Content deleted Content added
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →ArbCom block: new section |
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) Blank page, {{ArbComBlock}} |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ArbComBlock}} |
|||
This is to confirm that this is an ArbCom block, based in part on Checkuser data. User is in all likelihood trolling. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Welcome!== |
|||
[[Image:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|300px|Some cookies to welcome you! [[File:Face-smile.svg|25px]]]] [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome to Wikipedia]], NewtonGeek! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/NewtonGeek|your contributions]]. I am [[User:EWikist|EWikist]] and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on [[User talk:EWikist|my talk page]]. You can also check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]] or type {{tlx|helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]] |
|||
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]] |
|||
Also, when you post on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] you should [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! [[User:EWikist |<b><font color = "black"> EW</font><sub><sub><font color = "red"><big><big>i</big></big></font></sub></sub><font color = "black">kist</font></b>]][[User talk:EWikist|<sup><font color = "black">Talk</font></sup>]] 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Talkback== |
|||
{{talkback|Theopolisme|ts=14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''[[User:Theopolisme|<font color=#00B74A>Theopolisme]] '''</font><sub><small>[[User_Talk:Theopolisme|<font color=#37DB79> TALK]]</sup></sup></small> 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Replied again. '''[[User:Theopolisme|<font color=#00B74A>Theopolisme]] '''</font><sub><small>[[User_Talk:Theopolisme|<font color=#37DB79> TALK]]</sup></sup></small> 14:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::BOO! I'm gonna stop notifying you on your talk when I reply, as I assume you have my talk watchlisted. Or not. Let me know. '''[[User:Theopolisme|<font color=#00B74A>Theopolisme]] '''</font><sub><small>[[User_Talk:Theopolisme|<font color=#37DB79> TALK]]</sup></sup></small> 15:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::More info on watchlists posted in that thread. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 18:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions||ts=[[User:Nthep|NtheP]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Wikipediocracy == |
|||
I'm sorry about how some Wikipediocracy members are treating you. Not all Wikipediocracy members behave like that. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 01:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10878#p10878 – The speculation and the distrust. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Thanks== |
|||
Thanks for the nice words on my page, I appreciate it. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk: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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=502619256&oldid=502617556 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. '''[[User:SilkTork|<font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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.[http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=NewtonGeek&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia] It appears that you have a mistaken understanding of what Wikipedia is about, and are treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website. This is not what Wikipedia 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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Hersfold&l=1000 Cough], [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Elen+of+the+Roads&l=1000 cough], [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Jclemens&l=1000 cough]. [[Special:Contributions/188.29.109.6|188.29.109.6]] ([[User talk:188.29.109.6|talk]]) 14:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I also strongly oppose this action, as it has no basis in policy. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk: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 <em>horrible</em> 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. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 14:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Your futile protests will avail you not. He is an [[Enemy of the people]], specifically a [[Parasitism (social offense)|social parasite]]. If he won't work, he must be banished. 'Twas ever thus, comrades; Sing while you slave.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk: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 Wikipedia pages and make edit summaries. I am also very new. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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 [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki>, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::* So long as you are not doing something against [[WP:POLICY|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. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
