User talk:Mrt3366

About me Talk Archives Essays Photos Barnstars

Welcome to my talkpage

Let's talk. I'm Michael. If you have any query feel free to post it on this talk page.

Date: Monday, September 2. Time: 18 hrs 11 min(s) 08 second(s) (UTC)

COMMENTS

Shahid M. Malik

Comment by 77.101.240.244 (talk · contribs) at 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

shahid m malik is my page on wikipedia someone messed around and chagned many things on my page i want to correct it but dont know how to do it please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.240.244 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I know your wish is to improve the article but it's not your article. Read WP:OWN. I don't know much about the subject of the article so I can't be of much help to you. Sorry! Mr T^(Talk?) 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he means he is Shahid M. Malik. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

This is a violation of your topic ban. I have blocked you for 72 hours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How? I didn't comment on any article. I proposed a topic ban on the ANI. I am already topic banned and now you want to stop me from proposing topic ban for the one who needs a ban more than me? Mr T^(Talk?) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. You were clearly banned from anything to do with IP articles so this is a clear violation. Whether or not DS needs a topic ban is another matter that I haven't got time to research right now but I may come to it if I have time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment on any article on that edit. FWIW, I didn't know that commenting about editors active in an article about about a subject from which I am topic-banned is a block-worthy offence. I get it now, good job!
"I may come to it if I have time. " - no you've certainly got time to block me. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This pattern of "block-first-talk-later" is it only applicable to me? Now people will pontificate on AGF. Now people will, after aaaaaaaaaaalllll this, harangue me on the merits of assuming goood-fuuuuuuucking faith. Good job. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Baiting after baiting after baiting...Mockery after mockery....Just block me indefinitely because you fuckers won't stop until you eliminate me by abusing your little admin toys. Mr T<duo>(Talk?) 13:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You know what just fuck it....<BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY> Just do it.. My Lord, just fucking do it. There is some demented shit going on. This is an orgy of idiocy. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have turned off your talkpage to prevent you from doing yourself even more damage.Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT ... I'm going to agree with Spartaz's removal of your talkpage access at the moment. You're pissed off, but you're not reacting well. Although we allow some venting, your comments were doing you more harm than good. I know this is a 3 day block, however, after a day passes you're welcome to e-mail me to request access to the talkpage back. You'll need to show me that any potential unblock requests will be more coherent and less attacking, but at least you can gain the right to try to request unblocking. I will, however, ignore any such e-mails until at last a day has passed. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please consult me before unblocking. This is effectively an arb enforcement block and I'm fed up with disruptive users being unblocked early. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, asking for someone else to be topic banned is a violation because you're attempting to impact the articles that you're topic banned from. I don't think you should be topic banned from India Pakistan articles but the ban is there so you're better off abiding by it. The way you're going about it, the ban will only get lengthened and it'll be harder to overturn it. Better to wait a bit, work on other articles, and then ask for it to be lifted. (Meanwhile, I had a question for you but will wait till you get talk page access to ask it.) --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, I tried to help you. Go back to the top of this page, read the advice, and start fresh. Dusti^*poke* 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing a disgusting screed e-mailed to me by MrT, I rescind my offer to assist by re-enabling talkpage access. Based on the content of that e-mail, and as I am aware now that MrT has sent similar e-mails to others, I should be extending this block to indefinite. I'll leave that in someone else's hands - however, should ArbComm wish to see the contents of the e-mail I received, I will provide it as evidence. So much for trying to help (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please publish the email. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing that without the permission of MrT would violate the foundation's privacy policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

