User talk:Captain Occam: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

In some comments I posted on various articles, which have now been administratively removed, I referred to you as a "creationist". In looking for the evidence I based this on, it now appears to me that I entirely misread it, and came to a completely wrong conclusion. Therefore, I apologize for calling you a creationist, and will attempt to be more accurate - both in general and concerning you - in the future. Yours, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying for what you post about me to be more accurate, I would rather you stop bringing me up in general. Is that option not on the table? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely up to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Please don't try to put your behavior off onto me. The only thing that controls whether you continue bringing me up is how much attention you choose to pay to me. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that simply isn't the case. You're not some innocent newbie being picked on for no good reason, you've been a disruptive element on Wikipedia for quite a while -- except, of course, for the period when you were site banned. If you do something that I see, and believe requires commenting on, I will do so. If you simply edit without causing trouble or disruption, you won't hear from me at all - so, you see, it's entirely your behavior which is the controlling factor. Don't worry, though, I won't say a thing to anyone about your apparent inability to graciously accept an apology when it's offered to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you expect me to react to an apology that includes a built-in warning that you're going to continue talking about me and monitoring my edits? You've already told me in Jimbo's user talk that you're unable to assume good faith about any edit I make anywhere on the project. ("You used up your stock of AGF a long, long time ago.") Don't give me this story about my behavior being what determines the outcome--you've already told me point-blank that you're going to assume bad faith about my edits regardless of what I do.

Please understand that at this stage, I don't actually expect to change your attitude about this. But down the road, I would like to be able to show other people that I asked you nicely to stop trying to police my edits, and that you refused. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Captain Occam. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I received an unsolicted e-mail from you, using Wikipedia's e-mail link.

I have no need of either correction nor advice from the like of you. You are specifically directed not to e-mail me again. If you do, I will take the matter directly to ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm curious to see how that works out for you. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to notify you that I am filing a complaint against you on Arbitration Enforcement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per this thread at WP:AE, I have indefinitely blocked you and disabled your use of the Wikipedia email system. This is a standard admin block, and not an arbitration enforcement action, and as such, can be appealed through the normal processes, which you can find at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your block, your clarification request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Captain Occam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #21796 was submitted on Jun 11, 2018 22:36:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock | reason=I previously made an unblock request via UTRS, and in response I was instructed to make the same request using the unblock template in my user talk. This is a truncated version of my UTRS request.

Over the past month, I've tried to discuss an issue affecting the basis for my block on the ArbCom mailing list, but ArbCom ultimately told me that this particular issue can't be addressed privately, and that if I wish to raise it I must do so in a public request. Since I'm currently blocked, doing that isn't possible at the moment. However, ArbCom also has told me that since I'm under a standard admin block, it isn't within their remit to review the block or grant an exception to it. I contacted an arbitration clerk, user:Penwhale, about how I should proceed in this situation, and he instructed me to request an unblock under the following conditions:

Note: this request is no longer current; I'll make a new request below. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

• Just two comments as the blocking admin: while this is not an AE block, so any administrator may lift it without my consent, this was based on the rough consensus of administrators at AE. As such I think an unblock would be best to go to AN even though it technically doesn’t have to. 2) I’d encourage the reviewing admin to read the UTRS appeal and the comments I put in there and Penwhale did as well. Namely, in my view Captain Occam lied in his UTRS request. That might be a factor in favour of just declining this outright. I don’t feel very strongly either way about this block, and I’ll leave it up to others to decide, but I thought those pieces of material fact were important for any reviewer to know. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you feel that I've lied about? It's possible that I've made a mistake or oversimplified something, but I don't think that I stated any deliberate falsehoods.

After putting some thought into this, I have an idea what you're referring to: I said in my UTRS appeal that I thought the blocking admin supported me being unblocked under these conditions. My comment about that was based on an exchange I had with Penwhale in which he said that he had talked to you on IRC, and that you felt that you shouldn't lift the block unless it was discussed at AN first. My (apparently wrong) assumption was that if you were opposed to my being unblocked under these conditions, you wouldn't have offered that suggestion about how to proceed.