This is my only account. My account has multiple purposes. All involve constructively contributing to the Wikipedia community. I have not had time to improve articles in the last three weeks. I don't know how to comply with WP:WoT. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I am not a high profile editor using an alternate account. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[Special:Contributions/204.101.237.139|204.101.237.139]] ([[User talk:204.101.237.139|talk]]) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: Regarding this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::This is not alternate account, a throwaway account, or a troll. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: When I hit save here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=503156015&oldid=503155819. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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 [[wikipedia:assume good faith|good faith]], I do believe NewtonGeek's rationale for low edit makes total sense. Some new editors just go for it [[Wikipedia:be bold|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. [[User:Tamsier|Tamsier]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 22:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Just curious if Risker checked out [[http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Jimbo%20Wales&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia this user]] as well... seems like all the guy ever does is comment on his User Talk page, over 52% of all edits in that space. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: So the categories are article, user, user talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia 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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I will not edit in any contentious topic areas. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk: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? - [[User:Jorgath|Jorgath]] ([[User_talk:Jorgath|talk]]) <sup>([[Special:Contributions/Jorgath|contribs]])</sup> 23:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::@Risker: So far I have not seen anyone ask the obvious question - Who <s>in the hell</s> are you to say where an editor should edit? Jbhunley (talk) 7:50 pm, Today (UTC−4) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jbhunley|Jbhunley]] ([[User talk:Jbhunley|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbhunley|contribs]]) 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::::: @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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: Based on this response I have concluded that you are trolling us intentionally. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 02:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have never trolled anyone here or anywhere. I am asking you to be specific about the information you are inquiring about. I sent many e-mails to multiple Arbs? You have the ability to specify that you would like to be updated on the status of a concern sent at X time to Arb Y. I see no reason why you are unwilling to tell me exactly which of the many issues raised you are interested in knowing the status of. I also do not know why you will not answer if this is an ArbCom block. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 02:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
To Avanu: I realize that my comment above might sound cryptic and abrupt to readers here, which is not intended. There is background. NewtonGeek's response to Risker's and my questions, if it is forthcoming, probably needs to be off-site. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
To NewtonGeek: the reason I, and I assume Risker, are speaking in generalities is the confidential nature of some of the issues you raised with us. You can focus on those issues in your response to us, which I assume you would prefer to e-mail rather than post here. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: I am asking for a third time if this is an ArbCom block because that is the reason given by the administrator who denied my unblock request. I am unhesitantly willing to answer any questions newyorkbrad, Risker, or any other Arbs have. Being cryptic is not making it possible for me to determine which issue or issues any of the Arbs are inquiring about. Covering the last seven days I would very roughly estimate there have been 20 or more e-mails I've sent or IRCs I've been in. My guess is that the number is actually higher. From what newyorkbrad wrote above I assume he is only interested in having questions answered about the e-mails I sent within the last seven days. If that is incorrect, I ask that newyorkbrad clarify that. Also, I would like to know which e-mail or e-mails sent to which Arbs at which times, Risker and newyorkbrad are inquiring about. Furthermore, it would be helpful if an Arb would indicate which of the concerns in each of those e-mails are salient because the e-mails often dealt with multiple topics. A number of Arbs have my e-mail address and are able to ask me anything they like. I have already stated that I have always been willing to update any Arb on any matter. I think my e-mail user option is set to on. If any of the Arbs feel more comfortable discussing this through e-mail, they are welcome to do that. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 02:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, I'm curious to know why this came up now given that I have contacted various Arbs with various concerns over a period of time. At what point and why did one or more Arbs decide to block me for a reason that is entirely unclear to me that pertains to some of all of the concerns I've raised? Also, why did none of the Arbs decide to ask me about whatever issue/s he or she would like followed-up on? I have made myself open and available. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 02:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Look back to late June, and consider which email you sent to the Arbitration Committee (not an individual arbitrator) that would be raising these concerns. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== AN/I == |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. - [[User:Jorgath|Jorgath]] ([[User_talk:Jorgath|talk]]) <sup>([[Special:Contributions/Jorgath|contribs]])</sup> 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*The specific thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_block_by_arbitrator_Risker]] (just trying to help, Jorgath :)). --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:*Thank you, Hammersoft. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|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. '''[[User:SilkTork|<font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 16:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*Perhaps as part of that you could figure out exactly what is is that NewtonGeek has done wrong? --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk: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. