User talk:SebastianHelm/archive2018

nagualdesign incident

Section title renamed from "WP:ADMINACCT"

Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding, several editors are now awaiting your response at [1]; I recommend you review the entire surrounding thread before responding. EEng 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If, as you titled the section, you are asking this per ADMINACCT, then I believe I have met my obligation by compiling and explaining the synopsis. ADMINACCT doesn't mean that an admin has to keep answering an unrelenting interrogation by an involved user.

But let's assume you asked because you are earnestly trying to understand the situation. In that case, thank you for asking. For quick answers, I can write the following:

• Q2: The term "authority" is not mine, but it comes from Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, see http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html, section "DH1. Ad Hominem."
• Q1 follows from the above if one compares your message with Graham's definition and example, and his explanation: "This [doesn't] refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case.".
• Q3: I basically answered this question a minute before it was asked. If you would like a more explicit answer, please let me know. In that case, it would help me to have an answer to my question from that same message: How did the revert of an unhelpful, off-topic remark improve WP?

A more promising path for understanding each other is if we could have a mutually respectful conversation, since I believe both of us made mistakes – I know I made mistakes, since the block was lifted by an admin who honestly tried to see both sides. (That's why I took a WP:WIKIBREAK – the same medicine that I was trying to force on you and decided not use blocks for some time.) I hope we can have a conversation in which each of us feels free to talk without it being misunderstood as a defense or accusation. I would like to start with our motivation.

I know, I failed to express this well, for reasons we can discuss at our leisure. I can imagine that when you originally posted your reply to user:Kasra tcme, your main motivation might have been just having some (harmless, as you felt) fun. But would you like to tell me what your motivation was later? — Sebastian 16:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, are you under the influence of medication that impairs your memory and reasoning? It's apparent from the above that you're confusing me with Nagualdesign. And, even allowing for that, some of what you're saying makes no sense, such as using The term "authority" is not mine, but it comes from Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to explain something you apparently can't explain yourself i.e. what in the world is meant by the "authority" of the IP? I suggest you start over at User_talk:Nagualdesign and answer my questions in a simple and straightforward way. EEng 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC) EEng 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian, that you remained polite and kept your calm are what will matter for those who will be reading this in few years from now. When all members who got involved, including you, will have burned away reputations and all the supports that comes with it. All the rest are point of views (like always) even this (and its tone). [2] Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian, I've read through all of this twice and it still doesn't parse, as you wrote "let's assume you asked ... thank you for asking", "both of us", "people in circumstances that are much less fortunate than ours" and other things where I'm confused as to who you're addressing, and I'm pretty sure that you know nothing about my personal circumstances. I appreciate you taking the time to write a statement but this has the kind of tone that you often hear read from a podium at a press announcement by somebody's legal representative. It would be much more sensible for you to simply return to the conversation at my talk page. Cheers.

Yaḥyā, I agree with your sentiment about remaining polite and keeping calm. Regarding my clearly marking the section of my talk page as "Certified a load of old bollocks", that's my way of clearly communicating my sentiments to anybody reading it. It's also partly in jest. Perhaps you need an understanding of British culture to understand that, or at the very least a sense of humour.

For anyone wondering which part of the woodwork Yaḥyā crawled out of and why, see [1], [2] and [3]. nagualdesign 22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I sympathized with him after reading his some things about me in his userpage (environmentalism, public transit, nonviolent peaceforce, etc. :)) and his wikipersonality (simplicity). And no, you know deep down, that’s (the links you provide) not why I left the comment above. I do not hold grudges, and you know that I’m sure (from the tone of my replies under any circumstances). It’s my point of view that what constitute NPA is not solely decided by words alone, the context is at least as much important; it’s a judgment call, really. You do have the tendency to be a pain @#$% at times, at least with me. :b I also think that admin abuse claims are often blown out of proportion, they’re just human. In the end of the day, he’s still here and you’re too… nothing really changed. See above he admitted mistakes, the rest is irrelevant, really. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As seen at the second of Nd's three links above, you "retired" just ahead of a block, likely an indefinite one, for babbling unintelligibly at length on things you don't understand; yet in less than a day you were back at it. Pinging The Bushranger, who closed the ANI thread, as I think it may be time to reopen it based on your contribution history of the last month. EEng 01:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean this? [3], if my words are intelligible, then I'll refrain ever speaking, I will just quote. See with what that sentence was sourced with for yourself. [4] Since I can't speak, do you want me to quote the relevant section (Smolin clarification)? See here [5]... If Bushranger has no problem, I will refrain ever giving any opinions... I'll just quote. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Christ, it's hopeless. EEng 02:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got to be more specific; it's to the procurerprocurator (Nagual) to tell if he accepts the offer. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What offer? You're making about as much sense as Stanley Unwin. nagualdesign 03:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nagualdesign the procurer. EEng 02:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

nagualdesign 03:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The worst part is that SH confused you with me. I don't know which of us is thereby more insulted. EEng 22:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, right? I've never been so insulted in my life! nagualdesign 23:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(@Yaḥyā: EEng and I are having a little joke here, making light of the situation.)

