User talk:Heimstern

I will reply to comments here. If you'd like a reply on your talk page, say so and I'll copy my reply there.

If you're here to discuss an administrative action of mine, you may want to check User:Heimstern#Administrative actions first and, if it's about a 3RR issue, also User:Heimstern/3RR. Cheers! -Heimi

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Heimstern/archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archive:17 Feb-30 Nov 2006
Archive:1 Dec 2006-31 Jan 2007
Archive:1 Feb-25 Mar 2007
Archive:27 Mar 2007-present

Lovelight RFC

As someone who has blocked Lovelight, I wanted to let you know of an RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lovelight) I just opened, I was hoping you'd have some comments or additions to it. Thank you. --Golbez 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding AN3

Hi, Heimstern. I'm looking at this, which is less than a day old, and in my experience it's something of a minor miracle when 3RR reports are handled within 24 hours. The violation looks quite willful to me, considering the last edit summary. Could you fill me in, what do you consider stale? ··coelacan 05:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess "stale" might be a strong word. "Not fresh" is closer to what I mean. My biggest reason for not blocking was that it seemed to me the offender had been making productive contribs elsewhere, leading me to hope we could avoid a preventative block simply by leaving an unambiguous warning (I will say also that I don't like warnings in edit summaries only; I don't really feel they address the issue properly). In the interest of not disadvantaging Hanse, the other party, it might be noted that one of his reverts is now over 24 hours ago and that he can thus make another revert if necessary. I was definitely planning to block if the offender did it again. In short, what I really had in mind was just hoping we could avoid the block. If it needs to be done, though, so be it. Heimstern Läufer 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. =) ··coelacan 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Heimstern: User:Alistair Haines has taken no heed of the warning and simply gone and reverted Hypotheticals again. Please assist. Hanse 10:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hanse, you have been invited to change the text if you think it can be improved. No-one is stopping you. You have not taken up invitations, answered questions or responded to comments on the talk page. You keep tagging without discussion. Write something! Do something! Say something! You don't like the style at the page, I don't like the tag. We have to talk, not fight for political advantage. Even now I make no complaint and take no action. Please stop trying to turn this into some kind of battle. Alastair Haines 11:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, it takes two to create a battlefield. You are edit warring with Hanse as much as he is with you, nay, more, as you have broken 3RR and Hanse has not. I could have blocked you for you last 3RR violation and decided not to. I'm quickly coming to regret this, as your response has been solely to patronize Hanse, Coelacan and me. You seem not to understand that you do not own the article. Hanse feels it reads like an essay. Rather than address his concerns, you just repeatedly revert him. Frankly, I agree with Hanse. I am therefore reverting to his version. That is the action I will take. Doing this makes me involved in the dispute, so I will not block you if you break 3RR again; however, I've no doubt Coelacan will be willing to do so. Please both of you discuss rather than repeatedly reverting. Heimstern Läufer 20:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you are trying to do what you think is best. Unfortunately, you are overlooking the contradiction in what you have just said. "It takes two to create a battlefield." If it takes two, then even you admit that Hanse shares the blame. "Patronize" is a personal comment, it implies looking down on others. I have done no more than what three people have done to me. You all tell me I'm wrong, I tell you you're wrong. However, I have not used patronizing language, that is what has been used to me: "doesn't look good from the original editor", "cop an attitude", "patronizing". All these malign my approach. They are wrong and unsubstantiated. I have presented several arguments that have not been answered. Yet again I will refrain from speculating as to character flaws that may motivate such unwillingness to continue discussion. Alastair Haines 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice I have not addressed the "owning article issue". There is no evidence that I have such an attitude. There is only evidence to the contrary. I have repeatedly invited people to contribute to the article. Witness -- stub tag for expansion, moving it to the top, explicitly inviting Hanse to put text he likes better on the page, three times! I should not have to prove innocence however. I have assumed good faith, that is Wiki policy too. Hanse's very first comment runs contrary to that, now you are repeating the error. I have even offered various concessions, despite none being offered to me. I don't particularly care about the article, I do care about being wrongly accused of "attitude". Think about it, how would you like it? Alastair Haines 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Heimstern: Following a talk page posting of what appears to be a challenge as to the validity of the cleanup template (rather than attempt *any* edits in response to the issues flagged by the template), AH has now reverted out your re-insertion of the template. Having received no replies to his challenge, AH evidently feels completely vindicated in doing so. Where to from here? I will now attempt some useful edits to the article to demonstrate that I'm not merely a "template troll", but may not be able to improve the informal tone without being fully conversant on the subject matter. As for trying to engage constructively with AH, dialogue just devolves into this sort of thing. Hanse 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I've had a crack at a cleanup and have consequently cut out the template. Hanse 12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Try investigating

