Jump to content

User talk:Heimstern/archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Abrazame (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, though it actually was not I but another administrator who made the block. Incidentally, you may might to read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism just to get an idea of what to do next time you run across vandalism like this. Cheers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube's issue...

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on a drama break right now. Try WP:ANI. You'll probably get a lot more useful help there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Modest spread

If you desire some item you don't see here, please ask; we cannot hope to display our large stock in its entirety.

Have a little something with your coffee! Bishonen | talk 10:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Aww, that's sweet, in more than one way! Though I'll have to take it with something else, as I don't actually drink coffee. Thanks! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Heimstern/archive 13's Day!

User:Heimstern/archive 13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Heimstern/archive 13's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Heimstern/archive 13!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

march 28 for you, I was sick. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, how nice. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. Californian

Hello Heimstern. Heh, somehow I did have a gut feeling that you were not German. Still, tricked by the username... :-) Sorry. Regards, Húsönd 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem; happens all the time. I once talked to someone I knew via the internet living in Virginia who made an off-comment that I should make sure I had my passport valid so I could visit him, and had to inform him that I needed no passport to visit him. (Being an expatriate these days, I have to keep my passport valid all the time anyway, needless to say.) The confusion comes with the username, and with my spartan userpage that lacks any personal information. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Working with others

You expressed concern that I was unable to work together with others. If you want, I can link you to the dozens of pages that I have worked countless hours with others, including administrators, ArbCom members, and the rest. One set of pages was one I worked with with one of the users that was one of the original blocking admin in my block log (Nandesuka). I am sure he can tell you how it was to work with me after that time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your ability to work with others under the right circumstances. The problem is that administrators have to get along with people under all the wrong circumstances, too, and I've not observed that ability in you. I've found that when people disagree with you (at ANI or other dramaboards), your responses are not the sort I'm looking for in an administrator. Not to say your contributions aren't valuable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hoo boy, and now you went and did this? Dude, that's exactly the sort of thing that proves my point. Trying to discredit folks who disagree with you isn't going to win you any friends or influence any people, and it's far from the sort of behaviour I find acceptable in an admin. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagleemail me 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

oh noes

oh noes! i couldnt possibly vandalize when you're expecting it. hmm, will have to do something useful instead :) 86.130.136.161 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Need to vent

Worst day I've had on Wikipedia in a long time. The events of today relating to ARBMAC2 thoroughly damaged my ability to believe in the ArbCom, and I shudder to think what the proposed decision may bring. Even after booting out the arbs the community didn't think were up to scratch last year and sending in new ones, it's still not working. Two of the arbs I supported in the election completely let me down today. I'm not convinced the ArbCom's job can be done properly by humans anymore, and yet there is as yet no sign of the angels being interested in taking on the responsibility.

Hope tomorrow is better. Maybe tomorrow, the Republic of Macedonia will decide to rename itself to Heimsternguo and we can just forget all this ever happened? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just unwatched the Workshop page, which has become a hopeless case. Hopefully that'll relieve my stress, if nothing else. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Heim, what's cracking? Raiku :  Chat  01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a whole lot. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

John Steinbeck postage stamp

See my Talk page and the deletion log of the stamp. Deletion is still being attempted, now ostensibly under the idea that it is orphaned and not used. However, it is now used in the article to illustrate honors to Steinbeck: in particular that he was honored in this way. Thus, it is NOT used to illustrate Steinbeck, but rather to illustrate the fact that he was honored with a stamp. SBHarris 06:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with this dispute anymore. There's probably a case for fair use under the situation you suggest, but I don't plan to get involved. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion

I was wondering if you could help User:Jerzeykydd and I resolve a dispute we have had regarding the page United States presidential election in California, 2008. Our exchanges have taken place on our user pages. – Zntrip 03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to the article's talk page. – Zntrip 03:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you respect my opinions enough to ask for this. Unfortunately, recent events (not related to our brief dispute, to be clear) have left me pretty appalled at Wikipedia. I'm really not in the mood that I'd be any good at helping to resolve disputes. Furthermore, it's likely I'm going to end up on enforced Wikibreak in protest within a short time, anyway. I suggest finding someone better for this. Sorry not to be helpful for now. Hope you can find someone else to help. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion from Rlevse