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 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. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*The signs are that this is an admin block; while it has support from some individual members of the Committee, there has been no clear process leading to this being identified as an ArbCom block, and Risker's wording and subsequent actions appear to confirm that it is an admin block. This is quite borderline though, as NewtonGeek has focused his attentions on an ArbCom case, and has been emailing ArbCom. Indeed, the emailing was part of the cause for concern, as NYB indicates above. This is, one might say, an ArbCom informed admin block - this is, the block is more likely to have been performed by a member of the Committee than by a non-Committee admin. That a member of the Committee acts as an individual informed by their knowledge gained from being a Committee member is I feel quite appropriate. '''[[User:SilkTork|<font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:* SilkTork, I am still unclear why Risker phrased her block the way she did and why she phrased her unblock the way she did. Do you know and can you tell me the reasons for those things? I am also unclear as to why she and newyorkbrad did not indicate concerns relating to my block that regard the same e-mail. Do you know why and would you tell me? This block was enacted on July 19 when the e-mail Risker has indicated this block pertains to was sent on June 28. As far as I know that June 28 e-mail appears never to have been responded to despite my having in the intervening time much subsequent correspondence and communication with multiple Arbs on both related and unrelated topics. Do you know why that e-mail of June 28th became pertinent to my block yesterday? If so, would you tell me? Many matters discussed through e-mail with Arbs do not present privacy, confidentiality, or security concerns according to the feedback the oversighter communicated to me on Monday. Do you know of a reason those matters which do not present privacy, confidentiality, or security should not be discussed on wiki if they are related to my block? Finally, I would prefer to be able to respond at AN/I since there is much speculation or incorrect inference that can then be cleared up. Would you allow me to do that? [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Unblock request == |
|||
{{unblock|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. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 00:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
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. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)) |
|||
:The declined unblock request does not appear to reflect my unblock request at the time it was declined. That unblock request stated: |
|||
:"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) 7:04 pm, Today (UTC−5) [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Reading through the above sections, it looks to me like there are some pretty serious issues with wikilawyering and evasiveness, as well as the ones Risker originally blocked for about lack of encyclopedia focus. Newton, if you want to be unblocked you're really, really going to have to do a better job of sounding like you have any intention here other than to play games, because right now it sounds more like you're enjoying playing the wounded, put-upon character who simply can't ''believe'' anyone could ask questions about things they've previously said are issues (whatever those are - and presumably you ''do'' know what you wrote Arbcom about, even if the rest of us don't). [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 03:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::My intention here is exactly as I have written in my unblock request. |
|||
:::Fluffernutter, I understand that you perceive my writing as indicating I am "enjoying playing the wounded, put-upon character who simply can't ''believe'' anyone could ask questions about things they've previously said are issues." That is definitely not the case. I have asked for clarification so that I do not waste anyone's time answering questions about e-mails or subjects no Arb is interested in. Many issues have been discussed in many e-mails with many Arbs and on IRC. If I knew which exact issues are now being inquired about that are related to my block, I would have addressed answered any questions about issues as quickly as possible. If you would like a copy of any e-mails I have sent to any Arbs, I will gladly supply those. Any Arbs, clerks, or oversighters who wish to give their permission to me to forward their e-mails to you can notify me of that. If that occurs and you request those e-mails I will supply them to you. I hope this addresses your concerns and remain willing to discuss any issues you have with my behavior. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Respectfully ask some questions be answered == |
|||
I've asked these questions but have not received answers. I assume that's because there is so much text above. |
|||
#Is this an ArbCom block? |
|||
#Why have newyorkbrad, Risker, and possibly other Arbs decide to raise the issue of concerns I previously raised now since I corresponded with multiple Arbs as long ago as June 28th approximately? |
|||
#How did the concerns I raised pertain to blocking me which someone said four Arbs discussed before Risker enacted the block today? |
|||
#Since I have been open and made myself available, why did none of the Arbs decide to ask me about whatever issue/s he or she wanted followed-up on that related to my being blocked? |
|||
#Since the reason for the block is somehow related to some concerns I raised, why did Risker phrase both her block and her requirements for the unblock the way she did? |
|||
== Have I found the e-mail Risker referred to? Also, other related questions == |
|||
