Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

Filipus Klutiero
I am forwarding the last mail promised in https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the original report).

The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for pre-written paragraphs.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
From: Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]



Hi,
During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on this issue, but have not received a reply so far.

I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.

By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015 ).

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
From: Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
To: Chris McKenna <[hidden email]>
CC: English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals) <[hidden email]>



Hi Chris,

On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
> Hello Chealer
>
> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and declines to unblock at this time.

Thank you for the prompt response.

> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and block log message are correct and compliant with policy.

Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?



[...]

>
> *---
> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a whole.
>
> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore in case the first attempts actually worked.
>     --------------------------------------------
>     I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>
>
>     The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>
>
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding the unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>
>
>     The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified". Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator thinks my contributions call
>     for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in compliance with policy.
>     To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected by a policy-compliant block or not.
>
>     By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public. Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>
>     --
>     This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>
>     The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>
>


--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com





_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

Kevin Gorman
I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
looks.  Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
archive.  More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
received one link from anyone.  Surely we can do better than this?
JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
on his talk page again.  Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
just say the reasons are "obvious".

Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
implementing his offer....  That's certainly not an offer that can be
implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.

This could be a perfectly good block.  But JzG's initial block notice
and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
a good block.  I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked  at the talk page and
block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
tempted to unblock Chealer myself.  (And again, I may find an
indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
page.)

Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
correct me if I'm wrong please.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am forwarding the last mail promised in
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
> This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
> violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
> original report).
>
> The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
> pre-written paragraphs.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> To:     [hidden email]
>
>
>
> Hi,
> During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
> Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
> policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
> explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
> this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
>
> I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
> letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
>
> By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015
> ).
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> To:     Chris McKenna <[hidden email]>
> CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>
>> Hello Chealer
>>
>> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
>> declines to unblock at this time.
>
>
> Thank you for the prompt response.
>
>> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and
>> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
>
>
> Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not
> possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
>
>
>
> [...]
>>
>>
>> *---
>> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own
>> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a
>> whole.
>>
>> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as
>> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore
>> in case the first attempts actually worked.
>>     --------------------------------------------
>>     I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>     The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
>> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>>
>>
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding the
>> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
>> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>>
>>
>>     The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
>> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified".
>> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
>> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not
>> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to
>> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
>> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of
>> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself
>> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I
>> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
>> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this
>> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the
>> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
>> thinks my contributions call
>>     for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
>> compliance with policy.
>>     To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
>> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected
>> by a policy-compliant block or not.
>>
>>     By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
>> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
>> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public.
>> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>>
>>     --
>>     This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user
>> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
>> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>>
>>     The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
>> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation
>> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her
>> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
>> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
>> removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Filipus Klutiero
> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

Kevin Gorman
And to add - if he is unblocked under conditions and then he violates
them, I'll be  the first to reblock him.  It amuses me that I'm pretty
sure I have a reputation for being a harsh blocker, but seem a lot
more willing to work under cases like this - and more than once I've
unblocked people under conditions that other people have written off
only for them to become productive contributors who were not a problem
in the future.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
> looks.  Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
> he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
> little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
> blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
> don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
> archive.  More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
> diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
> received one link from anyone.  Surely we can do better than this?
> JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
> the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
> on his talk page again.  Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
> insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
> just say the reasons are "obvious".
>
> Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
> be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
> block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
> his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
> I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
> administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
> show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
> where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
> future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
> implementing his offer....  That's certainly not an offer that can be
> implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.
>
> This could be a perfectly good block.  But JzG's initial block notice
> and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
> a good block.  I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
> all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked  at the talk page and
> block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
> not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
> page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
> show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
> message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
> willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
> I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
> tempted to unblock Chealer myself.  (And again, I may find an
> indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
> obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
> page.)
>
> Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
> actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
> correct me if I'm wrong please.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I am forwarding the last mail promised in
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
>> This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
>> violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
>> original report).
>>
>> The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
>> pre-written paragraphs.
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
>> Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
>> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
>> To:     [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
>> Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
>> policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
>> explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
>> this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
>>
>> I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
>> letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
>>
>> By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015
>> ).
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
>> Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
>> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
>> To:     Chris McKenna <[hidden email]>
>> CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Chealer
>>>
>>> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
>>> declines to unblock at this time.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the prompt response.
>>
>>> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and
>>> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
>>
>>
>> Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not
>> possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> *---
>>> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own
>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a
>>> whole.
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as
>>> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore
>>> in case the first attempts actually worked.
>>>     --------------------------------------------
>>>     I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
>>> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>>>
>>>
>>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding the
>>> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
>>> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
>>> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified".
>>> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
>>> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not
>>> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to
>>> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
>>> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of
>>> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself
>>> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I
>>> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
>>> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this
>>> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the
>>> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
>>> thinks my contributions call
>>>     for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
>>> compliance with policy.
>>>     To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
>>> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected
>>> by a policy-compliant block or not.
>>>
>>>     By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
>>> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
>>> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public.
>>> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user
>>> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>>>
>>>     The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
>>> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation
>>> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her
>>> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
>>> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
>>> removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>>>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Filipus Klutiero
>> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

