Thank you for taking an interest in watching the editing dispute in progress at 311 Boyz. I've made a number of recent edits which I feel have expanded and improved the article substantially, but as you can see there is an anonymous user who keeps blanking the page, and IMHO has a personal interest in the article. I hope this situation will not require admin intervention, but regardless, I appreciate the concern of an otherwise uninterested party. Simishag 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

 Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, actually, all my contribs there are vandal reverts. I actually don't know anything about Evanescence. So I don't think I'd be a good assert to your project. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! But if you know of someone who may be intersted, don't doubt in invating him/her! Thank you!  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That robot thingy was so annoying :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MsHyde (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation about the bot.

I have a question--I just clicked on random article, and the article is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Nichol. It really doesn't seem like it should be an article. Can I delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MsHyde (talk • contribs) 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi. I did not delete anything from any Superbowl artices. However, my housemate did, on a different computer. He has his own name and you can contact him separately. Are you people crazy? Who runs this thing? Pretty soon you'll be sending us to Wiki-camps, and all people with humor will have to wear arm bands. Sincerely, Joshua Blanchard http://sitemaker.umich.edu/joshua.blanchard/home

As the edits in question came from an anonymous IP, I have no way of knowing who committed the vandalism. The warning I placed was therefore directed at your IP address. This IP most certainly did remove content from the article, as the following links will show: [1], [2], [3]. Therefore, my warning was justified. As for your questions: Yeah, some of us are definitely crazy. =3 The Wikimedia Foundation runs this thing. And no, I don't think WikiCamps are on the horizon for people with humor. Especially since this project has entire pages and even a category devoted to humor. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-explanatory title, weren't aware of it. Sorry. Wiki-newbie 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm conducting your review. As part of the review, I usually do an edit pattern chart. I've created yours at Image:Heimstern-edits.png. Enjoy! --Durin 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ok, wanted to let you know that I've completed the review and decided to nominate you. Not sure I'll be able to get the nomination page done tonight, but if not then tomorrow at the latest. --Durin 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm sorry. I ran out of time. I'm *almost* done, but still ~10-15 minutes from completion. Sorry :( I'll have this done tomorrow. --Durin 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not a problem. Heck, the extra time will probably benefit me. Give me more time to read up on stuff and think about my answers to the questions. Heimstern Läufer 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reading the guideline you mentioned, it says this regarding foreign-language references:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

This tells me that only English sources should be used unless one in another language is "appropriate". In this case, it is not. Besides, according to this guideline, there's supposed to be an English translation, which there isn't. Sorry, but I insist that the editor provide an English reference. English readers can't be expected to refer to a Bulgarian source for information, which is doubly foreign (language plus alphabet). +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heimstern. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to accept the nomination, update the time/date of the ending of the RfA to match when the RfA is posted to WP:RFA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. --Durin 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks good with two exceptions: 1) Don't forget to accept the nomination. 2) Minor correction in wording on the third question. Change "try simply ignore this" to "try to simply ignore this". When you do transclude, don't forget to update the time stamp on the RfA to be equivalent to when you transcluded it to WP:RFA. Looks great otherwise. --Durin 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• And, here we go.... --Durin 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • [4]. LOL. Heimstern Läufer 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• You've got new questions on the RfA posted by Malber. --Durin 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Answered. Heimstern Läufer 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck with your RFA. I was just considering to offer a nomination in the near future, as you can see here. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please consider rephrasing your answer to Question 6. In edit wars, many users claim the other user's edits to be vandalism. Consider changing it to "obvious vandalism". Cbrown1023 talk 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, why didn't you tell me you were going up for RfA!?!? I would have definitely added a co-nomination. I was thinking of nominating you shortly, Heimstern. Well, best of luck. I'm sure you'll do great. =) Nishkid64 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Just wanted to inform you as why I placed the block on 68.126.252.131 - In view of their contributions they had been spending the past six plus hours blanking the Mao Zedong article, even have being warned three times, I figured at the point, in a short period of time, it would be best to put a temporary block on the user.--Ozgod 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Just wanted to draw to your attention the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/White_encircling_red

