User talk:DownEastLaw

Hello DownEastLaw, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Infinity Q, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity Q.

Deletion

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Shushugah}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "DownEastLaw", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it seems to be the name of an organization. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not aware of any organization with this name. DownEastLaw (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Downeast Law Associates" but your statement here satisifies my concern. Thanks for your answer. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grayfell (talk)

I have no external relationship with the people, places, or things I have written about. Also, I don't have any employer, client, or affiliation with respect to any contribution to WP. I do not receive or expect to receive compensation for any of the work I have done. Lastly, I have not edited for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything on WP. DownEastLaw (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are indefinitely page-blocked from

@Bishonen: It's important that I understand the reasons why you added this improper and indefinite page-block. So I am going to ask you for clarification about your comments and actions, and I expect you to answer them.

Here are my questions:

1. Can you clarify how long you have been monitoring the Emmanuel Lemelson page and Emmanuel Lemelson talk page?
2. Can you clarify if you have blocked other users who disagreed with either SmallJim or GreenC from this page?
3. Can you clarify if you have any relationship to the subject or related topics that would constitute a COI or issues with NPOV?
4. You say that there is "persistent
   battleground and tendentious editing" - but can you clarify if you agree that there has been no editing (other than bots) to the page since administrator @Johnuniq
   : offered to monitor the page?
5. Your link to tendentious leads to a blank page, can you clarify what you mean?
6. Can you clarify specific examples of
   tendentious editing
   that you refer to?
7. Can you clarify if you agree that while bots have edited the page, there have been no edits to the page by actual editors, including by me, in almost a month?
8. Can you clarify if you agree that the last edits I made to the page, followed the recommendations of other editors, including administrator who suggested them on the talk page, and thus are the opposite of "battleground and tendentious editing"?
9. Can you clarify if you agree that to falsely accuse someone of
   incivil
   , and should be avoided?
10. Can you clarify if you agree that on the talk page I invite other editors to participate and asked for and encouraged input from other editors, which is the opposite of
    bludgeoning
    ?
11. Can you clarify if you agree that on the talk page I consistently ask questions, and asking questions is not
    bludgeoning
    ?
12. Can you clarify if you agree that the example you cite above as allegedly
    bludgeoning
    ?
13. Can you clarify if you agreed the discussion you cite, involved multiple editors, including at least two administrators (@BD2412: and @331dot:) and asked legitimate questions, which remain unanswered?
14. Can you clarify if you agree that about a month after the talkpage section you cite here [[1]], in which you refer to, without any support as "cherry-picked misreadings of WP:INVOLVED" you added a tag (above) to my talk page, which specifically states that you are not "...imply[ing] that there are any issues with [my] editing."
15. Can you clarify if you agree that the section here [[2]] involved the discussion concluding with no one disputing the point that "An editor is either "involved" or he is "not involved" WP does not provide for a third option based on the type of activity being carried out." and therefore the commentary in that section is not a "cherry-picked misreadings of WP:INVOLVED"?
16. Can you clarify if you agree requests for SmallJim's to explain why he has "strong feelings" about the subject remain unanswered?
17. Can you clarify if you agree that SmallJim has stated he is "far too involved" to "take any actions"?
18. Can you clarify if you agree that SmallJim has continued to take actions on the page?
19. Can you clarify examples of the "repeated misrepresentations of User:Smalljim's statement" that you cite above and clariify how they were "misrepresentations?"
20. Can you clarify if you agree that no other editor, including the administrators who participated in the discussion, made an accusation that the discussion involved
    bludgeoning
    ?
21. Can you clarify if you agree that you did not make the accusation of
    bludgeoning
    until almost three weeks later, and only then apparently in response to SmallJim being added as a "connected contributor," which is an unrelated issue that was being actively and thoroughly discussed on the talk page with another administrator?
22. Can you clarify if you acknowledge, according to the talk page discussion, that multiple editors, including the two administrator referenced above, actually supported or were not opposed to the subject edits that were repeatedly being reverted by GreenC and SmallJim and which you now refer to as "tendentious"?
23. Can you clarify if you agree that the I was not the last editor to edit the page, before the page was protected?
24. Can you clarify if you are aware that GreenC and SmallJim have been accused by multiple editors of page ownership spanning nearly a decade?
25. Can you clarify if you agree that SmallJim has never explained his own "strong feelings" about the subject despite being repeatedly asked for clarification and that when he refused to answer, the matter was not pushed?
26. Can you clarify if you have read the section here Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#Article ownership problem?
