User talk:SebastianHelm/Deltabeignet

Deltabeignet

Gothic Metal

In case yew were wondering, im the highly experienced editor Leyasu - also known as the rogue bandit of Soulseek. Im pretty infamous for being banned permenantly as a matter of policy from violating them to show favouritism by admins for users who agree with them.

But non the less - it was a vandalistic edit, and he didnt seem to do it in bad faith. Hence why i reverted and messaged him. When yew say weird things are going on, what do yew mean? I might be able to, lend a hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.161.138 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Three months of disruptive behavior by admin Deltabeignet — Sebastian 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he just banned my other ip (the one i left the comment above with) so i couldnt talk to yew. Then went straight back to the Gothic Metal article and blanked it again, which ive reverted. Apart from it being cited information in accordance with WP:CITE, blocking me so i cant talk to yew is a bit far.

So, what can we do about this, as everyone knows i can always get back on Wikipedia, im the rogue bandit, the character. Alas i prefer to do more good than bad, and, well, this guy Delta is just not doing good by blanking articles and disrupting the place. I might be a sockpuppet, i might be a character, but lest i aint using no admin powers just to cause trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.69.113 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Now that guy has a series of admins using me being a sockpuppet as an excuse to blank the article, getting them to revert back to his blanking. Could use some help in this regard, in someone explaining to the rogue admins and stopping them blanking the article without meaning to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.142.241 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I directed the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft. Maybe you could bring up your points there in a, well, less "character" style, as you would phrase it in a police report. — Sebastian 07:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitration complaint

I'm not sure what your goal for filing an arbitration request is, and there is no one who will "take it from here" if you do are not interested in pursuing the case yourself. Neither the arbitrators or the clerks are prosecutors; if you believe action should be taken, you need to lay out a case for what action and why. Regarding Deltabeignet's breaching experiment, it seems like an RFC should be undertaken before any arbitration, if you believe his conduct is serious enough to require action. Thatcher131 08:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my request! It feels good to know someone is listening. I don't know what the correct procedure is. All I know is that an administrator is running amok, and I feel he should be blocked immediately. I will clarify this on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Three months of disruptive behavior by admin Deltabeignet, but I will keep the core of the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft]. Please let's keep the discussion in one place. — Sebastian 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deltabeignet RfAr

Sorry about that; I hadn't looked into the case enough and just thought it was a "User x vs. user y" case. Thanks for clarifying this for me.

Regarding the wait in hearing the case, it's pretty normal for arbitration cases to take several days to be accepted. Cases filed this month may take longer due to the arbcom elections, which are still going on for about another week. There will be at least five new arbitrators coming in next month, and four of the current arbitrators have terms that are expiring at the end of this year (none of them are running for re-election this year). --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to strike out the sentence in my comment at RfAr that referred to any dispute between you and Deltabeignet. I must have accidentally deleted the rest of the strikeout tag. It's fixed now. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leyasus's Statement

I added my statement to the arbcom. Im not taking lightly being blamed for some whole thing i have had absoloutly no involvement in. I do however have a feeling that Delta while try to remove it so he doesnt look as bad, thus i could use some help in reminding him banned or not, i still have the right to take part in Arbcom cases involving me. Idont is more reasonable and will listen so i have a good feeling he will just leave it and ban the ip; something more acceptable and within reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.42.173 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deltabeignet's reply (New Orleans and more)

I have answered several of your accusations on the evidence page, but I thought the most interesting was the accusation that I had twice falsified history. From Treaty of Paris (1763):

"Spain ceded Florida to the British, but later received New Orleans and French Louisiana from France."

My edit.

Hope that helps. Joyeux Noël! Deltabeignet 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - this is indeed interesting. I'm learning a bit about history here. Unfortunately, that statement is not sourced. You probably know more about Louisiana history; do you know when and why the area was ceded to Spain? (New_Orleans, Louisiana#Beginnings says it was ceded right in 1763, but doesn't source it either.) All I know is that it wasn't in the Treaty of Paris. What should I do about this on the evidence part: Delete it? Is that allowed? I'm also thinking about editing the table together - I like the wiki way! We could move it into another section to avoid misunderstandings.

Joyeux Noël à toi aussi! Je me sens beaucoup plus doux aujourd'hui. — Sebastian 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to work on the case

Hi. I saw your comments in the "Deltabeignet" arbitration case, I am glad I was able to be a little bit helpful.

I also saw you posted a suggestion to the /Proposed Decision in that case. I know it's confusing, but only the Arbitrators are really supposed to make proposals in that page. Comments from other editors, like you and me, go on the /Workshop page. If you move your proposal there you will also see a couple of other users' findings in the case which may give you some comfort about the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking me by the hand! I gotta run now, but will add it to /Proposed Decision tomorrow. (It already has been deleted by Srikeit.) BTW, I agree with all or most of your proposed findings of fact. Would it be appropriate to add that to the "comments by others" section? — Sebastian 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]