[WikiEN-l] WP:EXPLAINBLOCK status (Re: Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer)
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/54.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 t
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
Salut Benoit, On 2015-08-07 09:14, Ben Salvidrim 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). Despite its name and its communications, the BASC is also intended to review blocks, as confirmed by the lead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee/About 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). Indeed, the one mail I received from the BASC which I have not forwarded accepted the appeal: Thank you for writing to us. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee will now consider your appeal and report its decision to you in due course. The appeal result is confusing, but the BASC clearly indicated that it found the block complied with policy. ~Benoit / Salvidrim [Sent from my Nexus 5] On Aug 7, 2015 9:03 AM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@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 chea...@gmail.com wrote: I am forwarding the last mail promised in https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/54.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
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
I am forwarding the last mail promised in https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/54.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
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] BASC status and transparency
Not much to see here, but for full disclosure, I am forwarding this last message from the thread. All messages from committee members are entirely quoted in the 2 mails now forwarded, except for 1 templated paragraph. Forwarded Message Subject:Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] BASC status and transparency Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:35:42 -0400 From: Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com To: arbcom-appeals...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi LFaraone, On 2015-05-18 17:14, LFaraone (BASC) wrote: Chealer, This confirms receipt of your message, the contents of which have been distributed to members of the subcommittee. Thank you The purpose of this list is to hear appeals of blocks and bans, not to submit bug reports or suggest changes to Wikipedia policies or processes. I am not sure what you mean. The mail I sent primarily meant to avoid misinterpretation of my suggestion regarding BASC status, which is why I think it is relevant here, but feel free to suggest a better forum if you consider this suboptimal (although I currently have no intention to add anything). As for the submission bug, I was not sending a proper bug report and just meant to let you know there is a bug in case this has not been reported yet. If this is already tracked, someone can point me to the ticket and I will contribute there if possible. If not, I meant to signal my willingness to help if someone else is interested. This could be a browser bug, but a Wikipedia bug seems much more likely. If someone volunteers, I use the same address on XMPP. -- LFaraone [...] -- 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] Fwd: BASC status and transparency
Following https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/54.html I am hereby disclosing a message I sent to the BASC 2 months ago, which unfortunately remains entirely current AFAIK. No one has indicated whether the bug is known or not. Forwarded Message Subject:BASC status and transparency (was Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:25:21 -0400 From: Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com To: Chris McKenna thryduulf.w...@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals) arbcom-appeals...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi Chris, On 2015-05-17 17:09, Chris McKenna wrote: Thank you for writing to us. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee will now consider your appeal and report its decision to you in due course. The current turnaround time for ban appeals can be checked at http://enwp.org/WP:BASC#turnaround. While I appreciate that you would like more precision than that, we are unable to be more specific as the length of time an appeal takes depends on many factors including the availability of individual members of the committee and the specifics of the appeal. What I meant was not that a single measure was insufficient. I was just pointing out that as for any static document which contains Currently, reliability is limited. Rather than Currently, you can expect [...] , this could read - for example - As of December 2014, you can expect [...] , or Currently (last updated December 2014), you can expect [...] . That would make appealing... more appealing ;-) In this case, one may get the information from page histories, but this is less trivial with templates. While we're at it, according to our own article on tilde, the usage we make does not exist in English. Also, you can expect is vague - it would be best to say - for example - that the average time is x, or that the vast majority of appeals are processed in x, depending on what was meant (apparently the latter). We do not make appeals public as a matter of course as this is not normally in the interests of all parties, and in some cases would compromise privacy. I did not mean to say all cases should be entirely public - I can understand some privacy issues. But I do not see why a public process would not normally be in the interest of all parties - or at least, in the project's interest, which is what we should consider. Speaking for my case, it would certainly be at least in my interest for the appeal to be public. Then again, if the subcommittee wants to keep some or all of its internal communications private, that is a lesser issue. Simply opening external communications would solve most of the transparency problems, including the one which prompted this discussion, i.e. the capacity of potential users to evaluate whether an appeal would be heard (and secondarily, how fast) without requiring someone else keeping an up-to-date assessment (though that could remain a useful indicator to get a quick idea). As a bonus, potential users could evaluate the appropriateness of appeal results. I rarely (less than once a month on average) make a benevolent online contribution to a project if I cannot do so publically, unless that is due to exceptional circumstances (say a buggy ITS). As a radical transparency advocate, I may not be a reference, but I am surely not alone. Of course, if you care about the possibility of appealing privately, supporting both options can complicate your work or require investment. I honestly believe though, that for a project which champions openness like Wikimedia, and for an activity as critical as ban management in an open wiki, this should be seriously considered. The WMF might be able to allocate resources to help implementing this. Finally, regarding the submission problem I noted, my third attempt to submit worked, unlike the first 2 which failed quietly. Even though there was no error, and even though I had never used Email this user before, it was relatively obvious that submission had failed since there was no confirmation (and I had requested an email copy which did not arrive). Still, I am willing to help if that issue is unknown or not fully understood yet. I was using Debian 8's Iceweasel 31 in the first attempts. I made the successful attempt using Chromium, so this may be browser-specific. [...] For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, Thank you *--- 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: [...] -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit
