User talk:Heimstern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • If you leave a comment on this talk page, I will reply here, not at your talk page. If you're of the type who's really reliant on the Orange Bar of Death (AKA the "New Messages" indicator), let me know and I'll give you a note that I've replied here.
  • If I've left a comment on your talk page, I have watchlisted it, so you can go ahead and reply there; don't worry about letting me know here.
  • Please don't forget to be civil. But note: If you see someone else leave an uncivil comment here; please do not revert it unless it's simple vandalism or a drive-by personal attack with no substantial criticism.

Archive:17 Feb-30 Nov 2006
Archive:1 Dec 2006-31 Jan 2007
Archive:1 Feb-25 Mar 2007
Archive:27 Mar-9 May 2007
Archive:10 May-5 June 2007
Archive:6 June-3 July 2007
Archive:6 July-10 Sep 2007
Archive:11 Sep-10 Nov 2007
Archive:11 Nov-30 December 2007
Archive:31 December 2007-5 March 2008
Archive:6 March-11 September 2008
Archive:11 Sep 2008-24 Feb 2009
Archive:24 Feb 2009-28 Aug 2009
Archive:28 Aug 2009-present

Wikipedia motto of the indeterminate time period

"...and I mean that seriously and respectfully, not WP:CIVILly"

--MastCell [1]

Re: Big Bird[edit]

I noticed you gave a 3RR warning to User:Eugenistoc. Not to unnecessarily drag you into the argument, but I'd happily invite an outside party to comment. I don't think my objection is unreasonable? -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the invite. At this point, I think I'd prefer not to enter the discussion; I usually don't when it comes to US politics. I'd also prefer to remain an uninvolved admin, able to take administrative action if needed. Best of luck with that discussion! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks to me like at least one other set of eyes has arrived already, so that's good! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Completely understand! Thanks! -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Minimum support percentage for appointment to arbcom[edit]

You made this remark. But supposing just hypothetically that a candidate were to receive an unheard of landslide of Oppose votes, don't you think such a candidate ought to be appointed to the committee? On the argument that somebody who has managed to alienate so many people must be very brave, and sharp, and daring? Isn't it just such users we need on arbcom? To shake up the milksop bla bla bla arbcom culture and get stuff done, already? Especially if it's a user who has already showed they don't hesitate to bite those who deserve it, and who has furthermore created untold brilliant templates that others can also use, to facilitate teaching people valuable lessons all over Wikipedia? I know I think so! darwinbish BITE 12:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC).

"One where content is valued above content..."[edit]

Agreed with what I think you meant to say, though you might want to fix it. (I might suggest "One where content is valued above contentment" as having a nice ring to it, but it's your baby.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Made a mistake. Anyway, I need out now. I'm half expecting nasty remarks for my just telling off Jclemens, so I'm just going to log out for a while. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please delete my account[edit]

Sorry could you please delete my account and anything related to it? I will no longer use wikipedia or contribute to it. DjSeptimus (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can't delete accounts. It's not possible for me to do so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see much point in participating, since so many users feel that questionnaire is biased that I just don't see any useful result coming from it. The respondents will inevitably be a self-selected group unrepresentative of the community at large. That and my increasing busyness are enough I think I'm going to end up not taking part. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I am thankful that you considered the request, furthermore posting a thoughtful reply. I respect your decision, though I do believe your input will be missed. Good luck in your future endeavors, I wish you the best. My76Strat (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Haven't you forgotten RegentsPark? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, not so much forgotten, more like "not gotten around to adding". I'm not at all sure I'm going to finish this guide, I'm already feeling pretty electioned out, if you will. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Heimstern, just wanted to make you aware about the current ongoing MMA disputes particularly in regards to your involvement at ANI 3RR Jonny by Mtking. You may have walked into a hornets nest as I discovered on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 which was only the tip of what is going on at ANI Canvassing and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f and ANI 3RR Agent by Mtking. This has been the result of several edit wars across multiple articles and both parties seem to be at fault from bad faith to edit warring. Mkdwtalk 12:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's clearly a lot going on; nonetheless, this particular case of edit warring is pretty clear-cut, so I don't think there's a lot of need to second-guess the result. How the long-term issue will need to be solved is less clear, to be sure. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification on WP:ARBSL[edit]

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon Brews ohare in the Speed of light case. As you have recently participated in an arbitration enforcement request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so, and also for the notification. I've given my thoughts there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Maurice07 at AE[edit]

Hello Heimstern. Please see WP:AE#Maurice07. You had left a comment on this case while it was at AN3. Since the closure, Maurice has made a further response at the bottom of WP:AN3#User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Sending to WP:AE) that gives his side of the case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. I have made my initial comments there. We'll see what other admins think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you consider this edit [2] to be a violation of Maurice07's topic ban? Thanks, Athenean (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, my 2 cents was dropped on my talkpage. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping discussion in one place, I've done the same. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed some new restrictions. When you have a chance, could you look over them please? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi li'l Heim, I see you! Welcome back! Bishonen | talk 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC).

Yup, I'm here, just been lurking rather than editing much. I'll be around, to be sure! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As requested[edit]

Llama on Machu Picchu.jpg NE Ent 12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose one is a start, at least! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for a TPS[edit]

Can someone please leave me a message? I want to see this new notification system some people hate so much. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done!  Roger Davies talk 01:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Transparency and accountability[edit]

Hi Heimstern:

If you want to find out an arbitrator's position on something, just ask, for instance on their talk page. There is no prohibition, nor has there ever been a prohibition, on individuals talking about their own internal participation in ArbCom.(Example) This, it strikes me, is the right balance between transparency, confidentiality, and accountability. To save you asking, I didn't participate at all in the straw poll on WBB and support his return, with the right restrictions, as probably in the best interests of the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies talk 01:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK... I still don't see why things can't be clearer and centralised. Or am I misunderstanding this and there wasn't really a vote at all, just sort of a "what do we all think?" discussion? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty much how it was. We don't normalise publicise the outcome of these discussions on-wiki as, if asked, most people prefer to keep their unsuccessful unban requests quiet. (The ones that don't are freqently trolls or POV-pushers, seeking an on-wiki platform.) In this instance, the various discussions are being started by the same group of WBB supporters in different places.  Roger Davies talk 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Roger, that response seems sort of non-responsive. I understand that normally editors don't want the results of their ban appeal publicized, but in this case that's not an issue. I also think it's sort of lazy to write this off as a forum-shopping campaign by "WBB supporters". First of all, I'm not really a "WBB supporter" - while we've both been on Wikipedia in excess of 7 years, we've interacted very little, and my impression of him has generally been neutral to mildly negative. I didn't participate in the userspace RfC about his ban, and advised James against it. My participation in the ArbCom case was quite limited; regarding Will, I wrote: "I think Will has obviously gone overboard and the sanctions coming his way are probably justified".

