User talk:Heimstern/archive 4

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, 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 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your congratulations. I guess I know get to check AIV, except you people are so fast everyone's blocked by the time I get there! Natalie 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

re: caution (sandbox editing)

I noticed afterwards and tried reverting it but I guess it didnt go through, oh well. thanks for fixing it for me64.230.40.112 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, 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 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Semi-protected

Thank you very much! --Meaneager 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

miscunduct and page warring

left you a note here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn Tech

Hi, and thanks for your help before! I'm afraid that anonymous IP vandals have come back consistently to Brooklyn Technical High School since the semi-protection was lifted — for example, here, here, and here. It all seems to be coming from the students themselves, who could simply register if they wanted to make real edits and not just goof around. Can you help? --Tenebrae 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Good luck

Thank you very much, Heimstern. =) You responded quickly like Riana, too lol. Nishkid64 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, 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 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Skyring

Hi, i have noticed that you have had problems with a user known as Skyring in the past. I just wanted to inform you that he seems to be up to his old tricks and i think an administater needs to look into Skyring. A quick look at his edits will indicate that he has contributed nothing of any note to this site and appears to be obsessed with date formats. It would also appear that he has looked at my recent edits and changed them just to be annpying. I don't like having to do this, but after looking at his block log i really don't think he's adding much to the site. Thank you CEP78 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the tip. I'm still fairly new to this. take careCEP78 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Allah article

I see that you protected the Allah article from vandalism. You migt have stepped in a second too late, because it's now locked with a rather awful bit of vandalism at the top and front of the page. (Unless the servers aren't updated and I'm seeing an old version).

You're right; the version I protected was in fact vandalized and I didn't notice it. But someone else has since reverted the vandalism, so I think we're good for now. Heimstern Läufer 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I don't "think" it's irrelevant. It is irrelevant - fact. Short of patent trolls, the nature of the dispute is irrelevant. Administrators are not supposed to use the tools under any circumstances in any dispute in which they are directly involved, no matter how ridiculous they personally think it to be. It's against the rules, and effectively throws WP:AGF out the window. Chris cheese whine 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hey! thanks for the information, I reported an anon I reverted him 3 times and given the final warning, and he adds inappropriate words that are considered vandalism I hope its right!, thank you. Lakers 04:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted 4 times, but this doesn't exactly count right because its not a dispute I assume? [2] Lakers 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the user was adding the racial words, because the 3RR says obvious vandalism so I wasn't sure whether I could or not thanks for your support :) Lakers 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The post I made the servers are lagging it seems confuses me, so some reports may be inaccurate. Lakers 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I notice whenever I reverted vandalism, than checked there contributions it wasn't there so I assumed they were lagging, habits thanks :) . Lakers 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA (2)

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters

He's removed the report from WP:ANI again. Surely that is worth a block in and of iself. C ^thirty-three 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's quite a pest. Thanks for the help! C ^thirty-three 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

Thanks for reviewing my block request. New information there shows that Orangemarlin intends to continue his disruptive behavior after being warned. Gnixon 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you very much for protecting my page. --Meaneager 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangalore

Please see the talk page. Enough reasons have been given enough times by Gnanapiti and Deepak was just trolling. I have at the most 2RRed and even that I have done after enough explanations had been given on the talk page. Not just the above discussion, but similar discussions have taken place at other times on other pages and Deepak knows it. It unfortunate that you think that I was edit warring. Sarvagnya 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	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 04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy delete

Sorry!-Sorry!-Sorry! I screwed up two things at once and deleted the whole article. Thanks for putting it back!TeamZissou 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed Re: User:Hamsacharya dan reported by User:Watchtower Sentinel

Dear Sir, our 3RR/Edit Warring complaint is already in its second day pending and that is why I felt compelled to respectfully solicit your attention. Thank you in advance. - Sentinel 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In need of help

You recently messaged me warning about over using reversions on the Red Hot Chili Peppers page. Well there is someone who is constantly making edits that he interprets and that only he does, saying the band is pop, the user is User:Zagozagozago. In the discussion we have talk about why they shouldn't be classified as pop and yet constantly he changes it. He is the only one who believes this is nessesary and frankly it's getting quite annoying. Any help/interfeirence by you to him would be greatly appreciated. I should also mention he was temporarily banned once before for matters similar to this. Thank You, - miTfan3 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A message for you

Hi , I have posted a message for you on my talk page. You are under no obligation to reply it. User_talk:Deepak_D'Souza#A_message_for_Heimstern_L.C3.A4ufer

Just wanted to inform you that I intend to contest the validity of block on the administrators notice board.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that your decision was made after due consideration and was fair. No contest. I apologise. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He is warned

[3]. RCS 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 08:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Typos

Hi, I've found 2 typos on your user page, both in the word "communties" which should be "community's". I'm not comfortable editing other people's user pages (although the vandals certainly appear to be very comfortable editing yours ;-), so I'll just point this out and let you fix it if you wish to. Later. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember typing that one in a hurry; not surprising I made an error. Thanks for pointing it out, it's fixed now. Heimstern Läufer 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Last time I reported 3RR