For misuse of the email system, I have extended your block to indefinite and removed your access to the email system. To be clear, the 3 days initial block is an artbitration enforcement block but this one is an ordinary adminstrative action. I am prepared consider turning on your email and talk page when you are calm enough to engage with other editors in a satisfactory manner and you will then be welcome to make an unblock request. Per the privacy policy, I am willing to forward the email you sent me to the arbitration committee or any functionary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Mr. T said in any e-mail, but I feel this sort of situation is not how the process should work. The underlying topic-ban was wrong, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons and everything since then is simply a consequence of that initial wrongful action. One thing I can say is that this whole confrontational "you done broke da rulz! you must be preventished!" response tends to rile people up and when a person is already riled up this can turn quite bad quite fast. You could have informed him that his comments at ANI were a violation as it is reasonable to suspect that he may not think his restriction applied to projectspace. Revoking his talk page access for pretty mild drama in response to your block gives the situation an Orwellian boot-to-face feel to it. People who feel they are being repeatedly stomped on can react in seemingly unpredictable ways.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I do tend to agree in the sense of a potential overkill here. The Ed has been a very useful member of the project and has contributed much, especially to technical articles and lists. I would advocate a topic ban of a short duration based on the issues that have got us here. At the least I would suggest the Ed is allowed to comment on talk page, to defuse this. I have had interactions with this Ed, and he is not totally unreasonable in my limited experience of occasional conflict on tech articles :) Can we not take this to an appropriate forum for a consensus based "judgement" that deals with the issues holistically, and not as knee-jerk sanctions, justifiable as they might have seemed at the moment? Obviously unaware of the email issue, but with the permission of the Ed, they should be made public. Many of us, me included, say utterly crap things when stressed, perceived as feeling vulnerable and temporarily alienated, especially from something one is close to. Irondome (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I realise that it is traditional to blame admins without knowing the full facts but in this particular case I only acted after I became aware that MrT wasn't just sending messages to me. I do actually get that he is venting and very upset which is why I didn't act after getting either of my messages. Had this happened in the real world and in my workplace, I would have suspended the author on the spot and they would have been extremely lucky not to be dismissed. I have never received anything like this before from anyone! Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone mate. I am not an admin basher, unless admin is seriously off-line. You have a job I wouldnt go near, not least due to workload and stress. It's just spun out of everyone's control at this time. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Spartaz has offered to provide ARBCOM with a copy of the email. It can therefore be assumed that it is of a nature that needs reporting. It does not need to be published for the Arbs to act upon it. I think the thing to do is wait and see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Time to chill for all would be wise. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • We need to spell indefinately right. On a more serious note, Mr T seems to have scored a self goal. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your WP:AE appeal is on hold

Hello Mrt3366. Please see the result of the appeal of your topic ban at WP:AE. Your appeal has been placed on hold since your indefinite block keeps you from participating in the discussion. The appeal can be reopened after you are once again able to edit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reenabled your talk page

Hopefully you have calmed down by now and we need to see if we can find a way forward. My intention with the indef block was undetermined rather than forever and that's subject to your being calm enough to start moving forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what I am expected to say. I certainly won't thank you for this. You've already done irreparable damage. I would obviously loath it if my AE appeal, my ultimate plea, is archived because of this utterly deleterious indefinite block which frankly seems to be the "worst wrong" on top of other "wrongs". I am a very predictable guy; I try my best to be consistent with my behaviour. My style of expression might have been changed but I feel the same way about this block as I did few days ago. Whatever is happening is really, really unhelpful to put it very very mildly.

If you don't wish to unblock me any time soon please, I beg of you, don't let me post on this talk because ultimately it's useless to speak to deaf ears. That's the highest level of politeness I can evince right now. I am not at all hopeful that this comment would have any effect on anyone. Mr T^(Talk?) 08:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not expecting any gratitue and I don't expect grovelling either. What I want to do is find some way forward that would allow me to shorten your block. Whether or not you are happy with the block is immaterial. The issue is whether you can deal with it without the emotional outburts that made your original response so unacceptable? I'm feeling in something of a quandry because I'd like to get some second opinions, but I can't really do that without revealing your email and I'm not prepared to do that even if you agreed to it because the contents really don't reflect well on you. I'd like to see some acknowledgement that the way you responded was inappropriate and in particular some reflection on the contents of your email. The fundamental problem is whether you can change the way you react to disagreement enough to elimate the battleground and editwarring that has characterised so much of your recent behaviour on wiki. If that's not going to change then unblocking you is ultimately going to be a waste of your time and other editors' effort. I was planning to unlock your email once it was clear that you were in control but based on what you have said I'm going to leave the conversation here until we have made some progress. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"The fundamental problem is whether you can change the way you react to disagreement enough to eliminate the battleground and editwarring that has characterised so much of your recent behaviour on wiki." - I beg to differ, that is not the fundamental problem I am just a commoner with no real power, the fundamental problem is whether you admins can change the way you react to disagreements in a manner that is adequate to eliminate the obvious distrust inculcated in the hearts and minds of the editors who are victimized by your vindictive and autocratic mentality that has characterized so much of your (some of the admins I've encountered lately) recent behavior on wiki. Some overly harsh and immensely inconsiderate actions are what goaded me to lose my calm, I should not have lost my calm anyway but that's the crux of it. This sort of pathetic attempts to rationalize otherwise disgusting behavior depresses me. Mr T^(Talk?) 11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