I just think it's a lazy fallacy to write this off as a faction of "WBB supporters", as opposed to, say, an editor in good standing asking for a basic degree of accountability. This is what bad Arbitrators do: they write off any concern as politically motivated or somehow improper. You're not a bad Arbitrator, you're a good one, so it's disappointing to see you doing this here. And as for the forum-shopping implication, please know that I was directed to file a clarification request by one of your colleagues on ArbCom. So I was directed to another forum, then accused of forum-shopping when I went there. It's my own fault - it's one of the oldest traps in the book, and I walked right into it.

From my perspective, I'm making an extremely simple request and getting an enormous bureaucratic runaround which can only be described as FT2-esque. For the record, I think Will's actions probably warranted sanction, but that his punishment was disproportionately harsh (a concern which appears to be shared by several ArbCom members). To an outsider like me, the level of animosity directed at Will from the Committee was far in excess of his actual crimes and verged on personal contempt. We've treated far worse editors than Will far better - presumably the name Mattisse rings a bell.

But honestly, I don't carry any water for Will and it's no skin off my nose whether he's unbanned or not; I'm more bothered by the inability to communicate with ArbCom and get a straight answer to a simple question. The only relatively personal stake I have here is that ArbCom's actions in the case, taken in sum, have created an extremely challenging editing environment around articles relating to Transcendental Meditation and particularly to our coverage of its purported health benefits. I don't think unbanning Will would change that, though - the damage is done and we're left to pick up the pieces or get banned trying. MastCell Talk 18:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

MastCell: There's a bit of an assumption here that there is a simple answer to a simple question. First: WBB's request contained various elements, and didn't just ask to return to editing. Reactions to his appeal came on the mailing list and were also discussed in a straw poll: this wasn't a Support/Oppose/Abstain discussion (which easily generates tallies) but a freeform one with comments under headings for various options. None of this indicated a consensus to unban. Now while we could have dealt with this more formally and systematically; with separate formal votes of each and every element; written up an explanatory preamble and posted the whole thing on WT:CAN, we didn't, because that is not how we normally handle this kind of thing. In any case, per our usual practice, a draft reply was circulated for comment, and as there were no objections to it, it went out a few days later. (It is worth mentioning here that it would have been better if that email had said "there is no consensus to unban" and given some feedback to WBB but we were firefighting another on-wiki crisis at the time and optimal communication is often the first casualty of over-work.)

You mention the "disproportionate harshness" of WBB's sanction. Let's not forget that WBB engaged in long term harassment; extensive opposition research; then created and circulated a secret dossier containing inflated and inaccurate claims that directly led to someone being wrongly banned for six months. I have never come across anything remotely similar so I'm not sure whether WBB has been treated harshly or not.

Regarding the TM case itself, and the "challenging environment", there are to my mind parallels not with Scientology (which we've discussed before) but with Climate Change. Per policy, ArbCom explicitly neither (i) "rules on content" nor (ii) "[creates] new policy by fiat". Per a longstanding case principle: "It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors". Now you may not think that a COI constitutes good faith editing but the community is deeply divided on this and the COI guideline is, well, only a guideline. From this, it follows that, because the encyclopedia permits the inclusion of minority views, it cannot be our role to arbitrarily decide, for example, that content added by one side of a debate is wrong and content added by the other side is right. What we can try to do instead is try to create an environment in which differences of opinion or interpretation can be reasonably discussed and those differences resolved. The alternative would be micromanagement by the committee, with an official Wikipedia position on the topic being created, and formal amendments and clarifications being required each time new sources came out. If you would like content matters to be decided by the committee, you will need to change quite a lot of policies to do so.  Roger Davies talk 17:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Roger, I wasn't born yesterday, so please don't feed me the usual line about how ArbCom doesn't decide content matters. You guys did arbitrarily decide that one side of the TM content dispute was right and the other was wrong. Here you outlined the "correct" interpretation of PMID 17764203. Here you opine about whether a particular content formulation violates WP:WEIGHT. Here one of your colleagues weighs in on the "proper" presentation of a graph from within the article, citing his training in evidence-based medicine as a qualification for making this content judgement. Here and here you go so far as to lobby for a specific content formulation and a specific interpretation of a source. And here's where I notice that you guys are deciding a content matter (and deciding it incorrectly) and lose my shit.

Explicit content judgements were also incorporated into the rejection of Will's appeal; SilkTork summarized the case by stating: "WBB was adding unsourced negative comments to those articles. TG (TimidGuy) was moving the articles to a sourced neutral position." That's a content judgement (Will's version of content was wrong, TimidGuy's was right). It's also a curious content judgement, given that TimidGuy's editing has hardly been neutral; he was briefly topic-banned for obstructing efforts to present a neutral view of the TM movement, and ArbCom recognized that "some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline."

So you guys have made content judgements at every step of this process - and often, in my view, misguided ones. Predictably, editors immediately started citing ArbCom's "endorsement" of one version of content in their reverts (e.g. [3]), creating additional difficulties. In light of all that, please don't lecture me about how ArbCom doesn't decide content matters, or tell me to change policy. MastCell Talk 18:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, MastCell, I wasn't born yesterday either so don't try to present comments about conduct relating to content (misrepresentation of sources, for instance) as an endorsement of one side or the other. Furthermore, when the the door is opened about conduct relating to content, it's only to right to look at the evidence critically, without fear or favour. There's also a world of difference between informal comments in the rough and tumble of a workshop, which carry no weight whatsoever, and passing findings of fact in the PD, which constitute a formal ruling.  Roger Davies talk 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Presumably, though, an Arb's thinking as expressed on a workshop page is reflected in his or her final decision. You're not asking me to believe otherwise, I hope. I understand that there's sometimes a thin line between conduct (misrepresenting sources) and content (good-faith disputes about proper emphasis and wording). But you guys weren't anywhere near the line in those diffs; you were way over it. If an admin weighed into a content dispute with any of those comments, they'd immediately be seen as involved in the content dispute and thus precluded from an administrative role. But in any case, I don't think is going anywhere useful, and poor Heimstern's new notification gadget is probably going nuts, so I'm going to leave it there.

