User talk:Δ/20150901

ANI discussion
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. The general interpretation of banned users talk page has been it's use should be limited to ban appeal, continued use for other reasons is likely to result in loss of talk page access. Given that Carrite has email enabled, perhaps you could just communicate that way? NE Ent 14:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been fairly busy recently and haven't had a lot of time to follow up with the appeal process. I started this on April 16th with an email attempting to open discussion with arbcom, between then and the final email from arbcom (June 29th) all I received where 2 emails that denied my appeal (even though I hadn't actually made an appeal and was trying to talk with arbcom about what was needed for a successful appeal) I responded to their email on June 29th and have yet to get an answer. As you can see from the section above I am looking to resolve this but a wall of silence from arbcom isn't being productive. ΔT The only constant 12:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just draft your appeal right here? If it's good I'm sure 150 watchers would transcribe into arbcom space, and if it's not so good you're likely to get constructive feedback on how to improve it, and thereby increase your chances of success. NE Ent 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * see above, I know what I think the issues are, and that arbcom disagrees, I do not want to have the debate between what I think vs what others think because its just pure drama that will go nowhere. However what I am unsure of is what they believe the issues are that need addressed. I have asked them directly, and posted here, with very little actual progress. If you know of any other avenues for progress please let me know because I am at a loss since I have tried both the approved/suggested route of contacting arbcom and trying to open discussions with the community. ΔT The only constant 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Δ on this. If Δ decides to post an appeal on this page rather than through official channel, ArbCom could ding him for all sorts of made-up reasons like not following the rules of arbitration case, dismissing the case as not filed by appealer, or revoke the use of talkpage for "inappropriate use" (notice the quotation marks). If the direct path of communication is met with silence, do you believe an indirect path would actually lead to a better outcome? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I do, but reviewing applicable policies and actions I'm getting contradictory indications as to the proper course of action; unfortunately I'm out of wiki-time and unable to sort them out. NE Ent 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not want to have the debate between what I think vs what others think because its just pure drama that will go nowhere.  indicates to me (personally) that you're simply not in a place where pursuing an appeal it likely to successful. The appeal would be between you and the committee, and if you haven't reached the frame of mind where you're willing to demonstrate sufficient maturity to ignore ad hominem attacks. Sorry I can't be of more assistance, I truly wish you the best in real life at least. NE Ent 01:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you miss-understood that comment. I am fairly used to being the target of both ad hominem, and blatant personal attacks, neither are really an issue. The comment in question is a reference to the fact that ArbCom and I are on different pages in regards to what the issues are and that I have given up in futility of having the issues I believe to be at fault addressed. The only way progress will be made is to identify what ArbCom believes the issues to be and address those. (Basically we need to get on the same page, which realistically means that I need to move to ArbComs page, but before I do that I need to know what their page is) ΔT The only constant 04:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (to be clear; not addressing this at any one person) Good grief. Drop the sticks and walk away. People are getting upset because Δ is making use of his talk page to support his tools which are still widely used? If it offends you so deeply, then STOP READING THIS PAGE. It's not hard folks. Really! Δ is not using his talk page abusively, but constructively. Gah, you people are fighting over what color the walls of his prison cell should be...grey or gray. If he uses his talk page abusively, then fine. Otherwise, go find something useful to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Final warning
User:Δ. In good faith I have undertaken something on your behalf. However, if you don't calm down and be patient, I will carry out my warning to block your use of your talk page. Your persistence is possibly not indicative of the attitude your supporters would like you come back to Wikipedia with. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Are the questions I am asking a problem? I will be glad to hold off for whatever period of time you think best. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I'm not sure I understand why you consider it necessary to continue warning about blocking talk page access; Δ's replies to questions here have solely been calm and he is not disrupting, trolling or purposely wasting anyone's time. He was asked to present his side of the situation; it doesn't seem fair to me to warn him about re-blocking when he is responding to people (in fact, I seem to recall many of the problems from years ago stemmed from Δ not responding to people). Acalamari 10:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see how prolonging this discussion is helping. Up until now I have no dog in this fight, but I'm beginning to think that in spite of my good faith effort to obtain a response from Arbcom that I should now start taking sides with our policies, which means, I suppose, that I am no longer neutral because I support them. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that there was an ANI discussion about this issue which you contributed to, that was closed against your opinion, any administrative action that you take will be considered involved. ΔT The only constant 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur both with Acalamari and Δ. Questions are being asked of Δ, and he is responding to them. I fail to see a problem. There is no abuse of this talk page happening here, and it has directly to do with his appeal. This warning is out of line, and as others have noted there is a potential issue of WP:INVOLVED here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am neither a "supporter" or a "nonsupporter" of Δ, but I am a supporter of transparency in all situations where there isn't a good reason to keep things secret. Here I see one person, Δ, giving their side of a conflict, and no place anywhere onwiki where I can see any indication that there are any arguments on the other side -- they all appear to be invisible to me, having happened via email. I think they should be open, or that we should get some indication that there is a particular reason for them being closed other than the convenience of escaping scrutiny. The threat to shut down this open discussion after the recent ANI finding is especially troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that Kudpung remove this page from their watchlist if it is bothering them. The discussion at ANI came to the clear conclusion that no action is required on this talk page. I see nothing new since then to justify fresh action. If you want to take sides with our policies you can start with WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS. The formal allows use to ignore the activity on this talk page, and the latter came to the conclusion that we should.