{Oh and your AE will resume where it left off if we are able to reach agreement Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)}

• When I offered to start working towards your unblock, I had assumed that Bwilkins would be amenable to this based on his statement ahead that he would not block you for the email you sent him. It appears that this was an incorrect assumption [1]. On that basis, we seem to have no valid on-wiki way to move forward as I am not prepared to unblock you unilaterally and I am also unwilling to publicly publish the email you sent me to allow an on-wiki consensus to develop. On that basis, you have two options. You can contact UTRS or BASC where any request to be unblocked can be dealt with in accordance with the privacy policy. If you were interested in my opinion, I would suggest that you go directly to BASC as they can overrule admins and UTRS would still need a community discussion. I am genuinely sorry it has come to this but we wouldn't be here if you hadn't sent the emails. I wish you all the best for the future. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm [Despondent chuckle] I think you should block me out of this talk page again. That would be the best way forward. As it seems from Bwilkins' comments, his mind is already made up, his thinking doesn't seem to conform with WP:NOTPUNITIVE. But then again I never expected any better. I sent an email to Brad which may have been a tad opprobrious, but I should be indefinitely deprived of the right to edit the Wikipedia based on "the contents of the e-mail .. alone" even though Brad himself concedes that I'm "trying to do right". Wow! Typical case of megalomania, if you ask me. What right does he have to presume that this behaviour is a pattern that could not have been avoided or will not be rectified? Like I said, I am not in a position to want to do anything about it. Wikipedia is a perfect example of adminocracy and certainly I alone cannot do shit. I can only hope that I serve as an example of what direction this "experiment" of a project is headed. Mr T^(Talk?) 11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

