Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Continuation from: https://pastebin.com/G3GyS7ah
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:29:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
- Attachment: https://pastebin.com/kJJyyVz8 (shortened for read-ability)
- To: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
- Cc: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
- Having attempted a block appeal through an IP talkpage, I now realize
- that my IPv6 changes with browser sessions not merely on a daily
- basis, rendering me incapable of editing the relevant talkpage very
- quickly. Not to make a redundant request or "try my luck", but to have
- a venue to get clarification on the basis for judgment as well as an
- opportunity for rebuttal, I attempted to open a block appeal ticket.
- The ticket system however does not recognize my IP as blocked, as the
- ticket system appears to only look at my IPv4 address.
- I attach an offline copy of the page I received upon trying to submit,
- which contains my full appeal.
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:33:50 -0500
- Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
- Attachment: Untitled.png (not included)
- To: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
- Cc: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
- Since the offline copy makes the page appear broken by not including
- Javascript, I decided to also attach a screenshot with this following
- email.
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- From: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 21:06:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
- To: eaterjolly@gmail.com, arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
- Hi Jean,
- I checked with someone who has more experience with UTRS than I do, and
- they confirmed the system has issues reading IPv6, and won't accept a
- submission if the IP you're currently editing from doesn't look blocked to
- it. So I apologize for that, that's a flaw in UTRS.
- The advice I got to pass on to you, was that you should make the appeal at
- talk page of the original IP you got blocked at (
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:F0B9:62DB:3DE0:ED35),
- and then bookmark it and keep checking back in there. Even if you're later
- posting from a different IP, it'll be understood that it's you appealing.
- Hopefully that helps.
- PMC
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 03:22:39 -0500
- Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
- To: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
- Cc: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
- Well, actually while blocked, I cannot edit any talk page except for
- one of the exact IPv6 my browser gives me at that moment. I actually
- searched my history to find the talk page I originally attempted my
- appeal on, to simply ping the involved administrator to query some
- clarification. I couldn't edit that page, because my IPv6 slightly
- changed (as such IP'es seem to do).
- Reading the ANI report mentioned on that talk page by that
- administrator, I feel very concerned by how no substantive discussions
- went on prior to my block; no one seemed concerned I could not get
- notified nor even officially warned about any supposed misbehavior; no
- one questioned how I could disruptively edit a semi-protected article
- as an IP-editor; no one noticed I made 3 sections about 3 distinct
- unrelated issues (neutrality; objectifying language, and; an
- inappropriate source restriction banner) nor that I only reverted
- edits to the talk page to consistently remove the source restriction
- banner after a long period where no one responded to my comments about
- why I consider the banner inappropriate for only so long as the
- editors who consistently tried to re-add that banner did not respond
- to my comments in the talk page, but most of all; every administrator
- who has commented so far seems to share an uncontraversial tone as-if
- the judgement seems so obvious as to not need explanation or
- justification.
- That last concern, I would classify as disruptive editing by at least
- two other editor, trying to overwrite my single change while refusing
- to participate in dispute resolution.
- I further contend, this all stinks of WP:OUTRAGE, especially the
- uncontraversial tone.
- I believe the bulk of editors, administrator or otherwise, must notice
- the technical accuracy within my statements, but feel a balanced
- article would require giving way to coverage of views they consider
- morally outrageous so they thusly refuse to discuss or allow even
- changes no one kind find way to criticize within the perview of the
- wikipedia guidelines. I even got accused of attempting to
- WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as an almost immediate response to the a post
- starting with the sentence: "You are just repeating over and over that
- you consider suicide an issue, just specifying differently nuanced
- situations, but I'll express this one situation that's not nuanced at
- all." Of course, I immediately responded with a post including the
- sentence: "By trying to tell an editor I disagree with their "great
- wrong" suddenly I'm trying to "right a great wrong"."
- Shortly after my block, someone spoilered the entire section I created
- explaining the reasoning for why the article objectifies people by
- opting for the term "risk factor" where the term "motivation" could
- just as well apply, as well as reasons relating to neutrality as well
- as general ethics for why the article should avoid moralizing language
- like that, with no more summary or explanation than they consider the
- section a rant. Well, even if accurate, I've read many early wikipedia
- discussions for as well as against capital G, "god", which certainly
- would deserve the classification "rant" but certainly posed very
- necessary arguments. I genuinely detest arguing, but I detest even
- more decision-makers acting Quxiote with regards to their process for
- making decisions when those decisions affect a great many people
- directly or indirectly but very potently.
- --
- CC0
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 03:26:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
- To: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
- Cc: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
- Excuse me, I meant that second to last concern.
- I added an extra concern, post-editing without noticing I needed to
- update the first sentence in the next paragraph to refer to the
- correct concern.
- --
- CC0
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- From: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:29:31 -0800
- Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
- To: eaterjolly@gmail.com, arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
- Ok, so post on whichever IP you're presently on, and just make a note that
- you're the IP from Talk:Suicide. Add a link to the original IP in your
- request, and make a note that you're having trouble with dynamic IP and may
- not be able to respond on the same page. Then bookmark it so you don't lose
- it.
- PMC
- <snip>
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement