User talk:Rlevse/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rlevse. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Bitless bridle
Hi. You mediated on Bitless bridle a month ago, and left off at the point of defining "bridle". That remains a point of contention and is impeding edits on several articles (eg, here). Would you mind returning for more? --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- If those in that area haven't worked it out by now, I suggest taking it to WP:MEDIATION. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Strange Edit War
A group of editors have developed a version of an article [1] that meets all Wikipedia policies and standards. However, one editor keeps on reverting it to a version that he wrote months ago and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. [2] One group says that the other group are "sockpuppets." The other group says that the first group are "meatpuppets." Why can't someone read both articles a pick one article as a starting point from which to make further improvements? Please help 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea how I got sucked into this article in the first place, but Dane Rauschenberg has to be the target of the most bizarre set of sockpuppetry I have ever seen, most of it aimed at including false and defamatory information regarding the subject. User:207.91.86.2 was part of one of the newer batches of sockpuppets, and his identity as a sockpuppet was confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. After being outed, User:Racepacket created User:Runreston, also confirmed as a sockpuppet, and also blocked permanently. As soone as Runreston was blocked, Racepacket came out with a new set of IP addresses disrupting the article. There are no alternative "groups" here; There is a stable article and a single individual and his sockpuppets who have a monomaniacal obsession with this one individual and this one article, devoting well over 90% of edits to this one person. While I am working on documenting a new sockpuppet request for the latest crew of abusers, can you recommend any means to prevent further abuse, such as protecting the Dane Rauschenberg article from edits by IP addresses and new users? Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had left the first message for both you and Neil because of your past involvement with the article. I am pleased that Neil took constructive action. I wish to respectfully disagree with the above comments of User:Alansohn, who is the subject on a long-standing and on-going Request for Comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn. In that request, his efforts to canvass and coordinate with ""Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" came to light. They have obviously coordinated edits on the article to produce this version.
- The history of this article was that it was written exclusively by its subject for many months, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Runnerguy, and the subject is still making comments on his article's discussion page. The article was proposed for deletion, which drew Alansohn to it as a test case of his all-inclusionist views. Later, the companion article Fiddy2 was proposed for deletion, and User:Neil presided over its merger with the main article.[3] Most of the edits to the article have been by Rauchenberg under his various usernames, followed by Alansohn and his cohort Norton. However, there is a group who appear to be running enthusiasts, who happen to live in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, who have also edited the article and produced this version. When editors disagree with Alansohn, he dismisses all of their concerns through personal attack. As you know, when checkusers show that they are distinct users, he argues with the result claiming that because the editors work civilly with each other, and disagree with him, they have to be the same person because they live in the same metropolitan area, although in different States. He confuses and misrepresents "likely" and "confirmed"[4] and he freely interchanges the usernames of the various parties involved.See fourth bullet
- Between the Rauchenberg/Fiddy2/Revertedlebo/Runnerguy group and Alansohn/Norton/75.147.49.114 group, I think a major misrepresentation is being foisted on the public under the Wikipedia banner. This is a simple case of a gentleman using Wikipedia to burnish his resume while attempting a career change, with Alansohn not being able to see through the smoke. The actions of both groups have been highly disruptive. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As Dane Rauschenberg has already been prot'd, I see no need to intervene. I suggest this matter go to WP:DR as it's been going on for a very long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion request
Hi,
There seems to be a puzzling problem with an image I uploaded on March 28: (Image:Acela on Susquehanna Bridge.jpg).
The following day, I uploaded a revision which was intended to replace a different image. Immediately realizing my mistake, I reverted to the original March 28 version. The problem is that the incorrect version still displays on the Image page (but not in linked articles).
Can you please delete all versions but the original March 28 upload to straighten this out?
Thx, JGHowes talk - 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Try purging your cache. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK- that was odd. I reverted it again- let me know if this is correct now. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine now. Let Gadget850 or I know if you have more problems, being admins we both can help. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks, JGHowes talk - 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Main page nomination for Manzanar
With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The nomination was removed intially because there can only be five nominations on that page, but it's back, so if you are so incllined, please offer your support. Thanks! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 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) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
I did not see that user Nealirc used my photo. I took that photo last month. But thank you for letting me know. Plyjacks (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Deletion_advice_needed
Which one?
I've not yet found an answer for my question, and since you're an admin and have been around Wiki a while, you may be able to help me: which one of these pages is titled correctly (if either)? : List of minor Foundation universe characters and List of minor Foundation-universe planets? Thanks. —ScouterSig 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since the main article is Foundation series, I would say without the hyphen. The two articles you listed need to be consistent in naming convention. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just wasn't sure enough on my own. And the naming convention page wasn't much help. —ScouterSig 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
To answer objections, I changed all the links to inline citations, because I think this deserves to be a featured article. Can you review and help advance it?--Parkwells (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and comments. It wasn't my article originally, but I'll see about improving it. It's an interesting topic and better sourced than many articles, although it can be improved.--Parkwells (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge
Hi Rlevse. The talk page for my ArbCom case seems a bit messed up, although it is possible that I am mistaken.[5] Mastcell made two separate requests at Arbcom this year, regarding myself, but the talk page for my Arbcom case does not seem to indicate that. For example, the talk page for my ArbCom case does not seem to include any statement by bainer or by James F. or by Matthew Brown (Morven), even though they all made statements in response to Mastcell's second request.