When he is amenable you're not and now when you're amenable he is not. Why can't you just tell me what it actually is? You guys don't want to allow me to edit. You're offended by the emails and now you want to seek revenge. Well, good luck with that. Now you, in a typical pharisaical manner, excuse yourself of the terrible injudiciousness and lack of effort to correct it? Enjoy your adminhood. This is why I think comparisons are indispensable to the proof of admin-partiality. Mr T^(Talk?) 11:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Revenge? No. You were not venting, you were abusive. I'm a volunteer here - as are you. If you were a volunteer at the Boy Scouts and you pulled another volunteer into another room and swore at them, called them disgusting names, abused them, and verbally attacked them you would not be a volunteer there anymore. In fact, if you did that to me in person, I'd be laying charges against you - and I would win. Your actions were unwarranted, and you seem to think that they should be instantly forgiven ... even though you're not asking for forgiveness. On what planet do you believe such vitriol is appropriate? This project is an electronic workspace - the same rules for the real world apply here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"I'm a volunteer here - as are you." - but deep down there is a big difference between your capabilities and my capabilities, isn't it? You are an almighty Admin who has no clue what he is really supposed to do, OTOH I am just an angry helpless fool who couldn't hold it off any longer. I am an imbecile, not as cunning and adroit in sophistry as you guys are perhaps, I tell it as I see it. Thus, I am very susceptible to baiting. It's too late but I have come to realize that forthright assertions are discouraged both in articles and discussions (but we are supposed to accept it when somebody's pal does it... gets unblocked again and again). It doesn't really suit my style of articulation which, more often than not, redounds to my disadvantage.
"On what planet do you believe such vitriol is appropriate?" — on a virtual space where admins try to rationalize their own misconducts and imprudence. On a virtual space where people are robbed of their freedom of expressing what they think as iniquitous treatment. Need I go on?? This sort of double-standard needs to stop right now. Use your head. From my past experience with you, I don't expect you would understand my frustration. I have very little tolerance for idiotic statements or chicaneries.
So just end everything by blocking me out from this talk page again. Mr T^(Talk?) 12:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm not an "almighty admin"; I'm a human being - and as I have continually treated you like one - even recommending that you be provided the chance to request an unblock, when the community thought otherwise. As such, I expected to be treated like a human being as well. Look, I don't follow your edits - I don't when and where you've created complaints, and even if I did, I'm under zero obligation to post there. I don't agree with all of your edits, and I don't take sides on disputes unless there's a good reason to do so. What I don't agree with most, however, is how you instantly attack people - even those of us who have TRIED to extend an olive branch, or show some degree of goodwill. That is unacceptable, and you continue to do it. You're claiming some form of admin abuse from someone ... but have neither provided links to any, or attempted to prove any. Every action taken against you has been done to protect the project from your anger. It's not those half-dozen admins who have fucked up, it's you. I really hoped you would take some time away to re-think your approach to the other human beings on this project. I DO think you have things to add to this project, but we cannot accept the bullshit that comes with it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• *sigh* Clearly this isn't helping anyone - not least yourself. I have turned off your talkpage again. You can email BASC without needing your talkpage. I'm very sorry that I tried to find a way out of this situation for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Spartaz, you are not really helping matters with your manner of discussion and revoking his talk page access without serious need. Nothing Mr. T has said on this talk page ever warranted revoking access and that action has only inflamed the situation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I originally locked off the talkpage because MrT was becoming increasingly angry and I was concerned that he would do himself some damage. Had he left things where they were, his original block would have been almost expired and the matter would have been over. There is no way that I could have predicted what MrT did next and I'm certainly not going to take lessons or lectures based on 20-20 hindsight. If you think its so easy, why don't you take over? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. The unfortunate emails appear to have been a consequence of Mr Ts normal lines of communication being cut. Ok, I understand the reasoning, let the Ed have a chance to chill and reflect. I have seen it deployed as part of Admins' initial response to a situation. But it does not always work. If an Ed is majorly (and temporarily) angry, it can just build frustration. It is a difficult call, attempting to weigh up often an unknown Eds temperament and history, and reconciling that with the WP related issue. Mr T, you have seriously lost your temper here with the whole "system". Just think before you type mate. Try to unpick one issue at a time, and this is the time to think and talk like a Q.C.. Keep calm, and tackle the issue, not the personality. That is why I am steering away from edding controversial issues at this stage in my development here. I find perspective is the first thing I lose, apart from my lighter. Cheers all. Hopefully all helping in good faith can unpick this issue and find a less stressy way forward. Irondome (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, you need to look at the bigger picture here because you're in danger of getting kicked out by the system. You need to focus on a three step process as the way forward. First, get access to your talk page. Second, get unblocked. Third, get the ban lifted. Personally, I will support you in all three steps because I think you are a good and useful editor but the impetus has to come from you. I think Bwilkins has accurately pointed out the problem, that you need to recognize that we're all volunteers here, that we're all acting in good faith, and that angry accusations and abusive behavior doesn't help the site. You should acknowledge that via email to both Bwilkins as well as Spartaz. The block itself is not that serious. A commitment that you will not violate the ban along with a statement that you thought the ban applies only to article space would have been more than enough to get the block lifted and still might be enough to do so as long as it is presented in a straightforward fashion and without ascribing motives to anyone. Once these two steps are done, the ban discussion can proceed at arbcom. You might find that you have more support for the ban being lifted than you think but you need to be straightforward in your reasoning and should try not to drag other editors into the discussion. All this has to come from you, so please do think about it. --regentspark (comment) 00:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

None of you guys are able to properly comment on this because you haven't seen the emails that MrT sent. The only reason that I have not opened a wider discussion on this situation is because to do so would require publishing the emails and that would be a breach of the foundations privacy policy. The appropriate venue for that oversight is for MrT to email the BASC and seek overview that way. I honestly don't know how they will react to any request. In the real world anyone sending the email I received in a workplace situation would have been suspended on the spot and in my workplace I'd be astonished if they were not dismissed so this isn't just your common-place angry ventogram. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we all get that Spartaz. What I'm trying to do is to help Mr. T establish a path back. That path, imo, starts with a clear statement to you and Bwilkins acknowledging the inappropriateness of his email and acknowledging the volunteer nature of this venture along the lines of what Bwilkins says above. I doubt if BASC will restore talk page access without some such acknowledgement. Whether that will work or not is a different question but a helping hand never hurts. --regentspark (comment) 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The case is already with BASC - I was asked for the email this afternoon - so I think we should just let the professionals to deal with this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...they didn't ask for my 3 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Take these strawberries as a gift from one of our friends. I wish I could have helped you but I don't have as much brain to burn as needed to debate with the admins. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that Mr T, publishes his email here, to stop speculation about its contents and apologises for its contents, (assuming based on comments above that they are bad). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

