User talk:Heimstern: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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)[reply] ~~~~~

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I've moved the discussion to the article's talk page. – Zntrip 03:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Discuss this

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, you convinced me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]