On 21 February, Mastcell wrote a "Request to clarify/expand remedy from Ferrylodge case". Here's the final version on 2 March at 04:01....
After that request was closed and archived, Mastcell made another separate request on 2 March at 18:55. His second request was titled "Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge". Here's the final version on 8 April at 04:03....
Maybe I'm mistaken. Please let me know.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're right. I think I goofed it. I just tried to fix it. Let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The following ArbCom proceeding seems to be missing from the talk page for my ArbCom case....
- I'd be glad to fix this if I'm allowed to.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I fixed it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Your Admin Coachee
Hey!!! Just wanted to check in and see if you had anything for me to do, other than what I am doing now. Dustitalk to me 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just logged in and see that quite a stir up has been made by myself. Where do I proceed from here? Dustitalk to me 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply
In response to this question, I thought filing the SSP report was the way to do it? I must be confused. I've never filed a checkuser request before and do I just add the info from the sock case to a CU report? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- RFCU and SSP can be in conjunction with each other; they are often complementary. One of RFCU's uses is in difficult SSP cases. File the case and list the suspects and evidence--you need enough to show probable cause for the RFCU. Do NOT copy all the debate that case has caused. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out the permissions
Image:SMT award.jpg. Don't think it's right ...--evrik (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch. I fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Burbage
With your scouting hat on, would you please look at Special:Contributions/Thehollycroft and give him your opinion about his edits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the Scout Association articles and started a discussion on their talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I responded there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Metal discussion
It appears "common descency" isn't all that common, kind of like common sense. I'm rather flabbergasted by the discussion. I think as a result, I'll do a whole lot less vandal patrolling. Thanks for your comment. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm Online
If you want to discuss anything or whatever, I'm online for a little bit. Dustitalk to me 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Boy Scouts
I don't need to discuss rectifying a blatant foundation-level violation - since when has the lowercase word controversy being used legitimately and without a point of view? Sceptre (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's commonly said that POV doesn't fail an FA, but references before a comma do. Besides, it was promoted two years ago - standards have changed since then. Sceptre (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer
Hi!, i answered here:[6] --Rembaoud (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, hi, I looked into the situation, and have cautioned both editors that they need to be engaging at talk rather than using "back and forth" edit summaries.[7][8] As far as I'm concerned, this is probably sufficient at this time, and no further admin action is required. Would you have any objections to closing the ANI thread?[9] --Elonka 04:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nice work, go right ahead and close it. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
A New Sock of Soapfan91
Since you were the admin who blocked User:melbrooksfan101 as another sock of User:Soapfan91, I thought I'd let you know he seems to be back as User:Broadway91 (which is a similar name to another banned sock, User:Broadwayfan91). This user is has a similar editing pattern, and has edited the page of most recetn sock Melbrooksfan101 here [10]. He has gone so far as to set up an archive page for the banned sockpuppet here [11]. I appreciate your time, I thought I'd come to you first since you have prior experience with the situation. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious sock, and he's being disruptive. I'll take care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sloppy editing
I broke the diff by trying to add the time and date, failed and then left part of it attached to the URL. Should be working fine now - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, does everyone have a right to respond with reports for arbitration enforcement? I notice that users such as Meowy are blocked automatically - as was Giovanni in the past. Or does it depend on how they are alleged to have broken arbitration remedies? John Smith's (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on many factors. In your case, I'm waiting for him to respond because it looks like talk page discussion was going on during the second revert. 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, ok - so no talk page discussion makes it more likely to block? That makes sense. John Smith's (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, it at least shows some effort toward consensus. See his arb restriction to, it specifically encourages talk page use. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, but it does also restrict him to one revert a week. I'm not saying he shouldn't be given a chance to self-revert, but he has been in this situation a number of times since the arbitration decision and wiggled out of it. I suppose my view is that if he always gets a chance to self-revert/explain away what he has done (provided he uses the talk page), the sanction loses its effectiveness. If he gets caught, he back-peddles - if he doesn't, he gets away with it. In either case his behaviour doesn't change.
- Also I have just noticed that DHeyward pointed out Giovanni's breach of his revert parole. Giovanni replied but didn't self-revert, so you could say he has already had a chance. John Smith's (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, it at least shows some effort toward consensus. See his arb restriction to, it specifically encourages talk page use. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, ok - so no talk page discussion makes it more likely to block? That makes sense. John Smith's (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to put this evidence at AE, not here. Copy to AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did. Giovanni has said his piece. John Smith's (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mentoring PHG
While I'd be more than happy to help out, I believe that since I was party to the discussions on Franco-Mongol alliance that eventually led to the Arb case, PHG is unlikely to see me as a neutral party. I'll leave a note on his talk page just in case I'm wrong about that. Shell babelfish 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This IP
Hey, this IP 139.222.127.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is just vandalizing his talk page instead, maybe you want to protect it. KC109. 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
Removing warnings from your own talk page is actually allowed, it's considered proof you read it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 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) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow up at WP:AN
Howdy - could you follow up on your original comment here? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Any tasks that you would like for me to do? Any questions or scenarios? Dustispeak and be heard! 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:1996-Rover Moot-Fahnengruß.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1996-Rover Moot-Fahnengruß.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for Deleted Page
Hello:
One of my pages was recently deleted. Can you please send me the deleted content? I had links attached to it that I need for my own records. The title of the page is "Black & Veatch's Dan McCarthy."
