---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 01:24:35 -0500
Subject: Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org

IP: 2600:1700:8680:E900:F0B9:62DB:3DE0:ED35

I believe the article carries significant bias which I have outlined
in the article's talk page including many specific points which have
received minimal to no change. Due to the article's semi-protect
status I have not modified the main article substantially, except
through an account which I intend to have remain uninvolved with this
article after having both an {{npov-check}} banner as well as
commented text separately and repeatedly reverted by veteran enough
editor while greatly enough lacking meaningful reasons or dicussion to
not want my identity associated with the article or discussions
thereof anymore. I did not sockpuppet during any discussion, thou my
IP frequently changed. No one has accused me of sockpuppeting.

Prior to my ban, many editors expressed discontent with my willingness
to push for further discussion, yet no one at any point accused me of
ignoring a point they made, nor misinterpreting or violating any
specific guideline. I have cited the most guidelines among editor
discussing that article while so far none appeared to me to have
disputed any interpretation I had.

One point which I had made about the article in a dedicated section
disputed the presense of
[[Template:Reliable_sources_for_medical_articles]] as inappropriate
for an article with more social, political, historical, metaphysical,
and literary significance than pharmaceutical. No one having responded
to the dispute for more than 14 days, I reverted every attempt to
restore the banner without a meaningful reason in the version history
or any post within the relevant section, never violating 3R for any
one editor. Of course, I would have given editors ample opportunity to
defend their position before reverting their banner placement, had
they chosen to participate in discussion. Once they did respond, I had
no intention to revert their edits until days without even an attempt
to answer points I consider valid. Yet, I never received the
opportunity to demonstrate my willingness to reason civilly.

I want to emphasize, I believe I have treated no one with hostility,
except at one point calling someone irrational for the stated reason
they called me incompetent. Despite trying to treat everyone well, I
have received hostility as well as ad hominens from many editors.

In response to "IDHT" mentioned in my block reason, I'd like to cite a
sentence directly from [[WP:IDHT]]: Do not confuse "hearing" with
"agreeing with".

Quite reasonably, I believe many editors stay silent about the
article's bias for fear of harassment in the course of the discussion
as well as real consequences in the cases of chronically suicidal
editors who feel the need to justify suicide with reliable sources.

I admit I have a round-about possibly even absolutely odd manner for
writing my thoughts, but I do that to have fun as well as think
differently per the sapir-worf hypothesis. I believe anyone else with
my sense of justice (enforcing wikipedia's founding principles) as
well as the tolerance to endure standing up against an abusive
majority would have, which I feel very certain the silent majority do
possess the former while lacking the later.

I made this related request prior to the ban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=868392036#Suicide
I would like to add IP editing moderately protects an editor from
harassment as well as court order acquisition of the editor's email
address. That also enables an editor to separate contributions which
might provoke inferences about their personal life from the bulk of
their wikipedia editing persona. Furthermore, an account might
accidentally remain logged in providing evidence to potentially
malicious snoops, whereas an IP offers significant allowances  for
plausible deniability.

Also, I received my ban while typing this reply for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suicide#Disputing_categorization_as_medical
so I'd appreciate someone adding this to the discussion with the
appropriate signature, so my typing as well as thought goes not to
waste:


:{{ping|Graham87}} I would dispute categorizing articles on
cigarettes, alcohol, driving, and other causes of death as medical. If
you want to categorize [[death] itself as medical then remove sources
according to [[WP:MEDRS]], I fear I must oppose that as well, because
"without death, life has no meaning" and civilization would lose
itself if every POV implying so silenced.
:As for your comment about consensus on you 2R, consensus implies a
finished discussion where no opposes the action to take anymore.
Consensus can't occur without a discussion, nor with even one single
individual willing to disagree and discuss further; unless you feel
willing to exclude them from that discussion but I don't want to
believe wikipedia operates that way.
:Anyways no one has responded to a single word I wrote in my original
post in this section.
:~~~~

--
CC0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:46:32 -0800
Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org, eaterjolly@gmail.com

Dear Jean Flamelle,

The Arbitration Committee only hears appeals from banned or blocked users
who are blocked (i) based on checkuser or oversight evidence, (ii) based on
information that is not suitable for public discussion, or (iii) as a
result of an arbitration case or arbitration enforcement remedy. Your block
does not fall under those categories.

Please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks and try
appealing the block using the unblock template on your user talk page.
Alternatively, you may appeal at http://utrs.wmflabs.org (which hosts the
English Wikipedia's UTRS system for block appeals), where an experienced
administrator will examine your appeal and make an informed decision in due
course. If you require assistance on using the UTRS appeal system, you
should see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UTRS.

When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please
ensure that arbcom-en@wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any
reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another
individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Premeditated Chaos
<snip>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:49:47 -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

I hoped the arbitration committee would not only look at the block
appeal, but also look at the discussion on Talk:Suicide.

I get the sense I got block for attempting edits the majority of
editors disagreed with for WP:OUTRAGE reasons. I feel even if I
successfully appeal the block for having done no wrong, I feel without
resolution on the suicide article an administrator morally outraged by
my edits claiming IDHT WP:Advocacy when I merely disagreed.

In short, suicide has gotten honored by many cultures presently as
well as historically, so I believe some weight shift from the
diagnostics and prevention to the romantics.

Namely "to be or not be" covered in the lede, suppressing the term
"risk factors" where implying one's choice doesn't matter in favor of
the term "motivations", as well as suppressing "mental illness" in
favor of "dysphoria" among others.

Particularly, removing the reliable medical sources banner while no
one would discuss merely undo without explanation, a banner which
explicitly states medical sources serve as ideal sources, a statement
which completely dismisses an entire human history past 60 years ago,
did subsequently lead to my ban.

Will the committee arbitrate this discussion?

--
CC0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:57:39 -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

On 11/12/18, Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> even if I successfully appeal the block for having done no wrong, I feel
> without resolution on the suicide article an administrator morally outraged
> by my edits claiming IDHT WP:Advocacy when I merely disagreed

might simply block me again.*

I apologize for the meaning altering typo.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:01:33 -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

I want further clarify, I do not speak about any specific administrator.

I should mean "another administrator" rather than "an administrator".

Many administrators edit suicide.

--
CC0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Premeditated Chaos <premeditated.chaos.13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:44:27 -0800
Subject: Re: [arbcom-en] Appealing block due to discussion in [[Suicide]]
To: eaterjolly@gmail.com, arbcom-en@wikimedia.org

Hi Jean,

This appears to be a content dispute, which is not within the remit of the
Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee only accepts cases where
the community has been unable to solve an intractable behavioral problem.
We do not rule on content, including what tags, banners, or categories can
or cannot be placed on a specific page.

You need to appeal your unblock on your talk page first. If that is
successful, you should disengage from the contentious discussions on the
talk page and attempt some of the methods suggested at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, particularly
those under the second header, "Resolving content disputes with outside
help". If you are unblocked and decide to engage in dispute resolution, you
should do so with the understanding that it is fully possible that the
community's consensus may disagree with your arguments, and that your
proposed changes may not be implemented.

I hope this has been of some help.

Premeditated Chaos
<snip>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 19:30:02 -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

I do appreciate the advice.

I may view this as an intractable, but I can appreciate why someone
else may not.


--
CC0