User talk:Heimstern/archive 5

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)

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)

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)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
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 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Registered Agent Request for Semi-Protection

Please reconsider - at least PLEASE semi-protect (3 days?) long enough to force vandal to register so their defacements can be tracked. The vandalism is DAILY - that is 365 instances a year by the same user - who does nothing but vandalize this one article. please reconsider Dougieb 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily vandalism is not enough to justify semi-protection. Policy says semi-protection should only be used where vandalism is heavy enough to make watchlisting and reverting an impractical solution. This is not one of those cases. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fax edit

And like I said, maybe he shouldn't be removing edits without looking at what was done. And why is this any case of yours? I simply tried to do a constructive edit to wikipedia and I get jumped on for it because people don't ****ing look at what the edit was. If you're going to go around removing vandalism, make sure it's actual vandalism, and not someone trying to help out. 206.75.180.35 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no way he could have known if it was vandalism without your providing a reason. That's the end of that story. All he asked you to do was be careful to provide a reason in the future, and you gave him the third degree. Meanwhile, you are continuing to be uncivil by swearing on my talk page. Please stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

[2]

I'm not gonna touch this myself.

- Merzbow 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. I see Kirbytime adding letters, numbers and colons in an invisicomment. Is there some significance to that that I'm missing? Or is it the page itself that needs attention? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the illegal AACS DVD key that thousands of people have been spamming Wikipedia with; for one of the many AN threads on this, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#This_encryption_key_thing. - Merzbow 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Blech. More fun. :-S Well, I'm sorry to say I don't really understand that whole debacle, so I'm not sure I can really help much here. All I can say is that it looks like he's trolling again. You might take this to ANI for someone else to look at (I'm pretty busy tonight, so I can't really read up on the situation to find out what's going on). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations on a series of 20-odd Verdi operas

Hi! Thanks for responding to my note on the Opera Project. However I wonder if I made myself clear. I simply don't have time to go through all this user's copying and pasteing. There's too much of it. (BTW the user hasn't responded.) What remedies can you suggest? Thanks and best regards. -- Kleinzach 12:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's not much to do except go through and remove them. Fortunately, it looks like others are doing so (Kyoko and Guillaume Tell have replied on the project talk page). Let's hope many hands can make light work. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. My appeal for help worked! -- Kleinzach 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at 3RR

Saw your note regarding this 3RR request. There were a few additional edits/reverts made after your review, but none have occurred since then (although a few of us monitoring that page expect it to pick up again). When you said "return if edits continue", did you mean to resubmit or simply to continue updating the existing 3RR entry? (feel free to reply on my talk page if you'd like). SpikeJones 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Updating the original report and letting me know on my talk page is a good way to go about it. At present, the revert war appears to have stopped, so I don't see it as preventative to block, so still no block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

(Copied from User_talk:Jbmurray:) Heimstern, thanks for this. I didn't really understand the 3RR rule, though I think I thought I did. (Frankly, I didn't even know that what Alex was doing was breaking the 3RR.) However, I have a much better sense of it now. I also certainly tried to resolve the dispute(s) via discussion, as I hope you can recognize. Anyhow, apologies again. I'll be more careful in future. --Jbmurray 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

151.198.162.X

If you saw the discussion on the AIV page, there were several other ranges hitting vandalism today. Perhaps you could tack up 151.198.162.0/24 for 3 hours or so? The Evil Spartan 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too quick to do range blocks; I don't really understand them that well. At any rate, I wouldd guess this has passed by now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks tend to cause a lot of collateral damage to perfectly innocent editors.--Anthony.bradbury 09:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Smee

I'm inclined to commute (not overturn) your block of Smee for 3RR on PSI Seminars to time served, because one of his reverts was only a partial revert, because he self-reverted on one of the issues, and in line with his promise not to edit the article, and because he has not previously been blocked. I would appreciate your comments. Sam Blacketer 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well: User:Smeelgova is the same as User:Smee [3]. Therefore, the user has been previously blocked. I'm also not really convinced what he's calling a self-revert is really a self-revert at all: he reverted Lsi's edit and then implemented what he called a "compromise" and called that a self-rv (but it was a compromise with which Lsi did not agree). I personally don't think it would be best to end this block, mainly because the user has been blocked in the past. I'll let you judge, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indefblock