Thank you!
B&V WGCT (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Update
I have left an update at my AC coaching page. Dusticomplain/compliment 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you assist me in my archiving? I am having issues with the bot. I want to start archiving in my third list with all threads moved 2days old. Can you do this? Dusticomplain/compliment 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I never use the bot. Try asking someone who uses it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your block of User:BrianKarjala
Well, as he was impersonating a real life person, one that actually stated on this site to not trust anyone under that name or similar names. Anyway, I think something should be done about the above user's userpage. I don't know what, so I came here.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, tagged and protected. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the user is an impersonator, the user page and talk page should probably be deleted and protected so that it won't show up in google hits. (If a prospective employer googles for your real life name, you probably don't want the top hit to be a page saying that you have been banned from Wikipedia.) Given enough time, it will work its way up to the top - I absolutely hate it that we allow indexing of user pages. --B (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take care of it. Good idea. The talk seems to hold no personal info though, but the user page did. I've asked for oversight. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 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) 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:KeikoMatsuiDreamWalk.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:KeikoMatsuiDreamWalk.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Adoption request
Um Can you adopt me? I went straight to the help page and it said adoption and I read that a person like you could mentor me. Can you please because I dont know what I am doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory E. Miller (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you want me, yes. How did you find my name? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be great. How I found you is that I am interested in boyscouting and When I looked in the discution section, I found a lot of names and clicked on them. When I clicked on yours, I saw you had a lot of awards.(Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
- OK. Then join our project at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Members. I'm also an admin here on en.wiki and on wiki commons. I'll make a subpage of your userpage and set a watch on it. We can make discussions there. I'll post it on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI
See [12]. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. I intentionally worded the comments the way I did. Please in no way consider any of them a personal attack (personally, I think you do some great work on Wikipedia), but merely my general, though specific, disgust.
- I don't intend to further comment in that discussion, but should there be a DRV discussion following, I would appreciate being notified. Thank you again for the notice. (And as before, feel free to remove this at your preference.) - jc37 00:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I find all this quite interesting, as I think you do some fine work too, yet we collide on xfd's and you have an inclusionist tag on your page and yet when we meet want to delete things. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since reading your response, I've been torn between to polar opposites (which pretty much come down to "to respond"/"to not respond").
- I really am not looking for a philosophical argument. But I do think it's fair to offer you at least the opportunity to understand my perspective.
- This essay may help clarify my perspective. Though, if you would like to save time, it's this: When it comes to User categories, I prefer to follow the over-all consensus, and not the very few exceptions which those with a particular POV have pushed through due to IWANTMINE. And while I believe that there are legitimate exceptions to any set of rules or conventions, I strongly oppose double standards.
- I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and as far as inclusionism. When it comes to information for the encyclopedia, I am. The more we can expand the depth and breadth of the encyclopedia, the better. But Wikipedians who like the colour blue? Or even: Wikipedians by merit badge? Or: Wikipedians by community service award? Please, add such information your userpage, if you wish. But a category grouping? No, probably not. - jc37 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I find all this quite interesting, as I think you do some fine work too, yet we collide on xfd's and you have an inclusionist tag on your page and yet when we meet want to delete things. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I guess we agree to a point, but not on where to draw the line. Take care. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
interpreted broadly
I'd just like to say that interpreting [13] and [14] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason. Kww (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's more to than that, like this as an example. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, not much. TTN is under pretty severe restrictions, but, so far as I can tell, has lived up to the letter of them. There is a pretty strong campaign from the "winning" side of the arbcom decision that is now attempting to make every edit he makes into an arbcom restriction violation in order to effectively ban him from the site. It is the obligation of every admin to ensure that that does not happen.Kww (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your characterizations of my intent are off base. See TTN's talk page for more inputs. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not mean to characterize your intent at all, only those of people that keep dragging him to ANI and Arbcom. I am sorry that anything I said was read that way. I've been following this issue closely, and will stand by my statement that TTN has operated within his restrictions.Kww (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your characterizations of my intent are off base. See TTN's talk page for more inputs. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please, if I am so pitifully ignorant, explain to me the purpose of Arbcom detailing restrictions which admins then proceed to ignore? None of his edits have violated the Arbcom restrictions, and certainly the purpose of the Arbcom decision wasn't to allow Final_Fight: Streetwise to be immune from editing.Kww (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- And, on a related question: if WP:AE isn't the place to complain that people have incorrectly blocked people in the name of enforcing an Arbcom decision, what is the appropriate place? Kww (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me point out that several people have chimed in on this block and you seem to be the only one who agrees with you, except TTN of course. Part of your complaint deals with the scope of his restrictions...the proper venue for that is WP:RCAM, which has already been pointed out. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think most others have just given up, just chalking it up to being another consequence of a disastrously bad Arbcom decision. Anyway, you are mentioned in a clarification request. I'd notify TTN, but it seems pointless.Kww (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The FF article does make me pause, but I don't see how this could be even close to the restriction. It's also a bit inappropriate to block people when we were already asking arbcom about the matter on WP:RFAC. You should have waited until an arb commented on the situation. Prod them if you have to, but it's their clarification that we need, not yours. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me, I got my timeline of events totally wrong. Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you really mean to userhardnameblock this guy? He's been a legitimate contributor for a long while. If you have a problem with his name, maybe an unblock and a discussion with him about a name change might be gentler. I'll wait a bit for you to respond. --barneca (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I just saw the "not a wheel war" note on your talk page, so I'm going to go ahead and unblock him. I'm happy to talk to you about it when you get back online. To be honest, I'm kind of OK with the username myself (tho I understand your point), so rather than start a conversation with him about a name change, I'll let you do it if you still feel its inappropriate. --barneca (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
AN/I efforts
Hi. I have observed your excellent and diligent efforts on blocking and undoing vandalism. has anyone ever thought about creating a task force or subgroup of admins, mainly to stop pointless vandalism? I didn't realize that people go around blanking archives until I saw that post. i suggest that someone convene a task force. just a thought; I'm not even an admin. i appreciate your great ongoing efforts. also, i guess I am really asking if this has been done already. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's kinda of what WP:AIV is for. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Category rename (IF!)
