User talk:Δ

Starting the Process

@AGK: @BU Rob13: @GorillaWarfare: @Joe Roe: @Mkdw: @Opabinia regalis: @Premeditated Chaos: @RickinBaltimore: @SilkTork: @Worm That Turned: I am starting the process of appealing again. I know I will never win a popularity contest here. What specific actionable points/issues do you need to see addressed in order for me to have a successful appeal? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I'll note that pinging all arbs is probably a bad start to an appeal, since it's likely to annoy people. In any event, the Arbitration Committee cannot provide guidance on exactly what we'd need to hear to accept an appeal. The general advice given to everyone is that we need to see an understanding of the original issues and be convinced that the issues will not recur. The latter part is often helped by a concrete plan to ease yourself back into productive editing, both in terms of your immediate editing plans and in terms of what restrictions may assure the community that your return would be a net positive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My general advice would be to commit to not run bots / semi automated editing, and generally staying away from editing related to fair use images. Maybe commenting would be fine, but tagging/deleting/categorizing/etc would likely be a no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I also provided some feedback during the last ARCA about the potential for a future appeal. Mkdw ^talk 17:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is not an impressive start. If at this point after the thousands of words people have written to you and about you, you still don't understand why you are banned and what you need to do or not do to be allowed back into the community, then I don't think this appeal is going to be successful. The attitude shown here, where you summon the Committee and ask them to explain to you how you can make a successful appeal, is the exact opposite of how you should be doing things and displays the wrong attitude entirely. You're clearly not aware that such an approach is not going to go down well, and that is part of the problem. You have some ground to make up now, but it never hurts to apologise, and it generally helps to reach out to people and communicate openly and honestly. SilkTork (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: "it generally helps to reach out to people and communicate openly and honestly", this is exactly what Delta tried to do here. You may be an arb, but WP:AGF still applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Δ asked for advice on appealing, and, along with apologising, reaching out openly and honestly is part of my advice; it wasn't a reference to this pinging/summary. So, as regards WP:AGF, assume some yourself! ;-) And, by the by, compared with emailing - the usual method, pinging is not an effective way of communicating with the individual members of the Committee, some of whom are not often on Wikipedia itself these days, and when they are, have so many pings/notifications, that it can take quite a while to get through them, especially on a phone. Having said that, my preference would be for appeals to ArbCom to be made on Wikipedia as standard, rather than via email. Though in an appropriate central venue, not individual talk pages. SilkTork (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How is a blocked user supposed to post to anyplace other than their talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

My ideal would be to have a central place where banned users would appeal to ArbCom openly, and the community could see ArbCom's response, rather than it being done as is now by email, where nobody except the user and the Committee see what is going on. Well, the user doesn't see what is going on, the user usually just waits for a bit and then gets an email declining their appeal. The community are not even aware that an appeal took place, let alone that it was declined. SilkTork (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How would the mechanics of that work? It couldn't be a Wikipedia page -- they can't post to Wikipedia pages. Are you envisioning a page where emails are publicly posted? A separate website? An IRC channel? A change to the software to allow a blocked user to post to his talk page and this new page? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon. Yes, I would see it as a specific ArbCom page like WP:ARCA where banned users could appeal, and the community could also see the appeal and make comments. SilkTork (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, how would the mechanics of that work? How does a banned user appeal on a page that he cannot write to? Magic? Unblocking any banned user who pinkie promises to only post to the specific Arbcom page? Change our software to allow a banned user to be able to edit the the specific Arbcom page along with their talk page? Hire someone to copy over appeals? I feel like I am repeatedly asking a question which isn't being heard. Is there something wrong with the way I am asking that I can fix? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Lets not get into AGF arguments here please. Since I am trying to be open and honest about the appeal process I thought posting here would be the best option. I could have pinged those users who have been helpful/shown support for me in the past. However I think that would cause the screams of cabal, and conspiracy "of the admins who protect me" (see last RfC/appeal process). Similarly if I targeted those who don't want to see me return I would probably get some grave dancing and not have a productive result. Which leaves really one option, pinging arbcom. The reason that I requested, and am shocked that arbcom is unwilling to define, specific actionable points is that I want to be on the same page. I don't want to go thru this process again and miss something by accident which in arbcom's opinion is something that is required. I also don't want to go thru this process if arbcom has no intentions of ever overturning the ban. I also would rather not see this turn into a community popularity contest, I will never win one of those. I am working on a draft appeal, it still needs some work before finalizing, but I was hoping to reach out, define the specific issues that still need addressing, and address those. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope that I am in the "has been helpful in the past" category. Now this is from my memory, so correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall the last time around you were asked to put together an appeal and post it here. In his comment above Headbomb pretty much laid out what you have to commit to doing. To that excellent advice I would add the following:

I personally don't use a bunch of automated tools but I do cut and past Wikipedia source into a local text file, use such standard UNIX tools as grep and vim (and occasionally a C program that I write on the spot) cut and paste the result back to the Wikipedia edit window, very carefully review the changes I am making, correcting as needed, then publishing. Now officially I am not using automated tools on Wikipedia but I am using automated tools, which is why I am so careful about manually reviewing my changes. This is what has caused trouble for you in the past. For those new to this situation, here is some history (noting that some of this is many years old and that people do change, and that some examples are more about others harassing Δ than about Δ doing anything wrong):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

So, could you please link to the place where you posted a detailed plan to resume editing Wikipedia without disruption? If you cannot link to such a plan, could you please compose and post a plan now before asking the arbs what specific actionable points/issues do you need to see addressed in order for me to have a successful appeal? You know exactly what pissed people off in the past. They told you in no uncertain terms. Too many edits too fast, too many edits that had the stink of a computer program deciding what the edit should be and lacking the sweet smell of a human carefully reviewing the computer program's decision before approving or rejecting it, not listening and responding when the above behavior resulted in a shitstorm of criticism, some valid and some not.

Show us a finished plan that addresses what I just wrote and what those who never want you back will list as objections, THEN ask the arbs if there is anything else that they require. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Sorry if it seems like its quite, thanks for the suggestions, I have been working on a formal post, but I have gone thru the writing, revising, and scrapping process several times trying to get a more eloquent post than in the past. Since the Short and to the Point doesn't seem to be effective. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with defining what's "required" in an appeal is that nothing is required. Every appeal is different, but the general bar to pass (at least for me) is "convinced that this editor will be a net positive". As I noted above, a summary of the past issues and a plan to return to editing that clearly explains how you will be avoiding those issues would go a long way. But appeals that contain that may be declined, and appeals that don't contain that may be accepted. It comes down to a matter of judgement – are a majority of arbitrators convinced that unbanning would be a productive exercise. On the general topic of whether an appeal would certainly be declined, I don't think that's any guarantee. I can't speak for the Committee, but I personally am very receptive to an appeal from you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Good luck to you! Hopefully you will show the ARBCOM folks how you have changed and discuss your plan to move forward. I'll voice my support for you if needed! Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous appeal

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Amendment request: Betacommand 3 (December 2017)

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)