Is that what you're referring to? If it was, that wasn't a deliberate lie, but a case of me assuming too much based on what Penwhale told me (and I apologize for doing that). --Captain Occam (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was ambiguous because I wanted to respect the privacy of the UTRS ticket, but I’ll explain more now since you asked: Yes, that is what I’m referencing, but your explanation here doesn’t make it any better: you didn’t once mention AN in the UTRS ticket even though you apparently knew that I thought there should be a discussion there and that I thought this should be done in public, you also did not just claim that I didn’t oppose the unblock, but that I supported it: I don’t. I’m neutral on it, which is very different than supporting. I was also unfamiliar with any proposed unblock conditions. I’ll let Penwhale speak for himself as to if he feels you misrepresented him. Anyway, I’m not going to comment more on this, but I did want for the reviewing admin to be aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a lot of the trouble I've gotten into at Wikipedia has been the result of people attributing a malicious purpose to mistakes that I made from misreading social cues. It was clueless of me to assume you supported unblocking me based on what Penwhale told me, but cluelessness isn't the same as deliberately lying. I'm autistic, so I've sometimes had this problem in real life also. I think it would be a benefit to everyone if the Wikipedia community could learn to assume no clue in these types of situations. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in here. Echoing what Tony said above, I'm also not very happy as to have to explain to Tony (in the same UTRS) that what I told you is very different from what you posted: (1) I never once said whether Tony supported it, only mentioning that he mentioned AN; (2) I also never once said that I supported the unblock - because I am RL friends with the person acting as our intermediate, it wouldn't have been correct for me to attempt to influence the unblock decision. I merely stated that self-offering the unblock condition would result in a higher chance of you being unblocked to raise the issue. Saying in your unblock request that I supported your unblock is, in fact, untrue and unfortunately misrepresenting me. I will take your comment above this as an apology, but please be careful to not assume what people meant in messages. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to be more careful about that. What I should've done is ask you about this before assuming it was the case. I'll try not to make this mistake again. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to unblock for you to make a request to the committee. I have two provisos:

• I've emailed the committee to ask if there is any point allowing you to make a request at ARCA; if any such request would just be rejected out-of-hand, I don't see any point in the unblock (I'm not asking them to pre-judge the case, just whether it would cross the bar of being considered at all). I'm waiting for their response.
• An unblock would be on the basis that you are banned from everywhere except ARCA and this page. Can you please confirm that this is in line with your expectation?

@TonyBallioni: I don't see the point in taking this to AN if the unblock is on the basis of such tight restrictions, but if you seriously object then please let me know. GoldenRing (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, while it is a regular admin block and you are free to do so, I am also of the opinion that individual administrators as a matter of practice should not unilaterally undo blocks that were taken on the basis of consensus. I am neutral on any unblock here, but for the fact that there was a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators to block, I think it would be irresponsible to unblock without taking it to AN, so I strongly object. I also am beyond confused as to why you would even want to make such unblock conditions. It’s a waste of time for the sake of wasting time if the end result is that the committee rules at ARCA but he stays indefinitely blocked by community consensus or individual adminstrator action. So, to answer your question: yes, I strongly oppose this on multiple grounds. I think an unblock here shouldn’t be only for the sake of ARCA, and if it is beyond that, I think it needs to go to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GR, just reread the request (I was recalling a convo with Penwhale about his general request to be unblocked and responding to that, not the blue box, which is why I was confused.) Your conditions make more sense now, but my answer remains the same: I think it’s time wasting for the sake of time wasting under these conditions, and I’ll go further and say it’s an attempt to try to get the committee to review a block outside their normal remit, and I also think that any unblock of this account in general needs to go to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I agree to the conditions you've described, with the one exception that when I make the ARCA request, I'll have to be able to post the required notifications to other users potentially affected by it. Aside from that, though, I understand that I'll be banned from all pages aside from ARCA and my user talk. (Please note that the request I would be making is a request for clarification, not an amendment request. It isn't about my block itself, but it's about a question that affects the basis for it.)