Rlevse, Perhaps if Category:Wood Badger Wikipedians isn't deleted (crosses fingers), it should be renamed to Category: Wikipedian Wood Badgers or something similar. I think the standard is to have "Wikipedian" be the first word in a user category. I wish I could add myself; I never finished my ticket :( —ScouterSig 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remind me when it's over. Now go finish your ticket! That's like making Life and not Eagle ;-0 — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
William M. Connolley case?
Wasn't that request sitting at 4-1? UC rejected, but the running total didn't reflect that. R. Baley (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- UGH, that last vote snuck in. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No harm done, I just couldn't tell if I had missed something :-) R. Baley (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- UGH, that last vote snuck in. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A hunch I've got
Noticed User:Gregory E. Miller just added his name to the members list of the Wikiproject I help maintain. Sadly, given the huge issues I've had with User:Greg Jungwirth I'm now treating any members with the name Greg or a variant of that name which pass by where I usually patrol with strong suspicion as it's fairly probable it's him. Drifting through his contribs for suspect activity I notice that he has himself down at WP:S-MEM as having Rhode Island as a location and animation as an interest, both of which GJ had which seems to fit with my suspicions seeing as he did pre-empt himself recently by warning me about "the next friend I make" being him in one of his recent routine talkpage blanking efforts. Keep an eye out for him, it does seem he's making an attempt to get at me and this might be it. Don't want to accuse anyone incorrectly but it seems far too convenient that all those little things pop up at once. Will give the user the benefit of the doubt for now unless something comes up which seems to fit his MO. --treelo talk 00:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ScreenStalker blocked, arbitration
Please see User talk:Screen stalker#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying - he says he is still blocked and can't participate in the arbitration. Might also be true of Gni and Zeq. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Screen stalker and Gni are unblocked only to partake in the arb case. See their talk pages. Zeq is formally banned. I'm not unblocking him without arb approval. If you want that, contact the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I just can't understand
Why reports of posts like this are deemed "not serious complaints" at Arbitration enforcement. Could you enlighten me as to what it is? Is it that nothing I say is serious? Is it that his behavior is the fault of the person he is uncivil to, as Thatcher thought with me? Is it that nothing he does is bad by definition? Is there a secret Admin Gauge of Incivility which is set to a completely different scale than normal people's? Is it that nothing said by someone who has ever been called a fringe POV pusher is serious? Is it that each time he's reported you set the clock to zero, and say "Aww, it's just once, why do anything"? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That post is after I closed the last AE. To me, it's incivil and condescending. The rest of the problem is multi-faceted: too many users file weak cases at AE, SA usually knows how to stay just below the obvious violation threshold, SA has several pro-science admins ready to unblock him, too many on both sides fall into finger pointing too quickly, etc. As for this newest post, file it at AE and see what happens, but you may want to ask SA to refactor it first. I'll stay out of this round. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I'll take your advice then. I've been afraid to file anything at AE since you blocked me for doing it last time. So I take this advice as meaning I'm pretty safe myself this time. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Rlevse, bit of unusual activity with your admin coachee today, I think he may be gone from Wikipedia, at least until we hear otherwise. See this section of my talkpage, see Dusti's recent contribs (especially deleted contribs). Just to keep you in the loop here, nothing else needs doing ATM. :( Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Rlevse. If you have a moment, can you see if you have anything you want to add to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Komodo lover? I think you filed the first RFCU back in November 2007. This fellow continues to vex us; see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. I blocked both of his most recent incarnations due to reports at 3RR, but User:Gb was the first to make the connection to Komodo lover. CBFan believed that filing a checkuser might have some value, so I did so. But I'm not sure what CU can do in cases like this; maybe it can give ideas for a range block? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse. I don't mean to be nosy, but can I help with this "Komodo Lover"? I honestly have nothing else to do and this guy seems to be a pain in the butt so if you need my help, just know that Im here for you. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Do you need me to do anything?Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
- Not right now, thanks. If you're a new user, it's best to start out improving articles you're interested in. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
AE thread
I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching?
