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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> To: Chris McKenna <[email protected]> >> CC: English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals) >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> 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)* >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