27. Can you clarify if you agree that the above comments by SmallJim, along with his admission of being "far too involved," indicates a problem with NPOV?
28. Can you clarify if you agree that "strong feelings" as SmallJim has said he has about the subject, a BLP, represent a problem for NPOV?
29. Can you clarify if you agree that just before your block, another administrator was already reviewing the addition of SmallJim to the connected contributor template here Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#Connected contributor?
30. Can you clarify if you agree that SmallJim and GreenC (combined) statistically represent (including characters, percentage and edits) the lead editors to the page?
31. Can you clarify if you agree that SmallJim and GreenC consistently refer to other editors on the page with an opinion other than their own as COI?
32. Can you clarify what evidence you have that I or other editors on the page are "
    SPAs
    " as you say?
33. You say "Note, Smalljim has made 88,546 edits to Wikipedia, with a miniscule proportion of them devoted to Lemelson, and was already an active and established admin years before the Lemelson article was created in 2013." Based on the above, can you clarify if a) you believe that the number of edits an editor has made makes him more right or more wrong? b) based on your above comment, can you clarify if you believe a small percentage of edits allocated to a specific subject makes the editor more authoritative or less?
34. Can you clarify if you agree that an editor that makes a "miniscule proportion" of their edits to a particular subject is less likely to have a good working knowledge of the topic?
35. Can you clarify if you agree that despite the subject representing a "miniscule proportion" of SmallJim's edits, statistically SmallJim, together with his editing partner GeenC represent control of the page?
36. Can you clarify if you agree that these two editors (according to the statistics page) represent 252 edits to the page, just over ten times the 25 edits I have made to the page, and dramatically more than just about any other editor who has worked on the page.
37. Based on your comment above, can you clarify that you are saying the date an editor became active on WP, and the relationship to the article creation date has a bearing on weather they are right or wrong on a particular issue?
38. Can you clarify if you agree another administrator, who has said he is "uninvolved," user:Johnuniq had offered to monitor the page?
39. Can you clarify if you agree that user:Johnuniq was actively reviewing the addition of SmallJim to the tag here [[3]], and was asking relevant questions when you added the block?
40. Can you clarify if you agree that following your block, SmallJim's long-term editing partner, GreenC (who together have exerted muilti-editor ownership of the page for nearly a decade) then immediatly removed SmallJim from the connected contributor tag before the discussion on the subject had time to progress?
41. Can you clarify if you agree that your actions today have cemented SmallJim and GreenC's continued control of the page and blocked valid well sourced contributions from myself and discouraged other would-be editors who have stated they are discouraged by such long-term conduct?
42. Can you clarify if you agree that user:Johnuniq was providing guidance to editors on the page, and that I was consistently following his recommendations and encouraging other editors to do the same?
43. Can you clarify if you agree that my edits here [[4]], [[5]] and [[6]] are the opposite of "battleground and tendentious editing" and were following user:Johnuniq guidance?
44. Can you clarify if you see any problem with GreenC (SmallJim's co-owner of the page and editing partner) talk page entries here [[7]] and here [[8]], which alleges, without any support or COI investigation, "lies," "fake accounts," "masquerading," "lying," and "biased editing,"
45. Can you clarify if you see any difference in tone and civility between GreenC's commentary towards me in point 44 and my commentary towards him and others in point 43?
46. Can you clarify if you are aware that administrator user:331dot, on the talk page, reviewed and had no problems with my edits that the controlling editors GreenC and SmallJim consistnely berate and revert?
47. Can you clarify if you are aware that my edits attempted to continue the work of other editors (including other administrators) who were discouraged from participating on the page by GreenC and SmallJim?
48. Can you clarify if you are aware that administrator @BD2412: raised concerns regarding "suppressing" sources and narratives on the page by the same editors?
49. Can you clarify if you agree that my subsequent edits followed the precise suggestions of user:BD2412?
50. Can you clarify if you agree that multiple other editors including multiple other administrators who are "not involved," have been active on the page and the talk page?
51. Can you clarify if you agree that multiple other editors have accused SmallJim and GreenC of multi-year "ownership" of the page?
52. Can you clarify if you agree that the page SEC vs. Lemelson was created at the suggestion (on the subject talk page) of administrator user:Johnuniq and involved the review and contributions of five other editors to the page before it was blanked by GreenC who apparently felt empowered and enabled by your block.?
53. Can you clarify if you agree that no one attempted to blank SEC vs. Lemelson before your block?
54. Can you clarify if you agree that your block did not include SEC vs. Lemelson?
55. Can you clarify if you agree that you enabled, through your block, the continued and near-total control by GreenC and SmallJim of not only the subject page, but now also the SEC vs. Lemelson page which was encouraged by another administrator?