He cannot because talk page access has been blocked. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What Sitush said. For what it's worth, if it's worth anything, I'm happy to help out in any way I can with most unfortunate situation. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I've just remembered that I am persona non grata on this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The situation is very fluid and confusing, so he's been blocked from editing his talk page again. How does he then communicate with Wikipedia now? Assuming he wishes to have the email made public and apologise etc.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he needs to write here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he has already been directed there, and it's my understanding that it's already in-progress. Even someone with a talkpage lock can always e-mail BASC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for him to use "Ticket Request System" to request unblocking his talk page access? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop him asking the BASC to unlock his talk page as an interim measure while the block appeal is working its way but because of the privacy issues around the emails he sent, this probably isn't something for UTRS. Disclosure of the emails can only be made to a functionary per the foundation privacy policy and that's beyond the pay grade of the UTRS system. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Spartz, but I had a look at BASC, and the links there require access to Wikipedia's email function. I understand that Mr. T's emailing privileges have been revoked? Would he be able to use BASC? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the conversation above you will see that I have already commented that BASC are already engaged. I am not party to their discussions with MrT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way editors would know the status of Mr. T's appeal to BASC? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

On behalf of WP:BASC, I have restored Mrt3366's talk page access. Here is a copy of the relevant part of the email I sent him:

[...] I have spent some time reviewing your appeal and the discussions it has spawned, and I have come to the following decision:

• You will remain blocked.
• You will remain topic-banned.
• Your email access will continue to be disabled
• Your talk page access will be restored.
• Your appeal to us is suspended.

If you wish to make an unblock request to the community, you must disclose to them the text of the emails you sent to various users.

Please note that this is a decision by an individual arbitrator, and as such per our procedures, if another Arbitrator objects to my decision, it may be vacated and the matter referred to the full Committee for discussion. [...] Sincerely, NuclearWarfare ArbCom

I hope this helps the rest of the community. Please contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for restoring the talk access. This would give me a chance to clarify many things.
"Your appeal to us is suspended." — May I know what appeal? AE appeal is suspended, that is a major setback. And why is it suspended? Is that the only way?
"If you wish to make an unblock request to the community, you must disclose to them the text of the emails you sent to various users." — again, why? How is that a necessary precondition for my future unblock requests? Just to clarify, I am not particularly inclined on disclosing the contents of the emails. Obviously as User:The Devil's Advocate rightly pointed out, the talk-block gave “the situation an Orwellian boot-to-face feel to it” and seemed abso-bloody-lootely punitive in nature. In the heat of the moment, I said many things in those emails some of which I do regret. Yes, I concede, that was a bad approach. But I don't understand how does it necessitate the disclosure of the contents of emails? I am saying that I will not repeat it ever again.
It is written above that "this is a decision by an individual arbitrator" but you also claimed that "we have indeed been considering your case." — I would like to know the opinions of other arbitrators especially since you're not speaking on their behalf and also to what extent does this have potential to impact the prospects of my future on wiki? Mr T^(Talk?) 07:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Your email access will continue to be disabled" — I will not misuse my email access ever again, can I regain that access please? Mr T^(Talk?) 07:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The appeal I referred to was the appeal to the ban appeals subcommittee regarding your indefinite block. As we explained, BASC does not hear appeals of topic bans via email. The full Arbitration Committee does hear those appeals via email, but only in conjunction with hearing appeals of indefinite blocks upon referral from BASC, or publicly at WP:A/R/A (a precondition for which is being unblocked). The Committee hears appeals only rarely when the community has not yet had the chance to review the issue.
The community cannot hear appeals without knowing the full circumstances behind what necessitated the block. Taking your word for it that you will not repeat it doesn't do much good if they don't know what the bad thing was in the first place, and they might wish to craft additional restrictions based on the contents of what you wrote. The Arbitration Committee has copies of the emails, and should you not wish to disclose them, we can go back and review it. As I said though, BASC very rarely actually overturns a community block (I believe in Q1 2013, the figure was 3/43, and 2 of those were referred to the full Committee).
When I said "we", I may have been hasty and/or confused your situation with another appellant. Only one other Arbitrator reviewed your appeal and posted his or her thoughts to the mailing list, which was a recommendation to decline your appeal. I wouldn't want to speak for him or her, but I would imagine that I both looked over this situation in more detail and was more lenient than he or she would have been. I cannot speak to how our decision will affect an {{unblock}} request on your part, as I do not know.
And no, right now I do not feel comfortable restoring your email access. NW (Talk) 12:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Mr T: I think your AE appeal has been suspended as you are not able to participate in it directly. I don't know how to react to your reluctance to share your email. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks NW for the status update. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "NW": You write Taking your word for it that you will not repeat it doesn't do much good if they don't know what the bad thing was in the first place, and they might wish to craft additional restrictions based on the contents of what you wrote., I don't know how this works since "Mr T" has expressed regret. Don't we have a "preventive and not punitive" policy? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Purely hypothetically, imagine if the emails were filled with racial slurs. The community would certainly be justified in saying "we do not accept your expressions of regret; wait six months and try again." Now, my hypothetical does not apply in this circumstance, but the community has to judge the evidence for itself. NW (Talk) 13:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't that be punitive? He says he is wrong, he regrets, he undertakes not to repeat, is a six month wait justified except to punish him for his emails. I don't say that he ought not to be punished if the offense is grave, but always it has been emphasised that action on Wikipedia is preventive and not punitive, so I don't see an adherence to that policy in this case. That is how I see it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The idea that sanctions are preventative and not punitive does not necessarily imply that once a person says "I won't do that again, honest" we must unblock. To do so, we need to be sure that the appellant is actually able and willing to follow through on his commitment. In this case, despite previous assurances, Mr T has shown that his conduct, when editing Indian topics, is often problematic. For that I'm hesitant to support an unblock (for those wondering, I was the other arb who voted to decline his appeal). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
        • "should you not wish to disclose them, we can go back and review it." — please feel free to review it. I encourage you to review it. With all due respect, at this moment I do not wish to make them public. As far as my knowledge goes, it didn't contain any racial slurs. I have never denied the opprobriousness of some of the lines the emails contained, like I said I felt utterly subjugated, victimized, even oppressed to a certain extent and obviously, I was irate when I wrote the emails, I won't do it again. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"we need to be sure that the appellant is actually able and willing to follow through on his commitment" - Salvio, Sir what must I do to assure you that I will keep my word?
"Mr T has shown that his conduct, when editing Indian topics, is often problematic" - we are not talking about my topic ban, just yet. I am talking about the indefinite block from editing each and every article. If I may be so bold, Salvio, I think you're taking something out of context and using it to imply something that is, at best, a prediction oder hypothesis.
"for those wondering, I was the other arb who voted to decline his appeal" - I see. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know what was in those emails but, fairly obviously from the discussion above, they were toxic in content. Given that, it is understandable that Mrt doesn't want to make them public. Perhaps it would be possible to selectively let a few admins review the emails and see if it is possible to craft out a path for MrT back? I'm thinking of admins like Boing, Drmies, Dennis and perhaps a couple of others. But, as I said, I don't know the contents of the email so this is just a thought and assumes that MrT is willing to let others see the emails. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Boing and Drmies are no longer part of the admin corps.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Maunus please don't post comments on my talk, I am saying this because a comment from me about you may seem as a violation of my topic ban as was in the case of my comment on Darkness Shines, I am still unsure of the rules for which I was blocked by Spartaz for the first time in this episode, so if I let you comment here I run a risk of saying something that may be interpreted as a comment about you and might serve as reason to extend my block and beyond, so I will appreciate if you didn't post on my talk until I am unblocked. I know you're trying to help perhaps. I am sincerely requesting you to stop commenting on my talk. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sharing the emails would also mean that making public Mr T's email id, let us wait for Mr T to act. He hasn't said that he won't make them public, he seems to suggest that he would rather not is it isn't necessary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)