|
The next article that's aimed at FAC is an obscure bad boy abbot - Roger Norreis. This may have more questions from you as it's more specialized... if there are things you don't understand - feel free to query on the talk page. I actually love having non-specialists look these things over so I don't use too much jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm never bored, but I'm always happy to extend myself into a new subject. I always find your articles very educational, as I snoozed in History at school and only paid attention to the 19th and 20th century bits. I will have a look in the next few days. --John (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad John, bad! No biscuit for you! Don't you know the 19th and 20th bits are the boring bits?? (I actually start snoozing about the 16th century unless it's a few subjects - I've always been fascinated with the Reformation and I have an interest in WWII European theatre and Nazi Germany, including the Holocaust. Otherwise, most "modern" history leaves me pretty bored. And I really can't find anything interesting in American history either - probably too much boring school year studies of it). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's the technology; I'm always more interested where there is interesting technology to look at. A more serious issue is the lack of proper sources as you go back in time; I noticed that on the recent articles we worked together on regarding the Middle Ages. It's very frustrating to me not to know basic facts like how many soldiers fought in a battle. However, as a result of my slacker tendencies in earlier life, it is now interesting for me to go back and find out more about these pivotal events that I only half know about. Your health, --John (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually originally intended to either study archaeology or early christian/roman history when I went to university, so to me the Middle Ages seems like a gold mine of sources. I actually enjoy teasing out the little tidbits from the bare sources rather than having the insane amounts of too much information you have with more modern history. But, as I tell my son, if we were all alike, the world would be a very boring place. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I tell my daughter the same thing. It's true. --John (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an existentialist, so what I tell people is that you can be anything you want, but you can't be everything you want. Eric Corbett 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I flirted with existentialism when I read Camus as a young man, but I have been most influenced by the philosophical empiricism and scepticism of David Hume and the warm humanism and rationalism of Robert Burns. I discovered them as a teenager and have never had reason to seriously challenge these beliefs. Good to see you, by the way; any interest in some copyediting? --John (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, copyediting what? I'm not one dimensional either, and Hume's "Truth springs from argument among friends" has been a bit of a guiding light for me. As for Burns, I'd love to do something with Tam o' Shanter, but I'm really not very good with poetry; if only I had Ottava Rima to help me. Eric Corbett 14:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HMS Warrior (1860), I've been working on it for quite a while and it just needs that last push to get it through FAR. There is also one outstanding question about sourcing that I don't think either of us can do anything about. Tam o' Shanter is a fascinating subject and our article hardly does it justice. I blame the arsehole who started it off. --John (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see I've lodged my foot firmly in my mouth, but of course I'll take a look at HMS Warrior. Eric Corbett 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I consider myself lucky not to have got a civility block for saying that! I created that article one week after I registered my account and I think it was my very first new article. It certainly isn't my best work. Thanks for having a look at Warrior. Anything I can do in return? --John (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about to put Malkin Tower up at FAC. It's a rather unusual article, as nobody knows where the house was or what it looked like. All that's known is that in 1612 it was the scene of the most famous witches coven in English history. It's a short little thing, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Eric Corbett 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to take a look. Should have time tonight. --John (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything I need to do on this or is it pretty much FAC ready? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me have one more look, Ealdgyth. --John (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it looks ok now for prose. I am not qualified to say anything about completeness. --John (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. I'm a blocked editor looking for an unblock. Maybe you can help me out. I come to you semi-randomly I think, I'd noticed your edits here and there and you seemed to me, maybe in part from your user ID, someone who'd been editing a long time. Here's my situation. I edited for years, the vast majority on articles as opposed to policy and the administrative forums. I had a pitched debate now and then on some of the articles I worked on, but was never blocked, or warned, or "sanctioned" (in fact I didn't even know what that was for the longest time, I also didn't know what "Arbcom" was).
This is not my original Wikipedia account. What happened was my online privacy concerns were aroused in part when a fellow editor "investigated" me for WP:COI. He Googled me repetitively from clues in my user ID and edit history, posted my real name, etc. He demonstrated my indirect relationship to the subject but not any COI. It was an "aha!" moment without anything to "aha!" about. It was what is now called WP:OUTING. I later conscientiously [1] abandoned my old Wikipedia ID and switched to a new: "Colton Cosmic."
A month or so thereafter I was no warn/no discussion/no diff indefinitely blocked by Timotheus Canens, the May before last[2]. He tracked me there from a drama board and a button click at his Twinkle toolkit or whatever generated a link to WP:SOCK and I was banished forever. I was insulted, felt that when you call someone a sock you question his honesty. I was further ticked off that Timotheus deigned not to even discuss the matter (which of course is called for by WP:ADMIN). I handled my appeal poorly I'll admit, these are skilled blockers and I was a newbie blockee, plus the WP:AN/ANI crowd descended and started pushing me around. There were four or five of them.