Good idea to make light of the situation. Yes, I made a mistake. Big deal; I think my answers can be just as well understood as if I had given them to ND himself. I will correct my mistake of starting this section on the wrong foot and get back to my original plan of having a mutually respectful conversation with ND about what matters most to us. To avoid another bout of unproductive drama, it will be in a quiet tea room. — Sebastian 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Tea room for nagualdesign and Sebastian

This section is a place for nagualdesign and Sebastian to calmly talk about what matters most to us and what motivates us. Other editors may chime in, but their messages may be removed by either nagualdesign or Sebastian if either judges them disruptive.

Hello nagualdesign, I would like a friendly conversation with you about what matters to us. There is still much you have done that I value; among others your long patience with Yahya in the links you posted. This shows a true commitment to the values of Wikipedia, which we share. I would like to understand why, despite our commonalities, we clashed. Would you like to write more about what motivates you or would you rather I started by talking about what else I can relate to? — Sebastian 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup This delicious cup of Rosy Lee is to remind you not to take things too seriously around here. I appreciate the olive branch, though I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about what motivates me in general, to be honest. I'm willing to answer any specific questions you might have though. Earlier you wrote, "I can imagine that when you originally posted your reply to user:Kasra tcme, your main motivation might have been just having some (harmless, as you felt) fun. But would you like to tell me what your motivation was later?" I don't really know what you're referring to in that last sentence. If you can be more specific I'll give you an answer, and after that perhaps you could answer the questions posed to you on my talk page, that way we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. Deal? nagualdesign 15:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you! Sorry that you had to bring the tea yourself; I'm a terrible host. And an interesting idea to use a box; shall we keep doing that as an alternative to the indents (which were just meant as a temporary crutch - nothing lasts longer!), just for fun? No worries, I didn't mean what motivates you in general; I poked already a little bit too far into your off-wiki life in our first conversation; sorry about that, btw.

What I meant by "later" was when you restored the witticism. When you first wrote it, it was funny, but why repeat an old joke? By "questions on your talk page", do you mean the ones I labeled Q1 through A3 in the previous section? I've already provided quick answers, do you really need more thorough replies before we can move on? — Sebastian 17:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup from EEng
You've been told over and over that several editors expect substantive response from you, and your coy pretense that you don't hear those requests is not helping you. Now answer the questions helpfully gathered for you at User_talk:Nagualdesign#I_replied_to_your_questions or this matter will be at AN before you can say High-handed admin with a bad case of IDHT. EEng 17:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "repeat an old joke", I restored my post which you'd removed contrary to WP:TPO (as I clearly and politely explained in my edit summary), and I did so because (1) I don't appreciate being censored, (2) I don't appreciate other editors flouting the rules, and (3) as an admin you ought to know better. Now, I've answered your question, could you please, for the love of God, answer the questions on my talk page. They're waiting for you at the bottom of the page so you don't have to do a lot of reading. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 18:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's calm down and have another cup of tea Now that was a storm in a teacup, wasn't it? Let's get one thing out of the way: WP:TPO is not what you think it is, as I explained to you in my block rationale (diff). But I didn't prepare the tea room to rehash old quibbles. Maybe I should have explained what gave me the inspiration for the tea room: Nonviolent communication, which I'm still learning. It encourages us to "replace the phrase 'I am angry because [the other person] ...' with 'I am angry because I am needing'..." (Emphasis in original). Instead of "motivation", NVC looks at the needs; maybe it would have been better if I had adopted that term. Whatever we call it, let's move on to what matters to us. In your reply, I sense that you still feel hurt about the block, so maybe you are needing freedom. Please accept my apologies if I hurt your feelings; I know I made mistakes, since the block was lifted by an admin who honestly tried to see both sides. I took the witticism more seriously, since I saw it as hurting my desire to fight violence and racism, which I didn't distinguish from the pertinent WP's policies. That was of course a mistake, as I realized thanks to Ivanvector. — Sebastian 11:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Let's calm down"? You asked what motivated me and I answered you. Really, the answer was already obvious. Whether you believe I misinterpreted WP:TPO is irrelevant, since it cannot change what motivated me retrospectively. And no, you didn't hurt my feelings. Now, instead of trying to turn this into some sort of unsolicited counselling session where we sit around singing Kum ba yah I urge you, for the last time, to answer the questions on my talk page. This will be my last post here. nagualdesign 12:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

