Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 10 June 2013

Unblock

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

Request reason:

I was just about to revert that and apologize, but I guess a quick week block is a better solution in some eyes. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, although I acknowledge your situation as stated, Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Whether you live in a car, a house, a castle, a mud hut, or a cardboard box in the middle of the road, we expect the same level of civility at all times. To say this block is inappropriate would be so NON-WP:GAB-compliant that it's not worth making further comment - the block WAS needed and wholly appropriate. If you don't understand that, then I'm sorry ... you cannot and will not be unblocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (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.

What will it take to get you to recognize that you shouldn't do it in the first place? Making an apology is better than not, but it still isn't nearly as good as simply not doing it in the first place.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I was extremely upset at what I saw as great disrespect for what I have done at the requests for closure venue: calling my good faith editing as "wholly inappropriate". My last block was over 3 years ago. I have just sent an email to User:Spinningspark. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt I'll ever edit again. I'd still like the block reverse though as I find it wholly inappropriate. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have no idea what disrespect actually is. Advising you that an action is "wholly inappropriate" is good faith advice. Saying to me in reply "Calling you a dickhead is. You're a dickhead. Go fuck yourself. I don't give a fuck what you advise" is so off the scale of disrespect that I cannot believe that you are attempting to defend it in even the most tangential way. If I were an uninvolved admin reviewing an unblock request like that I would certainly refuse it. I might even be tempted to extend it on the grounds that you clearly have not understood what you did wrong and would be likely to repeat it. Regards, SpinningSpark 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely possible I don't understand what disrespect is. However, in my mind your message was truly disrespectful to me. My response was, in my eye, equally disrespectful to you. I recognize that my response was disrespectful and apologized. I was going to remove my reply, but was blocked before able to do so. Did you get my email? Do you recognize how your reply could be viewed as disrespectful? I honestly don't see how my unblock request could be grounds for extend the block. I would appreciate any logical reasoning for such an action. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters but here's some background circumstances: I'm a 31 year old unemployed, houseless individual living in a car. I have been living like this for awhile now. I just spent my last $20 on gas because I need to move my car everyday because sleeping in your car is illegal here and I constantly have to try and find places to sleep for a few hours at night. Sleeping outside is illegal too. This effectively makes not owning/renting a house/apartment illegal. Sleeping actually takes a lot of work, and some nights there is little to no sleep. The last few nights I got about 1-2 hours each night. Sleeping/napping during the day is likewise illegal. There has been recent enforcement of these (imo, unconstitutional) anti-houselessness laws which has made me growingly irritable. I recognize that none of this is your problem, and that a week break may do me good. However, sitting in a coffee shop and editing Misplaced Pages is one time I felt normal. As far as houseless people go, I do fairly well. Most days I have free time, after finding enough food for the day, that I can engage in recreational activities. I had considered editing Misplaced Pages to be one of those activities.

Anyway, this is why I said that I may not know what you consider disrespect to be. Every day, I feel the disrespect of people as they see me digging through garbage can because I cannot afford food. I hear them talk about "that homeless guy" like I don't exist. I see them walk the other way when they see me.

I had thought that 5 years editing this project as a useful member would allow someone to at least get a message on their talk page asking if everything was all right (it's not) before being blocked. But apparently not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't take this too seriously, Nathan Johnson. It's only a short week. Use this time to refresh your mind. Do it for me and for all the contributors who appreciate your great work and who will be happy to see you back after one week holidays. Cheers, mate! Akseli9 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If what Nathan says is true (and there's no reason not to believe it), my heart goes out to him, and I hope someone uninvolved will consider his unblock request again. I can't do it because I was the person who posted the request for closure on the article in question. I was considering nominating Nathan for adminship because his work on closing discussions has been so helpful. The only reason I hesitated is that I noticed he was a bit too firm about defending his closures, when sometimes it's best just to let things go. Now I see completely why he may feel defensive. Those of us sitting in comfortable places really can't judge what it feels like not to be doing that.

If Nathan has apologized and will try not to repeat anything like this again, I really hope that's enough for someone to unblock. SlimVirgin 21:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Bwilkins: I just sent you an email. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm intentionally pinging User:Spinningspark and the blocking admin User:Kww. Nathan: much of what you e-mailed me should be a part of your unblock request. Any unblock will not be due to "circumstances", but more the GAB-compliant aspects of not repeating such behaviour EVER again. However, I would like to see the offended party and the blocking admin comment. Nathan, you'd be wise to better compose an unblock request in the meantime that is sincere and GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you. I do not wish to be treated differently than any other user. This was the content of my email to Bwilkins:

  Thank you for reviewing my unblock request. I do not dispute that the block was appropriate; within the letter and spirit of the law. My comment that the block was inappropriate was a reactionary response. So was my comment that I would probably not edit any more. In fact, I would agree that my behavior over the last couple weeks/months has deteriorated dramatically. I would like to think that the time between my last block 3 years ago and approximately 4-6 weeks ago was appropriate. From that time, I have let off-wiki problems influence my on-wiki actions. I know that I shouldn't, but it's extremely difficult sometimes. I recognize that Misplaced Pages is not therapy, but I think I have shown that I can work within the standards of the community: I failed dramatically recently.