Hello there, recently, my admin coach Riana retired, and I am now without a coach. MBisanz suggested I talk to you, he thinks we would be a good match. If you can't, I understand, but I would really appreciate it if you could coach me. Thanks a lot, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine. Click here: User:Steve Crossin/AC — Rlevse • Talk • 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do. May take a few days, i'm busyish with MedCab, but I'll do it ASAP. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Poyoyloar and Tromatical are probably sockpuppets. If you think a checkuser can allay any remaining doubts, ask for it; otherwise, use your discretion and block based on the evidence that's there. Fearedhallmonitor is probably unrelated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Will file and SSP, it's too intermixed with the User:ArchieHall SSP filing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything
Hey Rlevse. Everything seems peaceful with the pages Im watching and I have nothing to do. Can you give me any work or have me help you with anything? Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
What on earth are you doing?
Do you realize that you are violating all kinds of principles of Wikipedia? [15] Why are earth are you dead set on violating WP:NPA? Wow please cool it. What is your problem? --Filll (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies to all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
AN/I post
There are real name issues involved and, if I am not mistaken, ArbCom is generally aware of the situation. I can discuss this further via email, or you may contact ArbCom privately. Thanks for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- See above thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem
No worries. I removed the post and wanted to make sure I did the courtesy of leaving a polite explanation for you, offering a couple of options to discuss the issue further if needed. My email box is open and I'm on IRC sporadically if you needed to touch base about it. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tks. It was what I hope was a momentary lapse on my part. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes we just have to be careful.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for assistance re sockpuppet case
Hi, I was referred to you by User_talk:Shalom, who recently marked as resolved a sockpuppet case without really resolving it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Garhauer_%282nd%29
I would appreciate it if you might look over that, together with the discussion between myself and Shalom on his talk page.
Or else you could "unresolve" the sock puppet case, which sat in the queue for several weeks without attention as it is.
Thanks.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 06:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like he closed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- What? He is not an admin. He just closed the case without taking any action whatsoever. Four sockpuppets, a repeat offender, and about the clearest case I can imagine...?
- Forgive me, I'm annoyed cos I waste an hour doing the report then this happens. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Experienced and trusted users are allowed to close obvious cases. Shalom is very good at SSP, I ask him for input a lot there. He actions are well within standard actions for SSPs of this nature. Leaving one account active is not unusual at all. If problems with the sock/master persist, you can let me know directly on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- He did not leave one account active, he left all four socks active. He took no action. Would you please at least look at the case before shrugging me off? bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Experienced and trusted users are allowed to close obvious cases. Shalom is very good at SSP, I ask him for input a lot there. He actions are well within standard actions for SSPs of this nature. Leaving one account active is not unusual at all. If problems with the sock/master persist, you can let me know directly on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not worth blocking the IPs, I just blocked the one that starts with "A" and tagged the user page of named accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Next time I make a mistake like this I'll just ask you to fix it myself. It would have saved you and Badmonkey a few minutes. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Np. Don't worry about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
I've gone and answered more of my coaching questions, care to have a look? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Responded. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, I've never had an old username. I only had a rename, from User:Cro0016 to User:Steve Crossin. I also operate a bot account, User:SteveCrossinBot (on trial), but apart from that, I have no other accounts. I'm also an admin here. I think I need to get some more experience in more controversial areas, that was recommended in my editor review, which is in my signature. I could also use more experience with the Deletion process, particularity other types of deletion other than articles. Other than that,I'm not overly sure at the moment. I could use some more article work though, but the 24 Project has many opportunities there. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Role accounts
What is a role account?--81.86.68.253 (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) registered as Tyw7 Tyw7's Talk
- See your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:
I'm fine, just busy. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 11:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA notification..
Rlevse, in the future, please notify me when including me in an RFA. I would expect at least that courtesy from an admin. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did neglect that and it's my error. It was not intentional. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please block these guys? Thanks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Tyw7 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
"For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority." err ... 7, right? --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Link
I hope you don't mind, but I fixed a link here. Dreadstar † 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 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) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Arb pages not orphaned
Hello. Your posts confused me a bit. This page is a redirect that is orphaned (see here). Its subject-space page is also a redirect (see here). I was deleting old talk page redirects where the subject-space page was a redirect. The redirects I was deleting were orphaned (no incoming links), had only one revision, and hadn't been touched in 30 days. Perhaps I'm missing something; let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, as soon I posted I thought more about what you had been saying and realized that this had come up before. It has to do with the multiple definitions of "orphaned." Not orphaned as in CSD#G8, orphaned as in no incoming links. Thanks for the note. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
responsible (in part or in total) for ethnically cleansing wiki of a despised perspective.