DownEastLaw (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't expect Bishonen to answer this

WP:WALLOFTEXT. As for me, do not misrepresent me or my views. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@331dot - I do expect Bishonen to answer these valid questions. This is a long-term problem spanning over a decade and involving many users. Making a straw man out of it won't help. An improper and indefinite block is a serious matter that needs careful scrutiny. That is why an administrator who adds a block is expected to answer questions per the guide to appealing a block, which specifically states those questions should be asked before making the request. See the guide here.

To be clear, I did not "misrepresent" you or your views. My comment above "that administrator user:331dot, on the talk page, reviewed and had no problems with my edits," is true on its face. After explaining the edit, your response was "Very well, I am going to defer to your judgement.," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Law360_reporting which clearly indicates that you "had no problem with my edit" DownEastLaw (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually does not. As I think I said, I simply wished to disengage from the discussion. That should not be taken as agreement or support. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these seem to be statements disguised as questions. This isn't a

legal proceeding. You should make a brief unblock request as instructed. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@331dot I appreciate your involvement and concern, but these are NOT statements disguised as questions. These are valid and important questions asking for agreement or disagreement with facts taken directly from the talk page. This is the only way to approach allegations with no basis in fact.

This may not be a legal proceeding, but you will note that the guide to removing blocks follows very much the contour of legal proceedings with the ability to ask an administrator questions before making the request for removing the block - the equivalent of discovery in civil legal proceedings.

As I said before, I appreciated your input on the talk page and encouraged your involvement there and on the page. I will repeat that the more editors involved, the better, and I encourage you to continue to be involved. I hope you will take the time to carefully read the talk page and the question above and consider the serious and valid questions it raises. It may require a lot of work, but it is interesting work. DownEastLaw (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that while almost all edits made by editors other than SmallJim and GreenC are reversed and the editors are consistently accused of COI or NPOV violations or worse, there is almost no valid criticism (other than the ridiculous; such as saying for example valid sources like Reuters or Barron's are somehow invalid, etc.) of the high quality edits themselves, which is the most important thing, if we truly have the readers in mind. This is why page ownership is such a problem, it becomes about winning (for who knows what reason), rather than about the readers. DownEastLaw (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't asking about facts, you are asking about minutiae. If you think the block is made without basis, that's what you should say in an unblock request for a third party to review. Giving a lengthy list of questions isn't going to get Bishonen to change their mind. If they want to answer you point by point, they will, but I wouldn't. They've already given the reason for their block. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot if you click on the link above, your quote is properly referenced verbatim - you said "Very well, I am going to defer to your judgement," - are you saying now that you didn't say that on the talk page?

Also, this is not "minutiae," as you say. It is important questions regarding Bishonens serious allegations which have no basis in reality. This is not about getting "Bishonen to change their mind," this is about following the very same guide and instructions contained therein that Bishonen themselves provided as part of the tag. Blocking a user, if you read the guide, is not as simple as "providing a reason." Administrators are "expected to answer", questions about the block, and to do so specifically before the request to remove the tag is made. The guide specifically cites Administrator accountability, to wit:

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools... editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions... Administrators should justify their actions when requested." DownEastLaw (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per 331dot, no, I don't intend to answer all that. I will, however, apologize for my bad "tendentious" link. I meant to link to
  WP:INTERPOLATE. In this case, 331dot fixed that risk with their careful indentation, but that may not always happen, or always help. Don't on any account insert anything in my post here. If you want to answer something specific I've said, please just quote me. Bishonen | tålk 13:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC).[reply
  ]

  The reply feature is useful but not perfect, as shown here. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DownEastLaw, I've already explained my comment. I don't deny I said it, you took the wrong interpretation from it. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between accountability and demanding point by point, blow by blow discussion over every minor aspect, which is indeed minutiae. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot if you're comment can be read another way, I won't say, but I hope you can see that most if not all people would have interpreted it the way I did. I even followed up with you on the same page, at the time, to ensure my interpretation was the correct one. When you did not respond to deny it then, I had not reason to think the interpretation of your comments should taken at anything other than face value.

