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

Sat Aug 8 11:04:01 UTC 2015

So in my case, where should I appeal? I was blocked indef.
On Aug 8, 2015 10:43 AM, "Ben Salvidrim" <benoit_landry at hotmail.com> 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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>