Most or all Arbs have my e-mail address and are able to ask me anything they like. I remain always willing to update any Arb on any matter. If any of the Arbs feel more comfortable discussing this through e-mail, I welcome that and believe my e-mail user option is set to on. Please let me know if my e-mail user function is not working. |
|||
Risker, above you replied, "And the other issues that you contacted Arbcom about earlier this week? These are now resolved?" Now you are asking me to "Look back to late June, and consider which email you sent to the Arbitration Committee (not an individual arbitrator) that would be raising these concerns." Newyorkbrad wrote, "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." From what newyorkbrad wrote I assumed he was only interested in having questions answered about the e-mails I sent within the last seven days. If that is incorrect, I ask that newyorkbrad clarify that. |
|||
Should I interpret this to mean that Risker's later reply is meant to supersede Risker's earlier reply and newyorkbrad's earlier reply which I quoted immediately above? |
|||
If yes, is the e-mail you are referring to one that was sent to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org on Thursday, June 28 with the subject "unsure about [redacted] possible [redacted]"? |
|||
If that is the e-mail you are referring to, I, as always, welcome any follow-up questions regarding it. |
|||
If this is not the e-mail Risker and newyorkbrad are referring to, please clarify which list the e-mail was sent to and the day it was sent. It may also be helpful to know the time it was sent. |
|||
The e-mail I identified above was sent June 28th and it is now July 19th. If that is the e-mail being inquired about, why are questions are being asked about it now? I would have to sift through old e-mails, but I don’t recall having received a reply to that e-mail. |
|||
If that is the e-mail you are asking about, it is rather long and dealt with multiple subjects. Please list all specific questions salient to my block so that there is no miscommunication about what you perceive to be the issues salient to my block that were raised in that e-mail. |
|||
I am, as always, willing to update any arb about any concerns raised in that e-mail which are not related to my block. |
|||
To assist your identification of the e-mail in question the one I referred to from Thursday, June 28 read |
|||
"Dear ArbCom members [redacted], |
|||
I have [redacted] until it was clear that I would be telling the truth and nothing but the truth [redacted]as much as possible without skewing the experience in any partisan way. |
|||
[redacted]If not, I understand your decision. |
|||
[redacted] |
|||
To summarize what [redacted]. This is by no means all that [redacted]. |
|||
Yours truly, |
|||
NewtonGeek" [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*Just a comment: If you wish for a clerk to forward this to arbcom-l, we have write (but not read) access to that list, meaning that whatever the clerk sends to that list, while we can't read it, will guarantee to get through. (See [[Wikipedia:AC/C#cite_note-0|this]] for what I am referring to.) It would make sure that the correspondence is not lost. - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]</sup> 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:* Penwhale, since you suggested it, I guess that's what I should do. So please, yes, send it to the list. I did read the link but was unclear what it meant. I am tired and must go to sleep. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 05:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just send any questions and concerns to the mailing list, NewtonGeek, the same one as you sent the above message to. Yes, that is the one I was referring to above. Given how much is [appropriately] redacted here on this page, it is better to discuss further off-wiki. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Risker, please clarify if that is the only e-mail salient to my block and reply to earlier questions== |
|||
Risker, is that the only e-mail salient to my block? |
|||
Many matters I have corresponded with Arbs regarding are not of a privacy concern from my perspective. This is because of the feedback the oversighter I contacted Monday provided. That oversighter can contact me if he does not agree. |
|||
Since I see no privacy, security, or confidentiality matters that relate to my earlier questions in the heading above or to the question in this heading, for the sake of community transparency I welcome you to reply here. If you see those questions differently, please communicate that to me however you feel best. The Arbs are welcome to communicate with me about any issues through any mechanism they feel comfortable. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:NewtonGeek, this does need to go to an off-wiki discussion because of the nature of the concerns you expressed in that email. Your habit of emailing individual arbitrators means that I can't honestly say if this is the only email that raises these concerns. Please email the committee (you can go to User:Arbitration Committee and use the "email this user" feature if you prefer) and we will go from there. Please do not email me directly. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Seconded. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Non-contentious encyclopaedia writing == |
|||
=== Put your content here in this section === |
|||
=== Suggestion === |
|||
