This is the same Darkfrog24 from Wikitionary and the English Wikipedia.
|The Barnstar of Diplomacy|
|I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)|
|The Teamwork Barnstar|
|Thanks for collaboration. Your help was very timely. If it were not for your support, I would not have completed my work. Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)|
Emails and abuse
Over the past few years, I've had some of my actions grossly mischaracterized, and I am still being punished for things that didn't happen at all. Wikipedia's saving grace in all of this is that most of our interactions are publicly available. Anyone who wants to can go back and read my actual posts for themselves. For my own piece of mind, I'm posting this here where anyone can see it. I have the original emails but I'm worried they might get lost.
Last summer an admin, here called Admin B, blocked my access to the "email this user" function after I had the following conversation with another admin, Admin A, who was handling my UTRS request. Admin B called it "abusing the email system." The English Wikipedia has no rule whatsoever against doing so, and Admin B acknowledged this. I'm under the impression that posting someone else's emails presents a copyright issue, so I'll paraphrase what Admin A said.
[Admin A says that UTRS is not allowed to handle my unblock request and that I should email ArbCom]
I received your email and you are under a misconception: My block is not an arbitration block; it is a normal block.
All blocks handed down as arbitration enforcement/discretionary sanctions automatically lose their AE/DS-ness and become normal sanctions after one year.
As you can see here at sanctions.user, AE sanctions may be placed "up to one year in duration." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions) Strictly speaking all sanctions should expire automatically after one year, but I've asked around and it seems that, in practice, this means it becomes a normal block after one year.
If you want something more specific, you will see in NielN's post about the block, he specifically says "first year as arbitration block." That's June 7, 2018. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkfrog24#June_2018) I don't recommend asking him what he meant because he no longer answers emails and has quit Wikipedia.
The UTRS team does indeed have the authority to restore talk page access or even lift the block if you see fit to do both.
I realize Wikipedia has as many rules as most legal systems, and not every admin can know all of them. I hope this sets your mind at ease that yes you are allowed to do what I've asked.
[Admin A responds saying they did ask around and still believe UTRS is not allowed to handle unblock requests.]
Hello, [Admin A]. It seems that I am way ahead of you.
Forwarded you will find the email I received directly from ArbCom confirming that I am indeed eligible to appeal via UTRS. I was careful to check. You and other UTRS admins do indeed have the authority to process my request. No I am not under an ArbCom/arbitration/DS block.
I appreciate your asking, but it looks like whoever you consulted was mistaken.
AE/DS sanctions can be complicated, but I do not want to bother ArbCom by emailing them unnecessarily, and this is a question they've already answered.
I would appreciate it if you wrote back right away and told me, "Okay, I am processing your appeal as normal/giving it to another admin to process as normal"/"I am not satisfied, so please email ArbCom again" or otherwise let me know what else needs to be done. I've never unblocked anyone myself so I don't know what this looks like from your end.
[Admin A says they cannot see the forwarded email and says to try UTRS again.]
Gmail, right? You need to click on the three dots at the bottom of the email screen. It reads as follows:
I've filed another request per your instructions. I would appreciate it if you made a note on my talk page under the June 7 UTRS filing that it was a request to restore talk page access that was turned down without prejudice for procedural reasons. Otherwise, someone might get the idea that my appeal was rejected on substance, which is not the case.
And yes, click on those three little dots to see forwards.
[Admin A responds that they still can't see the forwarded emails and that they will be offline for the foreseeable future per issues unrelated to UTRS.]
Because this string of sanctions began with someone calling me a liar, I find I am highly sensitive to anything that suggests I might have misled anyone, so to set my own mind at ease I'll copypaste the text for you here where you can see it:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:56 AM arbcom-en <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Apologies for the delay in response. You are correct; you are free to appeal via normal channels such as UTRS starting June 7, 2019.
At this time, the Arbitration Committee does not feel that removing the interaction ban would be beneficial, so it remains in place.
- The Arbitration Committee
Good luck with your [unrelated issues].
So there it is, the horrible horrible abuse of an office-style email exchange for which the punishment is still in place. This should have been the easy-fix matter of an admin who didn't happen to know an obscure rule and didn't happen to know how to render a forwarded message visible in gmail. Admin A didn't do anything wrong, but neither did I. Punishing me for it added a completely unnecessary load of drama to a case that has already had too much of it. Some of the people who voted against my unblock appeal later that summer gave the fact that I had too many failed UTRS appeals as their reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)