James Marshall Y
 | This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies. |
Welcome James Marshall Y!
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.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
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!
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.December 2017
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
James Marshall Y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have apparently been blocked for being NOTHERE and SOAPBOX. There is simply no grounds for it that I can see. HERE specifically allows people to edit Wikipedia if they are trying to clarify unclear guidelines, and that is my goal. I have not done anything that remotely matches SOAPBOX. The blocking Administrator has given me no other information to go in, and blocked me without warning, so I apologise if I am missing something which they think is obvious and pertinent. To give a clear and complete answer based on things he may have read, I categorically deny being a sock-puppet, and I categorically deny being here to cause disruption. I have been clear in what I am here for, and I think wbm1058 will testify as to my good intentions. James Marshall Y (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Given that so far you're yet to even edit article space, and that this was your first edit, I agree. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- (edit conflict) 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. GMGtalk 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)
- (talk page watcher) 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. SerialNumber54129...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)
James Marshall Y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WP:NNH ("Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines") clears me of the original charge of "not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia". The reviewer of my first appeal failed to address this, instead merely choosing to repeat the charge, as if somehow he thinks I didn't know what it was the first time. He also mentions my first conversation with Dennis (link is wrong BTW), as if this somehow supports his view of what constitutes valid contributions, when in reality, it only proves the validity of NNH as my defence. In case there is something more going on here than mere coincidence, I would appreciate it if the next reviewer of this block is not someone whose name I recognise from Wikipediocracy (not to betray any confidences, but both Alex and TNT are members there - at least I assume they are the same people, if not, they are being impersonated). If this block is because people think I am the same person who was originally questioning Dennis Brown there, I can only repeat my categorical denial. I am independent of that person, and have not once attempted to hide or deny the fact I first learned of this issue by reading Wikipediocracy. James Marshall Y (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
At the end of the day, whilst you may not have appreciated his tone, Green Means Go has pretty much hit the nail on the head. You do not appear to be here to improve Wikipedia; your goal here appears to be to establish some sort of protocol for journalistic interaction with Wikipedia editors - which has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. Ultimately, your goals and the goals of the Wikipedia community are not in alignment: we want to build an encyclopedia, you want to do... something that isn't that. The Wikipedia Foundation has a press office, which can be contacted by journalists wishing to get the Foundation's opinion on some topic or other; individual Wikipedians represent no-one but themselves, and if they have not made an email address available, chances are they do not want to be contacted by the media in the first place. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC) I guess I should add, since it appears to be an issue for you, that I neither read nor contribute to Wikipediocracy - not that this would have any bearing on the legitimacy of a block review. Yunshui 雲水 08:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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.
break
edit James Marshall Y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is a misrepresentation or miscommunication happening here. Contact between users and journalists is already regulated, albeit poorly, so the claim it is of no interest to Wikipedia, or people are left to their own choices, is flat wrong. My aim is to improve it, so it is consistent and in line with expectations, both within and without. If none of this had anything to do with Wikipedia, people wouldn't be striving so hard to claim their preferred approach is already the protocol, while conveniently ignoring other people have very different ideas. There is disagreement even among Administrators. If it's not beneficial (or harmful) to Wikipedia, explain that. I don't imagine fighting between Administrators over who can and cannot be blocked and for what, is ever considered a good sign here, let alone dismissed as an activity outside the scope of improving Wikipedia. To demonstrate this activity is one hundred percent legitimate Wikipedia improvement, go look at the suggested addition to HERE that Administrator wbm1058 and I worked up during this process, in his talk page. This is ready to go as a proposal as an RfC. Anyone who says proposing it is not a relevant activity, really needs to explain why, because all it does is formalise on that page what some people, specifically Administrators, already do, and crucially, are pretty damn certain it should be what everyone else does, for the good of Wikipedia. If anyone is still confused, and that is surely impossible, just ask, don't guess. James Marshall Y (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You aren't addressing the reasons for the block. It is pretty obvious to anyone that you are socking, either to evade scrutiny or because your main account is blocked. Attempting to change the subject to how journalists should be treated (including an RFC where your ideas were strongly shot down) doesn't detract from your behavior here, and is irrelevant to your block. You need to log into your primary account and appeal from there. Because you continue to appeal in this way, I am removing talk page access, and you can appeal via WP:UTRS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
To wbm1058
editI 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
edit@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)
- (talk page watcher) 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! SerialNumber54129...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
editI 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)
James Marshall Y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20001 was submitted on Dec 08, 2017 18:50:02. This review is now closed.