I also want to reiterate that if at all possible, I would like my request to not be discussed at AN. Aside from the reason I mentioned in the unblock template, I also don't think my request can be adequately evaluated without reviewing the background information that I've sent to Penwhale, which I would prefer to not be posted in public. If it's your view that I shouldn't be unblocked unilaterally by a single admin, is there another place where my request could be discussed with other admins, such as on IRC? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That background information is not private as evidenced by the fact that the committee has declined to review this block on that basis. Knowing what it is in general terms, I also think it’s a distraction from the reason you were blocked: using email to nibble around the edges of an ArbCom imposed ban and to try to organize editing task forces in secret. Those were considered disruptive enough by administrators at AE to merit an indef block just under regular admin discretion, and likely would have resulted in one at ANI regardless of the ArbCom restrictions because that type of thing is disruptive and cuts away at the trust of the community, especially when done by an editor who has had issues in the area in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I think that if there's any prospect of success at ARCA, and the committee has refused to hear the matter privately, they should be given the opportunity as a matter of fairness. I also don't think unilaterally undoing a consensus-endorsed block solely for the purpose of an appeal is much outside norms; but at any rate I will see what the committee says. I'm a bit perplexed about why the committee would do this - it seems on the extreme end of bureaucratic to me - which is why I've asked them for clarification about whether there is any point in all of this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni: for the most part the information I'm referring to isn't something that I've tried to discuss with ArbCom yet. Has Penwhale shown it to you? You seem to be making assumption about what it involved that aren't accurate.

I don't dispute the basis for my block itself. However, the initial consensus in the AE report about me had been to give me a standard one-month AE block, and the information I'm referring to concerned the basis for the decision to make it indefinite instead. For example, one of the main reasons for making it indefinite was the assumption about what my motives were for becoming involved in the psychometrics task force. I think I can demonstrate that this assumption was incorrect, but doing so would rely on material I've written for other websites, including some where I use my real name.

I'm pinging @Penwhale: here, because I don't feel that it's productive for us to argue about the contents of something when it isn't clear whether you've seen it or not, and when I don't want to describe it in detail. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’re mad because you think one of the admins there was involved (I’m betting MastCell based on what you’ve said, as he’s the one that suggested indef.) That’s a basis for an appeal, sure, but that doesn’t need ArbCom to review, and your refusing to discuss it here doesn’t make you look good in my opinion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it sounds like you understand what issue I want to raise with ArbCom. The admin involvement issue isn't the only thing I discussed in my information for Penwhale, but that is what I've been trying to ask ArbCom about.

Could you please clarify what you have in mind when you say that's a basis for an appeal? When I was discussing this matter with ArbCom, one of the arbitrators (Euryalus) offered to send MastCell e-mail advising him to consider himself involved with respect to that arbitration case, but individual arbitrators don't have any special authority, so I don't think the question or whether he's involved or not can be regarded as settled before ArbCom as a whole gives an opinion.

If what you're suggesting is that I should lay out a case in the unblock template as to why I think he's an involved admin, please try to be realistic about what you're expecting here. How could I go about presenting such a case without discussing the articles from which I'm topic banned? Even though this technically could be considered an exception to my topic ban (since it's for the purpose of an appeal), I think it's extremely unlikely that admins look favorably on such a request. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: no, because they aren’t allowed to edit at all. A ruling at ARCA has no impact on this block. Having reread everything multiple times now, I’m 100% opposed to unblocking on these terms. They can appeal their regular block in itself if they want, and then seek further clarification at ARCA, but until the block is dealt with, ARCA is pointless. This unblock appeal should not be granted on these terms. If CO wishes to appeal his block, he should appeal it on the merits. I’m neutral as to an outcome of a merits based appeal, but strongly oppose this scenario. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: Well, the response from an arb was that the ARCA route is not viable, so my suggestion is off the table anyway. Captain Occam, I think Tony's suggestion below is your best course here. I'm happy to copy to AN on your behalf - just let me know if required. GoldenRing (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CO, moving this down here because it’s getting long: the issue of MastCell’s involvement is not something ArbCom would normally consider in a standard unblock request of a non-AE action, but is something subject to peer review either through the unblock process or through AN. Additionally, he is not the blocking admin, I am. I blocked on the basis of consensus at AE that the problems went beyond just a simple TBAN violation, and that while it was unclear whether or not the emails constituted one, your conduct was disruptive enough to merit an indef block at the time regardless of that. ARCA could overrule that I suppose, but it’s not normally something they would do for an action that was specifically taken as non-AE because all the admins there were unclear what was allowed by AE, but agreed that disruption had occurred and on the course of action that needed to be taken.

