Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iaritmioawp (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 17 October 2020 (→Third-party block appeals: Added one comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Appealing block w/o email address when talk page use is also blocked

Why hasn't WP come up with a way for people to appeal their block without having to use their email address, in cases where the user is also blocked from the talk page? 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your account currently blocked? You may be able to log into IRC and be able to convince an admin to restore talk page access. This however dependent on the reason and type of block.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no user account. I also am not currently blocked, but as an unregistered editor the issue comes up occasionally. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why won't you provide an example of this? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't apply to you, but I think blocked registered editors whose email privileges haven't been revoked can create a throwaway email address at pick-your-email-provider, log into Wikipedia, register that email address, then appeal the block using that email address. Non-logged-in editors who are blocked can create an account and edit away, or create an account and create an email address then appeal the IP-block through that email address. Obviously, non-logged-in editors without an existing account will be out of luck if they happen to be using an IP address that is "blocked/account creation blocked" or if they are using an IP address that is globally blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not create an account, Wikipedia is supposed to be "anyone can edit". 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only option may be to change your IP address - i.e. go to a coffee shop or use a cell-phone instead of land-line internet or vice-versa - then appeal the block of the blocked IP address. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

range blocks

Hutchison 3G (23 million users) has been blocked by Mike V & TOR (also millions of users) has been blocked by Vituzzu
These blocks strike me as overzealous & pointless.
I am a user of both. Hutchison3G is my ISP but they too have ridiculous & arbitrary blocks so I default to using TOR. Does this suggest that I am a danger to Wikipedia? What about Chinese? Egyptians? Eritreans? Saudi Arabians? With so many blocks & spies on the internet nowadays many people are having to subvert the system just to get normal service.
You seem to be gradually blocking every NAT & proxy in the world. There are not enough IPv4 addresses for everyone to have their own so most people's addresses will not be their own with many issued by DHCP. All of these systems can & do swap IP addresses between users so you cannot state who is with which address. Whichever system a user is trapped behind you are not going to have legal access to a street address so there is no reasonable point to blocking any of them.
Alanthehat (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your general question as it applies to all editors affected by the block on Hutchison, but Wikipedia:IP block exemption may be the best way to offer you relief. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mediawiki editing is based on IP addresses, and without a new technology that isn't likely to change, so that's what we block when we need to block something due to abuse from it. TorBlock has been installed for several years now, following continuous and overwhelming abuse from it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't seem to ask either of the admins on their talk pages or notify them that you were calling their decisions into public scrutiny, I think it would be polite to let Mike V and Vituzzu in on the discussion. Tor isn't going to be unblocked. Please read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the IP address that I've blocked, it's anon only so users are more than welcome to edit with an account or request one through the account creation process. As for proxies, we are permitted to block them due to abuse. If you are experiencing blocks from using TOR/proxies, I'd encourage you to disable them while on Wikipedia. If there is a highly exceptional reason as to why you need to edit through TOR/proxies, please email the functionary team with an explanation and we will evaluate your request for an IP block exemption. Mike V • Talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In short: people really needing using tor, VPNs, or even more obscure stuffs are given the relevent means to use them. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFU Stats

Just some stats on the average load here: User:SQL/RFUStats SQLQuery me! 03:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced this with a more reliable / accurate program on toolforge: https://tools.wmflabs.org/aivanalysis/rfu.php SQLQuery me! 06:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeals from users for whom I see no block

How can this be? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't have to be blocked, technically, to post at UTRS. Could be mistakes, could be autoblocks? Could be trolling. I don't hang out much at UTRS but I'm pretty sure there's a summary close option for "user is not blocked". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have ones come up for unregistered accounts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about appealing a block and Wikipedia "standard offer"

WITHDRAWN
Withdraw RfC as no consensus exists to implement this proposal and none is likely to emerge. I thank everyone who responded to this request.--John Cline (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Wikipedia:Standard offer be elevated to officially supplement block/ban appeals? John Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background: standard offer

Standard offer is cited so often in block/ban discussions[1] that I literally believed it was already a community sanctioned offer. Since guidelines are meant to reflect what we do, and block/ban appeals have, in practice, already subsumed the counsel of "standard offer", it falls incumbent on the Community that we adequately vet the essay at core unto consensus for using it as a supplement of the guideline itself.

Proposal: standard offer

This RfC proposes that Wikipedia:Standard offer should become an informational "explanatory supplement" of Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Kindly apportion your voice, for or against the proposal, and thread indented replies in the "survey" section below. Append general comments and topics of broad consideration in the "discussion" section below it. Thank you.

Survey: standard offer

  • Support - as proposed.--John Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the standard offer is not automatic, but is a simple procedure that we usually give people. Making this more than an essay will further the false impression that if you wait 6 months you are automatically unblocked. It is fine as an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Except by the lamest read could one come to believe the standard offer implies anything like an automatic unblock/ban. I've never seen it discussed from such a notion; if you have, please give a link because I would like to see.--John Cline (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per TonyBallioni. Appeals on blocks and bans are enough; there's no need for additional supplementation through which individuals may receive a false impression of their block/ban status. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the page is nice to explain what we mean when we offer it, but granting it any sort of official sanction would imply that it is a right of any user to invoke it: it is not. --Jayron32 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To invoke wp:so is to say: I have faithfully adhered my block/ban for six months. Please, therefore, hear my earnest request to be unblocked. Why would this be seen as a problem?--John Cline (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a problem, but to have an expectation that "I only have to serve a six month block, then I can expect to be unblocked" is the attitude I'd like to avoid. --Jayron32 17:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveats - WP:SO is not a "mere" essay, because the current situation in day-to-day practice applies it often. It does have serious community backing. That said, in order to promote this, some serious changes on the emphasis of the page would be required. One common reason for declining a SO request is that we're not totally convinced that the blocked user groks exactly what the did wrong. Making the determination on whether the user really understands is a tough judgement call that could be squashed by comments like "WP:SO is a guideline, give them their second chance" if this were to pass, and that's not a good thing. SO is a fine metric for when an appeal should be heard, but misses a significant amount of nuance for when an appeal should be accepted. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SO is a guideline, give them their second chance Maybe, but it would be a guideline that says "This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, things like that would need to be emphasized further within the page in the (unlikely) event that this proposal passes. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:TonyBallioni and User:Jayron32. I think it's best as it is, and we shouldn't strengthen its status to any more than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think this is required, and could lead to confusion. While I don't think that it reads that the Standard Offer means an automatic/likely unblock at 6 months, I fear a lot of needless heat-and-no-light whining from blocked users who either genuinely think that it does, or are twisting it. Richard0612 18:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose was gonna support, then I read TonyBallioni's oppose.( and Jayron's)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SO is something we need to offer on a case-by-case basis.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - doing this would make every indef blocked editor to expect the SO by right, which is not (and should not be) the case. The SO, if offered to specific editors on, as Dlohcierekim says above me, a case-by-case basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Making SO policy would bind the hands of administrators in dealing with blocked editors for a couple of reasons. 1. As others have said, blocked editors would point to it as a policy that should be enforced. Even if it is something that can only be offered, I would foresee this being wikilawyered to death. 2. Blocked editors would view it as a box ticking exercise. "Look, I've been blocked but I've done everything in WP:SO so you need to unblock me." Again, something that can This could be be lawyered to death. Leave it as a guideline an essay, as something that could be offered on a case by case basis per Dlohcierekim. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page currently is an essay, not a guideline. And this rfc is to make it a supplement not a policy.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my first statement, I've evidently misread the proposal. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Blackmane. --Terra (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support elevating the essay to guideline, or explanatory supplement to the banning policy. Though I agree with TonyBallioni, in my experience the standard offer is normally expected to be offered to any banned editor unless explicitly revoked, not the other way around, and on principle I endorse the anyone-can-edit ideal that any banned editor may see the error of their ways and reform. But the concern about editors misreading the [essay] as though every blocked editor is automatically entitled to be unblocked on the six month anniversary is absolutely valid. I've seen it happen probably dozens of times, not just at SPI, that a community banned editor assumes because someone told them to "take the standard offer" that that meant they were absolutely and unconditionally allowed to start editing again after six months, as though the standard offer was some sort of maximum sentence, so they made a new account and did just that. That's not what it is, of course, and the essay probably needs some updating to make that clear before it graduates, but I support doing so. Also, "lame" is an ableist slur when you use it to refer to something substandard, when you could have just said mistaken or incompetent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent it is seen as an ableism, I apologize; I had meant more of a political context, and strong disapproval. I've stricken it, nevertheless, for the former.--John Cline (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on recent precedent at WP:AN, marking the page as deprecated would be more accurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: What precedent? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per User:Ivanvector. Jschnur (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Visible underscores in the Status column on Category:Requests for unblock

Will you please replace the visible underscores in "AWAITING_REVIEWER", "AWAITING_USER", etc. in the Status column on Category:Requests for unblock and consider using normal case and full sentences? The existing data does not look good.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Wrong IP disabled. Please remove. --2003:CB:2BC4:2493:2CDE:5105:F35E:C17 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC) 2003:CB:2BC4:2493:2CDE:5105:F35E:C17 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: An edit request will not help you request an unblock. Please read WP:Guide to appealing blocks and follow the instructions there. If you're still having trouble, please place {{admin help}} on your own talk page (click "Talk" at the very top of the page) with information on what you're having trouble with, and an administrator will come and assist you. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Downtime

