[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: wikien-l
Subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:EXPLAINBLOCK status (Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer)
From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer () gmail ! com>
Date: 2015-08-30 15:15:37
Message-ID: 55E31E19.9050703 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
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<chealer@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@gmail.com>
> > To:arbcom-l@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@gmail.com>
> > To: Chris McKenna<thryduulf.wiki@gmail.com>
> > CC: English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
> > <arbcom-appeals-en@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@gmail.com <mailto:thryduulf.wiki@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@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:chealer@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic