User talk:Heimstern/archive 10
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Domer's block
Hi. I noticed you blocked Domer for edit warring. I have no real problem with this personally, as Domer has a history of doing so, but in this case he did not actually break the 3rr. I blocked him myself a little while ago for breaking that very rule (something some say I should not have done, given that I have something of a history with him), and while he has been a pain in the ass, to be sure, I have noticed a slightly more conciliatory attitude from him in the past few days. In light of this, I was wondering if you'd consider commuting his sentence to time served and a proverbial shot across the bow. If you disagree, I entirely respect that (I must admit I have not looked into the details of the matter at hand), but as perhaps Domer's current public enemy #1, I thought I'd say something on his behalf, hoping it would help everyone get past some of this animosity and hostility so we can all work together for the benefit of the project. If, however, there is no improvement on Domer's part, I would be more than happy to support a further block, and, if he reverts to his old ways, more than that (he was cruising for a RFC, at least). Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, his block's already expired. I know he didn't technically violate 3RR, but it did seem to me that he was edit warring, and that was the basis of my block (not that it wasn't a bit controversial, still). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the very quick reply. Has it expired already? Man, time flies when you've been drinking. Anyway, Domer warrants some scrutiny, as he has a history of edit warring and questionable behavior, and your block was certainly not abusive. Nevertheless, a recent Christmastide change in his general attitude has made me go from wishing he would get a premaban to thinking he may have something to contribute after all. If, however, I find I am mistaken in this, I will be the first in line to argue support for probation or worse (and I know some who will jump in line right behind me). -R. fiend (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel I must respond to the above editor, and possibly you might have some advice. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi article and start there, adding things to referenced text. They then go and block me. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI (they did not respond), which is an abuse of admin tools, admin SirFozzie was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for different things (not the same edit). I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. It then got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong warning, which they ignored, and told Admin John to to leave their incivility in a post. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of this that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on the Patrick Pearsearticle. They Block another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility warnings. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers, Sean Heuston, Thomas Clarke, Easter Rising, Roger Casement and the afore mentioned Patrick Pearse article. Having filed another 3 rr notice still were not blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse because I read. Then their buddy jumps in notice the last revert on this article. To top it all they abused their admin tool to edit an article which was protected despite no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. Admin SirFozzie started an AN/I report which went no were, and is still hanging in the air. They now accuse me of being an IRA supporter because I like to edit Republican history articles. So if I got the hump with your block, you may now understand. Any advice would be welcome, could you please post on my talk page.--Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree fully. And I think Heimstern should have blocked fiend having conceded he was edit-warring to be consistent with his (mistaken) block of you. Also, fiend described you as "Public Enemy No 1" - in who's eyes I wonder? (Sarah777 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
- Wow. Such poor reading comprehension. Almost astounding. First of all, I didn't call anyone an IRA supporter. I said the conflict over the articles was akin to what one would expect to see from supporters of the IRA and the UVF in a tussle. If I had said "Israelis and Palestinians" would I be accusing people of belonging to one of those groups? Secondly, I didn't call Domer public enemy #1, I called myself Domer's public enemy #1. A big difference. I actually came here to try to have his block lifted, but I see that was a big mistake. Oh, I especially like the accusation of "following" to various articles. Look at the edit histories of those and you'll see I've been a major contributor to most of them for 3 years or more, and two of them I started myself. Who is following whom? -R. fiend (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't intend to make any more blocks at this point, nor to really be involved in this dispute anymore. To Domer or anyone else needing advice, I have only one bit of it to give: dispute resolution. At this point, this dispute has exceeded the point that it is useful to carry on with it here on my talk page. I'd like to ask that you take it somewhere else, at least to the extent that it does not involve me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Such poor reading comprehension. Almost astounding. First of all, I didn't call anyone an IRA supporter. I said the conflict over the articles was akin to what one would expect to see from supporters of the IRA and the UVF in a tussle. If I had said "Israelis and Palestinians" would I be accusing people of belonging to one of those groups? Secondly, I didn't call Domer public enemy #1, I called myself Domer's public enemy #1. A big difference. I actually came here to try to have his block lifted, but I see that was a big mistake. Oh, I especially like the accusation of "following" to various articles. Look at the edit histories of those and you'll see I've been a major contributor to most of them for 3 years or more, and two of them I started myself. Who is following whom? -R. fiend (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The spirit of 3rr (again)