My main frustration with this case has nothing to do with Will, and wouldn't be solved by unbanning him (which, in any case, I'm not advocating right now). Right now, our articles on Transcendental Meditation are dominated by a group of single-purpose accounts, many or most of whom are directly affiliated with the TM movement. Now, I really don't care how the spiritual aspects of TM are presented. I don't care whether we call it a cult, or a pathway to enlightenment and world peace, or a little of both. I care about how we present the medical claims associated with the movement, and the editing environment created as a result of this ArbCom case has made it virtually impossible to convey those claims accurately and neutrally. If an outside news outlet or (God forbid) a medical journal or website got ahold of what's going on right now in those articles and talkpages; the fact that we allow TM-affiliated accounts to basically write our medical coverage of the movement's claims; and the way that sources are spun and represented; it would be a huge black eye for Wikipedia and its perception. I've spent a lot of time and effort over the years trying to build up Wikipedia's credibility and utility as a source of high-quality medical information, and it's depressing and (frankly) infuriating that situations like these are allowed to occur and that no one seems to view them as problematic. I know that's not your fault, and I'm not blaming you for this last part; I'm just trying to explain where a lot of my frustration is coming from. MastCell Talk 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Apart from mentioning that your take on involvement seems much stricter than the policy interpretation, I'm not sure I've got anything particularly useful to add here. There was a Committee-instigated RFC on COI after the TG case closed and it didn't really move anything forward. While crowd-sourcing, consensus and pseudonymous editing – and all the inherent problems that come with them - may not always be the best way to proceed, Wikipedia is what it is. I'm afraid there are many things we're just stuck with.  Roger Davies talk 06:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork's comments make it clear that these views do carry formal weight: apparently the official view of the case is that "WBB was adding unsourced negative comments to those articles. TG (TimidGuy) was moving the articles to a sourced neutral position." While that view is explicitly contradicted by the actual case decision (which was critical of TimidGuy's use of sources), it apparently played a large role in at least one Arb's decision to deny a ban appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MastCell (talkcontribs) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, MastCell, that's not an official view at all. It's a personal take, one arbitrator's take on something which was not the subject of a finding. As SilkTork often follows through with his own enquiries as part of due diligence, it's probably best to ask him if you'd like something clarified. 06:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Roger, I've got to jump in on this one for a bit. I've largely stayed out of the actual issue of WBB's ban because I don't really know that much about it due to all the private info. But anyway, you say WBB's actions led to an unjust six-month ban, and I'm willing to take that at face value, if only for the sake of argument. And assuming that WBB distorted facts to get someone banned, that's certainly not acceptable. But WBB did not pull the trigger. So I'm left asking this: Why nothing at all on the person who did? Surely that person is additionally at fault. The last time I brought this up, it was ignored. Perhaps it was just because I was so late to the party, though I've never been able to shake off my concern that the committee won't answer me because of a fear of lese majesté. I suppose at this point there's nothing to be done about a more-than-a-year-old case, but it's always bugged me that there was this disconnect between the treatment of the accomplice to a ban and that of the banner himself. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a very interesting point (I don't recall reading that at the time you wrote it but wish I had). I never saw what WBB did as lèse-majesté and my thoughts align very much with what you have said here about banning and due diligence. Sanctioning the banner is altogether a different matter. As the banner was not involved in any of the aggravating factors (outing, harassment etc); his statements that he'd defer to the committee's decision, whatever that was; and the considerable number of grey areas concerning his precise role and precise powers, I doubt whether there would have been support for sanctions.  Roger Davies talk 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I get a straight answer, but I can't say this strikes me as anything close to consistent with AC's usual practice with admins, which is that one strike is enough for an admonishment or at least reminder. Consider Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth (Deacon and Gnangarra, and the latter was nearly outright desysopped) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough (Elen of the Roads), along with several in the past (Moreschi's admonishment for unblocking Giano; Bishonen's admonishment for blocking FT2, I could go on, but these are from before nearly anyone on the current committee was around). And all of these decisions were easily reversed. The ban here could only be reversed by a lengthy ArbCom case. I should think if anything, there is more of a case for a reminder in this case than normal ones. At least if the committee wants to be consistent. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry about the lateness; been real life'd lately.)
I'm not at all sure that, if you look at the whole picture, WBB's conduct is in any way consistent with the examples you provide, either in terms of duration or impact, and serious sustained misconduct has always been seen as incompatible with adminship.  Roger Davies talk 05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC) PS: Also a bit tangled up with real life and travelling, at the moment.
Ah, that's not what I meant. I'm not talking about the conduct of WBB. I'm talking about the conduct of the one who pulled the trigger on the ban. That would be a case of one bad admin (well, actually much higher than admin) move, similar to the examples I've made. Certainly WBB's behaviour, as the committee has described it, is not comparable with the cases I named. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Now I see what you meant, thanks. Yes, I agree with you though as I said above there probably wasn't consensus for such a step.  Roger Davies talk 06:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Heimstern, in case you miss it: I've replied at the clarification request to the second of the two comments you left at your section there. It does seem like Roger's understanding of the reasons we hear appeals by e-mail differs from my own, but both his reasons and mine seem like good ones—and moreover, seem like ones that mean it's fair for the committee to keep this part of its business private. Regards, AGK [•] 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite. They are handled by email off-wiki, with little formality and little publicity, because (a) that is what the vast bulk of people appealing want; (b) there has never been much demand for them to be heard in public; and (c) the opportunities for grandstanding in public appeals by banned users are great.  Roger Davies talk 17:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that they should be on-wiki; for practical reasons, they shouldn't. And in most cases, they stay off-wiki (denying an appeal to the long-term nationalist who gets banned under disc sancs and just says "I want to edit" is just not going to be controversial). But being ready to explain in cases that are controversial ought to be standard practice for ArbCom (at least wherever that's an option; of course private information does make that impossible sometimes). And that's what I still find lacking. Instead of a nice, clear explanation, we've got editors having to play private investigator to find out why something happened. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A nice clear explanation, at the time the appeal was declined, would have been best. That is usually much easier said than done. We talked once about having a spokesman for the committee to handle situations like this. The insurmountable problem was that in situations where a spokesman would be most needed we'd have most difficulty agreeing the common position. The simplest explanation is that it requires a clear majority of the committee to overturn a formal binding decision. If there's no indication of a consensus to unban, then there will not be the requisite majority to do so.  Roger Davies talk 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean now. I agree (though if I can play "I told you so", I was also the one who asked the committee that we publish the vote…), but for whatever it's worth I've never in my year and a half as an arbitrator seen the committee be so reluctant to talk about an appeal in public. I think that is partly because we were asked about the appeal on a rarely-watched talk page (look at its traffic before the Will Beback thread) and we many of my colleagues simply weren't reading the WT:BASC thread, and partly because the appeal arose from a case based so extensively on very private, sensitive evidence. I don't think this is the start of a pattern, but we (as a committee) can nevertheless always learn something from incidents like this one. Regards, AGK [•] 14:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