I have block-evaded via raw IP edits to try to get my account back. I've identified myself clearly in these edits, i.e. not "socked." I feel I was left no choice but to block evade. Bureaucrat Nihonjoe unblocked me[3] providing a thoughtful explanation. This was then overturned by WP:AN/ANI, though there's no basis in policy for that. WP:APPEAL does not accord supremacy on unblocks to WP:AN/ANI. It was a calculated move by some administrative participant who watchlisted my talkpage: Nihonjoe unblocks, so within 15 minutes whoever it was tattled to WP:ANI, sits back with his popcorn, knowing full well that the lowest common denominator there was going to reblock [4].
What else do you need to know to decide about me? On one thing you may rely: I'm blocked for socking, but never did it. When (if?) you research my case do not take the accusations made at me as fact. Don't let suspicion override the need for evidence. I'm currently told my appeal avenues are WP:UTRS and WP:BASC. WP:UTRS is dangerous to one's personal online security because it fingerprints one's computer and IP and makes that available to potentially any Wikipedia administrator. My blocker Timotheus Canens sits on the three member panel that is WP:BASC and refuses to recuse, as well WP:BASC literally rejects more than 9 of 10 appeals. You don't need to get wrapped up in policy to recognize the fundamental unfairness of this. There has never been any evidence presented that I socked. Silktork demanded I hand over my previous account, so he could checkuser it to see what he could see, I said paraphrase "no, my online privacy and WP:CLEANSTART specifically says I don't have to do that." Arbcom turned me down without explanation, but also said it has "no monopoly on block appeals." So you're within your rights to unblock, but fair warning: I have amassed, wholly against my will, a good number of block-loving admins as my "fans," mainly the WP:AN/ANI crowd. They track me when they can, they watchlist my talkpage and react in minutes, and after all I've been through, it's fair of me to describe them as "haters." No evidence ever but my block persists and they'll enforce it. FAIR WARNING: If you help me, they will come at you, like they did at Nihonjoe.
John, please don't just reject me out of hand. You notice an edit of mine that troubles you, let's talk about it. Unblock me from my talkpage only, I'll answer any questions. I've edited nearly as long as you and I really feel I've received shabby treatment from a lot of arrogant admins who've contributed to Wikipedia a mere fraction of what I have. What will I do if unblocked? I always edited regular articles and I suppose I'd always will, but all this has called my attention to trying to streamline and improve policy, examples of what I'd like to do here[5][6]. This is Colton Cosmic.
- Thank you for the message. I will take a look when I can. I am on holiday so it might be a day or two before I can do it justice. --John (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From an initial look, I do not think I will be able to help you. It looks like you have exhausted the patience of the community (or at least the subset thereof that hangs out at AN/I). I do feel a lot of sympathy for you. Here is what I suggest you do. Write off line a proper unblock rationale. It should focus on the reasons you were blocked, not on your feelings about those who blocked you. You need not reveal your earlier identity online, but it would help if you could let either me or whoever deals with your unblock know it. Trust begets trust sometimes. There was some suspicion that your previous account was under Arbcom sanction and that you had used the new one to avoid this. Anything you can do to allay such suspicion can only help your case. Finally you should talk about what you would like to do if unblocked, and whether/how it will be different from your previous editing interests. Because of the issues around this I would prefer you to continue this by email rather than here. There is no hurry; you aren't normally allowed more than one appeal every six months anyway. I am sorry if this sounds negative, but the Arbcom/ANI aspect of this mean sthat I could not unilaterally unblock you even though that might be my instinct. I'm a very lenient administrator who believes that people can change and that everybody deserves a second chance, but I am also a member of this community and have to abide by its norms just as you do. --John (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First thank you for looking. I know my case is incredibly long and and daunting to approach. I cannot email you because Spartaz at urging of Beeblebrox cut off my Wikipedia email function. You might be able to email me, I do not know.
- You have hit on one thing particularly well, ANI is a subset of the community, but I would add that it has its own recognizable and distinct group behavior that has very little to do with the community. For example its usurping of an individual admin's authority to unblock, Nihonjoe's in my case and Inevercry's (who actually quit his adminship in frustration) more recently in the case of Eric Corbett. This is cabal behavior lacking only the element of secretiveness (they rather go for brazenness and a block party fun-time atmosphere). I pointed you to WP:APPEAL which says how unblocks are supposed to proceed, it's not like that.
- Now you suggest I should do a nice unblock rationale focusing on my shortcomings that led to the block and taking care not to impugn my blocker. What in your view are "the reasons I was blocked?" I am blocked for sockpuppetry, but didn't do it. So personal honesty prevents me from the repent, reflect, and pledge to do better path to Wikiforgiveness on that score. If you are encouraging me to focus on some other shortcoming of mine, can you be more specific?