Perhaps you would do well at this juncture to ''show'' people that you can do encyclopaedic work. Actions speak louder than words. So here's my suggestion: Place into the above section some content that you'd add to [[William Augustus Norton]] or [[Christine Kirch]], and the sources for it. Both are biographies of very dead people, and both come under what you state on your user page as your field. ([[Isaac Newton]] doesn't give you as much scope as those two do. I was going to pick [[Paul-Baker telescope]] off [[User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Astronomy]] as well, but I suspect that's just a missing redirect to [[three-mirror anastigmat]]. But you could show everyone how you'd tackle that too, if you think differently.) [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I second this idea. It's a good way to show any doubters that you're being truthful about intending to create article-space content. - [[User:Jorgath|Jorgath]] ([[User_talk:Jorgath|talk]]) <sup>([[Special:Contributions/Jorgath|contribs]])</sup> 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I am being truthful about intending to create article-space content. I'd like very much to do something like this and suggested yesterday that I believed this was the way I was supposed to proceed earlier. Please note that none of those three articles deal with literature or movies which are the categories Risker did not have an objection to my editing in the future. I do not know if Risker regards field in which I am most familiar or the three topics offered as acceptable. If Risker indicates she has no problem with my editing those articles, I'd be willing to consider it. However, there are many reasons for editors not to embed themselves in the areas with which they are most familiar. I think it may cause needless strife with other editors in the same areas who do not have access to the same sources. Risker emphasized my need to not be embedded in any contention at Wikipedia. I believe a more sure route to avoiding contention would be for me to avoid the topics with which I am most familiar. If I do some test editing in a field with which I am most familiar, I am likely to choose articles which I can easily improve and for which I have sources at hand. |
|||
After I agreed to limit myself to the topics of literature and movies, Risker and newyorkbrad clarified that my block hinges on other issues regarding an e-mail I sent. As far as I can tell Risker and newyorkbrad have not indicated it's the same e-mail. Since none of the e-mail concerns relate to my willingness or ability to edit Wikipedia articles, I believe Risker and newyorkbrad would still oppose my being unblocked if I demonstrated my capacity as an encyclopedia editor. Until I am able to get their assurance that demonstrating I can do encyclopedic work would result in their supporting my block being lifted, I can't afford the time to do those edits. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 13:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Their perspective is almost certainly along the lines that you need to show that you're genuinely interested in building an encyclopaedia. Your response seems to indicate that you don't have time for that sort of thing unless it gets you something else that you want (to be unblocked for whatever reason). That's going to confirm to them that you are not in fact genuinely interested in building an encyclopaedia - you see doing so as a chore requiring a quid pro quo. They're very unlikely to unnblock you on that basis. [[Special:Contributions/87.254.70.195|87.254.70.195]] ([[User talk:87.254.70.195|talk]]) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that I must show that I am genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia. I am happy to demonstrate. Yesterday I explained on this page that it was my understanding from reading policy that I should do what this suggestion indicates and I sought clarification on how to do it. This topic area is not an one of the two that I specified to Risker at her request. I believe Risker may be willing to approve me to edit in those two areas. She has been clear that I am to avoid editing in any highly contentious area. My understanding is that Risker agrees the topics of literature and movies are not highly contentious. Neither Risker nor newyorkbrad have indicated that my willingness to edit Wikipedia articles appropriately is presently their concern with my unblock given what I have stated in my unblock request. Instead they have both indicated that the issue with unblocking me pertains to issues raised in e-mail/s. They have also determined that discussion of the subject of my unblock is to be done through the ArbCom mailing list. Accordingly, I have e-mailed that list and I am given to understand that Penwhale also e-mailed that list last night to communicate information from my talk page. I am not requesting any quid pro quo. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 17:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== As instructed messages have been sent to ArbCom == |
|||
I believe Penwhale sent a message to the ArbCom list last night. I sent a message to the ArbCom list this morning. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm one of the list moderators and I haven't seen it. Can you resend it please? [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you for letting me know. I will resend it. I'll also post the e-mail I sent here because there is nothing private, confidential, or involving security in it. My understanding last night was that Penwhale proposed sending something pertinent from this page and that I agreed. I assume Penwhale did that and that it was received. Please let me know if that one from Penwhale was not received. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 17:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
(od) I sent the message below to ArbCom at this address this morning "English Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. I have now resent it. The subject of the e-mail is "resending e-mail because Roger Davies indicates it was not received; Risker has instructed me to e-mail the committee." |
|||
The e-mail reads |
|||
"Dear ArbCom, |
|||
Risker has indicated in a post to my talk page that the nature of the concerns I e-mailed to the arbcom-b list on June 28 require that discussion of the issues related to my block and unblock request which pertain to that e-mail must be done off-wiki. I have not been informed by anyone what it is in that e-mail that pertains to my being blocked and my request to be unblocked yesterday. Is it also the case that all matters pertaining to my block and unblock request must be done off-wiki? |
|||