Due to T204565, there will be some required downtime between Dec 4th - Dec 18th. This is an early notice. The database will be locked and the interface will be shut down during this time. A more exact date will be coming in the future, but I will also cross-post when I have that date solidified. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will be tomorrow, the 15th sometime between 20h00 UTC and 05h00 UTC on the 16th. The whole time is not likely to be required, it just is for flexibility with my schedule. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mediawiki

won't let me log in to prevent hijacking.-- Deepfriedokra 14:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common questions click-to-view

Why are the answers to common questions all hidden behind funny little "[show] Click 'show' to view" boxes? They're all a couple of paragraphs at most. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}: Creating an "idletimestamp" parameter

See Template talk:Unblock#Creating an "idletimestamp" parameter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stale unblocks

Comes there a time when we carry these over to WP:AN? Whenever I look at one of them, I'm undecided. I guess other people are too. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra, GZWDer, Yamla, Voice of Clam, and ProcrastinatingReader: Hi all. Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Template:Decline stale, I am commencing this local discussion. Although not documented in this guideline, there has been a practice among some users to close unblock requests as stale after two weeks. GZWDer incorporated it into Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#What happens when you request unblock, though apparently disapprovingly (see TfD supra), and Template:Decline stale has been created to carry it out. I'm personally of the opinion that it is inconsiderate to the requestors to close requests without a disposition on the merits, and that unblock requests should remain open until answered on the merits. However, if there is a consensus to close unblock requests as stale, this guideline should be updated, and then I think we should also answer the obvious question of what the next step should be for the requestor (which, coincidentally, happens to be Deepfriedokra's question above). --Bsherr (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bigger problem to leave unblock requests open for (literally) months, which I think is the natural consequence of removing decline-stale. Indeed, that's what used to happen. Yes, unquestioningly, it's better to close an unblock request with specific guidance. But, if a request has been open for, say, a month, I simply don't know why nobody else decided to act on it. I want to be clear, my position here is weakly held. My goal is to ensure unblock requests don't just sit in limbo for weeks or months. The solution can be decline-stale, but it can certainly be something else. In the absence of another new alternative, I favour decline-stale over leaving unblock requests open indefinitely (and, historically, often for weeks or months). But, I very much encourage people to think up new, better alternatives. And, Bsherr, thanks very much for the ping! --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For block appeals without unanswered open question: I instead think stale unblocks should be accepted by default, as unblocks are cheap. For banned users (such as this one, the default should **always** be bring the unblock request for community review. If there are unanswered open question, it can be closed with an agreement of reopen after answer.--GZWDer (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, the idea of a default unblock. On the one hand, I'm thinking we would regard the administrator who does the default unblock as owning that action, and if there are no open questions, would it really be that difficult to make a merits-based decision? On the other hand, it might be accurate to consider an unblock request outstanding for a fixed length of time to be "unopposed", not so unlike other timed discussion processes we have here. --Bsherr (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I've seen with stale declines-- and this 2 weeks thing just formalises it-- is the user must then formulate another unblock request that is likely as ineffectual as the last. I believe-- and I doubt we'll gain consensus on this-- that a stale unblock should instead be carried to WP:AN for discussion by the community, and not archived without a decision. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yamla to a point, and confirm the months problem, but think a better solution is to just carry 'em to WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking critically about it, does moving the discussion to WP:AN move the ball forward and, if so, why? Community discussion can take place on the user talk page too, right? Is it just about the publicity of the forum? If so, would a notice of and link to stale requests suffice? Or a category with a counter at that page? --Bsherr (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(For not banned users) I do not support bringing to AN - unless this will explicitly not result in community ban.--GZWDer (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Options

Looking at the above, it seems that three options are available:

  1. Continue the option of adding {{decline stale}} after two weeks of inactivity
  2. Enforce taking stale RFUs to WP:AN
  3. Unblock stale RFUs by default, at least in certain circumstances.

Is this worth raising an RFC about? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th option is to leave unblock requests open. I think an RfC is in order. --Bsherr (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser blocks

The admin notes here say "Administrators also must not review any requests or lift any block marked checkuserblock." Where does policy say non-checkuser admins may not decline unblock requests of such blocks? It doesn't seem a necessary restriction. It certainly doesn't bother me when I mark a checkuser block and another admin declines an unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party block appeals

Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeals by third party, boldly added in July 2019 by GZWDer, reads:

Appeals by third party

Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block. No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user. However, if you are not under a active block but you have questions about blocks of other user, you are free to discuss the block with the blocking admin. (If you are blocked, you should appeal your block first; see WP:NOTTHEM.)

