Continuation from: https://pastebin.com/G3GyS7ah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Flamelle <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 21:06:06 -0800
Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: [email protected], [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 03:22:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: Premeditated Chaos <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 03:26:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: Premeditated Chaos <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:29:31 -0800
Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: [email protected], [email protected]

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>