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