User talk:Jrichardstevens

Blocked

I have blocked this as a disruptive single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|WHAT? I have been a wikipedia member for YEARS. I don't post much (mainly just editing and formatting). It is true I commented recently on the ORT delete page, but I left my opinion as an academic. And I thought my comments were even-handed and well within the scope of the invitation for participation at the top of the page. I haven't even TOUCHED the actual page. Besides, CHECK MY HISTORY. I've editing more than a single topic in my past, so your judgment in defining me as a single purpose account is technically incorrect as well as actually incorrect. I have only one account here. My username is easily googled to resolve my identity.}}

I know this is frustrating for you. Please be patient -- I am discussing with the blocking admin. - Revolving Bugbear 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can offer a really good reason for this block, it looks inappropriate and I'm inclined to remove it. --B (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See similar request at User talk:Nomoskedasticity. This one looks less like an SPA. I agree with User:B. Cool Hand Luke 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as nobody has offered a reason for this block and that this user is not an SPA, I have removed the block. --B (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Inappropriate block --B (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: B (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention to whose looking into this. I am trying to be patient (perceived injustice is difficult to swallow, even in the short-term). I do understand the rules here, but I have to say that the invitation for non-regulars posted at the top of the page that led to my block does seem to invite exactly the the type of comments I left. I weighed in as a person being talked about in the third person (one of the justifications for deletion was that academics would get the wrong idea about the conference. I weighed in and spoke as one of those academics who had found the site).

I do not see how an editor can block users who leave comments like mine when there is a clear invitation for such comments at the top of the page.

Right now, I am rather disgusted with Wikipedia. I know that there are checks and balances underway, but it seems I lost access as one person who expressed a particular view, and so was judged by the "company" I keep in opinions. Guilt by association is alive and well, it would seem.

The thought that my first (and only) interaction with "Guy" could be his block of me (with me having no recourse to even speak to him directly about his decision) doesn't speak well for how the Wikipedia community has developed over the years.

Again, thanks to the editors arguing on my behalf. Sorry if I seem touchy.Jrichardstevens (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified block

In my opinion, this block was unjustified. I have raised this matter at the following thread on the administrators' noticeboard. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. I understand you have strong opinions on your block. Please feel free to contribute there to give some insight into how this was handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jrichardstevens, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanz ^talk 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handling Guy

Hi there. I see you've posted to Guy's talk page, and managed to find your way to his subpage from his current talk page (which as he states is a comfort to him at the moment). He will probably be taking quite a bit of flack for this, and as I am largely responsible for the ANI thread on the matter (which I pointed you to), I'd like to try and limit the fallout to some extent. I agree that you have a right to ask your questions, but could I ask that you don't get too angry with him personally? Wikipedia does have problems with how it handles this sort of thing, but they mostly work out in the end. Thanks, and feel free to add your views at the ANI thread - I've quoted you there. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. I went to his talk page because at that time I still had received zero contact with him (other than the block). And when I did make contact on his talk page, he once again referred to me as a single purpose account and made a snide remark. I only wanted to know why I was continuing to draw his ire. He apologizes below, the first positive contact. I am still rather irritated and would eventually like a more comprehensive explanation from him about his decisions, but this is sufficient progress for now and I can just drop it and hope we don't run afoul of each other on Wikipedia for a while. Thanks for your concern and your advice. Jrichardstevens (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Please accept my apologies for sweeping you up in the Oxford Round Table single-purpose account / sockpuppet farm. As you will see from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones, there were a lot of problematic individuals involved, but that is not an excuse. Again, apologies. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology. I suppose we'll deal with your follow up responses and your (perceived unjust from where I'm sitting) perception of me another time. I am assuming at this point that the reference you make to off-site evidence of my behavior/identity was just a reactionary tactic and that no such evidence actually exists. If we have a further problems, or if such "evidence" exists, I would appreciate you bringing it to me and explaining exactly what your problem is with me or my actions before taking punitive action against me. Otherwise, I consider this matter closed at this time. Jrichardstevens (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading too much into it. There are over a dozen accounts involved, none has more than a handful of edits to the encyclopaedia, and almost all have no edits to anything other than Oxford Round Table. The article was created for the primary purpose of disparaging its subject, and virtually all edits to it have served either to disparage or to promote it. When the off-wiki dispute looked to be breaking out on the deletion debate as well, I'm afraid I simply thought "to hell with the lot of them". And to be honest, I still think that about all but a couple, with you obviously among the honourable exceptions. Looking back, I do not see why I missed the fact that yours was probably the only helpful input to that deletion debate by any of the editors with very limited history. As I say, I apologise for this, it was an error in the heat of the moment, and I do appreciate that your input was indeed constructive. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theories on sporadically editing accounts

I'd like to thank you for this comment. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that no reliable editor or readership surveys have been done, so the administrators are often groping in the dark when talking about editing habits. As you have found out, accounts that look like single-purpose accounts or 'sleeper socks' are sometimes misidentified as such, when they may just be inexperienced editors. Many, like you, are just accounts that are used for reading, with most editing done in the form of minor copyediting from IP addresses. I'm going to start a thread on this, and maybe turn it into an essay somewhere. Would you be able to contribute to that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would. In fact, I'm getting my own ideas for an interesting journal article on online community maintenance. How do previous editors interface with new entrants to a virtual space? Do we primarily organize around history and reputation (like we do in offline space) or are there other ways to judge intention? Anyway, all that's in the back of my head. Thank you for you own detailed comments. I'd be happy to explore the nuts and blots with you and other interested parties in this community. Jrichardstevens (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I've started something here. I'm also going to put your "beyond the call of duty" comment on my user page! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jerry Bonkowski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jerry Bonkowski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bonkowski until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]