- Oh, along the way I examined myself as an editor and found that I needed to improve my civility. I said that publicly and loudly for example if you look at my talkpage after Nihonjoe unblocked me. I said it in correspondence to Arbcom. But I'm not blocked for WP:CIV violation, I'm blocked for socking. How can I admit what I didn't do?
- I'm now aware of Silktork's suspicion that I am some mysterious sanctioned user I call "Mr. X." I was bewildered at the time of my appeal that he handled, it was "secret evidence" so secret he didn't tell me about it (and thus of course I could not defend the point). He let slip publicly months later that that was his rationale. Mr. X was sanctioned. I was never sanctioned. Therefore I am not Mr. X. Silktork demanded I hand over my previous account, but handing over my previous account would not prove I am not Mr. X. What is the basis for the suspicion I am Mr. X? I am still in the dark on that.
- You must admit there are fundamental issues of unfairness in these "norms," and that your respect for them perpetuates them. This is Colton Cosmic.
- I see your problem. I wonder what I can best do to help you. I will continue to think about it and read up on your case. I haven't given up yet. --John (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if I may suggest, it is possible to focus on the basics. As an admin reviewing a block, it should not be required to read a miniseries of novelettes. That too should tell you there's something out of whack about my case. A reviewing admin should be able to consider A) block rationale, B) evidence to support block rationale. Oh certainly you may consider C) the whole of my edit history prior to the block, but it is also within your remit to consider D) the propriety of the blocking admin's action, which I found was off-limits to me as blockee.
- I'll risk trying your patience by walking you through it. I'm well aware you'll proceed on your own analysis but here is how I see it. A) The block rationale is "sockpuppetry." Furthering the insult Timotheus' script pointed to "WP:ILLEGIT" subsection. He narrowed it down not farther than that, but we may be imposed on to browse the potpourri of "inappropriate uses" there. Do any apply? I say they do not, if you recall my very first edit I conscientiously said "Colton Cosmic" was a *sequential* account for privacy concerns, emphasizing I'd not return to the previous. What these violations are about is *alternate* accounts. But already we are wandering in an amorphous haze, which did Timotheus Canens refer to? He does not explain. B) So we move to his evidence: there is none. He provides no diff. Is there circumstantial evidence? He provides no articulation of it. C) Well, we may still go to my contribution history, does it reveal a vandal or total jerk? I say it does not. I created an article: Rain City Superhero Movement. I say it is of value. The popular news website Slate has linked it twice for example. I initiated a "3DO" third opinion community process to resolve a talkpage dispute, and politely thanked the 3DO though the result went against my viewpoint. I made some uncivil edits as well, nothing that bad really, but enough for me to recognize as my main flaw when I self-appraised myself as an editor later. I'll not recap these edits, you'll read my critics highlight and shout them as if they were all I ever typed. I will say the context was that I was a several years-long content editor who was exposed for the first time really to the alternate side of the project, the domain of the "administrative participants," or perhaps just the unsavory aspects of it. I realized there are these people whose main activity on the project was to seek blocks of others, I made a couple or three too-sharp criticisms, but the context is I was genuinely horrified by my first exposure to the drama boards and all that goes with them.
- C, cont'd) Belaboring this part of my suggested analysis, the reviewing admin should not fall into the trap of defining me by a few or one uncivil edits. Months and months after blocking me, his hand forced apparently by Nihonjoe's unblock, Timotheus finally, for the first time, pointed to an objectionable edit of mine: the "provocateur" comment. I said "you're a provocateur who racks up warnings and blocks like notches in his belt or her purse strap, and the worst example of Jimbo Wales' fear that it was going to be Usenet. Have you ever created anything of value for the project at all?" If you look for the peak of my incivility, that was probably it, but it too has a context. The person at whom the comment was directed was voting on ANI to block his or her target of years, an editor and acquaintance of mine who a couple days before had plaintively beseeched the person to stop tracking his edits, stop needling him, stop insulting him. He said, providing convincing evidence, that this harassment behavior had gone on for more than two years. I was genuinely horrified. That is the context for my uncivil comment.
- D) Now, finishing, I argue that Timotheus Canens's blocking of me, beyond the fundamental unfairness of no warning/no diff/no evidence, also does not comport with WP:ADMIN's text of "failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)." I was not warned, and he did not explain. To date he has not communicated to me, his attitude all along has been as if stomping on a bug that annoyed him.