What do you think this change says about your integrity? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice question, NeilN! Firstly, it was out of a sense of integrity that I was one of the first admins to commit to being open to recall. I think reflects that I lived by that standard that during the ten years since I never had occasion to give thought to my wording of the procedure. Now that for the first time there arose an occasion, I updated the text to include some of the things I learned in those ten years, and to account for the increase of admins open to recall. In doing so, I acted in accordance with User:EVula/opining/admin recall § Citing these criteria. — Sebastian 11:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he was asking you to wax lyrical about your own self-image, or offering you an opportunity for more virtue signalling. He was asking what you think changing "at least two administrators" to "at least three administrators" and other amendments might look like to other people. Your answer is nothing but a deflection from the real issue, which is that being "one of the first admins to commit to being open to recall" is moot if, on the first occasion that it becomes relevant, you quickly change the criteria. It shows a lack of integrity, and it is not in accordance with User:EVula/opining/admin recall#Process. You might just as well say, "I was one of the first admins to commit to being open to recall but now that it might actually happen I've changed my mind." Surely you can understand this? nagualdesign 02:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian, related to the discussion above, I have two more questions for you:

1. Do you feel that you understand the questions that users have been posing to you, or do you feel confused about what is being asked?
2. What if anything have you learned from the recent events involving you and nagualdesign?

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:

1. I think I understood and answered those questions.
2. Some of the things I learned:
   1. One can't teach an editor respect for others by force. That's something I already knew, but I was astonished and ashamed that I tried to do it anyhow.[6]
   2. NVC is not a panacea; there are situations in which it doesn't work.[7]
   3. There are experienced and respected editors who get away with asserting self-serving distortions of some our policies and guidelines.[8][9][10][11][12]
   4. When dealing with such an unusual case, it would probably have been better to ask others (maybe at AN/I).
   5. I could have been more patient with ND. E.g., I could have answered his implicit question "I'm not sure what you mean by 'less fortunate'"[13]. I now see what he meant with his comparison of his "a-hole" with the terms I used. I, too, was struggling for a suitable term, and was later unhappy with my choice of words. While it is doubtful whether ND would have taken any of it seriously, it could at least have helped clarify the situation for others. — Sebastian 11:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Computer-related organizations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Computer-related organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Country data Iroquois Confederacy

Template:Country data Iroquois Confederacy has been nominated for merging with Template:Country data Iroquois. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpanishSnake (talk • contribs) 2018-03-01T18:57:22 (UTC)

Gauss’ full name

One of my calculus text books begins each chapter with a figure of a notable mathematician and a short bio. The 1st chapter (if memory serves me) cites Gauss’ complete name as: Johann Carl Friedrich von Gustav Gauss. You might want to include this as an update in your published Google doodle. All the best, MSR Marksrogers 1999 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but that seems rather unlikely. The "von" would indicate nobility, but he came from a poor family, and I've never heard of him being knighted. If you do find the source, then the best place to post this would be the talk page for the article, talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss. ◄ Sebastian 16:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of things named after Carl Friedrich Gauss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaussia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a little note

I wanted to let you know that the little joke you included in your edit summary on ß did not go unnoticed or unappreciated. I chuckled quite a bit when reading it. Bnng (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't think anyone but maybe the person who put ὕψιστος there would notice it. The word ὕβρις was of course ὑπερβολή; far from challenging the gods, pride in one's knowledge, driving the desire to share it, is the purest motivation for contributing to Wikipedia, IMHO. ◄ Sebastian 10:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Wikipedia is not at all free anymore. What has happened is that there is a section of people who has taken control over it. Those are the people from countries like Britain etc and their main responsilities (if i understand it correctly) is to ensure that the pages in Wikipedia stays as a western viewpoint, which itself is a doctored version of the truth. So any kind of legitimate edits with all the source etc, that contradicts these western viewpoint are immediately pulled down by so called administrators. The first thing that they say is you have to have consenses. There is no debate nothing in the talk page. But immediately reverses the edit and then if the user reverts that edit to the one he did with reasoning it's again reverted back by the so called admins with a warning and third time block that person from Wikipedia. How is it possible to provide a contratry view in Wikipedia, if there are admins who spend so much time as if they don't have any other work and is employed by someone just to ensure the whiteman's views in Wikipedia is kept intact. I don't know anyone who can so much time and effort to push for a western viewpoint on all pages, other than outfits with sinister motives to control the worldwide view to be on a positve note towards the west. Wikipedia being popular is used in such a manner. Those who are once blocked for simple three time edits are blocked forever and called as sockpuppets. I can't image how many good editors must have been banished by these crooks from editing wikipedia because they had a differece of opinion with these thugs and they use dedicated ips and cannot ever be back to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has completely transformed into a monster state that controls all information and all dissents are banished without a trace.Wpediaiswhitemanspropogandatools (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You must be feeling a lot of pain, and I can imagine how that may have come about. It is indeed very sad how the fronts have hardened. People are very quick to label others and just dismiss what they may have to say. I don't think this is a deliberate conspiracy, though. On both sides, there are humans, with their thinking, feeling, understanding, mistakes, impatience, wounds and all that makes us special. I'm trying to understand both sides. I've been here long enough to be able to relate to the other side. Would you like me to explain how I see where they're coming from? ◄ Sebastian 07:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wpediaiswhitemanspropogandatools incident