You should eximine facts before warning. Please get back to me when you do. I will overlook your error for the time being. Alastair Haines 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did in fact examine facts, and my analysis has been validated by another administrator, as you can see above. You removed a template from that article four times within 24 hours. That is a violation of 3RR. Do not continue revert warring or you can expect to be blocked. Indeed, as you can see above, Coelacan would have blocked you if I hadn't chosen to warn you instead. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a friend to investigate this. Your judgement is definitely superior to the other admin, you considered the big picture of Wiki and promoting contribution. You also conceeded some benefit of doubt. Knowing that the other admin would have blocked, and it was only chance that prevented injustice shows there is room for Wiki to improve this process. We have to do better than this. Supposing I was some kind of difficult customer, what's to stop me reverting once every day or so, ad infinitum? Anyway, it is evident you did some research, so I retract my comment. However, I recommend you get a comment from both parties in a dispute before making a final decision next time. Your real life commitments will make that difficult and it won't always bring better results, but I think you know it is best practice. Tchuess. Alastair Haines 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses article

Yes, there has been frequent cause to revert inappropriate edits on that article. Whereas almost all of the regular contributors have accepted that Jehovah's Witnesses (of which I am not a member) are indeed a Christian religion by definition, consistent with both a generic secular view of Christianity and that given in the the related Wikipedia Christian article, there are some biased editors (by far the majority being anonymous editors) who keep seeking to remove the fact. What would you suggest?--Jeffro77 07:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, don't repeatedly revert per the three-revert rule, as I've suggested. Secondly, it would be good to discuss this issue with those who disagree: maybe a way can be found to reflect the different perspectives on the issue. If discussion on the talk page fails, you can consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this discussion has been rehashed more times than I think you're imagining. The current text of the (protected) article does reflect the best consensus we've come to. It doesn't make everyone happy (and thus the occasional edit war), but that's nigh impossible on any controversial article. -- mattb 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it has. I'm not involved in the debate; my only involvment here was to warn Jeffro not to revert more than three times, as he did recently. Heimstern Läufer 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In principle, it is the people reverting the article away from the consensus that has been reached on the Talk page, not me for restoring the article to what has been agreed to by the regular editors. The problem is that the people who are changing it refuse to be involved in the discussion process. It is very frustrating.--Jeffro77 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr diff

[1] I saw you were investigating, thought I'd mention: the people AnonMoose is reverting are socks of the Iraqi Dinar Vandal, who I've been blocking. Revert/block/ignore. I've thus closed it as no violation, since reversion of vandalism is not included in the 3RR. Just thought I'd let you know. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I wasn't aware of this vandal's MO, and it wasn't immediately clear to me that the reverts in question were vandalism. OK. We're good. Heimstern Läufer 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help, fellas. :p – Riana_ऋ 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive 3RR

Regaring your comment that Guettarda's comment doesn't really make it clear that 3 reverts is a rule, my comment was in reply to this one by ImprobabilityDrive in which he' raises the issue of the 3RR:

I reverted him once, and he reverted me. There isn't much left to tag since he blanked the entire section. If I continue to revert him he will win on the revert rule