Do we really have to put up with this from Juanita?[16] I got a one week ban (a year ago) for a comment that was nowhere near this level of insulting? (Hypnosadist) 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Can you get me the diff that got you blocked? Thanks for pointing this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, Your last block was over a year ago, so I suspect it is unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first third of the paragraph I have an issue with. The latter 2/3 is okay because she's saying 'if you do this to only one side...'. I've asked for evidence or a refactor and warned all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did warrent my 1 week holiday from editing as i did need to cool down, its just accusations of genocide are a bit much, her point that to be just all sides must be treated the same i see as "self evident". (Hypnosadist) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. Keep me informed. She's had her warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did warrent my 1 week holiday from editing as i did need to cool down, its just accusations of genocide are a bit much, her point that to be just all sides must be treated the same i see as "self evident". (Hypnosadist) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first third of the paragraph I have an issue with. The latter 2/3 is okay because she's saying 'if you do this to only one side...'. I've asked for evidence or a refactor and warned all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, Your last block was over a year ago, so I suspect it is unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see where I am being informed on. It is clear that certain people are working their level best to get me removed from wiki. Lawrence Cohen and Hypnosadist and others have made no bones about this, and are working on it on the workshop page. In fact, if anyone reads the top section of the talk page with an open mind, the personal attacks against me and generalized anti-Zionist 'remarks' have passed without comment. Lawrence Cohen has made his very own proposal to block me indefinitely. I have not been going to anyone in response to the provocations dished out to me but I can certainly find plenty of evidence of them if anyone wants it. Comments such as this.
- Regarding the remarks I made about wikiforPalestine. I was not accusing anyone in particular of anything. The evidence for my comments have to do with the very existence of the group and its requirements. The wikiforpalestine group is a group of 12 established editors here at wiki who were required to have demonstrated 'proof of anti-zionist edits.' It is clear that these (unknown) editors were well aware of the CAMERA issue here, as they followed the discussion that has been going on here at wiki; the proof is that they wrote to it on their Yahoo! page, even using my name to refute me, there until they suddenly disbanded. They met under a banner of divestment, boycott of Israel, and anti-Zionism. We know nothing about them -- not their wiki identities or positions or what they do here on wiki or outside. There is every reason to believe that they are attempting to cleanse wiki of a certain point of view and substitute another; and proof of that is essentially from their own group-statement. The "ethnic cleansing" statement I made had nothing to do with genocide- that was Hypnosadist's
prejudicialimposition on my words. I will drop the ethnic part if that will make muster and talk only of 'cleansing wiki' of an zionist perspective if that is better. I tried to put up a screenshot of the group's statement for my talk page User_talk:Dajudem, but it was tagged for speedy deletion by Lawrence Cohen and gone in 5 minutes (+/-). If you would like to see it, let me know. Thanks. Juanita (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) - Yes, clean up the stmt as much as you feel you can and give me link to that item, admins can still look at it, even if it was deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the link to the dif: [17]Juanita (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's much better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Because I believe that the accusations I made about Hypnosadist and Lawrence Cohen deserve some evidence, I put up some evidence at my talk page (bottom) of some of the really uncivil and inciting comments that were made to me here at wiki the first couple days of this investigation. There is plenty more where this came from, unfortunately... Juanita (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Question. I already submitted a long statement on the evidence page. Can I change it, delete some, add some? Juanita (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you can change, add to, edit or delete evidence in your won evidence section. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse i'm leaving this arb, given that gross racist accusations are met with refactor it and its all ok but civil questions mean i am to be admonished for civility issues, i'm leaving before i get in more trouble. The none stop attacks are driving me to distraction, they started the moment Camera was caught and have not stopped for one day since. If you need to ask me a question come to my talk page, if kirill wants admonish me for asking a civil question too many times he may as well do it now, but i never misrepresented wikipolicy. (Hypnosadist) 11:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Question. I already submitted a long statement on the evidence page. Can I change it, delete some, add some? Juanita (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Because I believe that the accusations I made about Hypnosadist and Lawrence Cohen deserve some evidence, I put up some evidence at my talk page (bottom) of some of the really uncivil and inciting comments that were made to me here at wiki the first couple days of this investigation. There is plenty more where this came from, unfortunately... Juanita (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Incivility on Request for Arb page
Hello. I notice that you're trying to maintain a civil atmosphere on the RFA CAMERA page (e.g. [1]). Could you perhaps similarly enjoin Eleland to immediately remove his insulting description of Gni/Ini (in his world they are the same person) as a witch?[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gni (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I pinged him. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Gregory E. Miller (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for adopting me and thanks for being my friend. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
Please take a look at this discussion on my talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Responded there. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Question only you can answer
How do you reference information? When I looked it up on Wikipedia, It didn't make any sence to me. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
- See your UC page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages
Deleting "Template:Scoutlogo" is okay, but you should also delete the talk page, which in this case was also a redir. Talk pages should not be orphaned. Thanks — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't delete Template talk:Scoutlogo because it's linked to from an archived discussion, User talk:Gadget850/Archive 2007#Scoutlogo rationales. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Clerk stuff
On his talk page. Done. Ncmvocalist (talk)
- Yeah, I self-reverted in the same minute I made the edit (it was just for fun).