I was adding on, but clicked too soon. Sorry about that. Normally I'd respect your input, but not in that manner. Dreadstar 04:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the years of abuse by a few other editors has made me a bit sensitive, didn't mean to take it out on you. My apologies, I know you were just trying to help. Dreadstar 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A delicious pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg For my egregious misunderstanding of your intent, I award you this delicious pie! My apologies... Dreadstar 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
feel free to enjoy it with ice cream, or to smack it right back in my face....I think I may deserve it... :)
No need for a pieface. What good does that do? Let's just enjoy pie and move on. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the victim[edit]

Doc's allegation that three editors have been after him is not quite right.[4] James is not the victim here. The victims are those he misrepresents and they have a right to defend themselves or be defended. My original post now deleted [5] is a response to a misrepresentation. I should not have posted again on that page given Doc's warning, but I hate to stand by and see others damaged. I won't say more.(olive (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC))

I really would rather not be dragged into this any further, so I'd say that last sentence is for the best. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

Right when Malizengin's block was over. He went ahead and reverted in Armenian Genocide without going to the talk page to consult his additions, even though I gave an elaborate explanation for the additions on my TP. This user does not seem to comply with WP guidelines whatsoever. Heres the diff. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone else got him, and since this block was made under AE rules, it's going to be nigh on impossible to lift before its expiry. I suppose that's all there is to do here for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My little pony[edit]

VERY good Heimstern, thank you for that tip. Actually as a single father, I remember my daughter being absolutely enthralled with the entire brand. I could probably even find a few of those items from the 80s buried in a box of old toys if I looked hard enough.— Ched :  ?  15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not had kids yet, and oddly enough, none of my younger sisters ever showed any interest in My Little Pony in the 80s or even 90s. I wouldn't know anything about the franchise had not some friends encouraged me to give the newer series a chance, and I did, and found I liked it. Though that doesn't mean I don't find certain members of the brony crowd to be nothing more than trolls, as some of them most certainly are! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I dream of a Wikipedia where someday our article on coronary disease will be at least half as long and detailed as our article on "bronies". MastCell Talk 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd be cool with that. Alas, I can't help make it happen; I'd have to know stuff about science! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Apropos of your recent note on ANI[edit]

I hardly suppose you saw my mention of Sandstein's block of Saedon on WP:BN? (That's where the action is.) Bishonen | talk 08:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC).

Unfortunately, yes, I've seen all that. Damned infuriating, that whole thing. I've been staying out of it partly so I don't go bezerk and block half the admin corps. And I've been rather tempted to self-desysop, too, though it's more complicated in my case, since I tend to be on hardblocked IPs. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, you can block half the admin corps and Sandstein, as I suggested, can block the rest of the community and then we'll have a nice manageable project. Let Jimbo write his own damn articles. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC).
Sounds like a plan to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've never understood why burnt-out admins go gently into the good night with self-desysops. Three words: blaze of glory. Email me when you're ready. :P MastCell Talk 23:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
How soon can you block Jimbo? (Wait till he gets back from vacation.) I'll take it from there. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC).
So I should take this seriously and initiate emergency desysop procedures for the three of you, right. NW (Talk) 00:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


You recently blocked User Kauffner for edit warring for 72 hours. Immediately upon his block ending, he again made the same warring edit reverting the redirection of the Han Nom article, which was merged via consensus. As this user refuses to abide by consensus, would you consider protecting the redirect? (in addition to whatever action you think appropriate on the user? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey. No doubt you've seen that Ponyo blocked him before I was able to get around to this. So I think this situation is resolved. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but thanks for the response! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Back from unannounced holiday[edit]

But ugh, I think I might keep my Wikiholiday for a while. The drama here seems worse than usual, if such a thing is even possible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

well, I hope your vacation was nice, at least. Welcome back to this alternate... what's the opposite of "reality"? MastCell Talk 04:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiality? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Heim. Hope you had an enjoyable break. In case you hadn't noticed (and if you still care), we finally finished our draft of the new discretionary sanctions. It's taken a while, but I think the finished piece is nice and polished. It's up for community comment at WP:AC/DSR. AGK [•] 07:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Maggie told me that you were helpful to her on an issue. Thank you! And a belated thank you for your time earlier this summer, as well. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome on both counts, and thanks for the barnstar! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


m:SRG, or you can email them at stewards at wikimedia dot org if you need to convey something private. --Rschen7754 21:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Amateur poetry and bad puns thread[edit]

Hey Heim. I added <poem> tags to your latest comment on Bish's talk page, to make your lines display as I think you wanted. Revert if I've misread! AGK [•] 12:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello Heimstern. Thanks for closing the Summichum report. Are you planning to leave a warning at User talk:Summichum? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I did, but he/she has since removed it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if we could use prompt removal of AE notices as a hint as to whether the original AE closure was appropriate. The people who clean their talk pages of all warnings are usually back on the noticeboards soon. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This is true. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