I prefer to keep the matter of my block and unblock request transparent and on-wiki whenever doing so is not contraindicated for privacy, security, and confidentiality reasons. |
|||
SilkTork indicated there that this is an admin block, is that correct? |
|||
I have asked a number of questions on my talk page. Do you request me to collate, arrange, and rewrite all of them and mail them to ArbCom privately? |
|||
Please clarify which specific e-mails are now salient to my block and my unblock request because I sent many e-mails to multiple Arbs. It would help if you would specify that there are concerns related to my block regarding an e-mail sent at X time on Y date to Arb or list Z. |
|||
Please list all specific questions salient to my block and unblock request. Wording those questions in as narrow a way as possible will help me to understand exactly which matter/s you wish me to address. It will also help facilitate my tailoring my answer to your question/s. I hope to avoid miscommunication about what you perceive to be the issues salient to my block and unblock request that were raised in any e-mails. |
|||
I am, as always, willing to update any Arb about any concerns raised in e-mails which are not related to my block. |
|||
I cannot guarantee that I have information any Arb may wish to know. I encourage all Arbs to contact any pertinent individuals other than myself who may have the information they seek. I believe that will be the most direct route to finding the answers to any questions on which I have no further information. |
|||
Please be aware that I will communicate with you as forthrightly and expediently as I can. However, I do have other matters I must address and there may be delays for that reason. Also, in any matter that I have to research in order to answer ArbCom questions, I will need adequate time to perform the relevant research. |
|||
In the meantime, I request that my block be lifted as soon as possible and that I be allowed to communicate on the AN/I subsection which pertains to me so that I may clarify matters raised there which remain unclear to the posters. |
|||
Regards, |
|||
NewtonGeek" |
|||
The e-mail response I received in response to my first sending the e-mail was this-- |
|||
"arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org |
|||
[redacted] |
|||
to me |
|||
Your mail to 'ArbCom-l' with the subject |
|||
Risker has instructed me to e-mail the committee |
|||
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. |
|||
The reason it is being held: |
|||
Post by non-member to a members-only list |
|||
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive |
|||
notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel |
|||
this posting, please visit the following URL [redacted]." |
|||
The e-mail response I received in response to my first sending the e-mail was this-- |
|||
"arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org |
|||
[redacted] |
|||
to me |
|||
Your mail to 'ArbCom-l' with the subject |
|||
resending e-mail because Roger Davies indicates it was not received; Risker has instructed me to e-mail the committee |
|||
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. |
|||
The reason it is being held: |
|||
Post by non-member to a members-only list |
|||
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive |
|||
notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel |
|||
this posting, please visit the following URL [redacted]." [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 18:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Both have now been received, thanks. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for letting me know, Roger Davies. Was one also received via Penwhale last night? I am still assuming it was. Please let me know if I am wrong. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I have sent an e-mail to NewtonGeek articulating the issues in greater detail, and copied the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Any response by NewtonGeek will be reviewed by the Committee. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I have replied to the Arbitration Committee mailing list asking what information not written by me I am allowed to disseminate on the list. I also noted that I believe newyorkbrad has raised twenty-two points for me to address. I have indicated that I will respond to each of those points as expeditiously as possible. |
|||
:Some of the points raised by newyorkbrad are of no concern to privacy, security, or confidentiality. Newyorkbrad wrote, "Several participants in the case observed that while your interventions on the page were frequent, the amount of useful information or opinion imparted in your posts was relatively slight, and that your pattern of participation was unusual for a new user of Wikipedia. Under all the circumstances, I believe there is serious reason to doubt your commitment to the purposes of Wikipedia, and my personal opinion, as I said last night on-wiki, is that at this point you are intentionally trolling us." I believe these issues and some of the others can be discussed on-wiki. I am willing to address those points off-wiki because that is what the Arbitration Committee desires. By addressing them on-wiki as well I hope to clear up any confusion on the part of other Wikipedia editors. I believe transparency in these matters is helpful. My addressing these matters forthrightly will assist in my being able to collaborate with other editors on the project because questions have been raised about my participation by multiple editors in multiple places on Wikipedia since I was blocked yesterday. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