You went to the community for their opinion and you got it, if you don't agree with it then just move on. Don't make a cowboy block that goes against the clear consensus that has formed, it will only be reversed with a serving of trout. HighInBC 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeal
I contacted ARBCOM on April 16, it’s taken no less than a month between responses from them about my appeal. I tried to start a discussion with them in in order to identify the issues that they think need to be addressed before I can return to editing. I am fairly certain that we are not on the same page, so in order for things to get resolved the first step is getting on the same page with the root issues. The basic conversation resulted in a stonewall and zero productive progress. It’s now been 44 days since my last email to ARBCOM, and I haven’t heard anything yet from that. I want to get the issues addressed and a roadmap setup for a resolution. Since ARBCOM seems to be ignoring/stonewalling any attempt I am now reaching out to the community. ΔT The only constant 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a link to this request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you are entitled to an answer. This is construed by the allowance in your original ban stating that you could submit an appeal after 1 year and numerous guidelines that discourage non-responsiveness to questions proffered in good faith. I have never enjoyed the provisions that place these appeals beyond The Community's purview. I find tolerating them more difficult each time I see the practice used as a "convenient veil" forotherwise "poor conduct"; much more so because the conduct being veiled is inherently that of the precise leadership echelon which ought to comprise more transparency than perhaps all others. I join Δ in calling The Community to a mighty quorum; to demand change in this regard. If as many do, as I suspect will, respond to this call, then I am prepared to stand as Δ's sole ally; in calling this spade, a spade.--John Cline (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Beta. I am sorry about how things ended for you here and I would love to see a new beginning for you at Wikipedia. Chillum 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC) (Was once known as HighInBC)