- At this exact point in time, I'm not sure if I'm in favour of having any official role on Wikipedia, excepting coordinating/maintaining the assessment dept. of a couple of WikiProjects - something I'll be doing a lot more of next month. I'll think about it after that though. Cheers for the info - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Appeal archiving
Hi Rvlevse, thanks for archiving my appeal. Where has it been archived to? And can a clerk note be added citing jpgordon's instructions? I'd like to be able to link to case as closed from my user page. (I've already had one interested user ask me how I know the appeal was rejected.) Thanks in advance.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Made link, answered on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 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) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
RFAR update
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry could you updated RFAR/BC and RFAR/BC_2 block sections? MBisanz talk 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any admin can notate an arb block log. I'll go do these. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Arb clerk
Yes I am! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let me work on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise Rlevse, I'd be delighted to join up as a clerk. Let me know when you've discussed it. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Hey there, I've decided to resume the admin coaching. I'm confident I can juggle all I'm doing at the moment, and do the admin coaching. Is that all OK with you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a question, people, as I told you before, are mentioning an RFA to me, possibly within 2 weeks or so. What do you think of this? As many have offered, I was just wondering if you thought I was ready, or would be nominating. Just wondering :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep working in as much admin stuff and areas as possible. I'll nom if you want. I'd say 3-6 weeks from now if you keep at the current pace. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*Well, we were thinking around 3 weeks or so. I've been trying to answer a question at the help desk, but people keep beating me to it :(. I'll continue at the rate I'm going at the moment, I'd like to write a DYK some time, but with the 24 Project, I've been rather busy. We were thinking around, early June. I'll try answering the remaining questions now. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed my mind, we will make it Feb. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should discuss this on IRC? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
SP
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --evrik (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, User:English Subtitle is a sock of our friend. --evrik (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, if you have any influence with Evrik/South Philly, could you please ask him/them to stop adding sockpuppets and wasting the time of editors who would rather be thinking about Wikipedia articles. [18] betsythedevine (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Request
As the first blocking admin against TTN, can you please consider reviewing the latest block against TTN, per my general request made here? I just don't understand how this action can be sanctioned. How can an admin be justified in imposing a block that is twice the length prescribed by the remedial measures of the arbcom in the first place. And on the flimsiest of "violations" no less that require wikilawyering that would Portia proud. Why have rules if admins can simply deem them optional and be indifferent to remonstration? This, surely, is unacceptable caprice that suits the admins personal views on a contentious issue. Or am I missing something? Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Appears it'll resolve itself, the blocking admin made a proposal and TTN seems to have accepted. Let's let this play out. Let me know if it goes awry. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I posted a note to Vassyana's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Freddy vs. Jason
I think something is technically wrong with the Freddy vs. Jason page. It shows half a paragraph on the viewing page, but on the editing page, everything is in order! In addition, he cast table was suppost to be in the paragraph section, but its at the bottom! I need help and you were the first person I thought of. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
- You're probably viewing a section, not the whole article. Click the edit button on the top row, not an edit button on the right. Move the cast section. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I already tried that. At least 10 times. I don't know what I can do. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) Wait, it's alright again! Gregory E. Miller (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC))
CAMERA lobbying
Thanks for the notice on the workshop page. Might I suggest something similar on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign, which is just as bad? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. There I'd just be regular admin and it's not an arb but on the arb case I have some acutal authority since I'm a clerk. I'll post a note, but even if I protect it, they could go create a new sub page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Understood, but I think it's better coming from someone uninvolved in the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Identity outing in the ArbCom case
Hey there, can you take a look at these edits? One by Oboler and one by Southkept. I realize there's an urge to finger-point at Electronic Intifada and/or wikiforpalestine, and if they have done a wrong equal to Israpedia then by all means drag em before their own ArbCom. But these two users are linking to off-site profiles and such of what is purported to be another user's real-life identity, which seems to be crossing the line. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Southkept [19]
- For Oboler, it is all one big edit. The section I was concerned about is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence#Evidence presented by Oboler, notably the sentence that reads "Evidence that user BangPound is XXX can be seen by googling BangPound and checking pretty much any profile using that username". (XXX is my own-self edit). In that section noted, it contains someone's, presumably Bangpound's, real nameTarc (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- the diff by southkept is dead, so it's a non-issue. I'm cleaning up the rest of this. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, appologies, I did almost post to your talk page to ask first. I figured given the name has been released in the press it wasn't really an outing, but more a verifaction. I did also have ChrisO (one of the admins involved in this) effectively outing me [20] , now I was also ready posting under my own last name and the person I was speaking to (who had attacked me then appologised) was told this by myself in private (seemed the honest thing to do) after he attacked in an unacceptable way and misready what I had written. He's appologised and all is forgiven... but I do wonder if I was wrong here if Chris was not likewise wrong?