Dose this breach the spirit of the 3rr, or would it be the same as this. Now we must bear in mind this is supposed to be an Admin. They have been reverting this since the 19 Dec 2007 --Domer48 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than posting concerns about another editor here, I'd rather that you would use an appropriate noticeboard if you feel admin action needs to be taken against him or pursue dispute resolution if you're just looking for a resolution to the conflict. As I've said above, I don't mean to become deeply involved in this dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
edit warring at Ward_Churchill_misconduct_issues
Would appreciate any help: [[1]]Verklempt (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of help are you looking for? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how to deal with an editor who refuses to negotiate at all, or whne he does refuses to be polite and rational.Verklempt (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read our dispute resolution process? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how to deal with an editor who refuses to negotiate at all, or whne he does refuses to be polite and rational.Verklempt (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Your block of Ferrylodge
You blocked Ferrylodge at 06:28 and yet at 06:47 he was posting again[2]. Is he trying to get around the block or does it take a few minutes for a block to take effect? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - EW being of course a blockable offense, but I was unclear on whether he'd violated 3RR, and had misunderstood the AN3 section to imply that he did. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
semi protection on the streets
Surely inappropriate, given that Semi-protection , and I quote, "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." from WP:PROT
Please revise this decision. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not using it to settle the content dispute. I'm using it to prevent disruption, i.e., an anonymous user who is constantly edit warring while hopping IPs. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have 2 IPs, one at work, one at home. All other edits were by others. I have no idea who. I would like to engage in discussion about that edit, but no one is willing to discuss it. It makes seeking consensus impossible. I ask you again to revise your decision. Step13thirteen (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you apparently have an autoconfirmed account (i.e., the one you're editing with), so what does it matter? You can edit the article. As for consensus seeking, you really should pursue dispute resolution. Something like an article RFC might help with this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- As for your assertion that you don't know about those other IPs, sorry, I find that way too far-fetched to believe. Whether these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets I don't know, but I don't believe for a moment that they are neither. If you think my decisions are unacceptable, feel free to make a post at the incidents noticeboard to have it reviewed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please remember to be civil. An accusation that someone is using meat-puppets or sock puppets is, as per the guidance on those issues, quite rude and should probably only be used when there is direct proof. I state again, they are nothing to do with me. I think I will report it at the notice board. Step13thirteen (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I call them like I see them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please remember to be civil. An accusation that someone is using meat-puppets or sock puppets is, as per the guidance on those issues, quite rude and should probably only be used when there is direct proof. I state again, they are nothing to do with me. I think I will report it at the notice board. Step13thirteen (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thank you for the revert. · AndonicO Hail! 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have locked the Thuja article. Please note that a similar edit war is occurring at the related article Thuja occidentalis. MrDarwin (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It may need protection at some point, too, but I'm not sure that's quite now. If you think it does need it at some point, please make a request here rather than on my talk. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I knew there was some controversy over this, I did not how much until I was directed to the talk page by an apologetic reverter. And then I find this discussion. In the heat of the moment, the reverting user also removed other improvements to the article. Please note these are not part of the current issue, when you note that I undid his revert. I also restored the fact, from a RS, on the censored topic. Ta, cygnis insignis 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you think the additions you want to the article are non-controversial (particularly, they don't pertain to the current dispute), you might add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and explain what you'd like changed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I knew there was some controversy over this, I did not how much until I was directed to the talk page by an apologetic reverter. And then I find this discussion. In the heat of the moment, the reverting user also removed other improvements to the article. Please note these are not part of the current issue, when you note that I undid his revert. I also restored the fact, from a RS, on the censored topic. Ta, cygnis insignis 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nah... it took two of them, but they sorted it out in the end. Cheers, cygnis insignis 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- All right. Sounds good. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nah... it took two of them, but they sorted it out in the end. Cheers, cygnis insignis 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:User talk:DeathMark
Understood-- penubag 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Relating to the edit war, I would just like to apologize for my behavior and if I inconvenienced you in any way. I lost my head for a while there, and never thought that the issue could escalate the way it did. Hopefully I won't get into something like that again, and I thank you for the warning. Again, if this has inconvenienced you in any way, I apologize. Comandante42 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No need to worry about inconvenience for me. We admins are volunteers, after all, and I could have just not processed the report if I hadn't wanted to deal with it. The warning is primarily for your sake, to remind you that this behaviour could lead to blocks, and for Wikipedia's, to help end an edit war. If indeed you heed the warning, all will be fine and we won't be here again. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
