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

Fri Aug 7 13:07:44 UTC 2015

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 <kgorman at gmail.com> 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 <chealer at gmail.com> 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 <chealer at gmail.com>
>> To:     arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <chealer at gmail.com>
>> To:     Chris McKenna <thryduulf.wiki at gmail.com>
>> CC:     English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
>> <arbcom-appeals-en at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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)*
>>> thryduulf.wiki at gmail.com <mailto:thryduulf.wiki at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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 <chealer at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:chealer at gmail.com>> 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
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l