Etale 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Heimstern. Thanks for reverting vandals on my talk page. Much appreciated. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks also for reverting vandalism of my talk page. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the congrats on the RFA! I appreciate the support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Sorry here. I'm having a friend sleep over, and he thought it'd be humourous to post multiple joke edits on here. He took screenshots and woke me up to show me. Sorry about any trouble the idiot's caused. He told me I was banned by you or some crap like that. If this is so, can you please unban me? You won't have to worry about the vandalism anymore due to the fact that I'll be turning the computer off soon. -Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.156.164 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It being 21:30 February 16, 2007, your RfA is now past the seven day mark. With the result being 61 support, no oppose, and 2 neutral, you passed with flying colors :) See, that wasn't so bad was it :) I'm sure a bureaucrat will be along shortly to close the RfA and flip your admin bit. Congratulations on becoming an administrator! --Durin 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here he is. Congratulations, have fun with the new tools. Make sure to re-read the policies and don't hesitate to ask questions. You've passed with overwhelming support, and I'm confident you'll do well. Keep up the good work, and again, congrats. (and go find two more people as qualified as you to be admins). - Taxman ^Talk 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both so much. I am honored by the trust the community has placed in me (no opposition is pretty dang good, I'd say) and seek to use these tools for good and for awesome. Durin: I'll be leaving a message for you soon. Well, time to go whack some vandals. B-) Heimstern Läufer 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ...And a great tremor was felt through the vandal community. Heimstern is an admin! --Durin 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on becoming admin yesterday !! Daniel5127 | Talk 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A late congrats from me as well my fellow newbie administrator :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats Heimstern. Best of luck as admin, and if you ever need any help, you know where to reach me. =) Nishkid64 18:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to add my belated congrats. :-) Well done Heimstern! Regards, Húsönd 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I'd arbitrarily break the indents to add my congratulations on your new role. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! I was going to send you a distracting message this morning so that I wouldn't keep internal error-ing with you at C:CSD ;) All the best. – riana_dzasta 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, and you're welcome! --Kyoko 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI - you blocked User talk:Somethingoranother for violations of 3RR - they are now using a sockpuppet to continue their revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=109228271&oldid=109217020 Gsd2000 04:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. Ben Aveling 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...indeed! Now there are three admins in our town. I'm quite glad to see you join the ranks of the overworked, LOL. Slight change of topic: do you have an opinion on this? [5]. I just noticed it right now; not sure if the medieval stuff is in your area of interest or not. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If most of the last 50 edits have been vandalism/vandalism reversions, and those 50 edits go back less than 7 days, then I will usually protect. There are many exceptions, though. In some cases, there may be a peak in vandalism in the last 2 days, and that may warrant protection. Basically, use your best judgment and you'll be fine. Nishkid64 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page regarding anatta. I will try to leave better edit summaries in the future. However, the user's edits do constitute vandalism. Please see here and check out the article's talk page and history. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alansohn has demonstrated he is unwilling to discuss the matter, by simply vandalising my talk page with bogus warnings. Dispute resolution would solve nothing. Chris cheese whine 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you for your suggestion that this issue would benefit from the dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests to justify his actions or to address these issues in a neutral fashion, User:Chriscf has persistently refused to participate in any meaningful manner. You can count me in as part of an effort to address these issues. Alansohn 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, you blatantly labelled me a vandal without good reason, and then accused me of breaching WP:POINT and WP:NPA. I am not discussing anything with you. Chris cheese whine 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. At any rate, both of you could afford to assume good faith with each other a bit more. Each of you has made uncivil comments about the other party. Please stop. Heimstern Läufer 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am more than willing to stop. I have already ceased making comments regarding User:Chriscf. Unfortunately, he is refusing efforts at mediation, despite my willingness and your encouragement. Any suggestion as to how to address this issue in light of User:Chriscf's intransigence will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • • • As a first step towards addressing this issue in good faith, a neutral third opinion is being sought to address the issues at the article Springfield Park Elementary School regarding the dispute over application of "Importance" tag and inclusion of details on extracurricular activities and school administration, following the process specified by Wikipedia:Third opinion. User:Chriscf has been invited to explain and justify his actions for the benefit of a neutral third party at Springfield Park Elementary School#Third opinion. Alansohn 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for talking to goethean about anatta, but it should be noted that goethean has a track record of bullying and abusive behavior towards fellow editors, that I think you should look more closely into. ForrestLane42 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42Reply[reply]