Guettarda 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, guh. I wish someone had mentioned that in the report. Well, it does seem to me the edit war stopped, and the page is apparently protected, so I don't plan to block, though I certainly won't object if someone else does. Heimstern Läufer 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requested by 68.54.18.57

You blocked 68.54.18.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 3RR, and they are now requesting unblocking. While they clearly did violate 3RR, they also tried engaging on the talk page. I'm not going to unblock them but I'm giving up a heads-up in case you don't have their talk page watchlisted. Regardless of your decision, could you please handle their unblock request? —dgies^t_c 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've accepted the request. Just so you know, Dgies, I mention here that it's fine for other admins to unblock those I've blocked for first offenses if they say they won't do it again (even without discussing this with me). Heimstern Läufer 04:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing about me handling a user's unblock request: I generally don't do this unless I'm going to accept it. If I believe the request should be declined, I may make a comment to that effect, but I will always leave the unblock request for another admin to see so that another pair of eyes has a look at this. Heimstern Läufer 04:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

More about 3RR

Heimstern, much obliged for the unblock. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to respond to some new replies from Crockspot on the talk page for the article in question. As promised, I will refrain from making edits to the article itself until tomorrow.

I have a question for you, though, if you don't mind. Based on the information in your 3RR subpage, I do not believe that I violated 3RR rules, and I would like your clarification on this point, if you can provide it. The situation here seems to be covered by your subpage statement: "I will count any edit (other than the aforementioned exceptions) whose effect is to revert, in whole or in part, another user's edit." It is my constructive edit that is being reverted, in whole, by the other users involved. I have attempted no changes that involve deletion of material provided by others.

A response here is fine, but I do not object to you posting it to my talk page if you prefer it.--68.54.18.57 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's where I think the confusion is: reverting doesn't just mean deleting text. It can also be adding text. If a user adds in text another user has removed, that, too, is a revert. So even if you are only adding to articles, not deleting, this can be reverting. In this case, you four times added text that others had removed. That's my reasoning for determining that you had violated 3RR. I hope this answers your question; if not, let me know what's still not clear and we'll continue to discuss. Heimstern Läufer 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand, but this would seem to start a pretty steep slippery slope with respect to the question of when reverts start counting. I can assure you my addition was not vandalism, and not covered by "living person" rules (article subject is a website/organization). A review of the case shows that the other editors involved absolutely failed the "0th" step of dispute resolution: avoidance, aka "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.", whereas I took pains to both generate substantive discussion and disengage when needed. They simply deleted my addition again and again, despite my attempts to gather their input on talk for a revised version that would meet with their approval.

If you take a look at the page now, you'll see that Crockspot has gone to town on the article, making 16 (!) changes without such courtesies. Suppose changes have been made that I object to, and I revert to the same version they were previously reverting to? Would it be considered problematic behavior to hold them accountable to their own standards here?

Your continued attention in this matter is appreciated.--68.54.18.57 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I don't have any problems with the changes Crockspot has made. I would not want to revert them just to start trouble. I'm only noticing the apparent inconsistency in the logic regarding the 3RR rule. The analysis on your 3RR subpage -- that edits which are destructive of others' work (when not in violation of vandalism or living person biography rules) are the ones that count as reverts -- made a lot of sense to me. What about cases where other users, for their own reasons, simply don't want a verifiable fact acknowledged in the article?

Your opinion in this matter is quite important to me. I hope you will respond.--68.54.18.57 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, I want to make it clear that whether or not the revert is "destructive" is not a criterion as to whether or not a revert counts toward 3RR. Indeed, such a thing cannot possibly be taken into account, as users will inevitably disagree about what reverts are destructive. What one user considers the destructive revomal of useful information from an article another user might see as the constructive removal of irrelevant information. Therefore, all reverts count toward the rule unless they are reverts of obvious vandalism or unsourced negative info in bios of living persons. What my 3RR subpage says is not that all edits that destroy others' edits are reverts, but rather that all edits that undo others' edits. This undoing can be removal or addition.