I boldly removed it today and was reverted by Sandstein, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.

My objection is that this section does not accurately document existing consensus and practice, because the "no third-party appeals" rule is not actually observed by the community, as evidenced by the number of third-party appeals that are considered, as compared to the small number of third-party appeals that are denied because they are third-party appeals.

Since July 2019 when this section was added, here are third-party appeals I found that were considered by the community at AN:

  1. Aug 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Block review request
  2. Aug 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Review of El C's block of Koavf
  3. Jul 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#SashiRolls ban review
  4. May 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#"Happy as a pig in muck"
  5. May 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash
  6. Apr 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Uninvolved admin, or advice
  7. Apr 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#Hijiri88
  8. Feb 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Standard offer : TheGracefulSlick
  9. Nov 2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Harsh block by Berean Hunter
  10. Sep 2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313#Community-ban appeal

In some of these appeals, some participants argued that third-party appeals are not allowed (sometimes even linking to this page); nevertheless, the community considered these appeals, in some cases overturning the blocks at issue.

Over the same time period (since July 2019), I've only found one third-party block appeal that was not considered, from Feb 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318#Review of User:SnøhettaAS block please.

A couple notes: (1) The section doesn't strictly define "appeals by third party", but I'm defining it as "initiated by someone other than the blocked user or blocking admin", which I hope is a definition everyone will agree with. (2) I may have missed some threads in either category; please feel free to link to others if they're out there.

In light of what actually happens with third-party block appeals at AN (they are usually considered, even over opposition), I think the statements Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block. No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user. are inaccurate, and the whole section should be removed. (Alternatively, if there is consensus for the rule, then we should enforce the rule at AN.) Thoughts? TIA, Lev!vich 21:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here. In my view, the provision should remain in the guideline.
That the community has chosen to disregard its own guideline on occasion (some of the examples above are bans, not blocks) is unremarkable and not a sufficient reason for changing the guideline. We choose to disregard guidelines all the time, e.g. at AfD, where some articles are kept despite not having enough sources per WP:GNG, because local consensus deems the topic important enough for an article. That's not a reason for getting rid of the notion of notability altogether, because it works and is accepted in the great majority of cases. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. So it is here also.
There are good reasons for this rule. Most importantly, per WP:GAB, we expect a blocked user to convince us that they understand what got them blocked and that they won't do it again. They don't have a chance to do that if somebody else requests an unblock for them. A third-party unblock request thereby steers the unblock discussion in the wrong direction - away from how likely we think it is that the problematic conduct will reoccur, and into the direction of either a popularity contest between the blocked user and whoever they may have been in conflict with, or the blocking admin; or it reframes the discussion as "does the punishment fit the crime? was the block too long?" This is at odds with our ethos that blocks are preventative, not punitive. A third-party unblock request encourages participants to discuss blocks in terms of wikipolitics, punishments, popularity and power, and not in terms of whether the block was ever or is still needed to prevent damage to the project. To discuss that, we need the participation of the blocked editor, and without it, we can't usefully discuss blocks at all in my view. Sandstein 09:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good reasons for the rule, and in fact I don't object to the rule itself. What I object to is saying that we have a rule when we do not, in practice, actually follow the rule. I don't think it's a case of choosing to disregard the guideline "on occasion". AFAICS, if it's not 10 out of 11 times (because of bans v. blocks), it's at least 4 out of 5 times. So we consider 80-90% of third party block appeals. What we do in practice is the opposite of "Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block." If we consider 80%+ of appeals, we shouldn't say "No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user." Simply because it's not true, regardless of what's wrong, right, or best. Our PAGs are descriptive, not aspirational (meaning they say what happens, not what we want to happen or think should happen, but what actually happens), and I think this section is inaccurate, even if the rule is a good idea in theory. Nevertheless I may be the only editor with this opinion :-) Thanks for sharing your thoughts, S. Lev!vich 16:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, not to put you on the spot, but you did point out the guideline in the two most recent discussions, and there were opposing views, which I won't say prevailed, because the discussions weren't about the guideline itself, but, as Levivich points out, the guideline was at least disregarded. For anyone here to answer, what should we make of those opposing views (to try to summarize them: whether the definition of an appeal is narrower than a discussion about a block, and whether WP:ADMINACCT supports review of blocks regardless of whether the blocked user appeals? And would this series of discussions better reflect consensus than the guideline as currently written? --Bsherr (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block&oldid=984040654"