Just out of curiosity, what did my user page say before you deleted it? I know it was nothing more than a vandal trying to get back at me, but I never got to read the flattering words he had to say. --BenStein69 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It said "I'm a fucktard this is Kai Clay Roberts giving you a message go fuck yourself". At first, it simply said "I'm a fucktard", so I'm guessing that was intended as a description of you. But I rather like that, in the final version, the vandal inadvertantly made it look like it referred to him/herself. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision[edit]

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

rejoice in the good that exists
Thank you, Southern Californian, for articles starting with a symphony, for warnings, essays and evaluation, for writing about yourself in prose, "Sometimes the nicest thing you can do to a person is be harsh with them", "rejoice in the good that exists" and "I don't blame you for not wanting to be part of this community ...", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (28 March 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

LambananasOM (cropped3).jpg
pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Aw, that's so nice of you to say. Thanks, Gerda. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 941st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were recipient no. 941 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

More discussion on Mooretwin's appeal at WP:AE[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin. It appears only three of us admins have commented. There is a difference of opinion. Do you want to review User:Cailil's post to see if it affects your thinking on the appeal? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to Reconsider Decision -- Where to discuss[edit]

Per your notice of the topic ban you have issued, I have read about the appeals and modifications option[6] which states that the first line of action on my part is to "ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision." Is this to be done here, on your talk page, or by creating a new section at AE (given that you have closed the previous section)?–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to try to convince me to reconsider, here is fine; if you want an appeal to be considered by other admins, the AE board is the right place for that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your decision of a topic ban [7]:

  1. Your stated I am "topic-banned from the topic area of the Creation-evolution controversy" [8] because "I didn't hear that problem here"[9], pointing to WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Am I correct in understanding that this is because I created the RfC at Creation-evolution controversy[10] despite the claims of other editors that it was a dead issue because of a previous RfC?
  2. What is the purpose of requiring notification [11] regarding discretionary sanctions related to fringe and pseudoscience if this discretionary sanctions is to be applied to articles which are not marked as in the category of fringe and/or pseudoscience? As indicted in my statement[12], I have made only three edits in two different articles in those categories. The article Creation-evolution controversy is not in either category. Nor are my edits an attempt to defend creationism. I am only "guilty" of trying to apply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM techniques to a stub contribution by Csposper that was being objected to because it was not properly developed.
  3. This complaint was brought by JPS, also known as I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc.[13][14] (his signature is different than his user name account). Jps's comment in the case is significant[15]. It makes clear that his whole approach is to defend a POV. Rather than engage with the proposed edit and the reliable sources I and others have provided according to NPOV standards, he is essentially arguing that since the National Center for Science Education (set up specifically to work against creationism) believes that the fine-tuned universe hypothesis "skids dangerously towards" intelligent design that he can relabel the fine-tuned universe as pseudoscience even though that designation has not been accepted by other editors of the article. My point is, as a self proclaimed microbiologist and teacher, JPS appears to be letting his advocacy of a POV color his role as a wikipedia editor in which he should be open to reliably sourced material that presents other POV.
  4. Tellingly, in his statement[16], JPS asserts that I am pushing "the fine-tuning argument" which is why I should be banned (since he equates that to skating dangerously close to creationism). In his original complaint, he cites these two edits from Jan 11 in which I pushed "the fine tuning argument" [17][18] What are these edits? Merely the attempt to include in the ==Further Reading== section two books by astrophysicists that extensively describe the fine-tuned universe theory to readers. In addition, I made a previous edit adding one of the same sources as a reference to a statement regarding "the Fine-tuned Universe argument for supernatural creationism." This edit was reverted by JPS, with the accusation that I was a "Creationist POV-pushing" on January 6. There is no reasonable justification for reverting the inclusion of these reliable sources. The only explanation is that JPS wanted to eliminate the referenced sources. But most notably, once I was on JPS's radar, JPS began to follow me around and immediately revert my other edits, an issue he himself describes here. [19] Not listed is that he also immediately nominated for deletion an article I had created on Maxim Makukov when researching panspermia within a couple hours of my creating the stub. This demonstrates that he is tracking all of my edits with, what I believe, is a deliberate attempt to revert and disrupt my goodfaith efforts.
  5. I believe JPS and his cohorts are exerting efforts to WP:OWN certain pages and are showing a lack of proper regard for clear policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV where in the section Achieving neutrality, specifically states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." They justify their obstruction of reliably sourced material on grounds that they are guardians of the truth (in JPS's case, per the guidance of the National Center for Science Education--with which he may have a professional association) as opposed to using Wikipedia's standard that even a wrong view, if it meets the three policy test, can and should be included in articles.
  6. My "problem" is that I decided to try to help out on article I normally would not edit by visiting the fringe theories noticeboard (where I first interacted with jps and three other of my accusers on January 4th and January 5th). I also made the mistake of checking the RfC noticeboard which brought me to Cposper's original Rfc regarding his desire to include one source in the evolution-creation controversy article. Regarding Cposper's reverted edit, I felt he was using a source that satisfied the conditions of reliability but agreed with other editors that the point he was seeking to make would be better placed into a larger context of additional sources, so I resolved to show him how this could be done. I am not a creationist or pushing for creationism in any sense, but I believe Cposper's source and the general thrust of the content he wanted to include met the three content policy tests and was ripe for WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM help. Indeed, I remain disappointed by the number of editors who refuse to engage in a "fix the problem" approach, and have even refused to discuss of the actual sources I have brought to the proposal. Instead of working to find ways to build the article, they instead insist on blocking any development of the material claiming that Cposper's RfC closes the door to a better sourced and more comprehensive contribution. While my accusers have all continued to oppose including any of this source material, several other editors, as you can see, have responded favorably to my RfC . . . but now I am banned for trying to civily address Cposper's edit using WP:PRESERVE techniques??
  7. In my view, your decision to ban me will be interpreted as a "victory" for a group of editors who use tag team tactics described in WP:OWN to obstruct and bully other editors in an effort to dominate article. As a "victory," this decision will encourage them to continue editing in ways that go against policy regarding a preference for preserving content and especially sourced material. Therefore, I ask that you lift the ban and instead encourage those making these accusations to be more flexible in trying to incorporate good faith edits (of myself, Csposper, and others) per the two policies I cited above. (Their tracking of my editing even resulted in an instant delete of an essay regarding improper reverts.)[20]