 * I'm also looking forward to your succesful return. Perhaps the best way to move things along would be a request at WP:ARCA to, as per Remedy 3 of the decision in your case, allow the community to review the plan you have submitted to the Committee, along with Arbritator comments. Nowhere in Remedy 3 does it say include provisions that allow the Committee to refuse or decline presenting your so-called "plan" to the community -- in fact, my reading of the remedy is that the Committe is compelled to present such a plan to the community, and while a reasonable delay is of course expected, several months certainly does not seem diligent nor respectful of the Committee's role. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm being overly pedantic but I fear that requisite phrasing like "prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban" is used to nullify the dependent clauses by simply deciding that no modification is desired. The Committee can not be held to a requirement that doesn't exist unless or until they themselves desire effecting a modification. Am I wrong about this? --John Cline (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read that as the Committee reserving the right to comment prior to the application of any community consensus that would modify the ban... but "commenting" is the expression of worded notes and observations, and that is not what seems to be happening here, which would fall closer to "declining to present Beta's plan to the community altogether" from my perspective. At least that's what I gather from Beta's post, which seems to contradict somewhat Seraphim's post on WT:AC. An ARCA request could also clarify the current position of the committee on Beta's appeal. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Salvidrim. The strength of your conviction permeates the powerful prose you have given. Together, they show mine to be "utterly pedantic", and they expose the flawed approach that I used to achieve the wrong answer I was plagued to achieve. I, therefore, am glad; to vacate my entire afore given comment, and instead, to give my entire support to every elucidation generated within your comment, because I believe your information is both useful, and entirely correct. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In order to make progress I would like to know what specific actionable points the community thinks are an issue. Extremely broad or vague statements have proven to be impossible to work with feasibly since interpretations vary to a high degree. I know what I think the issues are, however I am not re-hashing that issue, and I know the communities view holds different views on the issues at hand. I am opening the floor up for input so that discourse and progress can be made. ΔT The only constant 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

--Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Alright, let's be very direct: As recently as last year (July 2014), you blatantly lied repeatedly to the community's face (on WP:AN) and deceptively used a sockpuppet account, even going as far as to referring to "Betacommand" in the third person and pointing out "the differences" in behaviour. This demonstrated an egregious and severe lack of respect towards the community. The quality or desirability of your edits for the ultimate good of the project may be seen by some (myself included) as excusing some measure of misbehaviour, but refusing to show honesty when confronted and deliberately engaging in a campaign of deception and hypocrisy cannot be seen as anything but total disregard for the community you now wish to become a part of again. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the best way to handle the issue. It was a proof of concept/demonstration for a point that I have made in the past, and said issue was promptly dismissed/ignored. At the time I thought it was the only viable way to make my point. (It was a WP:POINTy action). I would rather not re-hash the argument that I was proving at the time because it will just cloud this discussion and probably cause a flame war which I have no interest in participating in. Had I admitted to who I was at the time it would have invalidated the results, and would have led to an insta-ban with zero chance of any other outcome. As I stated, with hind sight it wasn't the best choice. ΔT The only constant 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that there doesn't appear to be any sort of response at all since this brief note. To address your question above, Δ, about what issues/concerns the community might have regarding your return, as far as I am concerned I have no concerns: it's been over three years since your ban. I think that's more than enough time to allow you a chance to return and re-join the community. Acalamari 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, , , . It's now been 10 days since my last post, with no additional input, what should the next step taken be? ΔT The only constant 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wish I knew. ArbCom doesn't seem interested in responding. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hammersoft; I'm also not sure what you can do at this point and I noticed last night that the discussion Hammersoft started at the ArbCom noticeboard talk page was archived. Seems as though some people still want you banned, after all this time. :( Acalamari 19:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That much is a given. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That some people want Δ to remain banned shouldn't be propped to outweigh the many more who want to see him given another chance; a second chance in fact. Unfortunately, the community seems complacent when it comes to demanding Arbcom accountability; lacking both the will and means of enforcing required transparency. Along with the secret deliberations I mentioned above, I have also loathed the Arbcoms refusal to acknowledge third party standing or to hear a "next friend" or "friend of the body" brief. Perhaps some remember how quickly things went south for Penyulap when he or she became passionate regarding the lack of third party status. I wish I had a quarter of his passion and about a tenth of his guts, and that I wasn't myself, "so incredibly tired".--John Cline (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Δ has been given far more than a 'second chance' in the past. Any appeal is going to have to address that. Δ has also been the victim (and I do mean 'victim') or extremely poorly worded sanctions that effectively made adherence impossible. Correcting the latter is impossible; it was tried and failed. Addressing the former is an absolute must in any appeal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the next step that I should take to get this resolved? ΔT The only constant 11:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The next step is to withdraw your talk page access: Appeals of remedies imposed by the Arbitration Committee must be appealed directly to the committee itself, not to BASC. That also means not on your talk page. There is no reason to set a new precedent through WP:IAR and in your case there is no consensus to overturn an Arbitration Committee ruling (which can't be done by the community and/or its admins anyway). I will take up your matter with Arbcom in an endeavour to obtain a clear ruling. In the meantime if you continue to make appeals or conduct 'business as usual' through your talk page, don't be surprised if TPA is withdrawn and if it does, you won't be helping the situation and the Committee will probably just stick to its guns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This issue has been answered already. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900.
 * "Result: Betacommand is breaking a rule, but the rule prevents him from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, so policy demands that we not pay attention. Stop harassing someone for helping."
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the Arbitration Committee with a request that they make a clear statement regarding the status of your ban and of your appeals. My interest in this matter is purely procedural and without prejudice to the final outcome in which I have no vested interest whatsoever. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I also have no dog in this fight, and no opinion as to whether the ban should be lifted and/or modified. I am, however, concerned when I see a statement like "It’s now been 44 days since my last email to ARBCOM, and I haven’t heard anything yet from that" posted on 12 August 2015 and see that the issue is still open on 28 September. Please keep us posted if you get a response. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As of last check its been 90 days, 22 hours since my last email to ArbcCom, which has yet to be answered. ΔT The only constant 01:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , : I still stand by my August 12th/13th comments above that the wording of the Remedy does not seem to justify the committee refusing the present Δ's appeal to the community, and that an ARCA request might resolve this one and for all (either by making ArbCom process the appeal or by a motion amending the remedy to allow ArbCom droit de regard on an appeal. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the last entry in the block log is the closing arbitration clerk explicitly restoring talk page access, I think it's reasonable to assume the committee wanted delta to have talk page access. NE Ent 01:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