In terms of an unblock, here is what I think you should do: lay out what you plan to edit if you are unblocked. You should focus on why this block is no longer needed. You can get into the INVOLVED question, but that’s unlikely to make people sympathetic to you if you dwell on it for too long, in large part because MastCell was only one admin of many. Focus on what positive contributions you would make. If you do that, I’m more than willing to copy the appeal to AN and unblock if there is consensus to do so. The reason I’m pretty strong on the AN point is that the indef decision was based on an informal consensus of admins that would have been enough for a community-based sanction on another noticeboard. I stand behind my block and think it’s outside of ArbCom’s usual remit, which is why I oppose the above conditions, but if you have a case for being unblocked that the community can judge, I think you should have the chance to make it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this means I'm going to have to bite the bullet and endure being the subject of an AN discussion. Since my unblock request hasn't been acted on yet, can I write my summary of why I think I should be unblocked as a comment here, instead of using the unblock template again? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A thought - possibly disable/strike the current unblock request and make a new one below when you have the explanation all ready? I think that might be better than leaving it open with the possibility of someone declining it when it's not meant to be current. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to get the strikethrough template to work inside the unblock template, but I've added a note saying that the request is no longer current. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the template by taking out a "{" and added the strike - hope that's OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm ready now. My updated request is below.

{{unblock | reason=As I've said in a few other places, I accept that my block itself was valid, and if it had been a standard one-month AE block I'd have waited it out rather than trying to appeal. However, considering this was my first topic ban violation, I think that a one-month block (or three months, which is now how long it's been) would have been a more appropriate result than an indefinite one.

Blocking me for a month had been the initial consensus in the results section of the AE report about me, until MastCell presented his argument that I should be indeffed based on what he thought my motives were, which shifted the direction of the discussion to make the outcome an indefinite block instead. This matters because MastCell probably is an involved admin with respect to the R&I arbitration case, and shouldn't have commented in that section. Shortly before my block I discussed this matter via e-mail with a member of ArbCom, Euryalus, and Euryalus offered to send MastCell e-mail advising him to refrain from further participation in that section of the report. I don't have the space here to present the evidence for why he's an involved admin (and my interaction ban prevents me from discussing some of it in public), but I've shown this evidence privately to user:Penwhale and I invite his comment.

Since the decision to block me indefinitely instead of for a month was based largely on an assumption about my motives for helping to set up the psychometrics task force, I think it's important to point out that this assumption was incorrect. I'm not sure how one is supposed to go about proving something about their thoughts, but there's one piece of evidence that seems to have been overlooked: user:Everymorning, who created the task force and did most of the work setting it up, has a perspective about intelligence and behavioral genetics that's very close to the opposite of mine. If my goal had in fact been to advance my point of view on those topics, it would have made no sense for me to help set up a task force with him in charge.

At the time, it didn't occur to me that my involvement in this task force would be viewed as a topic ban violation, because I assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions. (That is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed"; the edits for which I was blocked involved human abilities and behavior but did not involve race or ethnicity.) As I said in the request for clarification that I made shortly before being blocked, now that I more accurately understand how the scope of my topic ban is interpreted, I intend to avoid all content at Wikipedia related to psychometrics or intelligence for as long as my topic ban is in effect. I didn't understand this about my topic ban in March, but now that I do, there isn't a danger of me repeating this particular mistake. I'm also open to the idea of disabling my Wikipedia e-mail feature, if the community feels that this should be an unblock condition.

