User talk:Jonathanbishop

Welcome to wikipedia --88.107.63.28 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have made all my concerns known via the official channels, namely the relevant notice boards, and all users have done is work the rules to my detriment rather than following them in black and white. Unlike Guy, I have not taken Wikipedia into my own hands by removing content that he claims was created by me when it was not. Guy should have gone to the COI board like I did to raise his concerns, not unilaterally remove content without first discussing it. I have raised all my concerns on the COI and Admin intervention page, but I have been ganged up on unfairly even though I followed all of the rules in black and white as they were intended all the time. It is others that did not follow the rules and I cannot be punished for pointing out when those rules were not followed. Wikipedia rules should be interpreted in black and white, there should be no shades of grey in interpreting Wikipedia's to allow users to discriminate against people they do not like, such as Guy and all his supporters have done to me. Wikipedia should ensure its rules are always followed in black and white, else it is an anarchy even if it is not intended to be! I should not be blocked for following the rules - all those that did not follow the rules should be!

Decline reason:

Being familiar I feel uniquely qualified here. Your problem here is the same as what led you to being blocked. You blame others for your mistakes, and you have a twisted view of Wikipedia policy. YOU might think they should be enforced as "black and white" but the entire foundation of Wikipedia, the

WP:NOTHERE. Since nothing in your request changes that, I would decline your request for an unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

A tag has been placed on your user page,

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. VViking_TalkEdits 13:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Anyone involved in the original block should not be deciding whether to remove the block. That is a conflict of interest in every professional body I am a member of, but I should not expect anything less from a website that does not follow its own rules and allows its users and adminisators to breach the sysop prerogative they are entitled to. It would seem that the claim Wikipedia is driven by Might is Right] has certainly been the case in how I've been cyber-bullied because I dared question an editor who removed references to me based on false premises that I posted content with an account that I did not! Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please, see

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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 wasn't involved in your block. I was considering a topic ban proposal at WP:AN but that doesn't make me involved, it makes me informed. You might want to read
  WP:NOTTHEM Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In all of my professional bodies anyone involved with the original decision/discussion would not be allowed to have any involvement in an appeal. When decisions on appeal are made it is not normal for those with prior knowledge or experience of the issue to make the decision. You have a conflict of interest because of your past involvement with me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you are talking about is

WP:INVOLVED. Clearly my actions are the same any other admin would do, at the very least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I am entitled to fair comment, such as to refer people who visit my article setting out my side of the story on how I was blocked. In terms of my user page it is a CV and the ISBN numbers use Wikipedia's own internal referencing system which I do not profit from. Why the hell don't you just delete any mention, any edit history, absolutely any conceivable reference to me on Wikipedia? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Vanjagenije saying that if this was written in the first person it would be fine? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was just saying the it was clearly (self-)promotional. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It contained a biography that I have published on other websites [1]. Are you saying that because I am accomplished in academia and professional I am self-promotional but if I was flipping burgers at McDonalds boasting about the numbers of burgers I flipped each day and customers I managed to bang that would not be self-promotional? Would you be happier if I found badges that say the same but not as wordy? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you managed to read that out of my words, than we have a serious problem in communication. By the way, the page that you linked is tagged with "Copyright © 1988-2016, IGI Global - All Rights Reserved". So, that means the content cannot be copied to Wikipedia per our

WP:MYTEXT). One more reason for it to be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I provided them with that bio, I own the copyright to it. You are doing what you are doing on purpose to make life difficult for me. Stop trying to control me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have read

WP:Wikihounding by proxy. Admin should have checked that I did not have a previous record for being banned but User:JzG did. There is reference to User:JzG on third party websites with a record for harassing me and I believe this was part of their harassment campaign. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Really. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

• Are you sure you read
  WP:NOTTHEM carefully? In this request, you managed to mention JzG as many as nine times. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I provided you with evidence that User:JzG was linked with a malicious website but it was removed. I showed concern for other users. What more do you want?! The fact remains that it was his malicous actions that resulted in me being blocked. I am not willing to deviate from that version of the truth. You are asking me to say something I do not believe. You are asking me to lie in order to be unblocked. Is that acceptable behaviour? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are unlikely to be unblocked. Many people have explained exactly why the material was removed. You are continuously ascribing motives to Jzg that are unfounded. The content was not removed because of *who* posted it, it was removed because it was unreliably sourced/self-published and not suitable for any use to which it was being put - to be more specific, it was promotional spamming as wikipedia uses the terms. That the main source for the material is a website that has in the past attempted to link itself with more prestigious organisations - to the point where they were formally notified to stop - is entirely in line with your (and the other two editors) editing. The fact citations/material was being posted by different editors who were effectively all single purpose promotinal accounts very often indicates they are either the same person, or as closely associated as to make the distinction irrelevant. Where an editor has a pattern of posting inappropriate material, it is *routine* to look at all their contributions to see there are not problems elsewhere. This has been explained to you in plain English now. You can either say 'I understand, I wont make any more baseless attacks, attempt to promote myself or my work' and you *might* be unblocked by an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There you are making false statements again, backing up User:Jzg's allegations that I added content with accounts that I didn't. Why are you expecting me to lie that I am happy with User:Jzg making false and malicious statements about me? I am not willing to admit that I added content without an account other than my own. I am not willing to say I did something I didn't do in order to be unblocked --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talk page is not a venue for continuing the personal attacks that, in part, led to your block. I have therefore revoked your access to this page. See

WP:UTRS for appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16558 was submitted on Sep 19, 2016 20:47:22. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16559 was submitted on Sep 19, 2016 23:11:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point I think we need to seriously consider the possibility that User:JonathanBishop is not the actual Jonathan Bishop, but an imposter bent on embarrassing him with all this bizarre, self-destructive behavior. EEng 03:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is likely him. His behaviour here is not out of character with the actual Jonathan Bishop's. I could go into more detail but it would be edging around BLP issues. You can take a look yourself if you follow the rabbit hole from the COIN investigation. There is a
  WP:NOTTHERAPY issue which would explain a lot of the behaviour and makes it less bizarre in context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

JzG has sent me a letter sent to him, seemingly by Jonathan Bishop. I have reviewed and it seems authentic. Unquestionably, it is a legal threat and attempt to chill discussion. Until posted here again with an update, it should be assumed he can not be unblocked due to this ongoing legal threat. I'm adding this to his block, but doing so here rather than to the block log, so that I can explain more fully. All other issues aside, the block should not be lifted while this legal threat is outstanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #22077 was submitted on Jul 15, 2018 23:35:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]