Benoit Landry
In reply to this post by Filipus Klutiero
BASC is intended to be a venue to appeal bans specifically and not blocks, but it still sometimes responds to block appeals because an indef-block can be considered a "de facto" ban, albeit one that did not require prior community consensus (or an ArbCom decision).

Since this is not an actual community ban, it should IMO be appropriate to process any unblock request normally on-wiki as an administrator. Perhaps community comment can be sought but it does not seem to be like that would be mandatory. This is regardless of BASC's response (which, if it must be said, seems to have opined as to the validity of the block without commenting on an actual block appeal).

~Benoit / Salvidrim
[Sent from my Nexus 5]

On Aug 7, 2015 9:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:
I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
looks.  Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
archive.  More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
received one link from anyone.  Surely we can do better than this?
JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
on his talk page again.  Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
just say the reasons are "obvious".

Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
implementing his offer....  That's certainly not an offer that can be
implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.

This could be a perfectly good block.  But JzG's initial block notice
and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
a good block.  I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked  at the talk page and
block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
tempted to unblock Chealer myself.  (And again, I may find an
indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
page.)

Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
correct me if I'm wrong please.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am forwarding the last mail promised in
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
> This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
> violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
> original report).
>
> The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
> pre-written paragraphs.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> To:     [hidden email]
>
>
>
> Hi,
> During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
> Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
> policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
> explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
> this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
>
> I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
> letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
>
> By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015
> ).
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> To:     Chris McKenna <[hidden email]>
> CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>
>> Hello Chealer
>>
>> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
>> declines to unblock at this time.
>
>
> Thank you for the prompt response.
>
>> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and
>> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
>
>
> Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not
> possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
>
>
>
> [...]
>>
>>
>> *---
>> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own
>> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a
>> whole.
>>
>> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as
>> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore
>> in case the first attempts actually worked.
>>     --------------------------------------------
>>     I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>     The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
>> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>>
>>
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding the
>> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
>> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>>
>>
>>     The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
>> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified".
>> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
>> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not
>> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to
>> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
>> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of
>> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself
>> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I
>> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
>> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this
>> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the
>> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
>> thinks my contributions call
>>     for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
>> compliance with policy.
>>     To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
>> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected
>> by a policy-compliant block or not.
>>
>>     By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
>> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
>> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public.
>> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>>
>>     --
>>     This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user
>> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
>> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>>
>>     The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
>> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation
>> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her
>> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
>> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
>> removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Filipus Klutiero
> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