As for your dispute: If those with whom you disagree won't discuss, there are two things to consider. First, if they themselves violate 3RR, make a report at WP:AN3RR. Secondly, you may want to consider some sort of dispute resolution. Hope that helps a bit. Heimstern Läufer 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your attention. FYI -- I think it was both A) the phrasing "in whole or in part" on your subpage, and B) the "improve before deleting" dispute resolution guideline, that gave me the impression that new additions should be given the benefit of the doubt. Without that weighting, the definition of "destructive editing" obviously gets very subjective very fast. Something to think about, I guess.

At any rate, I appreciate your replies and clarification. You shouldn't hear from me any more on the matter. Some of the other editors (though notably not RWR8189, who filed the 3RR report) have shown an increased willingness to engage reasonably that I hope will continue. It may be a long slog, but I'm sure we'll work something out. Thanks again.--68.54.18.57 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Review on my 3RR warning

On Martin Meehan's page I have, if the discussion page were to be reviewed, engaged in attempted conversation with user Gang14 hoping to resolve the matter. Despite it being his original suggestion that we talk, he has thus far ignored me and continued with his edits, all of them reverts. He has made several since my last post [in discussion]. I aim to improve the usefulness of this article while so far Gang14 has engaged in deceit and attempted to unilaterally lock the article to prevent my editing. I have done neither instead sticking to doing what I know to be right, sticking to the facts - sticking to the objective nature of the article and writing that. I humbly ask, what else am I supposed to do when he won't talk? My addition not existing is after all, what he wants.

First, I should tell you that I have given Gang14 the same warning I gave you. As for what to do to if he won't discuss with you: there are various avenues for dispute resolution that may work. Heimstern Läufer 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, unless if you are recommending mediation, discussion seems my only avenue and I would imagine that would work only in good faith. I believe Gang14 is ignoring your warning. The page has been edited again by an IP address (129.63.179.138) I have previously concluded to likely be him. A quick check on the IP address would reveal Lowell, MA. Further, checking the contributions by 129.63.179.138 reveals a list astonishingly similar to Gang14's. Sir, by attempting to appear a third party he puts any third opinions into doubt and at the very least he is not working in good faith, I cannot imagine that he is interested in a resolution. I believe this is personal to him, a matter of ego. Sir, I could have reverted the most recent change under this different address, but did not. I work in good faith and ask for your help in my doing so. I am 24.16.121.195.

I can't speak for Gang14's motives, obviously, but I will say that it does happen sometimes that people won't discuss a matter. That's when it can be useful to get an outside opinion, as this can help clarify consensus on the issue. Possible routes include getting a third opinion or making a request for comments on the article. You could look into those, or possibly into mediation. Heimstern Läufer 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One, how is it that he could choose not to discuss a matter and still be taken seriously? Honestly I cannot begin to fathom how this would ever be ok. Two, a third opinion can't be of use because Gang14 won't listen - unless if that third party is willing to edit. Third, while I appreciate the offering of an opinion by a third party - I believe any third opinion should be from someone within the borders of the United States or at least someone who has gone to an American college or University within the last several years - neutral is one thing but only goes so far, one must be able to at least understand all the facets of both positions before selecting one. My position is that information should be included that is affecting the individual now, information that would be of interest or use to anyone who would "print an article and leave". Finally, where's the edit war warning for 129.63.179.138? Or what actions will be taken against Gang14 for circumventing the system? Any? I'm watching for precendence.