  • This was initially part of the above thread in response to my comments that I might be leaving. Giving it its own thread, as it seems to be a separate topic now
Better than leaving, I think you should run for arbcom. I honestly think you'd be quite good at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear me. I get the Orange Bar of Death and figure it's the next edition of the Signpost, and then it's this? Lordy, lordy, that was not what I was expecting. I admit I'm quite surprised at your statement. Even though I can't see myself running for AC, at least not anytime soon, I must ask if you can explain to me why you think that, if only so I can understand Heimstern better than I do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The way you delve into issues you're passionate about and can explain why, that's what it takes--firmness in your view, not being wishy washy or you'd change your mind every hour on a case like ARBMAC2. When I was an arb clerk I thought I had a good idea of what it took to be an arb, but I didn't. In Jan 2009 I found I was actually clueless despite having been an arb clerk. People who've never been arbs have no clue, not even clerks or people who follow every arb case. When you become an arb, it only takes 1-2 days to realize what you got into. If people knew, we'd only have 1-2 candidates a year. Working the arb mail list is itself a full time job, then there are cases, voting, clarifications, etc. And then there's a little thing called REAL LIFE. Since cases get to arbcom because the community couldn't work it out, it is impossible to decide a case where everyone is happy, but it's not an arb's job to make everyone happy. If even half the people are happy with what you do, you're doing an outstanding job. So, the vast majority of people criticize every thing you do. It's virtually impossible to get reelected as an arb, I think that's happened twice. You have to be able to stick to your guns and explain your reasons, fully realizing people will criticize you, many times most people. You have to have a thick skin--people freely criticize arbcom but rather few will throw their hat in the ring. As long as you can ground your reason in policy, you should be fine. People agree on the basic principles, the problem is that people don't agree on how to apply those principles. Look at a case like Scientology or ARBMAC2 and compare votes of Prin vs Fact vs Remedy. IOW, we all mostly agree "Admins should not do XYZ", but we have far less agreement on "In this action, was that admin doing something amounting to XYZ". There's often even less agreement on "How should we handle that Admin violating XYZ" (if it was found he violated XYZ). People don't have to agree with you, you just have to be able to defend your positions and that you, Heimstern, can do. Sorry if I went beyond what you were looking for, I was just in the mood to ramble on, which is very rare for me, you should mark this day on your calenar ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has long admired NYB as an arb, I'm certainly not going to have problems with folks who write long-winded comments. These deserve a response, so here I go. I begin to see where you're coming from in suggesting I run for the committee. An argument I could use to try to convince myself would be that if I want to see change in the committee, I should try to be that change in the committee.
I still can't see this happening soon, though, if ever. For one thing, I can't see that I could win a seat (I suppose everyone thinks that about him/herself, but still). Also, it's hard enough for me to find enough time to be involved in other things like just editing articles; I don't see how I could possibly find the time to arbitrate. There's the fact that I currently live in a country that has been known to deny access to Wikipedia, too: I'm not sure it's right for me to participate on the committee when I could in theory be cut off from Wikipedia any time. Perhaps most serious, though, is that real life thing. At present, real life is very frustrating and hurtful to me, and I really don't think I can afford to add more difficulties to it by taking on arbitration. The fact that real life is hard for me is a lot of why I'm reconsidering my involvement with Wikipedia, as I begin to think it would be good for me simplify by removing one frustration from my plate. As yet, I'm not leaving, in part to see what this AC case will actually bring in the end, but it's still a possibility. I have a lot of soul-searching to do right now about a lot of things, of which Wikipedia is only one.
In conclusion, thanks for the comments; they really are insightful. Who knows, perhaps one day I will run for the committee. I don't think that day will come this November, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

I've written you a small note on my talk. I wasn't sure if you were still watching, so... Kafka Liz (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Received, thanks. Catch you on the flipside. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

  • All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
  • All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
  • The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)one year, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)one year, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)six months .
  • The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)one year and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)one year.
  • The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
  • Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
  • Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
  • Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

What brings you back east?