The edits that IP was making to Cesar Chavez were simple vandalism, so your report would have been better placed at WP:AIV. I haven't blocked, since the last vandalism was three hours ago, but I will if the IP starts up again. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I got this message still on my talkpage (Reporting 3RR). Ronbo76 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, at the time of my submission, I would be willing to bet WP:ANI would not have accepted the report because the warning would have been considered too current. Ronbo76 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the situation behind the report Netsnipe was referring to, but I assume it was a case in which it was a content dispute rather than vandalism. In this case, you must go to WP:AN3RR. But if the user is blatantly defacing the page, as the IP in question today was, you can just use WP:AIV. You may want to read WP:VAND, especially the section "What vandalism is not"; that may help you know when a report is suitable for AIV and when it's not. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was almost identical. Ronbo76 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, then. But anyway, I'm sure in this case it was just vandalism. Don't worry about it for now, as the IP has stopped, but if he/she starts again, head for AIV. Thanks! Heimstern Läufer 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but, I have found recently that different admins have different standards for blocking users especially at WP:ANI. Typically when I post there, it is a blatant vandal as per today's effort. Too often, I have seen admins use the reasoning, "oh well that was too recent a level four message" or the "vandalism has stopped." Ronbo76 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, this sort of thing does require admin descretion, so no, not all will respond the same way. The best I can advise you is to just do what you can to follow the guidelines at WP:VAND (and, where necessary, WP:3RR) and see what happens. Heimstern Läufer 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I do/did. Ronbo76 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, that's what I was assuming, anyway. Carry on! Heimstern Läufer 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

192.147.67.12

FYI, he's been evading his 3RR block as 76.193.216.191 (talk · contribs). Is there any thing you can do about it? Khoikhoi 05:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty obvious case of evasion. Blocked the new IP; reset the block on the original. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Khoikhoi 06:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz

Hi Heinstern, I recently denied an unblock request from the above user that you blocked for edit warring, but after looking further into the users contributions, and checking the diffs and the particular article in question, many of the users contributions were actually fairly important. He was simply readding citation needed tags into an article which seriously fails WP:BLP, in fact, I've personally now gone and cut a load of it out - it was a legal case waiting to happen. Would you allow me to cut the length of the block down from a month? I seriously believe that Ahwaz has actually been the subject of some serious ganging up from other contributors who wish their POV versions to stay. I really have no interest in the article itself, I was just alerted to it after looking through the contribs. Your opinion would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ryan. I've actually already been requested to review this block for very similar reasons. Since you seem to have made similar findings as the user who requested the review, I'm going to defer on this one and assume you are both probably right. Go ahead and reduce it as you see fit. I would do it myself, but I'm currently at work and unable to spend much time on the computer. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, on the surface, it looks like a clear cut case of edit warring, and a 1 month block seamed very appropriate (hence my original decline), but after looking further into it, you could argue it wasn't edit warring on the grounds that it was trying to correct BLP issues. What I've done, is reduced the block down to a straight forward 24 hour one for edit warring, I also have a promise from the user that he will not edit related articles if he is unblocked. I think in this case, it's the best thing to do. If you feel I'm being too lenient, by all means increase the block (preferably within 11 hours!), I may be away from the computer for the rest of the day, so I'll leave it upto you Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Transparency in Wikipedia

You originally blocked User:Ahwaz for violation of 3RR, for which I reported him. His violation of 3RR had nothing to do with BLP, and was the result of his edit-waring to place a notability tag on the article, since he's claiming the subject is not notable to have an article, eventhough the subject generates thousands of google hits in several languages, and User:Ahwaz's argument was refuted several times. Furthermore, User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 17 times by now, in less than a year. [4] Please note that User:Ahwaz was still edit-waring, even after he was explicitly told by an admin the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.[5]. I think unblocking him, will only encourage him to continue on the disruptive path he's been on. Now can you please, for the sake of transparency and accountability, reveal the name of the user who e-mailed you off wiki requesting an unblock for User:Ahwaz. I am asking this because there is extensive off-wiki lobbying going on, and it's important that such matters be discussed publicly and openly on Wiki to prevent any abuse. --Mardavich 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not, sorry. The user in question emailed me out of concerns about harassment; I have no intention of betraying his/her trust. Heimstern Läufer 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But such requests should be made publicly on Wikipedia for transparency and accountability, I think that is what Jimbo or ArbCom has previously ruled on this issue as well. I have a very good idea that the user in question is User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I am considering opening a RFC on this issue of back-door lobbying to get "favorite" users blocked and unlocked through thrid-party admins. If the issue goes to ArbCom, I will notify you as a party. Such back-door lobbying is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Mardavich 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate to me that the ArbCom or Jimbo has in fact said something on this matter, I will reconsider. Heimstern Läufer 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hi

Hi Heimstern, sorry for the lateness, but congratulations on your adminship! I can't think of anyone more deserving of and more appropriate for those powers.

I've been around a little less than before, but I'm still working on articles. The last big one was Forbidden City -- your criticism is welcome as always if you have time for a look around. See you around. --Sumple (Talk) 09:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)