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)

(od) Risker wrote that I may "persuade other administrators that you will restrict yourself to building encyclopedic content in the article space." Later it was explained my block must remain until further notice. I have suggested an unblock reason as "I will only edit articles." Policy says I'm supposed to make test edits to an article then show them to someone. It's not clear how I can make the test edits or who I'd show them to. On the point regarding privacy concerns I communicated with an oversighter Monday who indicated it's a common phenomenon and not an issue warranting concern. I am unaware any new issue since that oversighter responded to me. NewtonGeek (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not only commented at an ArbCom case. That statement is in response to a comment at AN/I. Though I haven't counted I assume Risker accurately counted my article space edits. NewtonGeek (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just curious if Risker checked out as well... seems like all the guy ever does is comment on his User Talk page, over 52% of all edits in that space. -- Avanu (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So the categories are article, user, user talk, Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages talk. I'll change my edits so that the article percent is never less than 90% of my edit counter and I will never participate in community discussion pages. I am assuming that ArbCom is one kind of community discussion page. I'd still like input on Jimbo Wales' talk page. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek, I would construe "article space" fairly broadly to include articles, their talk pages, and noticeboards/pages where you are commenting directly about an article to which you have made a contribution; on rare occasions, it may be appropriate to post to a user's talk page about an article or content question. Given you are also relatively new, I would be fine with the TeaHouse and Help Desk pages when asking questions for the purpose of assisting you to learn more about editing processes. But given your almost total lack of editing in this area, it would probably be helpful for reviewing administrators to know a bit about topic areas or articles you plan to focus on. It would be a shame for you to be unblocked to allow you to focus on editing, only to discover you're embroiled in editing a highly contentious topic area. Risker (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not edit in any contentious topic areas. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked, NewtonGeek. What topics do you intent to edit? I'm sure you have some idea. Risker (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

May I make one suggestion, NewtonGeek? 90% to article space is pretty unrealistic too. How does "more edits to article space than to any other namespace" sound to you? - Jorgath (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Risker: So far I have not seen anyone ask the obvious question - Who in the hell are you to say where an editor should edit? Jbhunley (talk) 7:50 pm, Today (UTC−4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhunley (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jorgath, thanks. I will make more edits to article space than to any other namespace if that fulfills the unblocking criteria. Otherwise, I will leave it as it is. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Risker, though you wrote you are "sure I have some idea." I did not already have an idea. That is why I gave the honest reply I did. I now commit to only editing the not highly contentious topic areas of literature and movies. Now that I specified the not highly contentious topics I will edit, I hope I have fulfilled your unblocking criteria. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Literature and movies. And the other issues that you contacted Arbcom about earlier this week? These are now resolved? Risker (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly which issues are you inquiring about? Which e-mails to which ArbCom members are you referring to? You'll have to be specific enough that I can reply. Also this is not related to your blocking of me, is it? NewtonGeek (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No Arb needs to speculate about my gender. I can prove my gender. I'm not sure why any Arb would be speculating about it. NewtonGeek (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's start at the one that expressed concern about some off-site activities. And yes, they do relate to my reason for blocking - because they were indications that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. As to the gender issue you are mentioning, I do not have any idea what you are talking about; as far as I can tell, no arbitrator has ever speculated about that. I corrected someone else's misinformation about my gender. Risker (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) I have already addressed your concerns about my intention to build an encyclopedia. I have agreed to only edit articles on literature and movies. I have also committed to other things to address your concerns. Your original reason for my block did not refer to any "concern about some off-site activities." Your original block indicated that administrators were free to unblock me. Then others stated it was unclear if this was an ArbCom block. Then you specified what would be required for me to be unblocked and I complied. You have now clarified that your block was related to an e-mail/s or IRC/s which you have characterized as my having "expressed concern about some off-site activities." In order to answer your request for information I'd like the full list of specific questions you are now asking or think you will need to ask in the future. Which expressed concern or concerns regarding "some off-site activities" are you referring to? You'll need to be clear and specific. It would be helpful if you specified any actor/s in those activities so I can tailor my replies to your questions. I cannot guess which issue or issues you are referring to. NewtonGeek (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I second Risker's question. You e-mailed several arbitrators within the past few days raising extremely serious concerns. I request an update on the status of those concerns. Having sent us the e-mails in question, you should be aware what we are referring to. You may respond to this via e-mail rather than on-wiki if you prefer for confidentiality reasons; if so, please copy the full ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have been happy to update the status of any concerns to any Arb who asked me to. That was not the reason given for this block. It now appears that despite my willing compliance with all requirements for working to build an encyclopedia as I specified in my unblock request, the block now hinges on the status of all or some concerns raised that were raised. It would have saved time if that reason for the block had been clear at the outset. Since the reason for the block is somehow related to some or all of the concerns I raised, why did Risker phrase both her block and her requirements for the unblock the way she did? Is this now an ArbCom block? There were many e-mails and more than one IRC. I cannot determine which issue or issues you have determined are salient because you have not told me. Knowing which issue or issues you are referring to will save a great deal of time. If the block now hinges on all of the issues I raised, please list them so that there is no miscommunication about what you perceive all of the issues raised were. If, instead, it hinges on some of the issues I raised, please specify which ones. NewtonGeek (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on this response I have concluded that you are trolling us intentionally. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad, can you simply stay on target with a response that isn't name calling? A lot of people already believe this is a weird, screwed up block. If you would set down clear rules and clear expectations it would probably help end this faster. -- Avanu (talk) 02:09, 20 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)
• Well, at the very least, if it turns out to be an Arbcom block, we know exactly who to blame for setting the <2.41% articlespace block precedent. Silverseren 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears to be a block by Risker qua admin. She even says above "unless you can persuade other administrators...". Arbcom may of course pass a motion banning this user, but until it does a block by an admin (no matter if an arbitrator and no matter how many arbitrators support it) is just a block by an admin. Blocks by arbitrators should not have special status pending people finding out if the block is pursuant to a decision by the Committee or not. WJBscribe (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

Your reason here I will only edit articles. Please explain what that means regarding the Jimbo Wales talk page. I will assume and abide by the restriction that I will never take part in community discussion. If it is acceptable I will keep my article space to non-article space edit ratio at 9:1. I don't know how to factor in article talk page edits so I'll put them in the non-article space category. I will make more edits to article space than to any other namespace if that fulfills the unblocking criteria. Otherwise, I will do as I wrote above. I will edit only in the non highly contentious topic areas of literature and movies. NewtonGeek (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(WP:IAR) We cannot accept your unblock requests as it is in part from WP:ARBCOM. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:56, 20 July 2012 (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.

Note to any reviewing administrator: I have initiated a discussion with NewtonGeek above to outline what might be reasonable parameters for unblocking. I have specifically requested information about proposed topic areas for editing, because it would be unfortunate to wind up in this same spot in a few days because he has focused on a highly contentious area laden with disputes. Risker (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC))