Open main menu
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chzz (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Decline reason:

From the block log, it sounds like you know exactly why you're being blocked. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Comment: "Primefac" said, "It sounds like you know exactly why you're being blocked.". I do not, and that is not a reason.

  • Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chzz (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Reason (for unblock) - hard to say, because IDK why I'm blocked. Tell me why I'm blocked, and I can give reasons. Chzz 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I looked at this in -unblock on Freenode: as I told you there, you’ve been editing as an IP for months. Your two options at this point are to wait 6 months without editing and appeal again then, or to appeal this block to the arbitration committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Contents

Block discussionEdit

This is a CheckUser block and cannot be lifted except by another CheckUser. The user has the option of contesting the block, which, at this point, would be to ArbCom. It is not helpful for other users to ask for a broader discussion as that's not going to happen. Although probably not helpful, those users can themselves e-mail the Committee, but it's not clear whether Chzz has even appealed in the first instance. In any event, no more comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
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.

I would like to see Chzz unblocked, or at least have the issue taken to a wider discussion. Jeni (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused by this block as well. I don't see a talk page note here from Courcelles or SoWhy about this block, which was initially only set for a short period of time before being extended to indefinite. Now talk page access is revoked, which seems pretty extreme. What was the off-wiki communication? Are we sure it was with the same person who owns this wiki account? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: I cannot recall blocking Chzz and neither does the block log. Is there a reason why you mentioned me that I don't see? Regards SoWhy 08:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I misread the full logs for "User:Chzz": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=User%3AChzz&wpdate=&tagfilter=>. You changed his user groups the following day, which I thought was a block log entry, but is actually a separate log type. I imagine you were just doing maintenance, tho. If so, apologies for the ping! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The block was levied because, as an IP address, he posted portions of IRC logs on Wikipedia, and based on what I assume was an email conversation, made it clear he would do so again. Right before that he had gotten into an argument on IRC with people, tempers flared, etc. etc. Give me a moment and I'll find the relevant AN thread for the original block. I cannot speak as to the talk page revocation. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#IRC is the AN thread in question. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
In that AN thread, are we to assume that the redacted portions are where Chzz made public posts of IRC content? If so, and regardless of whether the ban on this kind of content is right or wrong, I think it puts us all in a rather difficult, even invidious position – I can imagine that Chzz might've posted that content as "evidence" and, if so, I can also imagine that being told this evidence wasn't allowed might push Chzz into saying such posts might be repeated. It's the kind of thing people do when they're pushed into a corner. Saying that "tempers flared" suggests that this was not only on Chzz's part, and that perhaps a more public form of mediation is required. If someone who engages as fully with help as Chzz did occasionally loses their temper – is it a pattern, or a single event, or what? – I don't see that it's a suitable basis for blocking. Let those without sin cast the first stone, maybe? Although, since the details aren't public ... And, I've italicised "imagine" because, as things are, I don't recall seeing any public discussion of the issue – am I missing something? My interest springs from Chzz's numerous, helpful interactions with me, especially in the first few years of my editing WP. Nortonius (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being blonde, but I'm still not seeing why this block is here, nor why talk page access has been revoked? Can the person that made the decision spell it out in simple terms for me? Jeni (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nortonius and Jeni: This not the place to discuss this. As pointed out above, Chzz has admitted to editing under various IP adresses, i.e. socking, after being blocked for violating rules repeatedly and insisting that he will continue to do so. He can appeal the block to ArbCom or take the Wikipedia:Standard offer after six months but since this is a CU block, there is nothing gained from turning this page into a discussion about the merits of the block. If either of you believe, an admin made a mistake, WP:ANI is the place to discuss it, not here. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
So, a whitewash then? Jeni (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That's all very well, but you don't address my questions – you could simply point to the evidence for these things. As things stand, I think Jeni's assessment has some merit. Also I don't see why there shouldn't be any discussion about this here ...? That seems a bit high-handed. Of course, if Chzz objected ... But that editor can't. Not here, anyway. Nortonius (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
As you both can see from the block log, the evidence is not on-wiki, which is why the proper channel is described Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals which Chzz can decide to follow or not. And the proper forum for (possible) administrative misbehavior (e.g. blocking someone without a reason to sustain that block) is WP:AN(I). Regards SoWhy 16:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Understood about appeals, I meant to touch on that earlier but I'm having a busy day IRL, sorry; but I don't think it's acceptable that the block be based on secret evidence. That is, thanks for pointing to the block log, which I have now viewed. I can't imagine taking something to WP:AN without evidence, that suggestion is preposterous. To that extent the situation is circular, and I don't see how anyone can be happy with it. I do understand that WP has admins for a reason, and my limited, direct contact with admins has been wholly positive; but this level of block, under these circumstances, might reasonably be described as "extraordinary", and at such times extraordinary responses might be required. Nortonius (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Copyright problem: Paul FarrerEdit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Paul Farrer, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/articles/2006/11/30/paul_farrer_group.shtml, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Paul Farrer saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UKSA logo.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:UKSA logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Block evasionEdit

Noting for reviewing UTRS admins that CheckUser has   Confirmed block evasion by Chzz. He should not appeal until January 2020. As stated above, this may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en wikimedia.org. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Chzz. It sounds like you're stuck in a permablock cycle, when you probably could have just bitten the bullet and gotten yourself unblocked on the same day. I don't know why you chose to self-destruct the way you did, but you're right. You were a very highly respected member of the community once. Some of us haven't forgotten that even to this day. There is a path for you to be one again. But you have to own the block and stop evading it. You gave this project a significant part of your life. I know it's hard to just stop, but if you ever want to return to being an actual respected member of the community, you have to respect the block. Give it the standard six months. Or even just give it half of that, and don't sock. We'll be sympathetic to your return, just not if you're socking. If you want to talk about it, you can email me at xswrm aol.com. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Chzz".