Hi, I’m requesting under your accountability provisions that you explain why you restored vandalism to the talk page of the main page concerning a living person. I find it very disturbing that an administrator would do so, and even more disturbing as to why you appear confused as to the reason I referred to Elizabeth II by name rather than by what the vandal called her. RD3 and RD2 were both arguably applicable, and neither is at all limited to just articles (see ANI and the user talks of admins who deal with the trolls you are responding to above for some examples.) I’m sorry, but this has me seriously questioning your judgment as an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This appears to be some form of reply to my message addressing TonyBallioni at Talk:Main Page#Has censorship has become de rigueur at Wikipedia?. Tony, it would help if you answered my message there in a constructive, factual way, rather than resorting to an ad hominem attack. This begins with the title of this section. ◄ Sebastian 09:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting that you are accountable for restoring BLP violations is not an ad hominem, and I did respond to your questions: I will not refer to Elizabeth II as a name a vandal called her and RD3 and RD2 do not only apply in articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read our article ad hominem. BTW, you're doing the same again by introducing the term "vandal" here. But at least you're now also replying at least a little bit to the topic at hand. And, yes, I agree with your motivation for naming QEII. Still, there is much missing that I addressed. ◄ Sebastian 09:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Whiteeemaaanspropoganndaexposed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is definitely a vandal, yes, and one that has used multiple accounts in the past (see Eliminatewhitemanspropoganda (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). You, an administrator restored unambiguous vandalism that also contained BLP violations after another administrator had reverted the user. I am asking that you explain why you did so. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I explained my reasons already on the page you chose to not cite. As for the term "vandal": Your proof is irrelevant here. Nobody claimed that the woman taken in adultery had not committed it; she had been caught in flagranti. Regardless whether you're a Christian or not, how can you not be moved by this story? ◄ Sebastian 10:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

And, I will note that this's not the first time in the recent past, your judgement has been questioned.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Since many of us knew this day would come, can someone outline what happened? EEng 09:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • EEng: a vandal (seen replied to above) posted a rant about how Wikipedia covers up genocide by white people and that the British were worse than Hitler. It then went on to call Elizabeth II an insult, and compare her ancestors to Dracula by drinking the blood of innocent people. This vandal made similar edits on Talk:Elizabeth II. Sebastian restored this vandalism to the main pages talk. He then objected when Oshwah revdel'd and protected the page, comparing it to censorship (linked above). He also apparently engaged in conversation with a vandal-only account being sympathetic with them to our assumptions of bad faith (section directly above this). TonyBallioni (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, hello again, User:EEng#s! For anyone wondering where EEng#s came from, see above. When you write "many of us", do you mean your self-declared "wasps' nest"?[14]. And for your question, EEng#s: See the link provided above - Talk:Main Page#Has censorship has become de rigueur at Wikipedia?. ◄ Sebastian 09:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is something that should be discussed formally at WP:AN, as opposed to waiting for a reply about recall? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I'd like to see if he'll answer. Probably he'll do his usual bobbing and weaving and doubletalk, which will help others at AN get up to speed. EEng 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  Editors here should give some thought to how long we are going to wait for an answer. At some point, silence becomes the answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  A few more days passed, no edit activity. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  So I guess there's a mutation of the familiar ANI flu -- AN flu. SebastianHelm, shall we just go to AN without you? EEng 02:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, ping me next week when I'm back from traveling. EEng 16:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Domo origato. (I'm sure that I totally mangled that.) Will do. I'm periodically checking his global contributions, to see if he has done any editing on any project. The way that I see it, if he is giving himself a self-imposed site ban for whatever reason, then we really don't need to do anything except to keep watching, so that he cannot simply come back much later without us noticing. Given the possibility, however contrary to appearances, that there could be some other reason for his absence, I think it would be difficult to get consensus to desysop or anything until after we see evidence that he is back. But following any evidence of editing, anywhere, he either needs to engage with editors satisfactorily here, or we go to AN and from there to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• What are your current recall criteria and will you be changing them again should it look like we're approaching the point of recall ? Nick (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you mind answering Nick’s question? As you’ve posted a long section at VPM and changed the title here, but not answered a relevant question since you claim to be open to recall. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I see that you have returned to editing. That being the case, I want to make sure that you are aware that these discussions are going to continue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Formal sector

Hello SebastianHelm,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Formal sector for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Boldmono

Template:Boldmono has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SebastianHelm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)