I've given you about all the help I can without becoming involved in the dispute myself, which I don't plan to do. As for warnings for the other anonymous editor: If they're close to violating 3RR, yes, they should get a warning. You can warn a user by adding {{subst:uw-3RR}} ~~~~ to his or her talk page (only do this if they're actually getting close to four reverts within 24 hours, though). If Gang14 violates 3RR again, he can be blocked. But as for the dispute: Wikpedia operates based on consensus. The methods I've listed are ways you can try to gain consensus for what you are doing. That is all I can advise you to do. Heimstern Läufer 05:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But the other anonymous editor removed my sentence, he did it in the exact same fashion as Gang14. What am I supposed to do if Gang14 can get away with that? Because you must admit anyone who comes in now will have a bias to keep the article as they see it first. 69.91.209.143 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given you all the advice I have; I don't have any more to say on this matter. Heimstern Läufer 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd just like to express my thanks for the work you're doing on the 3RR page William M. Connolley 10:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking the trouble to thank me for it! It can be thankless work, as I'm sure you know, so it's always good to get a little appreciation. Heimstern Läufer 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD for "House Resolution 333"

Heimstern, I saw your comment regarding lack of coverage, but I see you did not yet enter a vote. I just want to advise you that, in my experience, very little of the coverage of the resolution mentions the actual title. I realize that complicates the search, but I just wanted to make sure you took that into account. Thanks for your time.--OtisTDog 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll keep that in mind. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles Tombe

You removed the speedy delete tag from this article. I'm trying to get some feedback on it, since I personally feel it qualifies under notability guidelines but would like a wider view. Your comments on the matter would be appreciated on the article's talk page. --Darksun 02:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the subject's notability. The best way to make sure it's kept is to make sure there are multiple reliable sources to suggest that the article is notable (I haven't checked whether the sources there are sufficient.) I can tell you that the reasons given for the speedy deletion were not valid (see our criteria); this is why I removed the tag without deleting the article. Heimstern Läufer 03:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

Aloha. I am puzzled at how you could say there is not enough recent history on the pages I requested protection for. Please reply back here with an explanation as to why. Mahalo -- Kanaka maoli i puuwai 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Full protection is used to force a cool-off when there's an edit war between several parties, not just two. It doesn't make sense to lock almost every editor out of these articles because two users have a dispute. When there's only two, the edit warring is limited substantially by the three-revert rule. Therefore, it's best to solve the problems that way and not force other users to take a break from the article by protecting it. Heimstern Läufer 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, mahalo nui for your reply. Thanks for explaining it that way. I was asked by one of the two involved to come and look over the pages and offer my opinion if I felt necessary. Unfortunately, I am trying to stay away from it as much as possible as my views are from that of a pro-sovereignty view. I do not want to get involved as my input would not be "in the middle". Again, thanks for your explanation. I appreciate your reply. Kanaka maoli i puuwai 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for semi-protecting Louisa May Alcott. — scribblingwoman 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No probalo. I mean, problem. Heimstern Läufer 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

First block

Since this is his first 3rr block, can you please check if "Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material" applies here. Though my thresholds are different, I can understand how "clearly libelous material" may apply to the first case. Please note that the image is trying to say that women in Muslim countries are typically raped by their family members. I think there are limits for everything. --Aminz 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Aminz. This was a concern of mine, too. This block took me quite a while to decide on: it was not really because of a specific 3RR vio but because of consistent disruption on his userpage and both articles mentioned. As I suggested on the 3RR page, I mean this to be preventative, i.e., to end the disruption (at least for now). On a different issue, though, I think someone does need to look at this image situation. I don't consider myself versed enough in our image policies to judge for certain. Have you considered asking for help from a user with more image experience, perhaps on WP:ANI. Heimstern Läufer 02:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heimstern, I understand your argument regarding the nature of the block. The user has suggested to stay away from the article for sometime.

Regarding the image, there are several editors who believe this image should stay and I am not sure if a compromise would be easily reachable at the moment. --Aminz 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that you look for a user who's well-versed in our image policy and who could reasonably demonstrate that is not allowed per policy, if in fact that's the case. I'm sorry that I'm not well-versed enough to do that myself. Heimstern Läufer 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Heimstern on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Heimstern. Thanks. --Heimstern Läufer 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)