User talk:Nfitz: Difference between revisions

Archive 1 Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello Nfitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

---

Blocking administrator: Berean Hunter (talk)

Reviewing administrator: As you are technically community banned, this will have to go through AN. Sorry. I'll copy your request to WP:AN. (This is procedural, any admin can action this pursuant to the consensus there.) Swarm ♠ 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Request reason:

Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (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=Can someone please lift my block? Some time has passed since the problems I ran into working with the community last summer and fall. I've come to accept that my behaviour was outside of the norms acceptable here, and in some other aspects of my life as well. While there are a lot of reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I've been difficult in recent months. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'll leave it to a more independent admin to deal with this but earlier threads made it clear you needed to follow the standard offer. This normally needs a 6 month wait and it's only been 5 months since your block. This plus the fact that on a number of occasions since your block have used your talk page for means other than unblock requests, requiring more admin time to deal with, to me suggests you need to be a lot more specific in your unblock request about what sort of behaviour you will no longer engage in. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Me too. I think it doesn't necessary have to be six months, since standard offer is technically only an essay. The point is to have comprehensive rationale (but as little words as possible) supported by diffs from other projects. Usually I hate to use "time served" under any circumstances, but I think it really applies here. Alex Shih (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• To be honest, I didn't really look at the calendar or the guidelines/policies much. Focusing on them too much is where I've gone wrong before, so I've tried to be a bit more holistic about it since; that being said, looking now at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK I see no reference to 6 months, or time periods in general.
• Various time-frames were bandied about in the subsequent AN endorsement here, but no particular time-frame appeared to have clear consensus nor was clearly endorsed as far as I understood. As someone in the AN discussion pointed out, indefinite could be next week, or next year, or longer. The block occurred on October 14, 2017 ... about 24 weeks ago; I guess that's not six 30/31 day months ... do the extra 14 days make much difference User:Fenix down? Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of talk page use other than my contribution to the AN discussion, and the log of articles I was intending to edit.
• Not really too sure what to say about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, last August I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me, and on August 16 I made a fundamental AFG failure about the motives of another editor here, mistaking ignorance for prejudice. That lead to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize, say I see my mistakes, note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated; my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea; between that, and the various medications being used to treat it, my judgement was impaired. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to my wife's comments about snoring, several years ago. I'm a bit young really, for this to be a problem, and was relatively fit, not overweight, and in good health - which checks almost none of the warning sign boxes for this. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, the onset may have coincided with my first child a decade ago - so that the normal sleep deprivation of that life change, masked other things. Now that I'm infinitely more functional, I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track.
• I've done some work on other projects in my absence; not as much as I'd hoped. Though less in the last couple of months - I was hit hard by H2N3 flu, which I'm still suffering the after-effects of after 2 months, and work has been crazy. In particular, there's been various contributions in French, along with the odd edit here and there of various languages, wikidata, and at the Commons. In addition to various minor edits that need attention current projects include trying to rehabilitate the Nauru national soccer team article (currently in my sandbox - and it may not be rehabilitatable, but does require some tough research - the newspapers.com account I got access to doesn't have papers from the region I need, and the other one I requested has been approved, but I don't have access yet). Trying to clean up the near 10-year old mess from the Mozaikka ‎sock, that I may be the only person who cares about. Try and confirm the initial of James Timberlake, create Samuel Benjamin Marlowe, check 2017 Vietnamese Second Division, and add 3 referendums to Toronto municipal election, 1946 including approval of building the Queen subway line. I hope to update Charles Godfrey (physician) a bit (who is one of my doctors actually - treating an unrelated pinched nerve ... yes, he's really 100 years old and is really still practising!) and other small routine edits (here's an ugly diff of some I've been tracking). Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, neutral uninvolved admin here. Can you explain the behavior that led to your block - and your plan to avoid that behavior going forth? SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:SQL, I just saw your question as I was finishing above. I think my third bullet explains this mostly. And the 4th bullet tells what I plan to work on. If you have any further questions, please ask - though 2 AM here ... well past my bedtime! I could write a whole many-page essay - but I don't think anyone wants to read that! :) Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you really need to address directly the issues that were raised on your talk page historically I don't think you're really doing this at the moment, your comments at the moment to me amount to little more than can't we just all move on, water under the bridge, etc. when there was a sustained period of editing that created significant issues within the community. It would be better for you to review your talk page, note specifically the reasons you were blocked and directly address each one, making a clear link between the reason and what you have earned / plan to do. At the moment I'm not seeing and have never really seen a clear statement from you that you understand the reasons for your block. Whatever the outcome of this i would strongly oppose any lifting of the indef topic ban agreed here. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been advised in the past, when I've gone into detail about the issues that it's all TLDR, and to be brief. I believe I've been quite clear and candid about the root cause, made a clear statement that I understand the reasons for my block, and genuinely apologized for the inconvenience. I don't think visiting ancient history is going to create a readable document. I haven't asked for the topic ban to be removed at this time. If you've got any specific questions, please ask. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may, I think what Fenix down is asking is to address the editing behaviour directly. No one really cares about the RL conditions that led to impaired judgement (sadly, but I think it's true). Right now I think the only sentence that addresses the editing behaviour is too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines; instead of asking for clarifications around, I think what you did was go into excessive irrelevant details that eventually frustrated everyone around you here. So if I was you, I think I would 1) When you find "lack of clear application of policy/guidelines" that are doubtful to you, seek clarification from one of the friendly page watchers first instead of taking the (sometimes ill-informed) initiatives yourself (such as the logged out editing to prove a point about range block) 2) Whenever your point has been refuted, immediately dis-engage. It would be helpful to voluntarily limit yourself to one comment only in these situations. You can always seek third opinion. Once these points are addressed, I think it will be easier to move forward. Alex Shih (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)