Hi there; you are, of course, quite right; IPs should not be blocked indefinitely. This one is not an open proxy, but clearly is a vandal-only account with a history of previous short term blocks. Nevertheless, I will go and convert from indef to 6-month. Thank you for pointing this out.--Anthony.bradbury 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

s-protect or block required

Hello Heimstern! Could you consider to semiprotect the Berlin article for repeated violation of the 3RR? Another option is a block for the IP 217.232.206.48. The IP has been warned and is reverted by several independent editors. Would be much appreciated. Lear 21 10:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I'm going on wikibreak now. You could make a request for protection at WP:RFPP or for a 3RR block at WP:AN3RR (if there's a 3RR vio, do the latter). See you when I get back! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'll be back pretty soon, no doubt, probably less than a week. I'm just pretty fed up with the community right now. Should we have an article about Qian Zhijun? I don't know. I haven't even read the article closely enough to be sure. What I do know is that what has happened concerning the article's deletion and deletion review shows what a poor community Wikipedia has, with constant assumptions of bad faith and incivility by many toward those who disagree with them. It seems we have forgotten that reasonable, intelligent and well-intentioned people sometimes disagree about things. Indeed, it happens all the time.

This isn't some leaving message, by any means. I'll be back soon. The drama will die down, like it always does. Still, I don't really want to be here while this is going on. I'll be sticking with the Homestar Runner Wiki, where these problems tend not to pop up. See you soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you should know...

I came here to make a follow-up complaint on User:Pompertown, due to his edit warring continuing as soon as the ban you placed on him expired. I accidentally posted my comment on your 3RR page, assuming it was a page made explicitly for communication about revert bans, only to realize that it was your personal take on the subject. So, just in case you're slightly confused by my presence on the "history" of that page, it was my mistake -- rather embarrassing, but I removed it, & since I posted it another administrator has taken care of the problem. Sorry about that! Happy editing, & thanks for your understanding. ——Anthonylombardi 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, 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 05:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Koonjo28

This user vandalized your user page and has taken up where User:Juro left off on Slovak koruna. I believe this phenomenon is called a sockpuppet and thought I'd better point it out to you in case you weren't aware of it. Forgive me if there's a better way of dealing with such issues.
Dove1950 22:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I requested a new checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Juro... hopefully I've done it properly now. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Koonjo28 uses open proxies, so we can't be sure based on IP evidence. I'd just about be willing to block on the duck test, though. I think I'll wait it out a little longer and see if the account does anything else. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Sir,

When Smee hit 3RR / 2RR respectively, I filed the report, and I waited. I did not object to the previous admin, who, on good faith, saw only 3 reverts and said no block.

I resumed editing and almost immediately, Smee reverted once more in each article.

1. After 4 reverts in 1 article, and 3 reverts in another article
2. Clearly a contentious edit history
3. Having just gotten off 48 hour block several days ago
4. More recently, having only an hour earlier having gone through 3RR report
5. A history of Five blocks for 3RR violations.

Smee reverts me constantly, or revises my edits. Look through the logs.. Smee edits one-for-one. I go away for 12 hours and come back, Smee comes back. I stop editing, Smee stops editing.

We had just gone through a report and yet he still reverted twice more.

I would like to ask how you excuse a 4RR violation simply because he self-reverted AFTER I reported it.

here is when Smee decided to revert. (After I went back to the previous admin to show further reverting)

Lsi john 04:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-reverting essentially resets the counter to three reverts. Furthermore the blocks are not there to punish violators, they're there to prevent continued edit warring. If a user is willing to self-revert, it typically means the revert war is over, at least for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Its over until I edit again. For now, I'm going to bed. This is a sharp and experienced user and the self-revert was because he knew he'd be blocked. I'm not looking for punishment, I'm talking about prevention. He can't help himself. He is a contentious editor who uses revert 'first' and discussion 'second'.