- What you can do best to help me John is unblock me, but certainly no offense if you don't and provide reasoning. I've laid out an analysis pattern above. Continue to think about it, please. Proceeding past analysis to the procedural side, you're supposed to communicate with the blocking admin. Now that I've been called it about 200 times, I would love to see Tim's response to "what is your evidence that he is a sock." I would love to participate in my own defense. I'd suppose it's a less flammable matter to unblock me from my talkpage, assuming anything I've said resonates with you. I do assure you that I will try utmost to be WP:CIV there, as well I'd consent to cease block evasion. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.170 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't just unblock you, as I say, because we would need to generate a consensus that doing so would be for the good of the community. What sort of work would you envision doing here, if unblocked? Can you point me to some really good content edits that you made before you were blocked? --John (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey John, forgive me for commenting here, read and remove (or copy-paste). I think someone you commmunicated with regarding me, or someone he or she communicated with has been on a block-Colton tear, adding my very nickname to abuse filters, and more. Here's some of my productive edits like you asked: [7] (I authored that article, it's #1 Google result on the subject and linked twice by Slate). [8] (Initiated 3DO community process and dug up obscure image policy for everyone). [9] (Reader-friendlier substantial WP:CLEANSTART revision). [10] (Proposed adding standards to WP:SHORTCUT to disqualify transparent insults like WP:DIVA and WP:DICK). Etc. etc. I have a lot to offer. I am not blocked by consensus, but if you truly must have it to reinstate me, try Dispute Resolution Noticeboard [11] or Jimbo's talkpage, or anyywhere except WP:AN/ANI. Please type in there somewhere "he claims he never socked." This is C0lt0n C0smic.
- Interesting. Let me think about it some more and examine your diffs. --John (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid User:Scotire has come out of their block and re-commenced the same pattern of advocacy editing ([12] and [13]). Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm genuinely disappointed. I hate blocking well-meaning people. Thanks for letting me know, --John (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's a shame their energies can't be channelled in a more consistently constructive way but they really seem not to understand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to intrude, but you are probably unaware that this user persistently blanks his user_talk without any kind of archiving, and in one case he selectively expunged a critical remark. IMHO the block is a determined, although indirect, consequence of this habit. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanking one's user page is specifically allowed by policy so that did not factor into the block. I will say that the next block is likely to be indefinite. --John (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, there is nothing against policy with it. But IMHO it shows an WP:IDONTHEARTHAT pattern. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laird may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- A '''laird''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|ɛər|d}} is a member of the Scottish [[gentry]], who bears the designation ''Laird of
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Bracketbot, I appreciate your punctiliousness. --John (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good job on RfA with your constant opposes to candidates who make more socializing than actual work. Unfortunately you did not comment my RfA (talk) in any way, but I’ll appreciate any your comment in any other place. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --John (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you help me with my new essay WP:Voting for busy beavers, please? I think more Wikipedians have to take part in elections and RfCs, but they need instructions how to conserve their valuable mental resources. I know, my English is awkward. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will take a look. --John (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked the user for NFC violations however their only edit was [14] with a rather crude summary, and I received a nasty email which was almost all personal attacks and insults. If you wish I can forward it to you. However I really think the user in question needs to have their attitude adjusted or they should probably no longer edit. Werieth (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As the user in question says we cannot legislate for people's attitudes. We can only see whether they are capable of following policy. If they can do that and they want to edit here, that is fine with me. The email issue is more concerning. Could you forward it to me via email? --John (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check your email. Werieth (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. I will take it up by email. --John (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- EE has apologised for the silly email and assured me he will stay away from you in the future. It might be wise for you to stay away from him too. Please let me know if there are any further problems and I will deal with them. Thank you for the communication. --John (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I have addressed your concerns for this FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My objections were on prose, but I see a huge argument at the review page about scope. I'll need to look it over and think some more. --John (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the FAC has now been archived. I think that is for the best. I will try to contribute to the renom. --John (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are a busy man, but if you can find the time I would greatly appreciate a few edits/comments at Ringo Starr, currently at FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will take a look and comment there in 24 hours or less. --John (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you voiced an opinion at FAC1, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --John (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you hear [taɪ̯t] or [tʌɪ̯t] ? 198.105.98.253 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear [taɪ̯t]. Why? --John (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pronounced [taɪ̯t] in Quebec French. 198.105.101.59 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never been, but I'll bear that in mind if I ever go. Thanks for sharing this knowledge. Was there any special reason you brought this to me? --John (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I want to know that you hear [taɪ̯t] or [tʌɪ̯t]. 198.105.100.45 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, it's my first wikipedia edit so I'm happy to get any feedback or advice, I did put in the reference to my change which came from "The Daily Mail" which I will gladly admit is not the most reliable of publications. However in this case, for a change, they did include at least the suggestion of explanations other than an unproven, medically unexplained and scientifically irreproducible phenomena, "The Times of India" failed in this case. I don't see why we wouldn't include suggested alternative explanations especially when talking about questionable science like Spontaneous Human Combustion. Nuclearfirecracker (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the message. We would need a reliable source to include this. As you observe, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions. If you could find a reliable source we could include it. --John (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
