User:Robertinventor/sandbox

__NOINDEX__

Restore user talk page access
Your appeal has been posted at Administrators' noticeboard for review by the community. For the purposes of disclosure, the Arbitration Committee has agreed to facilitate your appeal to AN on the following agreed upon conditions: For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw  talk 19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee will post your appeal at AN.
 * The Arbitration Committee will restore your user talk page for the sole purpose of the appeal.
 * You will have the option to accept the community's decision/conditions for an unblock should it be offered, or you shall remain blocked under the previous block settings.
 * Should the community decline your appeal, you may next appeal in one year's time.

Issue raised by Seraphimblade
Oh. I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but you know what, maybe I didn't:

I will stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.

I thought that was clear because I've stayed away from the MoS since the topic ban was originally imposed, but if you need me to say it again, okay. That's not too much to ask.

I am also under the impression that I'm not allowed to talk about the topic ban itself or the way it was imposed on Wikipedia except in an "appropriate forum" per WP:BANEX, but am allowed to actually make style edits as explicitly stated by one AE admin at the time (we used to call it Wikignoming). If that's wrong, I invite you to correct me.

I will seek to have the topic ban lifted exclusively through official channels. If you want to talk about why I want it lifted, we can do that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to Seraphimblade
This appeal is missing the crucial point: Darkfrog24 must indicate that they understand exactly what the topic ban imposed upon them means,


 * If it means "Don't go to WT:MOS, don't make any edits to WP:MOS, and don't participate in discussions of style on Wikipedia," then we are good. If it also means, "You are not allowed to talk about the topic ban itself or the process by which it was imposed outside of formal channels," then again we're good.

To address your concern, I have obeyed the topic ban without fail this entire time. I have stayed away from WT:MOS; I have participated in no discussions of style anywhere on Wikipedia. For the purpose of contributing at RSN and 3O, and original articles, does it matter whether or not I understand why a topic ban on an unrelated subject was placed?


 * If the issue is, "Darkfrog24, we want you to do more than obey it. We want you to believe you deserved it," well, I've been open to the idea that I could have done something wrong at WT:MOS, but it most certainly was not the things I was accused of at AE, and the AE admins, like Spartaz, have made it clear they want me to stop asking them for clarification.  I once asked Arbcom for a formal reading of the charges and they declined.


 * As to why it looks like I don't understand ...there's a reason for that.


 * You two mention weirdness. YUP.  Yes, this has been unusual since day one.  The short version, and I can give the long one if you want, is that the length limit at AE is 500 words, and the complainant for the original topic ban wrote 10,000.  reading it took me a month, and I found it was almost entirely made up.  There is no way the AE admins read the whole thing in the time they had, and two of them more or less told me they hadn't.  I think the AE admins were overworked, skimmed something and found something they didn't like, but I never got a clear answer about exactly what it was&mdash;and they have made it clear to me that they want me to stop asking.  I have to take no for an answer.


 * Also, the stuff I was accused of was really awful, immoral, yes-you-ARE-a-bad-person stuff, to paraphrase . Being called a liar is the simplest one.  The new guy I supposedly harassed came to one appeal and said I didn't harass him.  One accusation was that asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I'm the one who says it.  I was genuinely concerned about someone I'd worked with for more than five years who'd been acting weird, so I asked if they wanted to talk about it, and I got accused of trying to hurt them.  To the accuser's credit, he later withdrew that accusation, but even after that at least one admin still insisted it was true.


 * I've come to accept that I'm not going to get exoneration in the form of Wikipedia's admins ruling me innocent like in a legal system. It has to come the slow way, through years of edits that bear no resemblance to those accusations.  But if the question is why I don't act like a repentant sinner, well, what if all of this is about a sin I didn't actually perform? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ~ edited (does BANEX cover i-ban here?)
 * I specifically said I don't think you are a bad person and that you are genuinely acting in good faith in a way that you feel is not disruptive. I also unfortunately think that you are likely not going to see why others feel this way, and that discussing it likely won't change that now or in the future. I won't reply again since I don't want this to get long and it is at AN, but I sincerely wish you the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well here's a question, this disruptive action that I did or didn't perform ....was any of it in the past three years?
 * Then look at your own and other people's contribution patterns and the way everyone acts on talk pages, good or bad. Does any of it change naturally over that amount of time?
 * I've heard that the style of discussion at WT:MOS and probably everywhere on Wikipedia, has changed since 2015, just naturally over time. Punishing me permanently over something that would have gone away on its own by now through the natural cycle of Internet culture? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding UTRS appeals
As for the UTRS appeals, I was worried this would come up:


 * First UTRS appeal: I applied a few days too early. That's on me.  It was declined for that reason alone.  At the time, I asked only for restoration of talk page access.
 * Second UTRS appeal: The admin who replied was under the mistaken impression that UTRS was not allowed to handle unblock requests that had once been AE/DS. I hit "email this user" and had a brief email conversation with the admin, sending her a link to the relevant policy.  She didn't believe me, so I did some digging and found a copy of an email from ArbCom confirming my date of eligibility.  The admin then said they had to go offline for unrelated reasons and instructed me to file a third UTRS request.  All in all, I sent this person four emails.  TonyBalloni later revoked my access to "email this user" for this reason, but what was I supposed to do, say "ArbCom must have been wrong"?  Again, all I asked for was restored talk page access.
 * Third UTRS appeal: The responding admin said "We're not allowed to/don't want to just restore talk page access. Write a full unblock request."  I don't remember whether Tony said they weren't allowed to just restore talk page access or whether he just didn't want to.
 * Fourth UTRS appeal: This one was turned down regular.

So it looks like half a dozen declined unblock appeals, Someguy1221 put it, but three out of four were technicalities. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that I was mentioned down here, so I'll go ahead and post what I replied to you here since you seem to not be fully reflecting what I said. UTRS does restore talk page access for on-wiki appeals, that is the norm, but it is only done when it is believed they have a chance of being granted so not as to waste other people's time like you are currently doing. Your UTRS request did not address what you intended to say on-wiki at all and just said you wanted talk page access back. I explained to you that was unlikely to happen without additional details of your appeal. I am reproducing my response to you below. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Darkfrog24,

While you are correct that the AC/DS block becomes a normal block reviewable by other administrators, your appeal here leaves a lot to be wanted. You appear to be of the belief that you have a right to an automatic appeal. You do not. You need to convince an administrator that you understand the reasons for your blocks and that it would benefit Wikipedia for your talk page access to be restored. You have not done that.

Additionally, as it appears you are abusing the on-wiki email function, I am removing your ability to use it. You should use UTRS for any future appeals, and another admin will consider restoring your talk page access then. In your next UTRS appeal, I would suggest typing whatever you would say on-wiki so that the reviewing administrator can determine if it is likely restoring talk page access would result in your unblock.

Note that if you continue with appeals like the last two, you are likely to have your access to UTRS revoked for six months.

TonyBallioni English Wikipedia Administrator


 * If anyone wants, I can post copies of the emails I exchanged with the second admin, so you can see for yourselves that there was nothing wrong with them. I think I would have to redact the admin's emails, though, for copyright and privacy reasons.  Revoking my email address makes it harder for me to interact with other members of the community and to report abuse.  I have, since this block was imposed, had to report abuse.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)