Luca Motoc
So in my case, where should I appeal? I was blocked indef.
On Aug 8, 2015 10:43 AM, "Ben Salvidrim" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> BASC is intended to be a venue to appeal bans specifically and not blocks,
> but it still sometimes responds to block appeals because an indef-block can
> be considered a "de facto" ban, albeit one that did not require prior
> community consensus (or an ArbCom decision).
>
> Since this is not an actual community ban, it should IMO be appropriate to
> process any unblock request normally on-wiki as an administrator. Perhaps
> community comment can be sought but it does not seem to be like that would
> be mandatory. This is regardless of BASC's response (which, if it must be
> said, seems to have opined as to the validity of the block without
> commenting on an actual block appeal).
>
> ~Benoit / Salvidrim
> [Sent from my Nexus 5]
>
> On Aug 7, 2015 9:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
> looks.  Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
> he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
> little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
> blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
> don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
> archive.  More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
> diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
> received one link from anyone.  Surely we can do better than this?
> JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
> the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
> on his talk page again.  Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
> insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
> just say the reasons are "obvious".
>
> Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
> be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
> block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
> his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
> I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
> administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
> show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
> where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
> future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
> implementing his offer....  That's certainly not an offer that can be
> implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.
>
> This could be a perfectly good block.  But JzG's initial block notice
> and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
> a good block.  I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
> all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked  at the talk page and
> block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
> not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
> page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
> show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
> message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
> willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
> I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
> tempted to unblock Chealer myself.  (And again, I may find an
> indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
> obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
> page.)
>
> Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
> actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
> correct me if I'm wrong please.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I am forwarding the last mail promised in
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
> > This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding
> WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
> > violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
> > original report).
> >
> > The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
> > pre-written paragraphs.
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Subject:        Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> > Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
> > From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> > To:     [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
> > Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
> > policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
> > explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
> > this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
> >
> > I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
> > letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
> >
> > By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015
> > ).
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Subject:        Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> > Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
> > From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
> > To:     Chris McKenna <[hidden email]>
> > CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
> > <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Chealer
> >>
> >> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
> >> declines to unblock at this time.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the prompt response.
> >
> >> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block
> and
> >> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
> >
> >
> > Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is
> not
> > possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
> >
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >>
> >>
> >> *---
> >> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>
> >> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my
> own
> >> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee
> as a
> >> whole.
> >>
> >> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email]
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed,
> as
> >> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and
> ignore
> >> in case the first attempts actually worked.
> >>     --------------------------------------------
> >>     I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >>
> >>     The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
> >> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
> >>
> >>
> >>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding
> the
> >> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
> >> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
> >>
> >>
> >>     The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
> >> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block
> justified".
> >> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
> >> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would
> not
> >> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as
> to
> >> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
> >> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some
> of
> >> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed
> myself
> >> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count
> those I
> >> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
> >> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with
> this
> >> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in
> the
> >> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
> >> thinks my contributions call
> >>     for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
> >> compliance with policy.
> >>     To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
> >> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up
> affected
> >> by a policy-compliant block or not.
> >>
> >>     By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
> >> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
> >> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals
> public.
> >> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to
> user
> >> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
> >> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
> >>
> >>     The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
> >> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no
> obligation
> >> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose
> his/her
> >> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
> >> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as
> abuse and
> >> removal from emailing, see <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
> >>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
> >>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Filipus Klutiero
> > http://www.philippecloutier.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer

Filipus Klutiero
In reply to this post by Benoit Landry
Salut Benoit,

On 2015-08-07 09:14, Ben Salvidrim wrote:
> BASC is intended to be a venue to appeal bans specifically and not blocks, but it still sometimes responds to block appeals because an indef-block can be considered a "de facto" ban, albeit one that did not require prior community consensus (or an ArbCom decision).

Despite its name and its communications, the BASC is also intended to review blocks, as confirmed by the lead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee/About

>
> Since this is not an actual community ban, it should IMO be appropriate to process any unblock request normally on-wiki as an administrator. Perhaps community comment can be sought but it does not seem to be like that would be mandatory. This is regardless of BASC's response (which, if it must be said, seems to have opined as to the validity of the block without commenting on an actual block appeal).

Indeed, the one mail I received from the BASC which I have not forwarded accepted the appeal:
> Thank you for writing to us. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee will now consider your appeal and report its decision to you in due course.

The appeal result is confusing, but the BASC clearly indicated that it found the block complied with policy.

>
> ~Benoit / Salvidrim
> [Sent from my Nexus 5]
>
> On Aug 7, 2015 9:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
> looks.  Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
> he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
> little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
> blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
> don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
> archive.  More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
> diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
> received one link from anyone.  Surely we can do better than this?
> JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
> the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
> on his talk page again.  Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
> insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
> just say the reasons are "obvious".
>
> Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
> be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
> block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
> his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
> I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
> administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
> show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
> where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
> future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
> implementing his offer....  That's certainly not an offer that can be
> implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.
>
> This could be a perfectly good block.  But JzG's initial block notice
> and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
> a good block.  I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
> all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked  at the talk page and
> block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
> not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
> page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
> show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
> message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
> willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
> I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
> tempted to unblock Chealer myself.  (And again, I may find an
> indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
> obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
> page.)
>
> Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
> actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
> correct me if I'm wrong please.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I am forwarding the last mail promised in
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
>> This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
>> violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
>> original report).
>>
>> The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
>> pre-written paragraphs.
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
>> Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
>> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
>> To:     [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
>> Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
>> policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
>> explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
>> this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
>>
>> I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
>> letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
>>
>> By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015
>> ).
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
>> Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
>> From:   Filipus Klutiero <[hidden email]>
>> To:     Chris McKenna <[hidden email]>
>> CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>> Hello Chealer
>>>
>>> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
>>> declines to unblock at this time.
>>
>> Thank you for the prompt response.
>>
>>> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and
>>> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
>>
>> Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not
>> possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> *---
>>> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own
>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a
>>> whole.
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as
>>> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore
>>> in case the first attempts actually worked.
>>>      --------------------------------------------
>>>      I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>>      The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
>>> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>>>
>>>
>>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding the
>>> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
>>> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>>>
>>>
>>>      The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
>>> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified".
>>> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
>>> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not
>>> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to
>>> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
>>> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of
>>> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself
>>> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I
>>> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
>>> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this
>>> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the
>>> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
>>> thinks my contributions call
>>>      for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
>>> compliance with policy.
>>>      To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
>>> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected
>>> by a policy-compliant block or not.
>>>
>>>      By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
>>> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
>>> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public.
>>> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user
>>> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>>>
>>>      The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
>>> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation
>>> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her
>>> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
>>> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
>>> removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>>>      https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>>>
>>>
>>

