fall into WP:OWNERSHIP. I would at least like to be able to post on the talk page for the article about me, which I am blocked from doing now of course, and will be blocked from doing if a topic ban comes up when the current ban is lifted, as one user is lobbying for, suggesting falsely that the only reason for my account is the biography page about me (I have edited elsewhere).

But, in the interests of one step at a time: re the current ban, you mentioned here a few days ago that "if the name change is made by a steward I would be happy to unblock.". Would you still be prepared to do this, since the reason for the block has evaporated?