This is no content dispute, this is destruction of valuable information. Just have a look at the paragraph "Main sights". RCS 07:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could as well talk to a brick wall, i guess. Any look at the gistory of the article will show you that R has never done anything else than making changes in wording, while i've written a good deal of the whole article. I'm the kettle, he's the pot, and a vandal too. Good night. RCS 07:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He has been at it again. He has never ever improved this article, never ever, do you realize ? RCS 17:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments. When you spend all day with the vandals, it's always nice to hear some positive feedback. On a side note, congrats on your recent RfA; looks like you're doing some great work already. auburnpilot talk 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. Also, congrats on your own RfA. :) IrishGuy ^talk 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Natalie 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy criteria A7 is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the types of items that can have notability considered for speedy deletion. A7 is the catch all for notability. Just because an article covers something that isn't mentioned in the sentence in A7 doesn't mean it can get around the requirement that notability has to actually be ASSERTED in the article. Are you new at this? Blue Eyed OS is a perfect candidate for a non-notable speedy deletion. No notability is asserted anywhere in the article or on the talk page. Hatch68 06:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is about a defunct website, as it states in the article. What else do you need to know? It doesn't matter anyway, since it was a repost from an article that went through an AfD in January, so now it has a db-repost attached. Hatch68 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have a favor to ask of you. Would you be willing to close a merge proposal that has been debated on the Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings page? As you are aware, there is an edit war going on there, and some of the participants are becoming more and more incivil. I don't think that it would be a good idea for anyone directly involved with the topic to do this, as they will be accused of bias or not acting in good faith. Thanks for the help. Lunokhod 10:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad that you were granted the Admin bit; I saw no major concerns for you not to receive these privileges. The problem of burnout for all valuable Wikipedians -- both Admin & those who don't want the responsibility -- is something that I have been concerned about for a long time, & I hope that my question has helped you be aware of it. -- llywrch 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm ... so by breaking the 3RR rule, the other editor got what he desired? Interesting way to deal with this, IMO. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edited to add: It would have been tough to give him a warning since he made all four edits in the space of 12 minutes. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't answer my question here or on my talk page. He got his desired action by breaking the 3RR rule ... is this now an effective tool to use when you want to make such changes? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the warning, and not the all out ban. I am attempting to resolve this through discussion, but I am skeptical based on the other party's discussion history. Can you offer assistance if he refuses to negotiate? Ebtunc2006 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This ? Reverting to a poorer previous version pretending the additions and changes made are "unneeded" (he never ever added something useful to the article, remember). Please do at least warn him to stop one and for all to behave like a destructive fool. Thanks. RCS 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does that mean i could go mess around in any article i want, reverting randomly to prevous versions ? Or is he the only one allowed to ? RCS 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serafin is evading block again. Special:Contributions/210.245.160.188 Unfortunately he is a very biased person, and seeing as you have a German username, it reflects badly, as it reinforces his delusion that there is a secret coalition of German people hating on Poles. eprhaps get a number of admins to help keep up on this, and block all of his IPs and sockpuppets, as he keeps creating more and more, here and on the German wikipedia. Is there no way to block his IP range so he can't go around it again?

--Jadger 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

again Special:Contributions/168.215.123.44

--Jadger 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not exactly sure if this is the same person, but Special:Contributions/206.117.32.31. he is editing Serafin's old stomping grounds Nicolaus Copernicus and Jan Dzierzon, making the exact same edits as Serafin had been doing previously. Also, making anti-German quips here: [6]

thanks --Jadger 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you, I notice he also just edited Jan Dzierzon again, or whom I would believe is him. uses a similar anon IP and makes exact same edit.