My interests at Wikipedia are pretty eclectic, but other people can get an idea of what I'd edit if unblocked based on my editing history from January 2017 until I became involved in the psychometrics task force this past March. I edited articles related to religion, video games and books, and my editing history going forward will be similar to that. If I can muster the time and energy for it, I also hope to eventually raise William Beebe to FA status, having previously turned this article from start-class into a GA. (See the article's edit history from April 2010 to June 2011.) In the past I've also been one of the main people maintaining that article, so even if I never manage to get it up to FA status, I would like to at least continue making Wikignome formatting edits as I did here. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

I did indeed evaluate the information provided to me, and I do agree with the assessment that MastCell should be considered involved in situations like this. Other than that, anything I want to say would be made at AN when the thread is made as they serve better purpose there (and would get more eyes anyway). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: If you're planning to comment there, I'd appreciate you doing so sometime soon. Otherwise the AN thread may progress to the point that it's too late to affect its outcome, which sort of defeats the purpose of commenting there. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied to AN [2]. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'd like to say something regarding Cullen's comment in the AN thread, so I'd appreciate you copying it over:

I haven't yet addressed my actions in support of Emil Kirkegaard (user:Deleet), and since that was the subject of Bishonen's comment that User:Cullen328 is referencing there, I'd like to address it now. Deleet has gone into a fair amount of detail about his political views, and I'm 100% sure he isn't actually a Neo-Nazi. He apparently is a left-leaning centrist: [3] [4] However, he also loves to provoke people on social media, and he seems to enjoy how others react to his making those sorts of Nazi-related references. (Incidentally, I've complained to him about this, not because I think these sorts of jokes reflect his actual beliefs but because of how they create problems for others who interact with him.)

Here is the reason that I think Emil is a valuable editor: he is, at this point in time, the only person editing articles related to human intelligence who studies the topic professionally. Aside from what he's written for his own self-published journals, he has authored two papers on the topic in Intelligence, the field's most prominent journal, [5] three presentations for the International Society for Intelligence Research (I'm not sure how to link to those), and 15 papers in The Winnower. [6] I think this sort of thing matters a lot. On any highly technical topic, the quality of Wikipedia's articles tends to depend on the depth of knowledge of the people who edit them.

I'd like to reiterate that I accept I shouldn't have gotten involved in this issue at all, but if anyone thinks that by supporting Deleet I've been supporting a Neo-Nazi, I object to that characterization because it's inaccurate. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the diff of this over because it's very long: [7]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: @GoldenRing: I hope it's becoming clearer why I wanted to avoid having this discussion at AN. Aside from Cullen, this discussion has only attracted attention from editors who were my opponents in the original R&I disputes that led to the 2010 arbitration case. This group of people comprises less than 1% of the Wikipedia community, but when I'm the subject of a discussion at a noticeboard, for some reason they always tend to be among the first to show up. Later votes in these discussions tend to follow the pattern established by the first few votes, so even when uninvolved editors eventually do comment there, they probably won't significantly affect the outcome.

I knew that this was going to happen if I were the subject of an AN thread, which is why I wanted my unblock request to be evaluated by uninvolved admins who don't have an emotional stake in the result. It's possible my unblock request would have been denied in that case also, but I don't believe it can be fairly evaluated by people who have this kind of history with me. But there's nothing that can be done about that now, is there?

(In case it isn't clear, this is not something I'm asking to have posted in the AN thread; it's just a general comment/question for both of you.) --Captain Occam (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy over this response to Power-enwiki (who is an uninvolved editor): I've already agreed to avoid all content related to human intelligence for as long as I'm topic banned, and I've been avoiding all content related to race for several years. If the community would like to formalize this agreement as a broadening of my topic ban, I'm fine with that outcome. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I have another reply to Power-enwiki that I'd like to be copied over: I'd like you to understand the history of this request. I initially tried to discuss the admin involvement issue on the ArbCom mailing list, without requesting an unblock yet, because I was fully aware that it generally doesn't look good to raise this sort of issue in the unblock request itself. In response, I was told that this matter couldn't be discussed on the mailing list, and if I wished to raise it with ArbCom I'd have to be unblocked and then raise it in public. (I also was told that since my block is a normal admin block, it wasn't within ArbCom's remit to grant an exception to it.) Next, following a suggestion from Penwhale, I requested a conditional unblock for the sole purpose of raising the issue with ArbCom, with the restriction that I make no other edits, and the understanding that I'd be blocked again after the request was resolved. I eventually was told that this, too, wasn't possible. With that background, the consensus of the admins with whom I was discussing this issue (TonyBallioni, GoldenRing and Penwhale) was that I should make a regular unblock request to be posted at AN, and could mention the issue there.

