Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:58, 9 August 2009

• 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. If, for whatever reason, you do reply here, I'll respond to your reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion any further.
• 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.

Request Clarification - Abd ban

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

In my close, I simply meant to acknowledge that Abd has affirmed his own ban, which seems to me to be sufficient to mean there is no more need to discuss it. As far as I know, no ban has been widened as a result. If there's some controversy over this, then it might be necessary to reopen the discussion, though I'd hope we could leave it as is and see if it's sufficient. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you ammend your close. It presently says Abd is under a community-imposed topic ban, but I think you mean a community-imposed page ban relating to cold fusion and its talk page. The likelihood of future wikilawyering around CF is high so clarity is desirable. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, Heimstern; I interpret the authority of a closing admin to be strong and plenary. So if it is later needed to clarify your decision, you can do so in response to the need, and you do not have to resolve difficult issues now, you become, in my view, the go-to person for further matters related to that decision, and you are not required to address, up front, all aspects of the ban, as long as the immediate application is clear. If I edit the article or its Talk page, I can be blocked, by any administrator desiring to enforce the ban, with no warning, unless the ban is lifted by a new discussion, your decision altering the ban, or deciding that it is no longer necessary, or ArbComm. As you know, I oppose new discussion of the ban in any venue other than ArbComm or user Talk pages of users who want to discuss it, I oppose that discussion if it is disruptive, and I'm not asking you to review the ban because the evidence you would need to see hasn't been presented, I specifically avoided that at AN/I. My desire for a rapid close was based on avoiding contentious debate that could lead to no better conclusion without turning the AN/I report into a massive free-for-all. The fundamental issues involved will require an RfAr to resolve, it is obvious from past experience; until then, it can only be more heat without more light. EdChem seems to expect wikilawyering. From what side? I'm banned, EdChem, get over it.

I certainly have gotten over it, in fact, it was only a nuisance to me when the AN/I report was open because I imagine that when someone presents false or misleading evidence about me, I have an obligation to respond. When I decided to ask for close, knowing that based on what was there, I'd almost certainly be considered banned, I felt a great sense of relief and freedom and, yes, power. I can now do exactly what needs to be done to address the larger issues, without distraction. Those who imagine my primary concern to be some POV on Cold fusion haven't been paying attention.

Thanks again, Heimstern, I hope this response was acceptable to you, if you think anything from me is excessive, feel free to delete it, ask me to summarize or redact, ignore it, or ask me to stop. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All I intended to do was to reaffirm the ban as originally stated and, from what I understand, accepted by you in the end, albeit not for the original reasons (i.e., because of community input rather than because of WMC's decision). That seems to me to be all that has been affirmed by the community as yet. As far as I know, that's all there is for me to say now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just one more little tweak to the closing to avoid the most usual misunderstandings: could you replace "ban" with "page ban"?

(I know that I used myself "topic ban" all over the place and I never used "page ban", but I agree with Abd, and with ChemEd, in that this is the correct description of the ban, and using plain "ban" could cause problems in the future. This is because, when people read, they tend to fast-scan sentences for keywords and seeing "ban" in isolation will bring more than one to incorrectly believe Abd to be fully banned, causing confusions later when, by Murphy's Law, one of those persons opinates incorrectly about a certain full ban right in the midle of the wrongest discussion with the worst timing. And then Finagle's law will cause the incorrect statement to derail the discussion and... hum... errrr.... you know, just consider changing it, please, and sorry for having to change your closing so many times.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Heimstern, I am unconcerned if you make no decision at this time on the length of the ban. I prefer, however, that you decide upon a one month ban, but presumably you should, before doing that, investigate the situation, and if you were going to do that, I'd want to present evidence to you so that you could judge the nature of my offenses, if any; it would take some time to do that so that it's efficient for you to review, and there we are again, possibly, with editors debating over this. A one-month ban roughly confirms what WMC initially established, and I really doubt that anyone would make a fuss about it.