Hi pilgrim. I noticed that you became involved with Greek related issues from April 2009 (at least in a concerted manner). Out of curiousity, which user and/or what aspect called your attention to this particular Macedonian issue? Enjoy! Politis (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly don't remember what led me to that straw poll at Talk:Greece anymore. Maybe RC, maybe looking at someone else's contribs, possibly a post related to the topic at a board I frequent. Those would be the most likely things. I really don't remember any more details than that anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

rofl

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.197.71.100&diff=297851471&oldid=297851325

I don't know what prompted that, but wow... LOL. J.delanoygabsadds 04:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't clear: he changed your timestamp to say 890 BC, a year in which I'm fairly sure you couldn't have signed that post. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd imagine that would present a mild difficulty. J.delanoygabsadds 04:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad you appreciate the humour. I figured there had to be a reason for me to bother typing an edit summary instead of just hitting rollback. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing_proposals

We're holding a preferential vote to decide what proposals should go forward to the community and narrow down the vast selection that we currently have. Since you've expressed interest in the above discussion, I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to participate. BalkanFever 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Centralized Discussion

I am off to bed, after semi-protecting my talk page and the page that was being disrupted by the IP address. Can you keep an eye on things? Horologium (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's about noon here, so I'll be awake for a while. Not to mention that this is quickly shaping up to be a highly boring Saturday... {mutters something about needing a girlfriend} Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we may have to play whack-a-mole for a while, until he runs out of IP addresses. I'm not sure how to do a rangeblock, which might be the easiest option. Horologium (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I know how to do a large rangeblock (that's pretty no-brain-needed), but to pinpoint one that won't hit loads of innocent users is harder. Maybe I'll ask on IRC if someone knows. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my opinion on Macedonia? There is nothing at the top of the pages that says a casual user cannot come along and comment. The page is not semi protected do only long term users can edit. You create the illusion of free speech and "anyone can edit" but do not. Do you learn nothing from Iran? You set up a false expectation and then wonder why people get pissed? Put my opinion back or we can keep playing games.

Probably we should have something up there to mention that. This discussion is refereed, and the refs have made it abundantly clear that no single-purpose accounts are allowed here. You are a single-purpose IP, therefore you are not allowed to participate. That page probably should have been semi-protected from the beginning for that very reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Banning casual users from discussing a topic that may well be their first contribution seems extreme. It also seems counter to the "anyone can edit" spirit of Wikipedia. Otherwise it's slanted towards American ambivalence towards European feelings. Ignoring the UN position and Greek opinions on articles about Greece is rude, especially be ause once it's decided any future discussion will be deleted with reference to the decision that censored out casual users from ONE SIDE. What I'd love to see is you guys (yes "you" seeing as I'm excluded) get sued by the Greek government in the European court. You seem to take care with biographies of living people but don't care about countries.
A whole lot of time would have been saved, and goodwill fostered if you'd left the debate open to all opinions no matter who.
Please stop putting excess question marks in, you're setting off vandalism alarms. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
ok so I just noticed in your conversation on another page that IPs ARE allowed to comment! Until they are not please reinstate my opinion.
Where did you see that? I just proposed that IPs be banned from endorsing any proposals on any pages. J.delanoygabsadds 05:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
the fact that you proposed banning IPs means that as of now, I was within my rights to comment, and that deleting my comment was not in good faith, kosher, legal or polite.
Hahaha, good one. Sued in a European court. Don't be absurd. Wikipedia is not bound by the policies of the Greek government or any other (OK, yes, we are bound by US law when it comes to things like, say, child pornography, but that's completely different from what we're talking about here). The Greek government has no legal grounds to come after us. As for "not caring about countries", you're pretty much exactly right. I don't give a damn what a country (whether that means the government or the people as a whole) thinks about a name; I care about consistency and neutrality on Wikipedia. The feelings of a people or country have no bearing on what naming we use.
As for the issue at hand: if you really want to participate, make an account and try to improve the encyclopedia a bit; then you won't be an SPA and your voice might be a bit respected. If you're not going to improve the encyclopedia, there's no reason we should listen to you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Heimstern, if he tries to take advantage of his dynamic IP again, if you wish, you or any other admin may semi-protect without mercy, any page he touches, for as long as you feel is necessary. J.delanoygabsadds 05:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I was speaking about international law, not Greek law. I'd like to see it. I'd like to see Wikipedia decide that on all articles about Greece, Skopje is called Macedonia, in violation of the United Nations declaration of it's name. I'd like to see Greece sue Wikipedia in international court, just as a living person would sue for deffamation. THAT is the "concern" I'm talking about. Not your feelings. Legal concern is given to defaming individuals.
As for neutrality, firstly that is a myth as everyone has bias. In pushing any particular side you're pushing POV - your POV to have uniformity within an encyclopedia despite it's flagrant disregard for UN declarations.
As for why you should listen? Because I may very well set up an account and contribute. You just don't know it yet. A stranger is just a friend you haven't met. The encyclopedia got off the ground by embracing anyones contributions, not excluding them.
Wikipedia is subject ONLY to the laws of the United States of America, the State of Florida, and any lesser government jurisdictions such as county or city laws. Besides those entities, no other nation-state, province, or any other body, has any legal authority to govern Wikipedia. Full stop.
Wikipedia explicitly does not subscribe to any conventions in international law, nor does it subscribe to the conventions used by the United Nations.
With exceptions for illegal content such as child pornography and defamation, Wikipedia is subject solely to the Wikimedia Foundation for ALL of its editing policies.
The Wikimedia Foundation has explicitly allowed the community on each project to set and enforce ALL editing and behavioral policies and guidelines.
If you once more mention ANY legal body, I will block this IP. And if you try to evade your block by resetting your router, I will permanently semi-protect all of the pages relating to resolving the Macedonia dispute. J.delanoygabsadds 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Anon, you're just ranting now. Using a name a country considers offensive is absolutely not comparable to libel. J.delanoy and I have explained quite clearly why Greek and international law are irrelevant to this dispute (incidentally, the UN has never said the actual name of the country, "FYROM" is only a provisional reference). If you keep ranting like this, I'll just revert you. I don't need this rubbish on my talk page. If you want to talk nicely and provide Wikipedia-policy based arguments, that could be another matter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Please let me know if you're planning to radically change or delete your civility essay, as I've added a link to it in my sig. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap awesome! That'll probably go a long way toward making sure I keep it as is. :-) Thanks for reading it and even being willing to endorse! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:3RR

