Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ban-bot error[edit]

{{unblock|maths error}} One ban-bot has made an error because he did not allowed me two review articles for errror correction. Bot made no refference to further proove vandalize such acts to my behalf. I guess I could say your dish is best served cold.Paul188.25.55.102 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Later Edit:I dissaprove discrepancy in wikipedia policy to fuck article by each other article, thaw to lead me out not to work. Please move to helpdesk if read it.

Arbcom vs Unblock Requests Mailing List....[edit]

Before being referred to Arbcom, is it worth mentioning that if the user has had talk page access revoked, they can appeal to the unblock requests mailing list?

Personally, I feel that the chain of appeals should be:

If talk page access is available:

Talk page unblock requests -> Mailing list -> ArbCom

If talk page access is revoked:

Mailing list -> ArbCom

The page mentions that ArbCom is the last resort, but doesn't mention the mailing list!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that as long as there is a good chance a single administrator may unblock the user if convinced, they should be referred to the unblock mailing list. However, if the user has approached / is approaching a community ban (i.e unlikely a single administrator is willing to unblock or community consensus is that the user should remain blocked), they should be referred to ArbCom. But yes, the unblock mailing list should IMO be mentioned. HeyMid (contribs) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Where may information be found about the unblock mailing list presently, please? --Bsherr (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The mailing list can be contacted via unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, but to have access to that, you need to be an admin, as only admins can unblock an editor. I might add a mention of that to the page tomorrow if I get a chance PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A Finnish block[edit]

In the http://fi.wikipedia.org an administrator has given an excessive block for the large number of IP's for one of the biggest cities of the country for a month.

Administrator Otrfan, block 143.51.236.0/24 and #256843 . Could anyone able to speak Finnish deliver a note to the Finnish Wikipedia administrators of this kind of practise to be taken into a larger consideration?

Thank you in advance! 143.51.236.213 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, we don't control the happenings of Finnish Wikipedia. Why don't you ask there? Zakhalesh (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing, based on his IP and the IP address of the block, that he can't contact them via the wiki, because his city has been, well, blocked. However, there may be email addresses that would work. --joe deckertalk to me 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, here you go. Try the Finnish OTRS email address, send a note to info-fi@wikimedia.org -- Good luck! I suspect that if you have any fluency with Finnish whatsoever (I do not) that it'll be quicker for you to explain the problem there directly. --joe deckertalk to me 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas[edit]

I am User:Pararubbas, I apologize for removing links and refs. Look when I first started I made mistakes and I didn't know how to edit really well. My sincere apolgises go out to bothering people, please can you not block my edits as I will not remove refs or links as I have learnt from my mistakes.

Please can you take my considerations on board and unblock me. My username is User:Pararubbas. I will not vandalize pages. I just want to edit them correctly on how they should. I will not remove links or references or statements which are incorrect. My aim is to update pages and improve them as well as start new pages in which don't exist and that I have the information to start a page. Please can you unblock one of my usernames which is Alexgreene87 as I don't remeber my paasword details to the Pararubbas account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.127.248 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I have been on this case, as User:Satori Son and User:NuclearWarfare (both admins) for years now. The user has asked me if it was possible to let him create a new account, as he does not remember the details to User:Pararubbas, and User:Alexgreene87 (his latest, one of 70+ socks) has been blocked. I have advised him to wait for the return of Satori (although i have now messaged Nuclear about the latest developments too) and not open a new account, but i leave it in the capable hands of this board.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Third party request for unblock[edit]

A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard.

What other ways can a third party request an unblock ? I'm not out to do so (already done) however, I noticed there is no guidance for this rare circumstance and would like the processes available to be outlined as briefly as possible.