If you look at the discussion about this in my user talk, you'll see how reluctant I was to follow that advice, but eventually I decided an editor in my situation shouldn't ignore instructions from admins. What else was I supposed to do, aside from giving up and accepting what appeared to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED that impacted me directly? At that point, if I'd continued insisting that this issue be addressed before I tried to request an unblock, I could've been accused of having a WP:IDHT attitude. This situation seems typical of my experience at Wikipedia: in most situations like this one, there is no way for me to proceed that I won't be criticized for (aside from just giving up, as I said). I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: I've now withdrawn my unblock request, and I'm fine with the AN thread being closed now. I'd predicted from the start that it wouldn't be possible for me to be unblocked under these circumstances, but between Euryalus' e-mail and Penwhale's comments at AN, and MastCell's choice to not respond to those comments despite being notified of the discussion and being active while it was open, I feel that the admin involvement issue is now addressed about as well as it can be (at least for the present). This outcome hopefully should enable me to make another unblock request at some point in the future that will have a greater chance of success.

@Penwhale: thanks again for your patience and your dedication to upholding policy. Wikipedia would be a better place if there were more people like you on ArbCom, and if you ever decide to run for ArbCom, you'll have my vote.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Captain Occam unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access is enabled. If you wish to make an appeal, it should be made in public. Contrary to your claims, nothing that is eligible for suppression is involved here, and it does not require an oversighter to review. ArbCom has refused to consider your appeal, because it is not an AE action and the private information you wish to use is 100% irrelevant to your block and therefore your unblock request. I did not consider that when making it, so there is no reason at all that you should be able to appeal to random oversighters rather than making an open appeal. If you want to appeal, your only option is to do it publicly on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I have been trying to resolve this matter privately, because it's very difficult to discuss it in public without discussing the content of oversighted material, and also because I don't think it's appropriate to have an on-Wiki discussion about the lawsuit that presumably is why the material in question was oversighted. But attempts to communicate with you about it privately haven't been successful, so I guess at this point my only choice is to try to discuss it with you here.

When my initial e-mail about this issue to you and the other functionaries did not receive a response, I raised the matter in private with another oversighter, User:Oshwah. After I explained the situation to him, he invited me to submit an unblock request to him and you by e-mail, so that it could be reviewed in private by oversighters, and I followed his advice. Based on your comment here about my unblock request, it seems like you may not have been aware that Oshwah had invited me to do this. After you commented here, I discussed the matter privately with Oshwah again, and he's told me that he then sent you a second e-mail explaining the situation to you. However, Oshwah told me yesterday that you have not responded to that second e-mail, either. I'm sure you're a busy person, but your lack of communication is making this situation much more difficult.

Even if you personally do not think the material that's been oversighted is relevant to my block, you also have said that any unblock request I make must be evaluated by the community at AN, and the community clearly does think that it is relevant. When I made an unblock request in July of last year, this material was brought up at AN by Cullen328 as a reason I should not be unblocked, which gave the material more exposure, and Cullen328's argument also was impossible to address in a meaningful way without bringing up non-public information about the lawsuit. If I make another public unblock request and it is copied to AN, it is inevitable that this material will be brought up there again, because it was explicitly given by the AE admins as a reason my block should be made indefinite, even if you did not personally consider it.