--Jadger 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if you did this intentionally, but you blocked one of his anon IP addresses for only one week, and he has begun "editing" again before the end of his ban. Special:Contributions/131.104.218.46

--Jadger 08:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think User:Serafin is back with some random IPs again, check recovered territories Jan Dzierzon for example, a number of random IPs are reverting to the last version by one of Serafin's puppets, and using the same type of edit summary.

--Jadger 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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 06:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For blocking that anon-IP vandal. Much appreciated! --Tenebrae 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With pleasure! BTW, judging from the term here, which I don't even want to repeat but which I'd never heard before he'd vandalized my User page, it looks as if

69.156.104.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

is the same as:

64.231.212.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

How does one guy get to so many computers? :-) Thanks again,--Tenebrae 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding what is below. A person named sciencewatcher keeps trying to add this in for self-interest. "Sciencewatcher" runs a clinic to cure this disorder and wants to be able to cite this in order to recruit patients. If you look the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders quote, you will notice it is in stark contrast to the article she misuses (regarding non-organic voice disorders) to talk about SD and stark contrast to the medical consensus on spasmodic dysphonia. SD is not a non-organic voice disorder, it is a laryngeal dystonia. As compared with other funcational dyphonias, spasmodic dysphonia patients do not exhibiti psychological features inconsistent with the population at large. It's not an editing war. It is simply a reversion back to the reliable and valid information that once was there, based on the information that is cited in hundreds of thousands of verifiable journal articles on Spasmodic Dysphonia. This person wants to charge patients thousands of dollars to attend a clinic with magical super power healing. And THAT is misuse of Wikipedia on the park of a professional for personal gain and patient harm. Arguing with sciencewatcher is useless, an therefore NO point in discussion with sciencewatcher and myself on edits and reverts. So that is why I cannot take that route.

Thank you, DebENT

You are clearly edit warring with Sciencewatcher. Please stop reverting his or her edits; instead, discuss it on the talk page. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing for disruption. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This time he's using User:209.53.181.24. You've been so helpful, and I hate to ask, but geez, some people.... Thanks so much--Tenebrae 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would revist this page NCLR --evrik ^(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not looking to have the IP blocked, just to have people making some pretty slanderous statements come out of the shadows. --evrik ^(talk) 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• C'est la vie. --evrik ^(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say "thanks!" for your swift semi-protection of Cold War yesterday. What a relief!

Also, I will be sending you an email to ask about something (not related to Wikipedia) that I saw on your user-page. Cgingold 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the input, as a new admin (just today) I was wary of not knowing if I was right. I requested a review at the noticeboard about the same time you replied. Thanks for the link too (very informative). John Reaves (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You stated "I was going to block him for 4 days". Four days for what? Jooler 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at my block log. you will see that all bar the first one were reversed bebause they were imposed incorrectly. It does matter because the reasoning behind the removal of my edits was not justified. Jooler 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it would be, if your statement hadn't been used as an after-the-fact justification for the block of 72 hours. See Talk:Gillian McKeith ([7]) Jooler 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALL bar the first one (2 years ago) (including the one hour block) were imposed incorrectly. Jooler 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By your own admision you took a prejudiced view of the length of time that a block should have been imposed based on a brief look at my block log and not on the situation itself. Or if you did you chose to believe the falsehoods purported by SlimVirgin. And you made a statement about this as a response to Macken79 question on the 3RR incident page. Your statement is now being used against me. It is this issue that I am taking up with you. You have now said to me "maybe 4 days would have been too much" which I'm glad to hear. I hope you can now see that you should have understood the situation a little bit better before making that comment. No hard feelings. Jooler 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW your block of Pigsonthewing was wrong and needs to be reversed. There was no breach of 3RR. Slim's summary of the reverts was flawed. See User talk:SlimVirgin Jooler 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say somewhere that you won't reverse your block on Pigsonethwing because SlimVirgin is a respected Admin etc - so are you saying that you won't do the decent thing because you don't want to embarrass SlimVirgin? Or perhaps I misunderstood your motivation? Jooler 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, not because I don't want to embarrass her. Because I don't like to undo admin actions when I know other established users oppose their undoing. In this case, I have chosen to unblock Pigsonthewing for the reasons given above. Heimstern Läufer 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replaced with the Hinomaru again. Sorry, I'm too new to want to try a revert just yet...Rikyu 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd ask you to reconsider your block on Pigsonthewing following the report here. Notably, because the report contains several incorrect statements. For instance, neither the second nor fourth 'revert' restored the text, "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com", as claimed (in bold print)... simply clicking on the links provided in the report itself clearly shows that text was already present in both cases. Likewise, the second 'revert' did not restore the text, "She has also taken legal action against the search engine [[Google]" or "Details of the legal request can be read at ChillingEffects.org" as claimed - again, both were already present and the edit was actually adding 'ref' tags around them and rewording slightly. Et cetera.