On your other point, when false allegations are made based on non-existent facts, then used as a basis to exercise powerful administrative tools, then yes, a "point by point" review is necessary, and WP expects such review and questions. I don't see how your discouraging Bishonen to be accountable according to WP guidelines is helpful to them, or more importantly the issue at hand, not to mention, over the long term the readers who have been short-changed by multi-editor ownership of the page for nearly a decade.

Based on Bishonen's response, it sounds like they have strong feelings about a past event involving different editor that they are projecting onto the present (and that they feel a strong need to protect another admin. based on that past event) - it would have been wiser to point that out, than to encourage Bishonen not to be accountable for their actions of the present. DownEastLaw (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking review and questioning to a new level I haven't seen in my many years here. Your next move should be to either make an unblock request according to the instructions provided to you, or to move on from this topic and edit one of the other nearly 7 million articles available to you. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen I am going to note in my request to remove the block that you have stated, in violation of WP guide to appealing blocks and Administrator accountability that you "don't intend to answer," the important and valid questions I asked you in response to your block, and that you only answered questions about an invalid link and how long you have had the page on your watch list. I'll also cite that you answered a bunch of questions I didn't ask, about another different editor, and that, regarding editors that you've blocked, that "there may possibly have been more," You then went on to provide more lengthy answers to question I didn't ask, before providing a stern warning (i.e. "Don't on any account insert anything in my post here,") about how I should respond to your comments. DownEastLaw (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do include all that - I'm certain that doing so will ensure a speedy removal of the block. That's British sarcasm, by the way. Seriously, though, do read

WP:GAB first. All of it, very carefully.  —Smalljim  14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Smalljim: why do you answer for @Bishonen:? Why do you use "sarcasm?"--DownEastLaw (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CORPNAME. I am inclined to reblock accordingly. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@-- Deepfriedokra seriously? Your response is to try to find another new and novel way to try to block my account? --DownEastLaw (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do there, Deepfriedokra. The name has been accepted once by an admin, did you notice? See this section above. Bishonen | tålk 15:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. That's odd. No among all the words, I missed that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame you. Bishonen | tålk 15:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I always defer to 331dot, il miglior fabbro -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. As this is the name of a company, it was certainly a reasonable concern. But, as Bishonen points out, it had been addessed already by 331dot. Thanks!-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As 331dot points out, in simple clear language near the top of this page, it is NOT the name of a company. So it certainly was not "a reasonable concern." It was a novel and frivolous way to look for another reason to block the account instead of dealing with the actual issues. DownEastLaw (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said at all. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what you said: "There is a "Downeast Law Associates" but your statement here satisifies my concern. Thanks for your answer". As you can see from your "simple clear language near the top of this page" You pointed out that "Downeast Law Associates" is not the same as "DownEastLaw". Are you now saying that you meant to imply that they are the same name, even though as you correctly pointed out the first time, they are not? DownEastLaw (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem have a tendency to take things away from comments (and not just mine) that are not being said, it seems in a manner to support your position. I said.....what I said. No more, no less. I absolutely did not say it was "not the name of a company". It is the name of a company, but you aren't editing about that company, so your username is okay. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the comment "say" that you "said" it was "not the name of a company?" My comment above says that you "pointed it out." You did so unequivocally and objectively by "pointing out" that "There is a "Downeast Law Associates" - which is a different name. So my comment above is accurate, takes "nothing away from comments," and has nothing to do with "supporting a position." I respond for the sake of accuracy so that nothing is misquoted and, as you have unfortunately done above (after misreading the entry), to avoid false implications being made. DownEastLaw (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting distinction between "said" and "pointed out", DownEastLaw. I'm not sure you always click on the links people provide for you. It would be a good idea to do that; the links are intended to help and to clarify things. For instance, when 331dot wrote

legal proceeding? It leads to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, an explanatory essay you may find helpful. Bishonen | tålk 12:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

And it certainly was a "reasonable", if unfounded, concern. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