  My reason for writing you is to ask if there is anything I can do so that the block could be lifted. Here is what I propose: I am willing to be restricted to editing the mainspace on articles that are unlikely to cause such inappropriate outbursts (generally rock climbing and climate change related; I've essentially self-banned myself from CC since the time of ARBCC). I will restrict myself to copy-editing and adding appropriately sourced material. I will not revert. I will not remove any material. I will not comment on any editor whatsoever. If I fail to abide by these restrictions, I can be re-blocked for a duration of your choosing, but obviously more than a week.

  I obviously cannot promise that will never repeat my behavior ever again. What I can promise is that, to the best of my ability, I will attempt not to repeat this sort of behavior and accept any consequences that the community deem appropriate; whether that be a week block (in this case) or permanent banning from the project. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm uneasy because of the "reactionary response" to a block which was over a reactionary response in the first place. I'm not going to lift the block myself, but if another admin chooses to and and User:Spinningspark doesn't object, I won't object.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• (replying to BWilkins after edit conflict) Thanks for pinging me. I have every sympathy for Nathan's described circumstances, but this is not really relevant to the block or activity on Misplaced Pages. I am not going to give a view on whether or not Nathan should be unblocked, I will leave that to uninvolved admins, but if Nathan is so dependent on Misplaced Pages editing for their state of mind it behoves them to be a little more circumspect in dealing with others. What I am going to comment on here is that I am not accepting Nathan's apology. It is far from unreserved and they have taken the opportunity of again accusing me of disrespect. My disrespect apparently consists of this reply to a request by Nathan for advice which. for all I knew. still required a response. There was no indication on the page from Nathan or anyone else that the issue was now closed. I do not accept that my reply was disrespectful and I certainly do not accept at all that it is "equally disrepectful" to Nathan's foul-mouthed (and even worse in my view, argument free) response. SpinningSpark 22:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you do not accept my apology. I can assure you that I felt disrespected by what you said, whether you intended it that way or not.
• I am not dependent upon Misplaced Pages in any way. I like contributing, that's all. I know it would probably be better for my situation if I didn't. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I expected better from User:Spinningspark, however, I'm not willing to unblock without a clear "ok" from them, as per Kww. Accordingly, Nathan will either need to put together a properly WP:GAB-compliant request for another admin to review, wait out the block, or SS will have to be amply clear as to their "ok-ing" an unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When you say that you "expected better" from me, I am not really sure what it is that you expect. Apparently you want me to approve unblocking. This I am not going to do, Nathan's response has been far from satisfactory in my opinion. But as I said above, I am not going to oppose an unblock either, if you guys think you made a mistake then go ahead and unblock. But Kww has already said he is not going to unblock and I am baffled why BWilkins declined the unblock request if he thinks the block was unjustified. SpinningSpark 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said the block was unjustified, so don't put words in my mouth - I said his promises since my decline of his first unblock appear sincere, as does his apology. I expect better because humans are like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice going Bwilkins! I'm not one generally to kick someone who's already down (in fact i'm on good terms with my wiki-nemesis), but see the most recent discussion on my talk page with Nathan for my high-fiving you here. He doesn't know what civility is and needs to learn it. We're all here working together, not fighting each other to get an edit in. Thanks ツ Jenova20 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This still applies. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I realise you don't like me. I assume this still applies to me also Nathan. I'm only here because you've been blocked for much the same attitude I experienced from you when we met. And as much as I didn't expect this so soon - it isn't exactly a surprise. Consider this my last post on your talk page unless you specifically message me. In any case you should take the advice the others here are giving you. If stressed, take a break. If annoyed, take a break. Bye ツ Jenova20 16:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't dislike you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Sorry for misreading you on that. Yes, you are right, you did decline the unblock prior to the second part of Nathan's first response to me. I had not looked carefully at the datestamps. I accept that Nathan's promises and apology are sincere, but I consider them inadequate for me to positively approve unblocking. But let me repeat again, I played no part whatsoever in getting Nathan blocked and I explicitly recused myself above from taking part in the unblock process. If you think the right thing is not happening here then please do something about it and stop shovelling the blame on to me. SpinningSpark 08:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I came across this discussion from seeing the notes that SlimVirgin left on some administrators' talkpages that are on my watchlist. Obviously, the comment for which Nathan Johnson was blocked was totally inappropriate. Nonetheless, given his statement (which I accept per AGF) that he was going to revert the comment when he was blocked, his commitment that he will seek not to repeat this behavior, and also in light of the extraordinary and very sad circumstances he describes, my view is to reduce the block to "time served." I suggest to Nathan Johnson that when he is able to edit again, he avoid any types of discussions that are stressful to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)