Hey. We don't edit articles based on straw polls on talk pages, and an "outsider" sticking close tags on a discussion doesn't constitute a "decision". Besides, Tiptoety isn't an outsider, he has expressed an opinion on the matter before. He indeed was the one who moved WP:AN/3 to WP:EW. I too if I wanted could have refrained from opposing and just closed the discussion as no consensus if we worked by took opportunistic closes more seriously that talk contributions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All right then. Going to ANI to get some outside opinions, since we're clearly going to need them here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the overly snappy form this reply used to have. ARBMAC2 and the Greek nationalists really sapped a lot of my patience, and it seems to be spilling over elsewhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) ArbMac would sap the patience of most. Merely watching the process induced dispair on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request Clarification - Abd ban

I noticed that you closed the discussion of Abd in relation to cold fusion, and ask that you clarify one point. The initial ban from WMC covered only the page cold fusion and its associated talk page. The initial ANI post mentioned a topic ban, which would apply to any cold fusion discussion on other pages, including user talk pages. I can certainly see how the ANI discussion can be read as endorsing a topic ban rather than a ban on just the two pages cold fusion and talk:cold fusion - but can also see the argument Abd could make about the ANI discussion broadening WMC's page ban to a full topic ban. Your closing statement appears to me to be saying Abd is now under a community-imposed topic ban on cold fusion. Is this what you intended in your close of the discussion? If so, has Hipocrite's ban been similarly widened? If the ban remains a page ban, perhaps you might clarify the close? I think it is highly desirable in a situation such as this for the decision made to be as unambiguous as possible - it reduces the potential for future angst and debate. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In my close, I simply meant to acknowledge that Abd has affirmed his own ban, which seems to me to be sufficient to mean there is no more need to discuss it. As far as I know, no ban has been widened as a result. If there's some controversy over this, then it might be necessary to reopen the discussion, though I'd hope we could leave it as is and see if it's sufficient. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest you ammend your close. It presently says Abd is under a community-imposed topic ban, but I think you mean a community-imposed page ban relating to cold fusion and its talk page. The likelihood of future wikilawyering around CF is high so clarity is desirable. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you decide, Heimstern; I interpret the authority of a closing admin to be strong and plenary. So if it is later needed to clarify your decision, you can do so in response to the need, and you do not have to resolve difficult issues now, you become, in my view, the go-to person for further matters related to that decision, and you are not required to address, up front, all aspects of the ban, as long as the immediate application is clear. If I edit the article or its Talk page, I can be blocked, by any administrator desiring to enforce the ban, with no warning, unless the ban is lifted by a new discussion, your decision altering the ban, or deciding that it is no longer necessary, or ArbComm. As you know, I oppose new discussion of the ban in any venue other than ArbComm or user Talk pages of users who want to discuss it, I oppose that discussion if it is disruptive, and I'm not asking you to review the ban because the evidence you would need to see hasn't been presented, I specifically avoided that at AN/I. My desire for a rapid close was based on avoiding contentious debate that could lead to no better conclusion without turning the AN/I report into a massive free-for-all. The fundamental issues involved will require an RfAr to resolve, it is obvious from past experience; until then, it can only be more heat without more light. EdChem seems to expect wikilawyering. From what side? I'm banned, EdChem, get over it.
I certainly have gotten over it, in fact, it was only a nuisance to me when the AN/I report was open because I imagine that when someone presents false or misleading evidence about me, I have an obligation to respond. When I decided to ask for close, knowing that based on what was there, I'd almost certainly be considered banned, I felt a great sense of relief and freedom and, yes, power. I can now do exactly what needs to be done to address the larger issues, without distraction. Those who imagine my primary concern to be some POV on Cold fusion haven't been paying attention.
Thanks again, Heimstern, I hope this response was acceptable to you, if you think anything from me is excessive, feel free to delete it, ask me to summarize or redact, ignore it, or ask me to stop. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
All I intended to do was to reaffirm the ban as originally stated and, from what I understand, accepted by you in the end, albeit not for the original reasons (i.e., because of community input rather than because of WMC's decision). That seems to me to be all that has been affirmed by the community as yet. As far as I know, that's all there is for me to say now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Just one more little tweak to the closing to avoid the most usual misunderstandings: could you replace "ban" with "page ban"?
(I know that I used myself "topic ban" all over the place and I never used "page ban", but I agree with Abd, and with ChemEd, in that this is the correct description of the ban, and using plain "ban" could cause problems in the future. This is because, when people read, they tend to fast-scan sentences for keywords and seeing "ban" in isolation will bring more than one to incorrectly believe Abd to be fully banned, causing confusions later when, by Murphy's Law, one of those persons opinates incorrectly about a certain full ban right in the midle of the wrongest discussion with the worst timing. And then Finagle's law will cause the incorrect statement to derail the discussion and... hum... errrr.... you know, just consider changing it, please, and sorry for having to change your closing so many times.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you convinced me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hum, one more thing, so rry again for so much bother.... Abd says "You [Heimstern] did not explicitly state a conclusion with your close, but, in the absence of clarification, I will take it as confirming a community page ban, period one month"[1].

However, in the review request I worded the period as "[WMC] finally decided to topic ban both User:Hipocrite and User:Abd from Cold fusion and its talk page for one month and simply unprotect the article, (see ban notice in talk page diff full discussion), later noting that it was for an indefinite period and not just for a month[2], pending their behaviour in this mediation process (which is exclusively content issues)"[3]

I notice that most of the 11 people opinating endorsed the ban with no comment in length, only two editors endorsed explicitely a one-month ban (Bilby[4] and ImperfectlyInformed[5] who also changed the title of the section made by WMC to add "(1 month topic ban of Abd and Hipocrite)"[6]), and Bali ultimate even said that "i think its a pity this isn't indefinite"[7]. Seicer for example endorsed "the current topic ban" without qualificating it[8].