Further, the supposed 'BLP issue' behind the edit war here is a statement to the effect that McKeith took legal action against Google... only that has been reliably sourced to The Guardian and Google (see note at bottom linking to documentation at Chilling Effects).

There was certainly edit warring, by multiple parties, but that 3RR report was less than accurate. A two week block of just one participant in an edit war, based on false statements from another participant, does not seem equitable. --CBD 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded. I've also commented to SlimVirgin about this:

SlimVirgin's WP:ANI report :[9] makes reference to four reverts as part of the reason for the block on Pigsonthewing. If you look at those cited as 2nd revert [10] and 4th revert [11], they appear not to be reverts at all, but minor revisions of material restored by User:Jooler.

SlimVirgin is defending this as action on a 3RR violation [12], but I simply can't see how those diffs cited to WP:ANI constitute reversions. Tearlach 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Here we go. I'm going to explain my rationale for this.

• [13]: Simple reversion. No questions. 1R
• [14]: Ditto. 2R
• [15]: Restores reference removed by SlimVirgin *here, which has the effect of reverting, even if it is not a simple revert. 3R
• [16]: Restores reference to a google search, also removed by SlimVirgin. Again, seems to me to have the effect of reverting. 4R
  

This was a difficult 3RR report to process, as the reverts were not all simple, and am willing to admit that there may definitely be disagreements as to whether or not these all count as reverts. As I have indicated previously, I am not going to fight it if someone reverses my block. That said, it seems to me it would be a very bad idea to do so as long as SlimVirgin, an established editor with a great deal of experience in this department, is opposed to it. It's also worth noting that, even if Pigsonthewing did not technically violate 3RR, he was definitely edit warring, which, given his history, could easily merit a block in and of itself. Granted, probably not a two-week block in this case. OK. That's what I have to say for now. I'm open to further comment. Heimstern Läufer 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That makes more sense. What worries me still is that the diffs you refer to as 1R - 4R are not those cited by SlimVirgin. As CBD and Jooler have explained, two of the latter are arguable. Tearlach 11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not just arguable - they are downright wrong. I was the culprit in restoring the material. Pigsonethewing modified my edits. Jooler 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Heimstern, I'm confused about why anyone is saying this is a controversial block. It was a very clear 3RR violation. Pigsonthewing restored the sentence "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com" five times. This was unsourced original research (although that's not the issue: 3RR is not dependent on content).

The reverts were (the sentence being reverted to is in red to make it stand out):

• 1st edit (and the version later reverted to) 22:26 March 7, restores legal action section in its entirety, including original research ("If you search for Gillian McKeith on google.co.uk[17] you will be told that a link has been removed from the search results"; an inappropriate source ("Details of the legal request can be read at ChillingEffects.org" [18]), and the sentence: "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com."
• 1st revert 22:57 March 7, same as above, including the sentence "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com."
• 2nd revert 23:30 March 7, restores original research ("She has also taken legal action against the search engine [[Google]" (Google search with note on removed item at foot of page); inappropriate source ("Details of the legal request can be read at ChillingEffects.org" (Chilling Effects, notice 973); and the sentence "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com."
  • WRONG!!!!! - Look again that text is in my edit before pigsonthewing edited it! -And BTW it is NOT original research - it is primary source based research! Jooler 07:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 3rd revert 23:35 March 7, restores inappropriate source ("She has also taken legal action against the search engine Google" details can be read at ChillingEffects.org Chilling Effects, notice 973"); and the sentence "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com."
• 4th revert 23:44 March 7, restores original research ("She has also taken legal action against the search engine Google (Google search with note on removed item at foot of page); inappropriate source ("details can be read at ChillingEffects.org" (Chilling Effects, notice 973), and the sentence "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com."