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

WP:EXPLAINBLOCK status (Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer)

Filipus Klutiero
In reply to this post by Kevin Gorman
Hi Kevin,
Your involvement is appreciated, whether or not it leads to any real change.

However, even your message suggests that the BASC is not alone to consider WP:EXPLAINBLOCK as outside of policy. Since several administrators seem to take that stance while no one supports WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, I really think WP:EXPLAINBLOCK should not remain as is (again, I support the spirit behind WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, and am not saying here it is undesirable per se).

After my initial message, I realized there is an alternative to rewording WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, i.e. simply removing it from policy. This could be a pure removal or merely moving out of any policy page. The section could be moved to a guideline page. On the other hand, the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page is a structured whole. Removing parts simply because they are not actually policy would hurt the structure. There are other parts of the page which are explanatory rather than normative. But changing the page into 3 pages (a policy page, a guideline page and an informational page) is not a good idea in terms of accessibility. Perhaps it is time to devise a way to publish rules outside of policy pages. A page could contain any number of numbered norms, each of which could have a certain level of support.

On 2015-08-07 09:02, Kevin Gorman wrote:

> I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
> looks.  Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
> he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
> little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
> blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
> don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
> archive.  More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
> diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
> received one link from anyone.  Surely we can do better than this?
> JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
> the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
> on his talk page again.  Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
> insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
> just say the reasons are "obvious".
>
> Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
> be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
> block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
> his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
> I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
> administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
> show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
> where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
> future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
> implementing his offer....  That's certainly not an offer that can be
> implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.
>
> This could be a perfectly good block.  But JzG's initial block notice
> and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
> a good block.  I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
> all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked  at the talk page and
> block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
> not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
> page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
> show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
> message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
> willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
> I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
> tempted to unblock Chealer myself.  (And again, I may find an
> indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
> obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
> page.)
>
> Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
> actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
> correct me if I'm wrong please.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> I am forwarding the last mail promised in
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
>> This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
>> violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
>> original report).
>>
>> The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
>> pre-written paragraphs.
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
>> Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
>> From:   Filipus Klutiero<[hidden email]>
>> To:[hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
>> Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
>> policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
>> explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
>> this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
>>
>> I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
>> letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
>>
>> By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015
>> ).
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
>> Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
>> From:   Filipus Klutiero<[hidden email]>
>> To:     Chris McKenna<[hidden email]>
>> CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
>> <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>> Hello Chealer
>>>
>>> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
>>> declines to unblock at this time.
>> Thank you for the prompt response.
>>
>>> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and
>>> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
>> Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not
>> possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>> *---
>>> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
>>> [hidden email]  <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own
>>> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a
>>> whole.
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as
>>> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore
>>> in case the first attempts actually worked.
>>>      --------------------------------------------
>>>      I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>>      The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
>>> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>>>
>>>
>>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked  (excluding the
>>> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
>>> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>>>
>>>
>>>      The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
>>> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified".
>>> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
>>> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not
>>> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to
>>> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
>>> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of
>>> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself
>>> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I
>>> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
>>> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this
>>> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the
>>> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
>>> thinks my contributions call
>>>      for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
>>> compliance with policy.
>>>      To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
>>> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected
>>> by a policy-compliant block or not.
>>>
>>>      By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
>>> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
>>> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public.
>>> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user
>>> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>>>
>>>      The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
>>> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation
>>> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her
>>> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
>>> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
>>> removal from emailing, see<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>>>      https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Filipus Klutiero
>> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Loading...