Misplaced Pages

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Wikipediocracy

I'm sorry about how some Wikipediocracy members are treating you. Not all Wikipediocracy members behave like that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10878#p10878 – The speculation and the distrust. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nice words on my page, I appreciate it. Carrite (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatted sections

When a section in an ArbCom case has been hatted, the intention is to stop any further edits in order to reduce the possibility of increased friction. As such, this edit was unhelpful, regardless of what you felt was the provocation. If you feel someone has made an inappropriate edit then please ask a Clerk to look into the matter. SilkTork 12:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that you didn't realize I did bring the hatted discussion edit to the attention of the clerks yesterday morning. I reverted the edit after consulting an administrator, Dennis Brown, and following his advice. In that conversation I indicated that I've never reverted before and wasn't sure that I was allowed to. He gave me instructions on how to do a revert. NewtonGeek (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not here to build an encyclopedia

NewtonGeek, having reviewed all of your contributions, I note that you have a grand total of 166 edits, of which exactly four are to article space. It appears that you have a mistaken understanding of what Misplaced Pages is about, and are treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website. This is not what Misplaced Pages is for. It is time for you to move on. I am blocking you indefinitely. Unless you can persuade other administrators that you will restrict yourself to building encyclopedic content in the article space, I do not see a reason for you to continue to participate here. Risker (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that NewtonGeek has the right to be a commentator. I don't believe that NewtonGeek should be blocked just because he or she is a commentator. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cough, cough, cough. 188.29.109.6 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose this action, as it has no basis in policy. Wnt (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yipe! Risker, reading between the lines, I suspect you are under a lot of pressure on the related case. However, please reconsider, as this is a horrible block, both in specific and in precedent. It's a pure WP:BITE. In specific, for an Arbcom member to swoop down and block a low-status editor, without any attempt at resolution or even warning, and basically with an implication that any opposing admins may incur the displeasure of an Arbcom member, seems fantastically disproportionate to any offense here. What in the world did this guy do to warrant that sort of treatment? I don't see it. In precedent, it's completely pathological - there's a whole layer of drama-mongers who aren't going to get indef-blocked for a low percentage of article contributions. For self-interested reasons, I'm strongly opposed to quasi-loyalty tests for being a Wikipedian in good standing. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Risker, look, unless you can point to something specific that violates policy, this block has no basis in policy. Your block is in fact in violation of policy because you are an involved administrator. Just because a person doesn't contribute much to mainspace doesn't make them not welcome here. Your contributions to mainspace have fallen off precipitously. This year alone, 85% of your edits are not to mainspace. Does that grant reason to block you? What has NewtonGeek done wrong? Either produce evidence or remove this block. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your futile protests will avail you not. He is an Enemy of the people, specifically a social parasite. If he won't work, he must be banished. 'Twas ever thus, comrades; Sing while you slave.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There had not been instructions to me prior to the block. I did ask for input. I was not given feedback that there was a problem when I asked for input. I am aware of how to type on Misplaced Pages pages and make edit summaries. I am also very new. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Newton, whether you are new or not, SPA or not, rightfully blocked or not, you can appeal this block. Since Risker failed to inform you of this, please be aware you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, thanks. I've been trying to figure out how to appeal. Each page links to more pages. It's time-consuming trying to understand what I am now supposed to do. I understand I have to give the correct reason. I believe that reason is that I will only edit articles. I am still confused if that means I cannot ask for input on how to edit articles, use my own talk page, or communicate on article talk pages. I'm not sure how to edit articles without doing those things. I think I'm also supposed to pick an article I would edit, then make some test edits and show them to someone. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to make the test edits or who I'm supposed to show them to. I believe that I am also not supposed to edit the Jimbo Wales talk page or comment in any area he has set up for forming community consensus. An administrator already explained to me that commenting on the now underway consensus building page would not be helpful or constructive. Because of that administrator's feedback I then did not comment on that community input page. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• So long as you are not doing something against policy, and are working for the benefit of the project, you are welcome to edit any article or non-article on the project that has the "edit" link on a section, or "edit this page" at the top. That is, once the erroneous block is removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is my only account. My account has multiple purposes. All involve constructively contributing to the Misplaced Pages community. I have not had time to improve articles in the last three weeks. I don't know how to comply with WP:WoT. NewtonGeek (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not a high profile editor using an alternate account. NewtonGeek (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly, I (not NewtonGeek) have commented extensively on previous Arbcom cases and had to tolerate all manner of accusations of sockpuppetry and evasion of scrutiny for not having a login name. Looks like if I continue to do so without a login (can't on this one due to semiprot) I guess I can accurately say that its because doing so will get me blocked. I seem to recall an Arb (maybe Risker, or possibly Elen) actually standing up for my right as an ip to do so. Odd that you appear to lose that right after logging in. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=503149641&oldid=503146562 I have asked for feedback from the clerks on the case and if there was a way I could improve. The clerk did not indicate he found my conduct a problem. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not alternate account, a throwaway account, or a troll. NewtonGeek (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

When I hit save here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=503109812 there was no way I could have known that Lord Roem had hit save less than 120 seconds earlier here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem&diff=503109747&oldid=503104370. I was typing in the intervening period. I had already responded to Nuclear Warfare here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=503107191&oldid=503070866 and had no idea that Lord Roem had alternative input. I only became aware of Lord Roem's input after reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=503156015&oldid=503155819. NewtonGeek (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I do not know NewtonGeek from Adam, and for the record, I have never conversed with them. However, I strongly oppose this indef block for the reason cited above. I have never heard of blocking someone for the reason given above (low contribution), and can find no policy that explicitly states so. As such, I find this sanction injudicious. If I am wrong in my analysis, I stand corrected with a direct diff to the relevant policy. In good faith, I do believe NewtonGeek's rationale for low edit makes total sense. Some new editors just go for it boldly. Others on the other hand, are less bold and prefer to familiarize themselves with things before they make major edits. It all depends on the person. People are different. I hope everyone will assume good faith and give this new editor the opportunity to become a valuable asset to the project. As regards to "treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website", I think a gentle warning, especially for a new editor is more than sufficient. If on the other hand there is prove that demonstrates a severe breach of policy and warrants an indef block, then I have no problem with that. However, at present, I do not see it based on the rationale given above. Tamsier (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Jorgath (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• The specific thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_block_by_arbitrator_Risker (just trying to help, Jorgath :)). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Hammersoft. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Status of block

I'm just getting clarification on the status of this block. It may be an ArbCom block as it was discussed and agreed by four Committee members before it was enacted. I would suggest that the block is not undone until its status is established. SilkTork 16:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps as part of that you could figure out exactly what is is that NewtonGeek has done wrong? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)