In conclusion, I have tried to follow policy at all times and have made good faith edits and attempted conflict resolution using the talk page and a single RfC. It is precisely because I was already targeted for tracking and reverts by jps, compounded by the fact that I "dared" to try to improve on Cposper's contribution, that I have been singled out to have my edits tracked to instantly reverted, with little or no clearly stated justifications, just to get me off of their owned turf. My failure to recognize their authority to own these group of articles led to this effort to get a topic ban placed on me precisely because they don't want to follow policy (specifically WP:PRESERVE and achieving neutrality policy. Please do not reward their efforts to own and dominate articles. My "sin" is that even though I don't agree with Csposper's origin of the universe perspectives, I dared to defend his recommendation to include material that could easily be made to satisfy the three core content policies if an editor such as myself applied a bit of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to his recommended edit. That's what they can't forgive. They had almost succeeded in bullying Cpsoper out of the article, and I interfered by trying to practice WP:PRESERVE instead of supporting their revert and stonewall approach. Punishing me with a ban will only encourage their lack of respect, much less support, for the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM approach to editing required by policy. –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the above accuses other contributors of significant violations of policy, I feel that a response is justified. In particular, I find GodBlessYou2's repeated citing of WP:PRESERVE telling. This is not policy as such - instead it is a section within Wikipedia:Editing policy,which starts with the statement "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't". The section below that identified by 'WP:PRESERVE' is entitled 'Problems that may justify removal', and clearly and unambiguously includes WP:UNDUE as a legitimate rationale for the exclusion of material. Given that the majority of contributors to the initial RfC made it entirely clear that weight issues were behind their objections to inclusion material on the disputed subtopic, this cherry-picking of a single section of policy combined with a complete refusal to acknowledge other parts of the same policy is entirely consistent with the whole stonewalling approach that led to the topic ban. Divested of its selective appeals to a policy it fails to accurately reflect, it amounts to an assertion that the mere fact that a contributor has written something is sufficient justification to include it in an article, against a clear and unequivocal consensus that it was undue. That is of course entirely contrary to the very core of Wikipedia policy. I could say much more about GodBlessYou2's tendentious behaviour on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, but frankly I feel that this contributor's continued misrepresentation of policy even while requesting that the topic ban be lifted is ample reason in itself to continue the ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, wall of text.
GodBlessYou2, I'm afraid I have to agree with AndyTheGrump that a big part of the problem here is that you seem to be treating "preserve" as some sort of policy when it just isn't. It's "preserve what you can", and if a proposed edition gives undue weight to a point of view, it can't be preserved. I'm not actually saying whether the matter does give undue weight, as I'm not involved in this content dispute, but only that those involved are not violating policy by not accommodating some content. As for the tagging of articles, that's a mere courtesy. The fact that an article isn't tagged doesn't mean it's not part of the content area; it just means no one's gotten around to tagging it. Editors are expected to determine whether an article's content is related to a content area. I find Creation-evolution controversy to be clearly related to pseudoscience, as creationism is widely viewed as pseudoscience by the scientific community. And it's largely based on those edits that I based the ban (the Fine-tuned universe ones not so much). If you disagree that my ban is valid, you have the right to appeal at AE. Nothing you have said thus far convinces me that your ban should be lifted, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. Isn't the section I quoted from NPOV, the lead to "Achieving neutrality" part of content policy? Regarding WP:PRESERVE, I thought that was part of conduct policy since since the top of the page has a template calling the article "policy" and the shortcut is labeled one of the "Policy shortcuts." So between the two "policy" pages, if that is what they are, I thought it was clear that both content and conduct policy indicated a preference for editing in ways that work toward keeping sourced information by refining contributions, if possible, rather than deleting them.
I'm not arguing that any or even most of the material should be kept, but only that it should be fairly discussed for including as much of it as WEIGHT justifies. Cposper's original contribution was one sentence and one source. When others objected saying it was not adequately sourced, I arguably went "overboard" in providing more sources and paragraphs than necessary. So sure, those who claim "undue weight" can reasonably argue that the content should be abbreviated. But the claim that it deserves no weight is clearly unjustified. Yet, that is exactly what jps and AndytheGrump are now arguing. Why? Simply because they have a block of votes upon which they can assert there is "consensus" (admittedly, a divided consensus since several editors disagree with them) against inclusion of anything. Because I dared to suggest a new RfC regarding a more complete list of sources, they resorted to efforts to get me topic banned . . . and you went along with them, even though another administration, Sandstein, originally indicated he saw no substantial basis for the complaint.
In short, I think you are rewarding bullying behaviors that truly do not reflect what Wikipedia aspires to be as a collaborative editing process. While it's clearly not necessary to preserve everything, the official policies I have indicated on more than one policy page, including NPOV, do indicate that efforts should be made to preserve sources that meet the three content requirements. Specifically, the claims and counterclaims raised by Csposper are clearly notable and verifiable and are covered in other Wikipedia articles (indicating editor support for reporting on the issue elsewhere).
I really think this turned into accusations against me not because I am unwilling to work in a collaborative mode but rather precisely I dared to object to the declarations of those who feel they own these pages and can simply assert "against consensus" every time they want to exclude new content from their protected sphere. My daring to try to argue on policy grounds that the citations are based on reliable sources and establish sufficient weight for at least some coverage have been an annoyance because they want me to simply accept their dictates, and they are especially upset that I attempted a new RfC to invite input from other editors--which risks them losing, at least temporarily, their control over this set of article. Their hostility toward me is demonstrated by the fact that they so quickly began to track all of my edits, even in other areas, including essays. I understand that they see me as a "problem" editor. But it is only because I don't believe they are making the reasonable efforts NPOV an PRESERVE describe to work well sourced content in in some form...even if abbreviated.
I'm not going to bother appealing your decision. Contrary to my accuser's claims, I'm not a creationist and don't have a great deal of interest in this area. I was just trying to stand up for reasonable edits and reasonable source and to show how a bit of more effort could supply the additional sources people like AndytheGrump claimed where necessary....but that clearly was just him throwing out a stumbling block. Once that objection was addressed with more reliable sources, he shifted from more a reliable source argument to a notability objection . . . but even that just masks the core "no consensus" argument, essentially, "We wore down Cposper, so how dare you bring in new material to try again." It's all been disillusioning. I had hoped and expected editors to be more proactive in looking for ways to include content rather than exclude it. –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@GodBlessYou2: This is another example of exactly what got you tbaned from that subject matter. The clear thrust of the objection to your proposed edits was based on weight issues. This has been address with you several times, to the point that you were simply wasting everyone's time. Preserve does not provide you with a justification to keep any of those edits, even if well sources, and they were, if they introduced undue balance into an article. No you have come over here claiming that there is a conspiracy and a cabal that is out to get you. This simply isn't the case. Despite your multiple good faith attempts to rally other editors whom you hoped would chime in on your side, your edits failed scrutiny. Claiming that you didn't hear the multiple objections to your proposed edits, is ultimate what got you tbanned. Your edits were rejected on their merits and you still refuse to let it go, even now. I implore you to stop beating this dead horse. You are clearly here with good intentions and we would all love to see you contribute good, reliably sourced edits that give accurate weight to the subject under consideration. Please work with us here.--Adam in MO Talk 04:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

