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<chea...@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<chea...@gmail.com>
To:arbco...@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<chea...@gmail.com>
To: Chris McKenna<thryduulf.w...@gmail.com>
CC: English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
<arbcom-appeals...@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.w...@gmail.com <mailto:thryduulf.w...@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 <chea...@gmail.com
<mailto:chea...@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