EU edits
What policy justifies a 3 week block ? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21
- As I said at the noticeboard, there is no requirement that the edits be the same to count toward a violation, per the policy page. Also, please do not evade your block by editing anonymously, or you'll find yourself reblocked for longer. I'm not going to do anything now since you're only writing on my talk, but if you attempt to edit articles, you'll find your IPs blocked and your main account reblocked for a longer duration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Anon Edits
Hello, I noticed that you were the admin who took the job of sorting this case. Today there have been three anon IP edits to the EU page reverting changes [3] [4] [5] . All three came from HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, at least according to the first tool listed at the bottom of the page which comes up when you click on the IP in the edit history. The editor concerned shows knowledge of the page but didnt leave any explanationsa on talk. The reverts were on different points to the issue which Lear reverted yesterday. User:Lear 21's user page at least used to say that he was a resident of Berlin. I note that yesterday there was an anon revert amongst those by lear, changing 'Economic policy' to economy', which also came from hansent.[6]
I don't know if this will continue, but if so, is there a specific place where clued up people can investigate this sort of thing? Sandpiper (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest heading for suspected sockpuppets. This wouldn't be the first time Lear21 has evaded his block, from what his block log says. Also, note that after the block, an IP, also from HanseNet Telekommunikation, posted on my talk claiming to be Lear21 and asking me to reconsider my decision. You can use that as evidence if you like. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR block on 24.30.38.213 - didn't work
Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have re-opened the 3RR issue you closed concerning contributions, because the 24-hour block you imposed did not seem to encourage the user to discuss his edits on the article talk page. As soon as the block expired, he resumed the edit warring. I have explained to him on his talk page, as well as on Talk:Shadow people why his edit keeps getting reverted, to no avail it seems. He reverted after a final NPOV warning, but I hesitate to report this on WP:AIV while it's more of a 3RR issue. -Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- In general, rather than updating an old report that's already been processed, you should just start again and make a new one (you can, of course, point out in the new report that the user was recently blocked). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Spamming? Corvus cornixtalk 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guess my click on the Twinkle drop-down menu was a bit off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that might be the case. :) Corvus cornixtalk 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the intervention. Can we please revert the article to the version before the edit war started? I would also suggest removing the COI (but not the NPOV) template. The COI template was reintroduced by the same IP, even though the relevant COI was inconclusive and is long archived. (Although I just see, he has resurrected it, which likely means we are dealing with User:Semitransgenic - User_talk:Semitransgenic). Up to you on that one. -- Jayen466 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no, I cannot revert now that the article is protected. It's against our policy. Once an article is protected as a result of a dispute, no changes related to the dispute except changes with a clear consensus should be made. I suggest heading for the talk page to work this one out. Sorry I can't help with this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, you may want to head for suspected sockpuppets if you think there's abusive sockpuppetry going on. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Concerning edit warring
That's fine. I was reading the EW page after your first message and I couldn't see where I was going wrong. I was happy to use the talk page at any point, though Saythetruth didn't seem interested, so I ended up at 3RR (for the first time). Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there was no consensus for the other users edits (that is clear from the edit history). It's not reasonable to leave a version that clearly does not have consensus until someone else happens to wander over to the page, and read the talk page, and be bothered to make the change. Ben (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is completely irrelevant. You do not get to edit war no matter what, even if consensus is against the current version. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems the block of User:Ben Tillman was perhaps unneeded as it appears to have been punative rather than preventative. He is requesting an unblock on that basis and seems to have a point. On another case just prior to this one you simply protected the page and no one was blocked, so why block a user punatively here? Yes, he violated 3rr in his attempts to right what he saw as a wrong. Seems he should be "educated" rather than blocked for an edit war that was "over". I had tried to discuss with User:Saythetruth earlier and found him to be quite unresponsive. Ben also tried to discuss with him with no result. Please reconsider and educate rather than alienate a good user. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to educate him rather than block. Then he just continued the behavior anyway. That's why I decided to block. When behavior is repeated after warnings, it's perfectly logical to block preventatively. Furthermore, the fact that he continues, even after the block, to deny that he has behaves poorly leads me to question the wisdom of unblocking. The way the other case was handled has no bearing here, as each case must be handled separately (note that in that case, one side consisted of apparently dynamic IPs, making it difficult to solve using blocks).
- At any rate, both CIreland and Rlevse have supported the block, so I'm inclined to trust my original judgment that this was a proper block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Block request
Since you appear to be active on WP:AIV, could you please take action against this? Thanks. Ayla (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has already done so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: 3RR warning
While I did exceed 3 reverts, I do not believe that I violated WP:3RR; if you look at my first revert at 05:06, February 16, 2008, and the third revert at 06:54, February 17, 2008, that's outside of the 24-hour period, and is not a violation. True, it's close, but I've responded on the 3RR reporting page stating that I do not plan to continue this "edit war", and instead have taken this to a discussion at [{WT:CITE]]. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- All right, then, regardless, gaming the 3RR is no better than violating it. But if you're going to stop edit warring, it's an irrelevant point, anyway, so let's hope all is cool. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to contradict your warning on this article, however a reversion has been made which apparently defies that warning. Could you take a look at the article and tell me what you think? Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please give me a diff of the revert, and also a diff of the edit it reverted so I can be clear on this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- This reverted the information in the article to include "Band Queer" which had been removed by the edit immediately before it and is the subject of the edit war and subsequent discussion on the talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now I remember. It has been a couple days, so I think it's fair to assume my warning is probably outdated now. So you can consider it out of effect too, but if you just revert war, you'll find yourself back where we started. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I appreciate you looking into this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now I remember. It has been a couple days, so I think it's fair to assume my warning is probably outdated now. So you can consider it out of effect too, but if you just revert war, you'll find yourself back where we started. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Resp to 3RR
Honestly, yes I can. This particular editor has become quite contentious over the past few months and has opposed almost any action I have made, whether warranted or not. I have addressed every concern he has only to have him change criteria from "this is unsourced" to "this term is inappropriate". At every step of the way, I have addressed all of his concerns. Currently, there is an open RfC on his conduct and he is stalking my edits. — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about stalking, you can seek help at the incidents noticeboard. But I stand by my decision not to block for edit warring (at least, not without blocking both parties). If you wish, you may ask another admin to review this decision. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I guess I have no option here. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, given the past two edits to BQ and their strikingly similar summary/lack of other edits, I have requested a checkuser. — BQZip01 — talk 05:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I guess I have no option here. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment about the Use English guideline, and I think you misconstrue the guideline and thus are more skeptical of it than perhaps you need be...I'd be interested to see if my response clarifies the issue for you at all:) Erudy (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Replied there. As I suggested there, it's not skepticism of the guideline I'm expressing so much as the need to apply it with judgment. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR
- Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
- On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
- On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
- On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
- On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.
Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the user is concerned about a block, he can self-revert. I don't plan to revert for him, as this would require me to recuse, so to speak, if this were reported at the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The user who has made the four reverts - can't self-revert, because the article is currently protected, and the last version which was protected - was (mistakenly) the fourth illegal revert, and the administrator who has (mistakenly) protected the fourth (illegal) revert - is currently unavailable. What do you recommend that we do with this protected (illegal) fourth revert? Eliko (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the article is full-protected, the user won't be blocked, since the edit war is already prevented. There's no need to worry about it at this point; all is well. The point of the 3RR is not to require all reverts beyond the third to be reverted, but to give administrators the ability to easily and relatively uncontroversially block users who are edit warring, using the arbitrary but useful yardstick of three reverts in 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The user who has made the four reverts - can't self-revert, because the article is currently protected, and the last version which was protected - was (mistakenly) the fourth illegal revert, and the administrator who has (mistakenly) protected the fourth (illegal) revert - is currently unavailable. What do you recommend that we do with this protected (illegal) fourth revert? Eliko (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you have made a real mistake in the issue if you only block PIO. I haven't looked too deeply into it, but if you read quickly into User_talk:The_Evil_Spartan#Advice, you will see the problem. Guy0307 is just as bad as PIO, at least in terms of incivility and poor editing etiquette. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made my block based on edit warring issues, and it seemed to me that PIO was the only editor whose edit warring needed to be addressed with a block. I'm certainly willing to hear arguments for blocks of others if you feel they're necessary, though. (Keep in mind that I basically never block on civility grounds, so if that's the concern, you'd probably do better to head to ANI. Not that I don't agree with the civility policy; it's just that I hate the drama that comes with civility blocks.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
3RR Noticeboard / User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:NCdave (Result: )
Hi Heimstern,
You archived this open 3RR report, with the edit summary, "archiving this report: it is extremely stale, and has degenerated into discussion not germane to this report."
