":Hi,again, King of Hearts: I know it's in many ways a thankless job to be an admin; I've seen some of the really nasty, abusive comments here on your talk page - good on you for ignoring the crap that some have tried to fling your way. (I've been tempted to bring some of those editors to ANI, actually, but your maturity in ignoring the provocation and just considering the source has seemed the more grown-up alternative.) It's so very easy to criticize an admin's actions from the sidelines, without having to lift a finger oneself to do the ""heavy lifting"" of looking carefully into the background of conflicts. So I want to thank you for putting up with that kind of nonsense, not letting it sway you from your willingness to help regulate the social infrastructure that allows people with such divergent and contrary opinions to (more or less) collaborate to create a (more or less) balanced, consensus-based presentation of important subjects and issues to the rest of the world. You have a right to feel proud about that, if you'll excuse me for speaking so personally. 

 :Also, with the greatest possible respect, I need to ask you whether you have any intention to look more closely at the revision histories of the two Linda McMahon articles. As a more-or-less ""lurker"" on those two articles (I've edited only the campaign article, and that only once) it's abundantly clear to me that there's been an edit war going on since the end of August on those two articles, with Screwball23 on the one side, and FellGleaming and Collect on the other. It was easy to block Screwball23, because his incivility was so egregious, but you also blocked him for edit warring. As I've repeatedly said, you were absolutely, perfectly right to block him for that; I'm glad you did so. My only concern is that you (I'm sorry to say this) neglected to look at who he was edit warring with. 

 :Again, with the greatest possible respect, it seems to me that when an admin responds to a complaint of edit warring by blocking someone for it, it's incumbent upon him to look very, very carefully to see who, exactly, the user he blocks was edit-warring with. It might take you 30 minutes to do so, but if you'll undertake the task, I think it'll be wholly obvious that, as I've said, user Collect and user FellGleaming were Screwball23's opponents. They both performed blanket reverts on the two Linda McMahon articles without (imo) any good-faith attempts to compromise; imo both were, as Screwball23 claimed, trying to whitewash their candidate of preference in closely contested Senate races. The two of them, imo, acted together to oppose Screwball23's edits: his attempts to include information into the articles that was not exclusively flattering to McMahon. 

 :Unfortunately, it's hard to want to support Screwball23's efforts or POV. He hasn't been as sophisticated (sorry, Screwball23) as Collect and FellGleaming were, with his very unpleasant personal remarks. It's hard to have much sympathy for him personally, to be frank, because of his reactive attacks on opponents. But neither should his opponents prevail in the edit war just beacause he might be less than an appealing advocate. 

 :I know it's hard to get motivated to do the in-depth investigation that's necessary to dig out the truth in patterns of edits, based on an article's revison history, especially in a context of petty bickering. I'm not in the least criticizing you in this regard; I'll admit that I also find it very difficult and very tedious to look carefully into the revision histories of articles that I have no special interest in. But again, with the greatest possible respect, if you're going to block one user for edit-warring, it does seem important to me to look carefully into the relevant articles' edit history to determine who else, if anyone, might have been involved. 

 :To try to provide you some help in that task, I'll reiterate my very strong impression, based on watching the two Linda McMahon articles articles since the end of August, that Collect and FellGleaming were every bit as culpable in the edit wars that took place in the two Linda McMahon articles as Screwball23 was. I'm not defending Screwball23's behavior, in the least, please let me reiterate. You were entirely right to block him; we can't tolerate the kind of incivility he allowed himself; he was completely in the wrong to do that. But since you also blocked him for edit warring, it seems to me, as I've been trying to make clear, that it's important to carefully review who was reverting his edits. 

 :Three users have asked me to provide diffs showing that Collect was also edit warring. I wish I had the time to do that carefully, but it would take me at least two to