After a good deal of discussion amongst OTRS participants and the WMFCC, a conclusion was reached that unblock requests are an internal community matter outside of the OTRS mission.
At present, the "contact us" page on the wiki as well as the text of the block message encourage users to email info-en@ if they believe they have been blocked unfairly. We would like to change this.
Previously, unblock requests were directed here, to wikien-l, which was not a particularly effective solution because it drew people to this list who were not necessarily positive contributors to it in all cases. There were also some regrettable instances of blocked users being treated in an unrespectful manner.
So now, instead, a new list has been set up specifically for unblock requests. As it draws subscribers, the intent is to change the block text and the "contact us" pages to direct mail there. Interested Wikipedians may subscribe at:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l
Experience has shown that the vast majority of requests will fall into two categories:
(a) AOL and other proxy users who have never edited and don't understand why they're accused of vandalism
(b) School users and proxy users from non-Western countries, who share a proxy with a vandal and have no way to bypass it, and are asking to have the proxy unblocked
The mailing list is open to anyone who wishes to join. Admins who are familiar with blocking policy and concerned about giving blocked users a fair hearing are particularly encouraged to participate.
Needless to say, it is hoped that those who participate will limit themselves to only highly respectful replies even in those cases where the unblock request is wholly without merit.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
On 6/27/06, uninvited@nerstrand.net uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
After a good deal of discussion amongst OTRS participants and the WMFCC, a conclusion was reached that unblock requests are an internal community matter outside of the OTRS mission.
At present, the "contact us" page on the wiki as well as the text of the block message encourage users to email info-en@ if they believe they have been blocked unfairly. We would like to change this.
Is this official? Should I update the wikien-l page to tell people *not* to email for unblock requests?
Steve
Is this official? Should I update the wikien-l page to tell people *not* to email for unblock requests?
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
Am I trolling? No. This is what actually happened.
On Jun 27, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Dabljuh wrote:
Is this official? Should I update the wikien-l page to tell people *not* to email for unblock requests?
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
Am I trolling? No. This is what actually happened.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
On 6/28/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Steve
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
No. AN/I isn't your talk page.
Blocking, on a purely technical level, prevents an IP, username, or IP associated with a blocked username, from editing any page other than that username or IP's own talk page. To even edit AN/I, one would have to circumvent the block on a technical level, which in itself is prohibited. If we rewrote blocking so that blocked users could still edit AN/I, fine. But if you're blocked, you're not allowed to circumvent the block, which is a necessary precondition of posting on AN/I in the first place.
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
Jay.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
Jay.
Oh Jay, you are the libram of Wikipedia's rules.
I observed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#Sexual_effects
So, we have a "reliable source", stating there would be no evidence regarding X. That statement is provably wrong since we find plenty of evidence for (and against) X just searching the journals. They simply didn't do their homework.
But now, you conclude that we cannot in any way point out that the statement is provably wrong? Not even remove it altoghether to avoid confusion? You insist on keeping the provably wrong statement there, knowing, that it is indeed provably wrong?
You insist to have something, that is verifiably, and provably, wrong, in Wikipedia, and you object to someone changing it?
Because its not against the rules to write something wrong in an article, even when knowing that it is verifiably and provably wrong, as long as you can find a source that says it?
I guess when someone "knows the rules" as good as you do, you can pull off stuff like that.
On 6/28/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
So, we have a "reliable source", stating there would be no evidence regarding X. That statement is provably wrong since we find plenty of evidence for (and against) X just searching the journals. They simply didn't do their homework.
But now, you conclude that we cannot in any way point out that the statement is provably wrong? Not even remove it altoghether to avoid confusion? You insist on keeping the provably wrong statement there, knowing, that it is indeed provably wrong?
You insist to have something, that is verifiably, and provably, wrong, in Wikipedia, and you object to someone changing it?
Because its not against the rules to write something wrong in an article, even when knowing that it is verifiably and provably wrong, as long as you can find a source that says it?
No idea where this all came from, but anyway: we always welcome people pointing out errors, especially if there are verifiabhle sources for them. Do it by email if you have to. But if you're going down the "I was blocked because I'm right and they're wrong" road...well...please don't.
Steve
On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Dabljuh wrote:
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
Oh Jay, you are the libram of Wikipedia's rules.
I observed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#Sexual_effects
So, we have a "reliable source", stating...
This has nothing to do with blocking policy. Piss off, Dabljuh.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor, as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor, as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
No they wouldn't.
Theresa
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor, as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
No they wouldn't.
Well, I get charged for creating a WP proposal, which is based on the ideas of a blocked editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Pro...
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor, as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
No they wouldn't.
Well, I get charged for creating a WP proposal, which is based on the ideas of a blocked editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Pro...
-- Raphael
Sigh I don't mean to be rude but if you can't see the difference between this edit that I made yesterday
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
on behalf of a blocked user, and your edit where your are acting as a meatpuppet for a banned user then you really should not be commenting here because the subtleties are beyond you.
It is perfectly ok for a blocked user to contact a sensible wikipedian and ask for them to speak at the AN on thier behalf. That is not the same as getting them to act as a meatpuppet.
Theresa
On 6/28/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit the wiki. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
I wouldn't recommend to ask any other Wikipedia editor, as it might get him/her in trouble ("proxy", "meatpuppet").
No they wouldn't.
I think they are just Token Threats, Theresa Knott. One big eternal broken bad-faith record. --LV
On 6/28/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a block? What if it's your roomate? Your 5 year old child?
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 6/28/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you're allowed to edit your talk page (at least, at first). Is the AN/I page a grey area?
Nope. If you're blocked, you're not allowed to edit it. You can always e-mail one of the 1000 admins (or, indeed, one of the 100,000 or more Wikipedia editors) and ask him or her to put something up there.
Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a block? What if it's your roomate? Your 5 year old child?
"User:XYZ emailed me and said... and asked that it be posted here. I have no opinion either way on the matter."
On 6/29/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a block? What if it's your roomate? Your 5 year old child?
Common sense should be used. Getting someone to act *on your behalf* for your own personal gain is one thing. Getting someone to relay some information which is clearly, objectively in the interests of the project, once, is another.
Steve
On 6/29/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Wouldn't getting someone else to edit for you constitute evading a block? What if it's your roomate? Your 5 year old child?
Common sense should be used. Getting someone to act *on your behalf* for your own personal gain is one thing. Getting someone to relay some information which is clearly, objectively in the interests of the project, once, is another.
And editing AN/I to add some information which is clearly, objectively in the interests of the project, is another.
Anthony
On 6/27/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Is this official? Should I update the wikien-l page to tell people *not* to email for unblock requests?
Why not go ahead and do the next logical step: Tell people to post their unblock requests to [[WP:ANI]], where they will be subsequently permbanned for "evading" their block and "disruption", and get their user page vandalized by an admin as a follow-up.
Am I trolling? No. This is what actually happened. _______________________________________________
Yes you are.