(Google search with note on removed item at foot of page); inappropriate source ("Details of the legal request can be read at ChillingEffects.org" (Chilling Effects, notice 973); and the sentence "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com."

• • WRONG AGAIN!!!!! - Look again that text is in my edit before pigsonthewing edited it! - The red text was again already there from my edit. Pigsonthewing merely added a citation using Chilling Effect (a website run as a joint venture by the EFF, Harvard LAw School et al (without question a reliable source!)) Jooler 08:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope this helps. Actually I think the red makes it look less clear. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's clear is that you have not actually red the diffs properly and made a false accusation. Jooler 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least part of this seems to be simply an error... SlimVirgin thought that it was Pigsonthewing who re-added, "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com." 'five times'... actually two of those times it was Jooler. This is clearly shown by the links Slimvirgin supplies as the 2nd and 4th 'reverts'... in both cases that sentence is already present in the text on the left because it had been added by Jooler. The original / core claim that Pigsonthewing restored the same sentence five times is thus incorrect.

Now, it is possible to then construct a scenario in which Pigsonthewing's five edits changed other text and are therefor a '3RR violation'... but to do so you'd have to be assuming that on some of those he was edit warring with Jooler, rather than working with Jooler to try to find text acceptable to the objections - which I think we can all agree was clearly the case.

As I said before... yes, there was edit warring. By alot of people. But this is not a situation warranting a two week block. Everyone involved should have been discussing and seeking a consensus rather than editing. If blocks for not doing that are to be handed down then... why are there not blocks on everyone who has violated the stricture against edit warring? This isn't equitable. I'm asking Heimstern to remove the block, or Slimvirgin since the claim about five reverts of the sentence was mistaken. Blocking is not how we should resolve content disputes. --CBD 15:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still don't see this as an erroneous block for the reasons I've shown above. At any rate, I'm I'd be willing to unblock now since it has been four days, after all (and maybe two weeks was too long given that the edit warring was on the part of multiple users). Heimstern Läufer 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One little thing: It seems to me that the focus of this whole discussion has been on the presentation of evidence by SlimVirgin, not on my rationale for blocking (which, as I've observed, was a bit different from hers). I certainly hope this isn't the result of vindictiveness against her. Heimstern Läufer 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your rationale is also flawed in my opinion - so no vindictiveness there. However - Slim's persistent lack of investigation into the content she was removing and claims about it being "self-published" - and then "not reputable" and then "does not support the claim" etc when it was all verifiable and sourced makes one wonder about the motivation. Jooler 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SlimVirgin called for a block based largely on five reverts of a particular sentence. You stated that the block was justified because each edit changed different parts of the section. I actually did address both points. Specifically in relation to yours, while it is factually correct it ignores that some of those changes were adjustments to Jooler's text and thus I think that calling them 'reverts' is somewhat inaccurate. I certainly don't see Jooler complaining about them. If that's 'edit warring' then two users working together on an article, say one adding new text and the other spelling and grammar checking it, could be blocked for '3RR' because they made multiple changes to the text cooperatively. The suggestion of 'bias' against SlimVirgin isn't particularly helpful either. Look at the facts of the case. The stated reasons in the request were incorrect. The stated reasons for the actual block are accurate, but assume that we should block people for 'edit warring' with people they are working cooperatively with. A block for 'edit warring' short of 3RR is possible, but doing so for two weeks while giving the other side of the dispute a free pass isn't equitable. --CBD 11:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I understand your earlier comments about the reversions now, although I still believe they're inaccurate. Still, I think we've come to an agreement in the situation, even if not on the reasons for it. So I think we can lay this one to rest. Heimstern Läufer 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now see that you had already unblocked and thank you for that. Now if we can just get everyone to talk rather than snipe and edit war. --CBD 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]