Soooo, to make a long story short, could you clarify the length of the page ban being endorsed by the community? A one month ban, or an indefinite ban with the possibility of lifting after one month depending on behaviour? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern, I am unconcerned if you make no decision at this time on the length of the ban. I prefer, however, that you decide upon a one month ban, but presumably you should, before doing that, investigate the situation, and if you were going to do that, I'd want to present evidence to you so that you could judge the nature of my offenses, if any; it would take some time to do that so that it's efficient for you to review, and there we are again, possibly, with editors debating over this. A one-month ban roughly confirms what WMC initially established, and I really doubt that anyone would make a fuss about it.
There is another problem about "depending on behavior." What behavior? I can't misbehave at the article or its Talk if I'm not editing them! To judge my behavior overall would be a complex decision. If I'm misbehaving elsewhere, the remedy would be a block or an extended ban beyond CF and CF Talk, not simply maintaining the CF ban, so it really would be a new ban. I'm aiming for efficiency. To summarize: if you decide on a short ban, up to a month, there would be no disruption or debate from my side (outside of ArbComm, possibly, where you would probably not even be mentioned); if you decide on a longer term, or indef, there would be a matter that we might eventually need to confront, but I don't know when. If you make no decision now, you can decide later. I'm quite content to leave this very simple.... --Abd (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best to just leave it where it started, i.e., at one month. In the absence of a statement to the contrary, I assume those in the discussion didn't mean to make any changes to the originally intended page ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much. Sorry again for bothering you. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
poi-fect, Heimstern. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • One further question: isn't acknowledging Abd's petulant, "but WMC is involved" nonsense simply feeding that type of behavior, and encouraging it in the future? I feel like a simpler, "WMC's ban of Abd is confirmed" -- and it was confirmed -- would have been simpler, and would not have rewarded Abd's petulant behavior. Unitanode 02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am merely acknowledging undisputed facts and not interpreting them and have no intention of adding any further interpretation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's all well and good, I was just stating by acknowledging Abd's petulance in your close, you might be encouraging it in the future. I was actually hoping that someone would step in and close that beast of a thread, so I do appreciate your stepping forward to do it. I meant no offense toward you at all. Unitanode 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern, the ban was originally declared on June 6, 2009. From your comments above, I'd assume, default, that I'm free to resume editing the article at this point, but I'd like confirmation of that from you before proceeding. For full disclosure, I should note that William M. Connolley claims that the ban was indef and that it is up to him when it ends. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am releasing all responsibility for this ban at this point, as I never intended to take on any responsibility for it at all. I believed myself to be making a purely procedural close of a discussion; in that belief it appears I was mistaken. It appears ArbCom will likely handle this, so I imagine it shouldn't be a problem for me not to get further involved in this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's exactly appropriate. --Abd (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano

Article writers are welcome. People who have no interest in behaving like adults are not. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Giano has loads of temper problems, to be sure, but the notion that he isn't acting like an adult is nonsense. I should note that I consider remarks like yours, which speak so ill of fine article contributors, to be every bit as uncivil as Giano's and that they're nothing more than baiting. I'm afraid I really don't want any further such comments on my talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused, Heimstern. Above, you note that your patience has been sapped by various factors. "Not acting like an adult" refers to not dealing with one's own "temper problems," which you acknowledge Giano has. I have no opinion on Giano, but since I came here to request you review my ban expiration, I saw this, and I saw your user space essay explaining your wikibreak. I do have some comments about that, which I'll make here.
It seems to me that you, like many in the community, are burning out; one of the symptoms of burnout is that a minor problem, in itself, becomes a cause-celebre, and is inflated to monumental proportions. Emotionally, tempers rage. You may, indeed, need a wikibreak, you can neglect my minor problem mentioned above, please, do what you need for yourself. Overall, we need to look at why we are burning out so many long-term administrators; it's been going on for years, and we go tsk, tsk, but never face the real problems.
And, believe me, it's not that Jimbo blocked a long-term and highly valuable administrator for a clearly gratuitously uncivil comment; the block was for four hours, the admin probably didn't even realize she was blocked until it was over. Jimbo was blocked for one second at one point, what did he do?
He did nothing. There was no fuss. The admin was not desysopped or even admonished. There is no "whack-a-mole" represented by Jimbo's block, it was a boundary statement, a message that tolerance for incivility is disappearing. Absolutely, we will not end incivility by pressing block buttons, but sending messages, that incivility is not acceptable, is, indeed, part of the solution. Jimbo's block was criticized by a number of highly vocal and active administrators and others, but, overall, the community seems to have supported it, by a substantial margin. You've made a series of statements about what happened that just don't match the facts; I conclude that something about this deeply touched you, and made it an occasion for the expression of long-repressed feelings. Wikipedia has some deep problems, to be sure, but you won't understand them simply by reacting as you have. It's going to take time and patience. Perhaps it's not a task for you, that will be up to you. We've lost a lot of administrators who have burned out, and from the short-blocked admin's response, I conclude that she was likewise burned out; some time ago, she'd have responded with much more good humor instead of an outraged huff.
Just imagine if she had responded to the block with "Thanks! You are right, I shouldn't have written that, I'll apologize to the editor, before I start an RfC on him." Instead, what we saw was the counterattack and self-justification that we expect from inexperienced editors. A very bad sign: Jimbo was accused of calling this admin a "toxic personality." He didn't say that about her. Yet, over and over, she accused him of it. If you review the original comment, he wrote that about others. He clarified that. No good. He wrote that it was an unfortunate choice of words, or something like that (because, obviously, it was possible to read the statement as referring to her though he clearly did not intend that). No good. Not enough. And hosts of admins, perfectly sensible people, piled in to tell her what a shame it all was. I've seen this before, this outpouring of "support." Admin makes mistake, gets dinged for it. Not desysopped, or not yet. The community piles in to tell the admin that the admin hadn't done anything wrong.
When what was done was an error for which one can lose the sysop bit (this wasn't), telling the person they did nothing wrong, well, you might as well pour out the poison hemlock. What the admin in question really should be hearing from her friends would be supportive correction, from editors known to support her, understanding perfectly well why she might lash out, advice that points out that no harm was actually done to her other than to her pride, and that pride in an admin, that results in attachment to prior actions, is fatal. Again and again, I've seen desysoppings or admonishments from ArbComm that resulted, not from the original action, but from the admin's unwillingness to recognize it as a problem, partly because, after all, so many people had expressed support.
Should we modify WP:CIVIL to provide an exception for "valued contributors"? You know, I assume, perfectly well that the long-standing position of the community is that experienced editors, and especially administrators, are held to a higher standard than newbies, who must be warned before being blocked. Yet if a regular editor, even fairly new, had called another editor a "little shit," and was short-blocked for it, how many would rise up in outrage at the playing of "whack-a-mole"? If you saw that block, would you be taking a wikibreak over it?
Jimbo did the right thing, and time will show this. Yes, it's going to be expensive. But WP:CIVIL, more evenly and reliably enforced, is an important part of the solution, and for this to come to pass is part of Wikipedia maturing. It does not mean banning editors for incivility, but short blocks, as needed, to get the attention of an editor, and only anything longer in the presence of clear recalcitrance and defiance of consensus on a high level, are probably part of the process. If I think that I'm so important that my being blocked for a few hours or a day for some offense, real or imagined, is worthy of the kind of disruption that ensued from the block in question, it could be argued that I should be banned. It would be a very bad sign that I'd be placing myself and my image above the welfare of the community, and that might be as dangerous, overall, as long-term POV-pushing.