GodBlessYou2 - Topic-banned for six months.[edit]

Really wish you hadn't done

This had someone politely (if a bit persistently) going up to dispute resolution process RFC and instead of getting it closed by external input to the question (or timeout), it aborted into rewarding the approach of snarking responses on toilets and holocausts and anything other than moving the topic forward/out/cleaner; and then banning the poster. Now seems a shameful #fail at WP:RFC, WP:CENSOR, WP:SHOOT, and effectively exemption for some on WP:POLITE, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OUTOFSCOPE. I had posted a separate thread calling for cleaner conduct and ... likewise got responses back are not on that topic or useable for improvements.

While discretionary sanctions policy basis used seems deprecated / scratched off earlier this year. it really seems more about how should things work and this ... was a censorship lynching.

Can anything be done here ? Any ideas of bettering RFC conduct ? Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Better RfC conduct would start by not initiating RfC's with loaded questions, and continue with acceptance of the clear and unequivocal result when the attempt to rig the result failed, rather than insisting on asking the same thing again with even more biased questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've attempted to justify my ban above. I'm sorry to say that other than accusations of censorship, I can't really make much of your complaints (no idea what this thing about toilets and holocausts is). As for censorship, no, I don't think so, just a case of "we've talked about this issue long enough." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't remember if you're WP:INVOLVED with abortion or not, but if not, you mind taking a look at Talk:Abortion debate? It's a problem that I'm sure you'll be familiar with – what are you supposed to do with editors who try to cite Brietbart and The Daily Caller and add the phrase "'Violence against anti-abortion advocates is violence committed against individuals and organizations that identify as Pro-Life.'1" to articles? I bring the page up here because I saw that GodBlessYou2 was also editing there. Best, NW (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, NW. I'm not involved with abortion articles; however, I'm really not willing to take admin action there. Abortion is a touchy subject for me, so I have a personal policy of no action on that topic: no editorial action, no admin action. Not to follow Wikipedia policy so much as to safeguard my own emotional well-being. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Totally understand Heim; thanks for the quick reply. NW (Talk) 16:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer I am concerned about RFC as a dispute resolution process, both because in going there he got banned, and re how in practice to make it work better when it starts running astray like that ... is there anything that can be done here ? The TALK really had not much usable, about "claiming that the Holocaust was based on Darwin", "Flushing twice, shutting the lid and weighing it down with cinderblock", which is what the 'toilets and holocaust' is referring to. Likewise complaints of 'not neutrally phrased' that do not (as process says) make a suggested improvement or something more specific are not even trying to improve it. That the first confused edit and jumbled responses went to a more-structured RFC with specific questions and outside input seemed at semi-reasonable way to get to cleaner closure. But now ... a banning just seems the 'toilet and holocaust' side of things got to do a censorship lynching. So, have any ideas for getting RFCs to complete other than hoping they come in perfect in the first place ? Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
p.s. I suppose I should take the question to wider pump chat, but hoped you know some editor WP:RFC guidance point I am missing of thing(s) editors can to help RFC conduct get to better places. Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If you're looking to improve RFC, then yes, a central discussion point is really the right place, not here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for directing me to Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. It'd be nice if it were required policy for people who arbitrate to direct someone they warn to the existence.

You mentioned making this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Would I do this at the bottom of the page or should I make it a subsection of the existing section with my username below the "result concerning" section you posted in?

I'm nervous about trying to make a case, as I don't understand these policies very well, I'm pretty confused why disputes relating to a single BLP have resulted in such a broad-sweeping restriction.

Rather than lift this altogether I'd prefer to just see it narrowed to not editing specifically about ZQ. I don't see any accusations of misbehavior in other areas from the admin who levied this.

I am actually open to viewing some of what I did as wrong and amending behavior but I don't really understand the context. Unable to refresh memory due to history-wipe I basically remember 3 issues:

  1. a while back I linked to a YouTube video and a blog linked in that video description, which mentioned a restraining order, and I inquired on the talk page as to whether any reliable sources contained evidence of a restraining order, and if mentioning it would be notable
  2. later I noticed a redirect of a name mentioned in an article by Milo Yiannopoulos and linked to it from 4 disambigs. I can no longer find the redirect or evidence of its deletion though, which confuses me.
  3. I used Template:CiteTweet to present some statements on the talk page and inquired if the topic (career background) was a notable subject to discuss on the article.

I think I did all of these with good intent of improving the encyclopedia and with no ill wishes, and I didn't think it violated BLP. I do understand some people's viewpoints that it did, because they view the career as some kind of 'black mark' on a person, but I don't. I just see it as a neutral part of a story. I also see numerous articles about people which do cover this career even if it is not the most notable thing about a person's life, namely Chyna, who I still think is most notable for being the only female IC champion, rather than some films she did when on hard times. I don't really get why it's okay to focus on this career path for a retired wrestler but it's not okay to make a brief mention of the career path as part of the background of someone currently engaged in other fields of employment.