NewtonGeek, I've been following your situation very closely, and I've noticed some things about your comments on this talk page in the past day or so, and I'd like to offer you a suggestion. Based on some things I've seen after looking through the sockpuppet investigation page, and some pages I went to from there, I've noticed that you might have some interests in people who have mental disabilities and the issues that they face. Although I would advise you not to comment about that on-Wiki unless you are sure that you want to, you may perhaps want to explain to the Arbitrators via confidential e-mail if you have any issues that might have affected your communications with them. As I read what you've posted here of your heavily redacted e-mails, I can readily understand why the Arbs think that you are trolling them. It sounds that way to me too. But when I saw that you might have the interests that I alluded to above, it occurred to me that there might be an alternative explanation for the way that your communications sound, and that you might well be communicating in good faith and should be entitled to reasonable accommodation. If I'm completely off the mark, I apologize, but I have a gut feeling about this, and wouldn't want you to be mischaracterized if my hunch is correct. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Tryptofish, thanks for your suggestions and feedback. I understand that the information you looked up would indicate to someone unfamiliar with the situation that I am a different user. During the sockpuppet investigation I contacted a bureaucrat and made it clear I am not any other user. |
|||
:You could contact that other user about any interest in mental health issues that other user may have. I don't have mental health issues. |
|||
:An Arb seems to have hypothesized I'm obsessed with Fae. The truth is simple and prosaic. I became aware of a number of nasty comments directed at Fae off-wiki. The evidence page had closed before I was certain there was no way to remedy the behavior towards Fae in the venue in which it was originating. |
|||
:Though you and I encountered each other on that talk page, I have commented in other areas and on other topics since I became active on Wikipedia. |
|||
:Newyorkbrad has now confirmed that the Arbs concerns extend to the content of other e-mails as well. Last night Risker had not indicated which late June e-mail she was referring to. To avoid miscommunication I redacted all parts of that e-mail the Arbs may not want on-wiki then posted what remained to be sure that was the same e-mail Risker was alluding to. If you would like me to I can e-mail you a copy of that e-mail with a few redactions that protect four other people's privacy. |
|||
:The issue the e-mails deal with is cyberbullying. Newyorkbrad has raised the question of why I did not avoid being on the same talk page as anyone who might possibly have been a cyberbully. The reason I gave above applies. I do not think it is right for a person to remain silent while knowing allegedly needlessly hurtful behavior is being directed at another human. |
|||
:Today Newyorkbrad informed me that multiple participants on that talk page felt I commented frequently while providing only slight useful content. I apologize to you and others for that. That was not my intention. I would like to improve my editing in that regard and did ask for feedback from Nuclear Warfare and Lord Roem during my participation. Unfortunately I was writing a post when Lord Roem gave his feedback. I had already read Nuclear Warfare's input regarding my participation. |
|||
:I appreciate your taking the time to consider my situation and give me feedback. I respect your opinions and hope that you will always feel welcome to express your concerns regarding my behavior to me. I view your input as constructive and take it seriously. [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I would like to be on record that I consider NewtonGeek's quotation from the e-mail I sent to him earlier today to be taken out of context, and his summary of the issues I raised to be incomplete and misleading. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Newyorkbrad, I apologize. I did not mean to quote you out of context and I certainly did not intend to be misleading. I am happy to do anything I can to ensure that the issues you raised have been accurately summarized. |
|||
:My reply to Tryptofish was regarding the suggestion he gave me. I did not attempt to summarize everything in your e-mail to me, but rather to cover the topics I viewed as salient to Tryptofish's post. |
|||
:I intentionally avoided any reference to a lot of material that I think ArbCom does not want raised on-wiki. |
|||
:The quote I gave encompassed the topics I think can be discussed on-wiki while maintaining privacy, confidentiality, and security. I did not place the quote in any context because I selected it as the only material that seems safe to discuss on-wiki. I will, of course, abide by ArbCom's direction to discuss all matters off-wiki. I have stated I think on-wiki transparency regarding as many issues as possible is important. |
|||
:This is the quote you referred to, "Several participants in the case observed that while your interventions on the page were frequent, the amount of useful information or opinion imparted in your posts was relatively slight, and that your pattern of participation was unusual for a new user of Wikipedia. Under all the circumstances, I believe there is serious reason to doubt your commitment to the purposes of Wikipedia, and my personal opinion, as I said last night on-wiki, is that at this point you are intentionally trolling us." [[User:NewtonGeek|NewtonGeek]] ([[User talk:NewtonGeek#top|talk]]) 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== ArbCom case will end soon == |
|||
The ArbCom case will end soon. Once it's over, there won't be any reason to keep NewtonGeek blocked. Can NewtonGeek please be unblocked once the case ends? I would prefer for NewtonGeek to be unblocked sooner, but this proposed compromise isn't unreasonable. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== ArbCom block == |
|||
This is to confirm that this is an ArbCom block, based in part on Checkuser data. User is in all likelihood trolling. Please do not unblock without ArbCom consent. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 08:20, 21 July 2012
You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.
This is to confirm that this is an ArbCom block, based in part on Checkuser data. User is in all likelihood trolling. Roger Davies talk 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)