I would expect talking to the blocking admin should be added, any others ? Penyulap 00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the change, as I'm not sure this is necessary (WP:CREEP) or even appropriate. If the blocked user does not make an unblock request, this means that they do not want to be unblocked. So there is no reason why another user would need to request this on their behalf, or (in legal terms) would have standing to do so. Making unwanted unblock requests for others on frothy public fora would generate needless drama and waste the time of the people involved.  Sandstein  05:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Being blocked can be emotionally charged, some editors may take offence at a block, and if the block is unreasonably harsh or inappropriate it can be especially emotional. The blocked party may not wish to appeal because they feel unwelcome. Appeals of high profile editors who have been blocked are common. Regardless of this, there is no documentation, anywhere, on how to ask for a block that you have seen and feel is unjust to be reviewed. I have looked, exhaustively, and find no guidance for editors who think logically to find this information. Guessing is not an option as it leads to giving up, hurting the project through editors lost through incorrect blocking and demoralising editors who see those blocks and are helpless to do anything. Giving the bare minimal guidance to stop this unnecessary loss of editors is needed.
A current case illustrates a number of these points, including the emotional effect, the editor has not asked for an appeal, and shows that using the most obvious method to request an unblock, that is, using an unblock template, is not appropriate. Whilst no decision has yet been made, other third party appeals have been made before. It is an obvious glaring omission that the policy page, the guideline page, and the template and its documentation make no mention whatsoever on third party unblocks and this leaves logical methodical editors with no solution, or simply illogical ones. The idea that everything should simply be obvious to everyone is at odds with why these pages exist. A bare minimum of guidance is the bare minimum required. The question I would ask is, is AN the appropriate direction to send editors ? Do they need further guidance, and if so, where ? Should a collapse box be used with all avenues and steps to be taken ? Penyulap 06:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I hate creep, being a mighty big rebel and unashamed groupie of IAR, that said, the barest minimum, minimum, needs to be provisioned to provide a route, even if it is not the best one, for logically ordered users, and typical editors, to follow. At least if they end up at AN someone can assist further, and the page can be improved through study of those regular, if infrequent, arrivals.
I would be all for making the link unobtrusive, one link on the page is a sufficient minimum regardless of it's prominence, so if there is any reason whatever to override the simple TOC ordering of the insertion I'm all ears and agreeing in this regard. Penyulap 16:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Please don't add that again, Penyulap; when you have already been reverted once, and nobody has agreed with your post, this isn't IAR, it is pushing your own point of view. Posting on this page and then doing what you want does not equal a talk page discussion or the obtaining of consensus. I would also put forward that what you are trying to add is incorrect. Risker (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I do often have a bit of a problem seeming too forward or too bold, and that often hurts the genuine cause I am trying to assist with. I'm not trying to push a pov, sorry if it seems that way, I am wanting to offer genuine assistance to a real problem that I can see. I do sincerely want assistance, and would like to know what you mean by incorrect, and will do my best not to appear as though I'm trying to cause any argument, I don't want that at all. If you could examine the problem as best you can, familiarising yourself with this talkpage discussion and this rather new essay by Pesky it may assist. Penyulap 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
All kinds of brilliant ideas get discussed on Jimbo's page, but that is never a substitute for discussion on the policy's talk page, and editors who try to change policy based on a "Jimbo page discussion" are normally reverted. If you would like to change this policy, discuss it here. If you get positive response, and develop a consensus, then the change can be made. Risker (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
well that's cool, I'm patient and shall wait as long as it takes for an editor who wants to discuss the content to come along. Penyulap 18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is what happens now anyway. Blocks get undone on the basis of discussions on AN/I (or other places) so there's no reason that it should not be in the WP page, unless we want it not to be descriptive. Rich Farmbrough, 09:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Discussion at \VPP[edit]

There is a discussion at WP:VPP#Should wikipedia policy recognise its own imperfection. about whether a sentence should be removed from this guideline. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

new template for users blocked for edit warring[edit]

All to often when users, even fairly experienced ones, are blocked for edit warring they respond by claiming they were acting in WPs best interest. They pften cite some previous consensus, a desire to preserve NPOV, or some other policy that they (wrongly) believed shielded them being blocked. Since this is such a regular occurence I have crafted a template to reply to such statements at Template:ewblock. Modifications are welcome but please not that I deliberately did not put a box or any shading behind it in the interest of not making it look like all the warnings and block notices they will almost certainly already have on their talk page by the time it is appropriate to add this one. The goal is to give them a brief, friendly review of what edit warring is and why we block for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've only just seen this - it's very good, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IP accounts?[edit]

I'm surprised not to see any unblock requests from IP accounts that have been blocked. Is this not a possibility? If not, how can an IP account appeal a block? Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Same way as everyone else, {{unblock}}. There aren't that many IP addresses which are blocked where it isn't obvious vandalism (so generally the vandal either gives up, changes IPs, or requests an account at WP:ACC). Those that do request unblock are few and far between enough that you have the look at the category at the right time. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC[edit]

One of the issues raised in this RFC regards how soft blocks for username issues are handled when appealed, so it would be good to hear from users who review such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

44 years for an unblock request[edit]

...that is what the template is showing for Savvyjack23's request in Category:Requests for unblock. Error in rendering or is there a fix?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments: c: link prefix for Wikimedia Commons[edit]

There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Proxy server[edit]

If you are using a proxy server such as ZenMate or Hola Better Internet, you will be blocked from editing while you have it switched on.