I don't know if this explanation is enough though. I don't know what to add, what to dispute, because the reasons why it was okay to enforce restrictions on me for making these edits was not explained to me. In two cases I brought things up on a talk page, which is what I thought was encouraged, as opposed to adding them directly to the article. I realized these were things I should talk over with others first. Where else should that be done if not the page? WikiProject Video Games? Someone out to disparage ZQ would just add stuff directly to the page where many would see it, not on a Talk Page which few look at and which is often archived. Ranze (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, admins should provide appeal information when making discretionary sanctions, and I'm sorry that in your case, that wasn't done. As for how to form an appeal, if you're truly not sure what you did that was against policy, I would advise you to ask the sanctioning administrator for a clear rationale for your ban. He should be willing to do so per WP:ADMINACCT. Other than that, I would just advise you to be careful about user-created sources, since I see that you mentioned YouTube and a blog. These are usually treated as unreliable sources, and we tend to be very strict about sources, especially for BLPs. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I figured I might blow it on the first go so I have experimented with using it at User:Ranze/sandbox#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Ranze. Wondering if there were any obvious flaws with it. I think it's important I appeal this because people keep saying I'm stepping outside when it doesn't seem like it to me. Like, a redirect for Milo Y? That's a convenience thing, it doesn't alter how articles are presented, just makes it easy to find since it's hard to remember how to spell it. People are going to pick at anything, stalk all my edits to find a problem with the vaguest connection even though it's completely disconnected to the root issue of trying to keep BLP articles neutral. Ranze (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Test edit[edit]

Does this work? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Partially! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines AE close[edit]

You imposed a confusing close: blocked indefinitely or blocked for 1 year? See DS talk page diff that says both. For completeness, the ARBIPA exception should be revoked. Glrx (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Grlx. Per the rules of discretionary sanctions, admins cannot make AE blocks that last longer than one year, but they can make blocks under regular rules that are longer than this. Therefore, it is an AE block for one year, after which it becomes an ordinary block that does not fall under the strict rules of Arbitration Enforcement. Yes, it's a little confusing, but it's what's required by ArbCom's regulations. As for the ARBIPA exception, I believe that was granted by community consensus. Therefore, I can't revoke it of my own will; it would have to be revoked by another community discussion or by ArbCom. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are the links:
Where his ARBIPA ban came from (15 May 2014):
Where the exemption from the ban to work on one article came from (16 Sept 2014):
If anyone thinks the ARBIPA one-article exemption should be revoked then it probably needs a new filing at AE to reverse the Sept 2014 decision. Just now it doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that it matters much at this point, practically (well, hopefully), but I'd like to register my disagreement about this procedural point nevertheless. To revoke the one-article exemption would be not so much a "reversal" of the old decision but simple the imposition of a fresh sanction on the basis of new disruptive behaviour, and as such it could be done by any admin at any time. Seeing there was disruptive behaviour on article X, what would stop an admin, under normal discretionary sanctions procedure, to impose a fresh topic ban specifically for article X, a topic ban whose scope just happens to overlap with that of the old ban and just happens to fill out a gap in its coverage? Fut.Perf. 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems I've misunderstood the situation on DS's topic ban exemption. I regret that I didn't know it more clearly at the time. I really don't feel ready to wade into AE again for a while, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If it turns out that DS's indef block remains in place, then the topic ban (and the exemption) won't make much difference. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You should not have any qualms about wading into AE. The DS case is unusual and difficult, so don't use it as a yardstick. It lingered at ANI and AE, and that's an indication that the close would be difficult. Thanks for stepping up. Glrx (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment at AE[edit]

There are two possibilities:

  1. That the Gamergate controversy article is encyclopedic and disruption is intended to make it less so
  2. That the article is un-encyclopedic and "disruption" (at least in part) is an attempt to correct it

Your comment implies the former, which is fine if it's based on a reading of the article. If not, I would ask that you read and compare it to this reasonably neutral summary in Time magazine. (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

An overview from November huh? That's probably incredibly up to date. (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Original poster, actually, my comment does not imply the former. Rather, it implies that a sufficient portion of the editing by anonymous and new users was disruptive that it was necessary to set draconian restrictions. And I have not seen evidence to the contrary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert needed[edit]

Anybody still stalk this talk page? Claudia Cassidy badly needs a revert, and I can't find any way to do so on the mobile browser. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Fut.Perf. 14:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Far Cry[edit]

Heimstern, am I free to revert the last edit of the IP at Far Cry to the version supported by reliable sources? I've reverted him 3 times already so want to make sure I'm in the clear. -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ferret. Policy doesn't exempt you from 3RR just because the other person was blocked. There is an exemption for reverting blocked users, but only if you are reverting edits the user made in defiance of the block (e.g., by using another IP or sockpuppet). From what I saw, you are at three reverts now, so as far as I can see, you would not be in the clear if you were to revert again, as there is no evidence his edit was pure vandalism (though his edits to your userpage were). If this isn't clear, or if I missed anything, please let me know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. I'm confident another editor will get to it in time. -- ferret (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I voted[edit]

I did not support nine candidates, and don't really think anyone should support nine candidates this round. I see no evidence that there are nine suitable candidates for the committee. But hey, I've done my part to try to send the best folks possible to do the worst job possible, so please, pat me on the back, or else chew me out. Since either is a fairly reasonable response. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Ross[edit]

The request was for indef semi the page was already at PC1-indef, but too much time is being spent reviewing IP vandalism edits, so it would be more proficient to semi-indef so we don't have to spend all that time. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems I missed that word when I reviewed the request. Okay. I checked the history and it really does seem that the vandalism there is overwhelming and that there's almost no productive editing by IPs. I'm going ahead and granting your request, with the caveat that of course other admins may review if they feel indefinite is excessive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Heimstern. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Darkness Shines[edit]

Hi Heimstern, Darkness Shines is intending to appeal the indefinite block you placed. See User talk:Darkness Shines for more information. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it. As I'm not that active, I'll leave the decision up to another admin/other admins, which is to say I won't object to an unblock if another admin judges it to be appropriate. (Though I am neither endorsing nor opposing.) Also, I'm open to any questions any other admin may have on the matter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Taking this back. Wasn't aware Darkness Shines had been evading his block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Heimstern.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Heimstern. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)