User talk:Δ: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:07, 4 August 2017

Nomination of Ashley Zais for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashley Zais is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Zais (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

CatCSD report

There is a flaw in betacommand-dev/reports/CATCSD.html: when it reports CSD candidates in draft space, it omits the colon after "Draft". If you are not the person who could fix it, please forward this message to the person who can. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: looks like mediawiki had a slight change in its output format. Ive gone ahead and adjusted the report accordingly. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

For all of the talk page stalkers out there, when interacting with arbcom what is a reasonable period to wait for a response? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've approached them twice already and both times they've fumbled the ball? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last time things got away from me(I ran out of time to spend on this) and by the time I was able to circle back there where half a dozen proposals and no clear path). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is reasonable to expect a response within 24 hours; if only to say that your electronic correspondence had been received. An actual answer should clearly take a bit longer though I would think if more than 2 weeks were needed that an interim message should be properly due, to explain that more time is needed and why. I've a hunch, however, that my expectations are no more than a laughable aside to the procedures manifest in actual practice; do tell.--John Cline (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The last time we visited (what I think is) this was August of last year. It was noted (at least by me) in that discussion that ArbCom fumbled the ball the first time. Though some members of ArbCom contributed to the discussion last year, ultimately they dropped it and nothing happened. I could be wrong; Δ may have received an email from ArbCom, but I'm not aware. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ASAP would be reasonable in your case, given that every time for the past two/three years you've asked to be unbanned and we've all discussed it, ArbCom has done nothing. It's been over five years - why is this ridiculous ban still in place after all this time? Acalamari 19:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think if ArbCom fumbles the ball again, I'm inclined to submit an RFAR with all of ArbCom as THE named party in the title of the case. :) Maybe, just maybe, that would get their attention :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have now officially reached the two week point without a response. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could try pinging all of ArbCom again. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Yeah, this is really bizarre. Is there anyone on The Committee who could be putting the knockers on it? It seems, a la William Rees-Mogg, Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? — fortunavelut luna 21:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence", or in this case reluctance. I think for the ArbCom members currently serving, it's a complex, thorny issue that is five years old now. To try to untangle it and come up with a reasoned and reasonable way forward is no small task. Yet of course, this is precisely what we have elected them to do and what they have so graciously volunteered to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Appeal

@Acalamari: @Anomie: @Beetstra: @BU Rob13: @Callanecc: @Casliber: @Ched: @Cyberpower678: @DeltaQuad: @DGG: @Doug Weller: @Drmies: @Euryalus: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @GorillaWarfare: @Guy Macon: @Hammersoft: @Headbomb: @John Cline: @Keilana: @Kelapstick: @Kirill Lokshin: @Ks0stm: @MBisanz: @Mkdw: @MusikAnimal: @Nagle: @Newyorkbrad: @Opabinia regalis: @Slakr: @SQL: @The Earwig: @Xaosflux:

This is not directed at anyone on ArbCom, but as an entity in itself. I have been interacting with ArbCom for a number of years now. In that time I have made several observations. They flat out have no standards in regards to communication. On average I am waiting at least 14 days before getting a response, and then only because I start making the rounds and prodding individual members. In the past ArbCom as applied a "Pocket Veto" to my appeal instead of reviewing the case. I have given ArbCom a 3-6 month outline of planned activities, and suggested restrictions for re-integration into the community. Given ArbCom's clear communication breakdown I am posting this to my talk page since that is the only remaining venue that I have available. I do make a request for those who will be involved in the discussion. If you have a request or proposed stipulation please make it specific and actionable. Overly vague and broad statements have caused issues because it is left up to personal interpretation on what is and isn't a violation.

A basic outline is:

1) "Topic Banned" from NFC enforcement, this does not prohibit discussion of said policy or reports based off of the policy, but does cover actions taken to enforce said policy.

2) One account restriction, with stipulations that a secondary bot account is permitted if BAG approved.

3) Large scale edits/running a bot has a 6 month ban. After which point bot activities revert to the Bot Approval Group.

4) My planned activities are fairly limited at this point to minor gnoming (fixing issues that I come across), refreshing myself with the culture and policy shifts since I was active. Documenting and addressing issues with the tools currently on the toolforge (aka WMF labs).

ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]