When I explained this situation to Oshwah, he agreed that the most reasonable course of action is to have my unblock request evaluated privately by oversighters, but he does not seem comfortable with doing that if you're opposed to the idea. If you are opposed to it, it would be helpful if you could engage more directly with the issue that Oshwah and I have tried to raise, because your comment here does not really address the central problem with making an unblock request that will be evaluated in public. One other administrator, user:Ferret has also been involved in the discussion about this situation (although he hasn't seen the oversighted material), so I encourage him to comment here as well. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have little left to say on the topic. I've provided some advice on the course of action I felt you should take, and that advice is the general advice I would give everyone who asks about how they should approach an appeal. I understand your concerns about the past discussions, sanctions and the over-sighted material, but it's clear that you're going to get no where unless you simply make a public appeal. -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. As I'm sure you're aware, I do not think it's possible for me to do that unless the issue of non-public information is addressed somehow, so I'll need to wait for further advice from Oshwah and TonyBallioni before deciding what to do.

Let me suggest one other possible solution. Since my block is an ordinary admin block rather than a community ban, it isn't strictly necessary for it to be evaluated at AN; the reason TonyBallioni copied my previous request to AN was that my indefinite block was the consensus of several admins commenting at AE, so he thought that my unblock request should also be evaluated by multiple admins. (I hope I have that right; I'm very wary of accidentally misrepresenting his views, because that's a mistake I've made before.) However, at this point, there are at least four admins who have been involved in this discussion: yourself, Oshwah, TonyBallioni, and user:Penwhale (although Penwhale considers himself involved). And all of these admins have at least some understanding of the relevant issues, even if they don't all know the exact details.

Here's what I suggest: I can make a public unblock request here, under the condition that it will be evaluated only by admins who are following this issue, rather than by the wider community at AN. This would presumably avoid the problem of the material that's been oversighted being brought up at AN as a reason to keep me blocked, the way happened last time. A second benefit of this approach is that it would avoid the past problem of the discussion about my request being dominated by my former opponents from the 2010 R&I arbitration case. Would this be a workable solution? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will repeat what I have said literally every time this has been raised. Suppressed content had zero impact on this block and would have zero impact on this unblock. Your only option is a public appeal without raising material that is suppressable. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but can you please address the specific thing that I and Oshwah have been asking? Even though I know your view is that the material that has been oversighted is irrelevant to my block, there are other admins who do not share your view, and have already made it clear (in response to my unblock request last July) that they do consider it relevant. Consequently, if I make a public unblock request that is copied to AN, this material will almost certainly be brought up there as a reason to keep me blocked, as happened in the previous discussion there, regardless of your personal views on whether it is relevant or not. This is what I've been trying to communicate to you all this time, and I'm not sure how to be any clearer about it.

This is the issue that needs addressing, and it's why I suggested above that I could make a public unblock request in my user talk that will be evaluated only by the admins who are already paying attention to this situation, instead of by the wider community at AN. I need to know whether that's a workable solution, or if there is some better solution to the issue that I've been trying to raise here. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You don’t get to play pick an admin or dictate the rules upon which your unblock request will be heard. I can say the material you think is relevant is irrelevant because I’m the administrator who placed the block and I know that it had zero impact on the block being placed, despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

The only thing relevant to any unblock discussion is your conduct and how you plan to behave going forward. Not the conduct of another administrator and certainly not suppressed material that has nothing to do with you.

Finally, there’s a very strong argument that you’re community banned and that none of the admins you’ve talked to have the ability to unblock without discussion: you withdrew your last unblock request when it was 7-1 opposed. If it had lasted longer, the odds of you being unblocked would have been very low. These circumstances are basically what WP:CBAN was designed for: preventing individual admins from acting without community consensus. You can make an appeal and it can be copied to AN like last time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going make another public unblock request and have it copied to AN, I'd like to know ahead of time how it will be handled if administrators continue to make arguments against unblocking me that are based on the material I brought up in my e-mail. I'm glad you think this material is irrelevant, but you must surely be aware that what I'm predicting is still likely to happen, because it happened both in the original AE report and in the subsequent AN discussion. Since you consider this material irrelevant, are you willing to do anything to prevent it continuing to be used as an argument in subsequent discussions? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]