If you get a chance, (and if you havent yet), read the comments by wikipediatrix in the prior report. I'm not the only one having this issue.

Anyway, I'm not expecting you to change your mind, I'm just frustrated and wanted a chance to let you know.

(actually if i wanted to prove myself right, I'd just go make 2 or 3 more edits and get reverted, but that would be to make a point, and thats not what I'm about.)

(Sorry, one last bit.. in the previous report, Smee clearly showed that he was aware 3RR is not a 'right' to push to 3 reverts .. this is an experienced vetern. .. (ok i'm done.. off to bed with me.. nite).

Best regards, Peace in God. Lsi john 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you made any efforts to pursue some sort of mediation or anything? That's the only solution I can think of for someone who constantly reverts. That, and don't edit war yourself, as you will have poor grounds to request help if you're involved in edit warring yourself. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, I was not edit warring. I was editing. I was requesting help, preventively, not punitively. I don't believe I was 2RR in either of those articles (though I might have been).

I was just now reading your userpage and realized you were the admin who blocked Smee (above). I know that 3RR is not an entitlement and I am trying very hard not to edit war with him. If you look at the 1st report from yesterday, you will see that Smee also acknowledges that 3RR is not an 'entitlement' to push to 3 reverts (yet he continues to do it anyway and was 3RR/2RR).

Smee owns all the articles he edits and uses revert as the primary method of control. He is routinely reported for 3RR violations by numerous editors, and self-revert is not an uncommon tactic to avoid blocks, in those instances when the other editor is knowledgeable enough to report him.

The last time, when you blocked him, I was at 3RR and couldn't continue editing. This time, in a Good-Faith effort not to edit war, I reported when Smee was 3RR & 2RR in 2 articles. The admin said 'not a violation', so I continued editing.

Smee immediately went 1RR additional in each article, (just as I had predicted) so I reported again, hoping to get 'preventive' steps taken. And, Smee immediately self-reverted (after) I reported him. And that time, you ruled no-violation.

I could have kept editing, or even reverted Smee. He would then have reverted again and the violation would have been obvious. But isn't what preventive blocking is supposed to help avoid? The only two ways to stop it were a) block him as preventive or b) me stop editing. I chose to stop editing and report him, and thus stop the war.

I know this isn't what was intended but the message I seem to have been given in this case, is that I'm supposed to keep going, and let him go into violation beyond 4RR, so that he can't revert and slide through the system. But thats exactly what warring is, and I don't want to war. He refuses to allow any changes to 'his' articles unless he specifically approves them. So, as long as I continue to edit articles and try to bring some NPOV into them, there will continue to be reverting from Smee. Its not AGF, its historical fact. And he's good enough at gaming the system to keep saying 'oops' and gets AGF no-violation rulings.

Look back at your stern reply to him last time, when he tried to wiggle out and rationalize and justify.

He came back, within minutes of being reported for 3RR/2RR and went to 4RR/3RR. He hadn't opened discussion, he simply reverted. And he skated by with it.

Anyway, for now, I'm taking a break. At this point its either edit, be reverted, keep reporting, and have stress; or leave the articles unbalanced and biased, and have less stress and frustration. I choose less stress for now. (As for the mediation, that has been tried, I was too new and too verbose, and he twisted the mediation into an agreement for him to follow wikipedia rules). I believe a larger community action may be necessary.

Thank you for the time you have spent on it, and thank you for allowing me to vent my frustration here. Lsi john 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

R. Mika

• I don't think I can remain civil in this debate anymore. The content of it is frankly shocking to me. I'm just going to be quiet and if it escalates, I'll try WP:3O. JuJube 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good course of action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Librarian vandalism

There's another instance of the "hiding" crap to remove in paragraph two. ;) Stack 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) ...and it's gone. :) Stack 04:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that vandalism happened fast! I started up my computer as soon as that episode aired and all the pages are already protected. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 07:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting commentary on the public (well, at least on the American public; dun wanna speak for the other countries) that one man on television can cause things like this by telling people to do them. The word "demagoguery" comes to mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
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 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)