90 days without an answer?
I think we can put the talk page access question to bed now, Can we discuss the claim of 90 days without an answer?

I have not searched onwiki, and some of the interaction may have been by email and invisible to me, but this sort of thing often turns out to be one o the following: I am not claiming that either of the above does or does not apply here, just that these are fairly common.
 * A legitimate question that never answered (perhaps on purpose, perhaps by oversight).
 * An answer was given, but the person asking won't accept the answer.

Δ is probably in the best position to answer the above. Δ, could you list all responses you have received through any channel, including non-answers, automated responses, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a summary of the email conversation:

As a side note I had to basically nag ArbCom members on IRC after a month in each case to get any response in the first place. ΔT The only constant 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * April 16, 2015
 * Initial email attempt to initiate discussion about appealing.
 * May 8, 2015
 * Response with serious factual errors from ArbCom (claiming a year is too recent to consider an appeal)
 * May 8, 2015
 * Rebuttal email asking for clarification on why a year is too recent, and again attempting to open discussions on identifying and addressing the issues.
 * June 29, 2015
 * ArbCom semi-template denial about filing an appeal without addressing the issues. (Which are not stated, just vague references)
 * Jun 29, 2015
 * Response email about being stonewalled, and lack of specific actionable points to be addressed, and questioning if arbcom actual plans to give me a fair chance at appealing or if this would be in essence a pocket veto on all appeals.
 * Silence


 * Regarding the May 8, 2015 entry ("Response with serious factual errors from ArbCom (claiming a year is too recent to consider an appeal)") a year since what? I can't find any block, ban, appeal, SPI, etc, that is recent enough to qualify. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe this is in reference to User:Werieth being blocked 5 July 2014. I think Δ was attempting to initiate discussion in April, in anticipation of filing a formal appeal in July. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah. It is a moot point now because it has been over a year since 5 July 2014. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)