User talk:James Marshall Y

Welcome James Marshall Y! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello, James Marshall Y. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

 Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)] Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

December 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Alex Shih (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand how this works. We're not the "public" for you to stop on the street so that you can write a news piece, blog post, or whatever "advice page for journalists" you're planning. We're here to build an encyclopedia. None of that is an encyclopedia. So long as you're here to do that instead of this then you aren't welcome. You've already wasted a considerable amount of time from some of our most valuable contributors, and you aren't welcome to waste any more. None of us particularly care what it is you end up writing, because while you're busy writing that, we'll be busy writing this, which is the reason we're here, and the reason you're not.  G M G  talk   22:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your aggression, or understand what part of the Wikipedia manual you thought made this rant in any way acceptable. Please do not come here again. James Marshall Y (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wholly endorse GMG's position. To the reviewing admin: This conversation doesn't cast anyone in a good light- mostly me- but it is worth for background. SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 22:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I confess I didn't even understand "concomitantly failing to parse the difference between WP:HERE and WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE". I would have thought it obvious I was pointing out that HERE does not support your recommendation. I'd have been surprised, and amused, if it did appear in WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. James Marshall Y (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that as this process now seems to be stalled, I am becoming increasingly convinced this is a block for sock-puppetry in all but name. Yet nobody is prepared to admit it, since they lack the proof. Or even a convincing argument that it is likely.

Based on comments here and at Wikipediocracy, it seems like timing and subject of interest were considered sufficient proof by Dennis, and a few others who have posted there and here (none disclosing that fact, of course). The more obvious explanation, the truth, eludes them. One even commented in the RfC, perhaps hoping to pass themselves off as a pedestrian passing by. Carrite is his name. John Carter is another, although he at least made his membership known (only by virtue of transferring hearsay from Wikipediocracy to Wikipedia, for Dennis' benefit).

Also, both the blocking Administrator and the one who rejected my first appeal are members of and recent visitors to Wikipediocracy. So they will be aware of the prior discussions between the person I am alleged to be and Dennis Brown. So if they saw something which proved sock-puppetry, they would have said so. They have not.

And yet neither has even clarified for anyone who does not read Wikipediocracy that they likely know more about this situation than has been disclosed, perhaps only even learning of it from there. From the outset, Dennis Brown was keen to direct people to Wikipediocracy. Rather than explain himself here, for Wikipedia users who would rather not go there due to its reputation (speculation regarding sock-puppetry is a regular activity). I said it to him at the time, that is improper. He of course, did not respond.

I have nothing to hide. As has been hinted at many times by Dennis and others, I am quite sure checks have been made, and have presumably found that the truth is exactly as I described it. I have precisely three accounts on Wikipedia. I have no prior knowledge of its workings, not one person has even bothered to ask Dennis to prove his most recent claims that I have. He is simply making it up.

There is no obvious reason to hide my "regular account" as Dennis put it, except to buy into a persecution narrative that has its origins in Dennis' accusations of sock-puppetry originating from Wikipediocracy. The easiest way to avoid this block would have been for me to have a regular account, given the specious reasons for the block.

Yet it is being suggested I would willingly try to do what I am here without the security blanket of a history of Wikipedia improvement, which in the view of people like GMG, would apparently insulate me from their aggression and overt bad faith. The message placed at the top of the page by the person who welcomed me to Wikipedia is, I assume, a sick joke.

Throughout this entire affair, despite fellow Administrator wbm1058 telling him specifically not to, Dennis has continued to direct his unsubstantiated smears and slurs at me. Even going so far as to issue a proclamation not unlike the infamous one of Henry II, stating "I have confidence that others can handle the situation". There being no offered substance to the idea I have actually done something wrong, it appears he got his wish. Signed, sealed and delivered.

I suspect he will even use the fact I am mentioning him now, as further evidence. I ignored him as soon as he made it clear he didn't want to know. That wasn't enough for him. The smears continued, across several pages, his aim clear and intent obvious. He hasn't even tried to hide it, which is what offends me most. And the fact only one person spoke out against it.

I believe he has quite possibly manufactured this block. I believe he may have communicated with Alex and TNT via Wikipediocracy to arrange this block. On his talk page he seems to spreading misinformation, that he has damning evidence of a confidential nature. How convenient. I request that someone directly ask Dennis, Alex and TNT, if messages and information about me have been discretely passed between them, and independently asses any evidence Dennis claims he has.

James Marshall Y (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To wbm1058
I was writing a reply agreeing with your assessment, while disagreeing with some if it and saying I intended to appeal Tony's premature ending, when I was blocked. So sadly now a lot of that is moot, unless sense prevails. I hope you appreciate the irony of why I have been blocked. Nobody else seems to. If I am not unblocked, if people cannot see the absurdity of it all, then I would hope you can honour my memory by proposing your suggested change to HERE. It is not the version I would have argued for, I think it reflects very badly on Wikipedia (although perhaps not too badly given how I am being treated), but I think it is a very good first attempt at a protocol, and something is clearly better than nothing, when nothing is quite clearly only ever going to lead to doubt, confusion, disputes and unnecessary blocks. James Marshall Y (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If someone kindly make sure this message finds its way to wbm1058, I would be grateful. James Marshall Y (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Appeal to Jimmy Wales
@Jimmy Wales. Please review my case. I am confident you will find several aspects of it which will offend you, and cause you to be alarmed at what could occur if first contact between a journalist and a user goes how some people here (an apparent majority) thinks it should. I am quite sure this isn't now you envisioned the relationship between Wikipedia and the media would be, and definitely wouldn't want the truth to be shrouded in a culture of don't ask, don't tell. The world deserves an open and transparent Wikipedia, where expectations of access and treatment for the media are clear, fair, and based on mutual respect. All three are sorely lacking. James Marshall Y (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you inform J. Wales of your previous account? Then, when you log in under that account, we can sort this out. Cheers! SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 10:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Humour? Harassment? Boredom? Maybe I will ask him why people ignore the rules even when they are clear. James Marshall Y (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinion
I could have made a determination on the latest unblock appeal, but prefer at present to let it lie for further opinion to manifest. But my personal take on what as I understand is the central thrust of the dispute - whether journalists editing in their professional capacity should have the right to contact and in effect interview non e-mail-able editors using the Wikipedia framework - is no, they should not. Please correct me if I have misunderstood. It is because of the possibility that I am missing the point that I have not declined/accepted the unblock request. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's what is or should be the protocol for first contact. Should it be allowed, disallowed, or allowed with conditions. Nothing at all about what happens next, if anything. I began an RfC to clarify what people's opinions were, and after 24 hours they were roughly a mix of all three. Then Tony swooped in, claimed there was a unanimous belief it was all a waste or time and ended it, and in short order as I protested, I ended up blocked, because apparently it's some major crime to say I would summarise the results anyway. I am improving Wikipedia, because I am clarifying existing policies/practices (WP:NNH), or at a minimum, clarifying there is no clarity. People seem to be obsessing on the idea this is somehow for the sole benefit of journalists, what with their evil ways of entrapment and all, and thus is of no interest to Wikipedia, indeed, is an welcome distraction. That is wrong in of itself since Wikipedia has lots of guidance for how it interacts with the real world, but also wrong because it is by definition, guidance for users too, saving their time and their blushes if they do the wrong thing (with the right/wrong thing yet to be established). James Marshall Y (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you meant the part about wbm1058, that is a small sentence proposed to be added to NOTNOTHERE, to exempt journalists from being blocked if they initiate first contact, but have informed the WMF and declared as PAID editors. It's what he believes would have most support. James Marshall Y (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)