This block was incorrect and I am requesting reconsideration. My edits on both the page and talk page are concise and focused on the best possible edits to the page for readers. My edits on the talk page are not perfect, but the ones that fell short of perfection were not serious (much less deliberate) either; when pointed out I tried not to repeat them. No other editor, including several administrators involved in the page over the last few months has said my comments are "

bd2412, who expressed the same concern other editors were expressing, including regarding the "surpressing" of sources. I followed his guidance regarding how to handle those sorts of edits (to the letter) too. :The block is wrong first and foremost because my edits have been well researched and brought important sources to the subject and added more diversity to the editors working on the page. The edits have also continued the work of other editors who agree with the edits but have felt discouraged. I have encouraged, on the talk page, other new editors to participate and contribute, even going as far as to encourage them on their own talk pages, always pointing out "More people editing on a topic is almost always a better thing." Such encouragement is the opposite of creating a "battleground and tendentious editing" environment. :The block should be reversed because keeping editors off any page, who do sincere and good work, and limiting the number of active editors to a smaller pool, really harms the readers ultimately. Also, this particular page involves a complex and novel area of law, where expertise can really benefit the page and correct errors (which currently remain on the page). :As the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, instructs, I asked the blocking administrator questions about their concerns about my conduct before submitting this remove request (the reason given for my block). The blocking administrator responded that they "don't intend to answer" virtually all the questions, responding only to questions asking for clarification on an invalid link and which pages I was blocked from, but otherwise answered a few questions that weren't asked, and seemed unrelated. The blocking administrator declined to answer about 96% of the questions. :As evidenced in the unanswered questions to the blocking administrator, and the cites above, the block reason are incorrect and not applicable to my conduct. Maybe the blocking administrator missed the important evidence I pointed out in my questions and in my references above. I don't (and didn't) do what the block reason states. : DownEastLaw (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

You were provided the reason for your block, you can't seem to accept it and go around typing a written interview questionnaire, which in itself is evidence of the original block rationale, albeit in a different context. Admins do not have to satisfy your requirements for responses —SpacemanSpiff 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@SpacemanSpiff WP guidelines were followed, which specifically point out that questions should be asked before submitting a request to remove a block (read the text above). WP states that the blocking admin. is "expected to answer" those questions. All questions related specifically to the block were reasonable and evidence-based and had nothing to do with an "interview." The blocking admin. declined to answer virtually all the questions or take responsibility for using their admin. tools, as WP requires.

Your "decline reason[s]," are:

1. I was "provided the reason" for the block; but no one is deputing that a reason was provided for the block, nor is citing this simple fact a reason, according to WP, to decline to remove it.
2. That I can't "seem to accept it" and "go around" asking questions. Both of these statements are not supported as valid reasons to decline removing a block - in fact, WP states the opposite, that questions should be asked, and the blocking admin. is "expected to answer" those questions. In this case they declined to. The violation lay here not with asking questions but with the blocking admin. refusing to answer them.
3. That admins do not have to answer questions and that asking questions is somehow my personal "requirement." Both statements are false and, therefore, are not valid reasons to decline to remove a block.

Here is the precise language from the guide to appealing blocks:

"Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks

This was not an "interview questionnaire" (a reason you inserted on the blocking admin's behalf). There is no job opening for the blocking admin. Nor is it "evidence of the original block rationale, albeit in a different context," as you say. These were valid and important questions that followed WP guidelines.

The evidence above shows that the questions led to the blocking admin admitting to being driven by feelings about edits from a past editor and a perceived need to protect another admin (Smalljim), not for the reasons outlined in the block—which is critically important to this improper block.

Again, asking valid questions is not my "requirement." These are the specific guidelines and "requirements" laid out by WP. In addition to the blocking admin. not following WP guidelines by declining to answer, the above shows that the blocking admin, in their own words, was motivated to institute the block for an invalid reason.

The blocking admin. understood the questions revealed that there was no support for the allegation they made. That is why WP expects them to answer the questions; It is the only way to identify erroneous or abusive use of powerful admin. tools - a blocked editor should never be discouraged from asking valid questions, and asking questions should never be used as a reason to decline to remove a block. DownEastLaw (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually want to get unblocked, this is precisely the wrong way to go about it. All this path will result in is your talk page access being revoked. That administrators have to answer questions does not mean that they have to answer an unlimited number of questions, many of which are off-topic. Admins are expected to be generally candid about their blocking reasons, but there is no requirement that they answer your questions about other blocks or other editors. And there's certainly no requirement that admins are required to answer an unlimited amount of questions, either. Even in an actual legal proceeding, there are limits on interrogatories (and you've more than doubled the Rule 33 Federal limit), and this is not a legal proceeding or even a quasi-legal one. No admin ever would -- or should -- answer such an absurd litany of questions, and you have no recourse to force any into such a ludicrous exercise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to