From my point of view, a short block is little more than an officer at a meeting enforcing order. It doesn't mean that editors are expected to be perfect, it doesn't mean punishment, it simply means not allowing the disruption of incivility. A member of Congress may be escorted from the floor for an angry outburst. Unless this were repeated over and over, there would be no sanction other than the momentary ejection. There might even be private praise from some quarters for "finally telling that jerk what he deserves to hear!" But nobody would marvel at the outburst not being tolerated. Adult society. It's about time. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Heim is on an enforced wikibreak and cannot even log into his account, and thus will not be able to reply to this message for some time. 76.115.173.187 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Umm... yeah, that's quite a wall of text. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. If you'd like it summarized, I'll do it, or you can cheerfully ignore it, I won't be offended, or delete it. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I'm pretty sure I got the gist. I'm kind of tired of this topic, though (no offence, it just wearies me for reasons not related to anyone's current activities), so I think I'll just let it stop here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Abd#Notice_regarding_the_editing_of_Cold_fusion_and_its_talk_page.. Can you provide one or more links needed? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You still need this? It looks to me like someone already found it, but if not, let me know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Links not needed but see post I just made on Abd's page and see related hot thread on my page. Would appreciate your input on the ban itself. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I had assumed at the time I closed the discussion that the ban was one-month ban. As I understood it, WMC had imposed a one-month ban, which Abd at first did not acknowledge, but later did after community support materialized. Mind you, I mightn't even have closed that discussion if I'd known how much controversy this ban would cause; I believed that, with Abd having accepted the ban, there was nothing else to discuss and that closing the discussion would be purely procedural. I don't have any particular opinion on how long the ban should be, though I believed at the time that it was one month. Hopefully that clears things up sufficiently for your purposes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sure you'd rather this all went away but it won't. As far as I'm concerned, nothing you did at ANI impacted the ban of Abd that I'd made. Rlevse seems to have a rather different interpretation of events. Your interpretatin of your actions is required. He also, it seems to me, misinterprets a number of your statements. [9] is summarised as confirms that it was for one month and fails to include the discussion didn't mean to make any changes to the originally intended page ban. [10] is summarised as Heimstern releases responsibility, and fails to include I never intended to take on any responsibility for it at all. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow what you want me to explain. I'll lay this out here, and if this doesn't explain it, please ask for further clarification.
I saw that Abd had accepted the ban and intended to abide by it, so it seemed to me that the discussion at ANI was over, so I closed it, largely in the hopes it would make for less drama. (Clearly those hopes were futile.) I believed at the time that this decision was purely procedural, as simple as marking an RFA for a withdrawn candidate closed and removing it from the RFA page. I didn't realize at the time that there would be any dispute over the duration of the ban nor whether its original imposition was valid, and I did not intend to make any statement on either of those issues. (I wrote that I believed it to be one month, it's true. I honestly don't remember exactly why I wrote that, though I assume I read somewhere that the ban was originally scheduled to be that long.) Later, when it turned out to be controversial, I sought to release responsibility for a ban for which I'd never meant to be responsible, especially since the case was at ArbCom, where it could be better handled, I hoped.
That is pretty much my side of the story. Not exciting, in my opinion, but truthful. If that doesn't clarify, please explain what else you want to know from me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You conducted yourself absolutely appropriately, and any disruption over all this certainly was not your fault. If anyone was going to object to your determination of the ban at one month, they could have raised this issue then, and they did not. I apologize for any difficulty here. You acted as the servant of the community as you saw it appear at AN/I, which is all you could be expected to do, for to make a decision based on the merits would have been a complex burden, as I noted before. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
@H: I think I've been fairly clear, but I'll spell it out more explicitly. I think Rl has misrepresented your words on the Arbcomm page. Have you read Rl's evidence? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I hadn't read it. I didn't realize that was what you wanted me to get to. I'm sorry to say that I'm going to be rather busy today, so I may not get to reviewing it today. I will when I get the chance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As it stands now, the evidence seems correct. The only qualification would be for the phrase "...Heimstern, the admin who closed the community discussion reviewing the ban, confirms that it was for one month." As I've already said, I didn't mean to confirm anything of my own will, only that I believed that was the case. (This is mentioned later on in the evidence, anyway.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RichPoynder