There is another problem about "depending on behavior." What behavior? I can't misbehave at the article or its Talk if I'm not editing them! To judge my behavior overall would be a complex decision. If I'm misbehaving elsewhere, the remedy would be a block or an extended ban beyond CF and CF Talk, not simply maintaining the CF ban, so it really would be a new ban. I'm aiming for efficiency. To summarize: if you decide on a short ban, up to a month, there would be no disruption or debate from my side (outside of ArbComm, possibly, where you would probably not even be mentioned); if you decide on a longer term, or indef, there would be a matter that we might eventually need to confront, but I don't know when. If you make no decision now, you can decide later. I'm quite content to leave this very simple.... --Abd (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to just leave it where it started, i.e., at one month. In the absence of a statement to the contrary, I assume those in the discussion didn't mean to make any changes to the originally intended page ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much. Sorry again for bothering you. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

poi-fect, Heimstern. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• One further question: isn't acknowledging Abd's petulant, "but WMC is involved" nonsense simply feeding that type of behavior, and encouraging it in the future? I feel like a simpler, "WMC's ban of Abd is confirmed" -- and it was confirmed -- would have been simpler, and would not have rewarded Abd's petulant behavior. Unitanode 02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am merely acknowledging undisputed facts and not interpreting them and have no intention of adding any further interpretation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's all well and good, I was just stating by acknowledging Abd's petulance in your close, you might be encouraging it in the future. I was actually hoping that someone would step in and close that beast of a thread, so I do appreciate your stepping forward to do it. I meant no offense toward you at all. Unitanode 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks. That's exactly appropriate. --Abd (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano

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

Rubbish. Giano has loads of temper problems, to be sure, but the notion that he isn't acting like an adult is nonsense. I should note that I consider remarks like yours, which speak so ill of fine article contributors, to be every bit as uncivil as Giano's and that they're nothing more than baiting. I'm afraid I really don't want any further such comments on my talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, Heimstern. Above, you note that your patience has been sapped by various factors. "Not acting like an adult" refers to not dealing with one's own "temper problems," which you acknowledge Giano has. I have no opinion on Giano, but since I came here to request you review my ban expiration, I saw this, and I saw your user space essay explaining your wikibreak. I do have some comments about that, which I'll make here.

It seems to me that you, like many in the community, are burning out; one of the symptoms of burnout is that a minor problem, in itself, becomes a cause-celebre, and is inflated to monumental proportions. Emotionally, tempers rage. You may, indeed, need a wikibreak, you can neglect my minor problem mentioned above, please, do what you need for yourself. Overall, we need to look at why we are burning out so many long-term administrators; it's been going on for years, and we go tsk, tsk, but never face the real problems.

And, believe me, it's not that Jimbo blocked a long-term and highly valuable administrator for a clearly gratuitously uncivil comment; the block was for four hours, the admin probably didn't even realize she was blocked until it was over. Jimbo was blocked for one second at one point, what did he do?

He did nothing. There was no fuss. The admin was not desysopped or even admonished. There is no "whack-a-mole" represented by Jimbo's block, it was a boundary statement, a message that tolerance for incivility is disappearing. Absolutely, we will not end incivility by pressing block buttons, but sending messages, that incivility is not acceptable, is, indeed, part of the solution. Jimbo's block was criticized by a number of highly vocal and active administrators and others, but, overall, the community seems to have supported it, by a substantial margin. You've made a series of statements about what happened that just don't match the facts; I conclude that something about this deeply touched you, and made it an occasion for the expression of long-repressed feelings. Misplaced Pages has some deep problems, to be sure, but you won't understand them simply by reacting as you have. It's going to take time and patience. Perhaps it's not a task for you, that will be up to you. We've lost a lot of administrators who have burned out, and from the short-blocked admin's response, I conclude that she was likewise burned out; some time ago, she'd have responded with much more good humor instead of an outraged huff.

Just imagine if she had responded to the block with "Thanks! You are right, I shouldn't have written that, I'll apologize to the editor, before I start an RfC on him." Instead, what we saw was the counterattack and self-justification that we expect from inexperienced editors. A very bad sign: Jimbo was accused of calling this admin a "toxic personality." He didn't say that about her. Yet, over and over, she accused him of it. If you review the original comment, he wrote that about others. He clarified that. No good. He wrote that it was an unfortunate choice of words, or something like that (because, obviously, it was possible to read the statement as referring to her though he clearly did not intend that). No good. Not enough. And hosts of admins, perfectly sensible people, piled in to tell her what a shame it all was. I've seen this before, this outpouring of "support." Admin makes mistake, gets dinged for it. Not desysopped, or not yet. The community piles in to tell the admin that the admin hadn't done anything wrong.

