| Revision as of 04:37, 25 August 2009 editSoxBot (talk | contribs)235,195 edits Delivering Misplaced Pages Signpost (])← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:55, 25 August 2009 edit undoHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,883 edits →Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC: not really two centsNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| ==Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC== | ==Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC== | ||
| Those wishing to radically change the ] guidance have set up a position statement/poll at ] as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. ]] 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | Those wishing to radically change the ] guidance have set up a position statement/poll at ] as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. ]] 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :OK, I gave my two bucks. ] ] 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]<span style="display:none;">''Misplaced Pages Signpost''</span><span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: '''24 August 2009'''</span>== | ==]<span style="display:none;">''Misplaced Pages Signpost''</span><span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: '''24 August 2009'''</span>== | ||
Revision as of 04:55, 25 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.
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)
- 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)
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)
- You conducted yourself absolutely appropriately, and any disruption over all this certainly was not your fault. If anyone was going to object to your determination of the ban at one month, they could have raised this issue then, and they did not. I apologize for any difficulty here. You acted as the servant of the community as you saw it appear at AN/I, which is all you could be expected to do, for to make a decision based on the merits would have been a complex burden, as I noted before. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- @H: I think I've been fairly clear, but I'll spell it out more explicitly. I think Rl has misrepresented your words on the Arbcomm page. Have you read Rl's evidence? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I hadn't read it. I didn't realize that was what you wanted me to get to. I'm sorry to say that I'm going to be rather busy today, so I may not get to reviewing it today. I will when I get the chance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- As it stands now, the evidence seems correct. The only qualification would be for the phrase "...Heimstern, the admin who closed the community discussion reviewing the ban, confirms that it was for one month." As I've already said, I didn't mean to confirm anything of my own will, only that I believed that was the case. (This is mentioned later on in the evidence, anyway.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Reports of Misplaced Pages's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- 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 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User:RichPoynder
Please note that edit warring has resumed on Shalom Weiss by apparent sockpuppet, within hours after your block of this user.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The semi-protection of the page should stop new accounts there for a bit, at least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hope so, but the new editor, who appears to be a sock, seems undeterred.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you've filed a sockpuppet investigation, correct? If so, I'd say let that run its course. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK. thnx. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you've filed a sockpuppet investigation, correct? If so, I'd say let that run its course. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hope so, but the new editor, who appears to be a sock, seems undeterred.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Da Rules
Your comments about Da Rules in an ongoing ArbCom case reminded me of the platform I espoused when I ran for ArbCom many moons ago. It didn't seem to be particularly convincing, at least in my hands back in 2007, but I still think you raise valid points. MastCell 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC
Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I gave my two bucks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 August 2009
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Misplaced Pages Loves Art winners
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- 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 04:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)