Please note that edit warring has resumed on Shalom Weiss by apparent sockpuppet, within hours after your block of this user.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The semi-protection of the page should stop new accounts there for a bit, at least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope so, but the new editor, who appears to be a sock, seems undeterred.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like you've filed a sockpuppet investigation, correct? If so, I'd say let that run its course. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. thnx. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I gave my two bucks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you be contented with a statement something like When several names are comparably common, more weight may be given [or some editors give more weight] to the one which is a self-identifying name?

The reason for the qualification is that some editors don't; and Myanmar shows why. Is SLORC a self? does it represent the Burmese people? (For that matter, is there a Burmese people? Does it include the Shan? or is it only some of those under the Burmese military government?) Such political questions arise any time we consider self-identfication.

But, in any case, let me know; I will respond to any alternate you may suggest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a bit to chew on it. I don't really like the way it's worded, but I realize that my preferred wording isn't going to happen because there's no consensus for it. Let me give some thought to how yours reads. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You are going to want stronger wording than I will; by each giving to the extent we can tolerate, we may yet meet in the middle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Please note also that I recently flew to a different continent, and as such my ability to think is a bit compromised due to jet lag. I'll get to thinking about when I can, but it may take a bit for my mental facilities to return to full. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No rush. There is a new and more promising discussion on the guideline talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heimstern/archive_13&oldid=1166514388"