But I think you must not have read the report carefully. The discussion was almost entirely about the details of the 3RR violation, with a small amount of supplemental information about this user's history of blocks, sockpuppetry, etc.. What's more, the report was not stale: it was made less than 3 hours after revert #1, and had been last updated with additional details less than 12 hours before you archived it. It hadn't been acted on by an admin, but it was not a stale or non-germane thread.
Moreover, the 3RR violation was extremely blatant, and deliberate. After the user did three full reverts of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers article over just a few hours, I warned her on her talk page that she had done three reverts, so that she would not accidentally violate 3RR. She replied angrily on her talk page, and then defiantly did revert #4 just one minute later (only six hours after revert #1). Over the next hour she added numerous additional reverts, all in deliberate violation of 3RR. Among many other things, the reverts which she did in violation of 3RR blanked two entire sections of the article, and deleted 14 references.
I asked her several times on the article talk page to self-(un)revert. Also, an editor who shares her POV recommended to her on her talk page that she undo edits that violated 3RR. But her response was obfuscation: she undid a couple of very minor changes, left all the rest in place (including all 14 reference deletions), and then claimed on the 3RR noticeboard that she'd self-reverted. Finally, after I undid her 3RR-violating reverts, she immediately re-reverted them.
What's more, she has a history of misbehavior on Wikipedia. Her IronAngelAlice ID was blocked for a week in October, her previous Bremskraft ID was indefinitely blocked, and her Ladeda76 & RebelAcademics sockpuppets were indefinitely blocked, too.
This user has shown no sign of abandoning her pattern of disruptive editing and 3RR & NPOV violations. This problem really needs to be dealt with. Will you please un-archive this 3RR report? NCdave (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- No administrator is going to block for a 3RR vio a week and a half after the fact. There's no point in having that report there any longer. If the edit warring has continued, feel free to make a fresh, new report (but please don't restore all that discussion, or it'll be ignored). If the edit warring is too complex to be shown in a list of diffs, or there are issues other than edit warring to be considered, you may want to head for this noticeboard instead. But there's really no point in keeping the old report up. Nothing is going to happen on it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The 3RR violation was not complex at all, it is very blatant. The reason it is now 8-1/2 days after the fact is simply that no admin has been willing to rule on it. The reason the discussion is so long is that there were so many reverts (all within under seven hours) and I gave diffs and descriptions for all of them!
- Why has no action been taken? Are 3RR violations only prohibited for some editors, and not others?
- You are an admin, why don't you take a look at the report, and rule on it: violation or no violation? And if you conclude it was a violation, then will you please also rule on what (if anything) should be done, in terms of blocks or warnings or 1RR probations or whatever you think is appropriate?
- Isn't that what's supposed to happen with 3RR violations? They aren't supposed to be just tolerated & ignored, are they?
- This was a very, very blatant and clearly deliberate violation, but, as it stands, the damage this user did to the article is still there, and the user didn't even get a warning. NCdave (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Blocking over a week after the fact is purely punitive. If you have an example of currently ongoing edit warring that needs to be looked at, feel free to make a new report, as I said. But I will not take action on this one because it is stale, and I doubt you will find any other admin who will, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- This was a very, very blatant and clearly deliberate violation, but, as it stands, the damage this user did to the article is still there, and the user didn't even get a warning. NCdave (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)