When what was done was an error for which one can lose the sysop bit (this wasn't), telling the person they did nothing wrong, well, you might as well pour out the poison hemlock. What the admin in question really should be hearing from her friends would be supportive correction, from editors known to support her, understanding perfectly well why she might lash out, advice that points out that no harm was actually done to her other than to her pride, and that pride in an admin, that results in attachment to prior actions, is fatal. Again and again, I've seen desysoppings or admonishments from ArbComm that resulted, not from the original action, but from the admin's unwillingness to recognize it as a problem, partly because, after all, so many people had expressed support.

Should we modify WP:CIVIL to provide an exception for "valued contributors"? You know, I assume, perfectly well that the long-standing position of the community is that experienced editors, and especially administrators, are held to a higher standard than newbies, who must be warned before being blocked. Yet if a regular editor, even fairly new, had called another editor a "little shit," and was short-blocked for it, how many would rise up in outrage at the playing of "whack-a-mole"? If you saw that block, would you be taking a wikibreak over it?

Jimbo did the right thing, and time will show this. Yes, it's going to be expensive. But WP:CIVIL, more evenly and reliably enforced, is an important part of the solution, and for this to come to pass is part of Misplaced Pages maturing. It does not mean banning editors for incivility, but short blocks, as needed, to get the attention of an editor, and only anything longer in the presence of clear recalcitrance and defiance of consensus on a high level, are probably part of the process. If I think that I'm so important that my being blocked for a few hours or a day for some offense, real or imagined, is worthy of the kind of disruption that ensued from the block in question, it could be argued that I should be banned. It would be a very bad sign that I'd be placing myself and my image above the welfare of the community, and that might be as dangerous, overall, as long-term POV-pushing.

From my point of view, a short block is little more than an officer at a meeting enforcing order. It doesn't mean that editors are expected to be perfect, it doesn't mean punishment, it simply means not allowing the disruption of incivility. A member of Congress may be escorted from the floor for an angry outburst. Unless this were repeated over and over, there would be no sanction other than the momentary ejection. There might even be private praise from some quarters for "finally telling that jerk what he deserves to hear!" But nobody would marvel at the outburst not being tolerated. Adult society. It's about time. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Heim is on an enforced wikibreak and cannot even log into his account, and thus will not be able to reply to this message for some time. 76.115.173.187 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm... yeah, that's quite a wall of text. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. If you'd like it summarized, I'll do it, or you can cheerfully ignore it, I won't be offended, or delete it. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'm pretty sure I got the gist. I'm kind of tired of this topic, though (no offence, it just wearies me for reasons not related to anyone's current activities), so I think I'll just let it stop here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Misplaced Pages Academy: Volunteers lead Misplaced Pages Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Assorted news coverage of Misplaced Pages
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

Links

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

You still need this? It looks to me like someone already found it, but if not, let me know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Links not needed but see post I just made on Abd's page and see related hot thread on my page. Would appreciate your input on the ban itself. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed at the time I closed the discussion that the ban was one-month ban. As I understood it, WMC had imposed a one-month ban, which Abd at first did not acknowledge, but later did after community support materialized. Mind you, I mightn't even have closed that discussion if I'd known how much controversy this ban would cause; I believed that, with Abd having accepted the ban, there was nothing else to discuss and that closing the discussion would be purely procedural. I don't have any particular opinion on how long the ban should be, though I believed at the time that it was one month. Hopefully that clears things up sufficiently for your purposes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm not quite sure I follow what you want me to explain. I'll lay this out here, and if this doesn't explain it, please ask for further clarification.

I saw that Abd had accepted the ban and intended to abide by it, so it seemed to me that the discussion at ANI was over, so I closed it, largely in the hopes it would make for less drama. (Clearly those hopes were futile.) I believed at the time that this decision was purely procedural, as simple as marking an RFA for a withdrawn candidate closed and removing it from the RFA page. I didn't realize at the time that there would be any dispute over the duration of the ban nor whether its original imposition was valid, and I did not intend to make any statement on either of those issues. (I wrote that I believed it to be one month, it's true. I honestly don't remember exactly why I wrote that, though I assume I read somewhere that the ban was originally scheduled to be that long.) Later, when it turned out to be controversial, I sought to release responsibility for a ban for which I'd never meant to be responsible, especially since the case was at ArbCom, where it could be better handled, I hoped.

That is pretty much my side of the story. Not exciting, in my opinion, but truthful. If that doesn't clarify, please explain what else you want to know from me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)