- Also, I avoided posting what i put on the evidence page on the web prior to this. If there any reason it can't be put up outside of Wikipedia, given people seem to be questioning it. (I'm assume the answer I get is "none of our business what happens outside of Wikipedia", but if not please let me know) Many thanks and sorry for the trouble. Oboler (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even if it's findable by google or whatever, it's considered contra to wiki policy and spirit to out someone. As for you being outed, it's not obvious as that diff refers to another diff, probably why it wasn't noticed. Since that page is not part of the arb case directly, I don't watch it. You need to report this stuff. I'll ask ChrisO about outing you. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. My ability to communicate is rapidly going down hill (given the lateness of the hour) so appologies that my second paragraph didn't actually make any sense. What I was trying to ask is whether there is any Wikipedia policy that effects what people do outside Wikipedia? Also... when you suggest reporting being outed (I assume I don't need to in this case as you are talking to ChrisO?)... but for future reference, where and how does one report something like this? (That's not an ArbCom case) Many thanks again. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wiki has no control of what people do outside wiki, but if they're abusive and have a wiki account, it is possible for that account to be blocked. As for future outings or whatever, report to an admin you trust or report to WP:ANI and an admin will pick up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was hoping it was a hypothetical, but please see [21] given we've already discussed this and you know what's going on... would you mind? I've given an account of myself there as I think that is the proper thing to do. I would welcome a comment from yourself there. Thank you to the answer to the other question. I believe if something is outside wikipedia's policy (say, if it is original research, thought is clearly not what we are talking about) then even though it can't be on wikipedia, I believe it would be ok outside wikipedia provided it was polite, valid research, and relevant. I think I'll have to take my chance on that... thank you for talking it over with me. And I do appologise for making extra work like this. Oboler (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wiki has no control of what people do outside wiki, but if they're abusive and have a wiki account, it is possible for that account to be blocked. As for future outings or whatever, report to an admin you trust or report to WP:ANI and an admin will pick up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. My ability to communicate is rapidly going down hill (given the lateness of the hour) so appologies that my second paragraph didn't actually make any sense. What I was trying to ask is whether there is any Wikipedia policy that effects what people do outside Wikipedia? Also... when you suggest reporting being outed (I assume I don't need to in this case as you are talking to ChrisO?)... but for future reference, where and how does one report something like this? (That's not an ArbCom case) Many thanks again. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even if it's findable by google or whatever, it's considered contra to wiki policy and spirit to out someone. As for you being outed, it's not obvious as that diff refers to another diff, probably why it wasn't noticed. Since that page is not part of the arb case directly, I don't watch it. You need to report this stuff. I'll ask ChrisO about outing you. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I avoided posting what i put on the evidence page on the web prior to this. If there any reason it can't be put up outside of Wikipedia, given people seem to be questioning it. (I'm assume the answer I get is "none of our business what happens outside of Wikipedia", but if not please let me know) Many thanks and sorry for the trouble. Oboler (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You outed yourself on your own talk page, changes all the rules. You also use your own real name, you may want to change it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There could be two people with my name. There is still a level of outing here and linkage between off Wikipedia and on Wikipedia which seems odd. Also in the last link I gave you it seems to be a complain that is outside of NPOV and more along the lines of witch hunting. Regardless though, I'm for bed. Thank you again for your time. Oboler (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Pagemove protections
It's preemptive protection from User:Grawp pagemoves. He seems to like moving featured geography articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
CC referance
Do not reference to me with my former nick again. It is the number one way to irritate and annoy me. -- Cat chi? 01:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:AE block
I think that it would have been better if you had given a chance for other involved editors to express an opinion about the dispute before blocking User:Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- See [22]] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, I guess I was a bit hasty there. I'll post on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, does this have anything to do with this MedCab case or the related ArbCom case? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Please also note that editors in this dispute are engaged in mediation about these articles with the MedCab Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission, and despite an invitation to User:Francis Schonken (the user that filed the WP:AE request) to join in dispute resolution with other editors,[23] he has not done so, choosing instead to make unilateral edits[[24]] that have not been discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm about to fall asleep. I promise I'll look at all this again in the am. I asked Momento to comment on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Momento was warned at User talk:Momento#Warning and after Francis made his enforcement request I alerted Momento within 10 minutes. Francis' edits were no more "unilateral" then Momento's, and the majority of edits by both parties have been unrelated to the active topics in mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it's poor form to criticize an editor for failing to accept an invitation to join mediation that was extended only six hours earlier. We usually don't hold mediation "against" anyone, and he hasn't answered the invitation one way or another yet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- And, erm, could someone please let me know if they do join the mediation? Would help quite a lot. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about not notifying Momento. I should have, my bad.
Could someone post this on Momento's page?:
- Momento, please lift the prohibition for me to post on your talk page, which you issued several months ago, User talk:Francis Schonken#Invading my space. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've unblocked you. I strongly suggest some sort of WP:DR, such as mediation, on this and related issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse - dispute resolution has already been used - there have been multiple mediations in the past including this editor. The current multi-editor mediation shows little progress in handling a mountain of issues, and the areas this editor has been fighting over aren't even included. The case went to ArbCom who handed it over to admins for enforcement. I think it may be helpful to unarchive the WP:AE request in order to get more input and to review more evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fair. I'll do it now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That'll give Momento a chance to explain himself as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
GJ sockpuppetry case
Just bringing it to your attention. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Greg Jungwirth (2nd) and RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth. treelo talk 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, seeing as this nobody else has touched either case yet I'd like to draw your attention again but this time ask for assistance rather than just notify you of these things. There has been no action on either the SSP case or the RFCU after nearly a week and I'm certain that is much too long for these cases to still be useful in finding these vandals out. Please make some time to check these out. treelo talk 13:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not being a CU, there's nothing I can do about the RFCU. A CU will get to it. As I've been dealing with both you and the alleged sock, I can not act on the case and maintain neutrality. I hope you understand. You can ask someone else to look at it if you want, or wait til someone gets to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dang, neturality! Knew I was missing something with this issue. Thanks for telling me, I've requested someone else go look at it as there's a backlog on SSP which doesn't seem to be moving. treelo talk 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not being a CU, there's nothing I can do about the RFCU. A CU will get to it. As I've been dealing with both you and the alleged sock, I can not act on the case and maintain neutrality. I hope you understand. You can ask someone else to look at it if you want, or wait til someone gets to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
RFAR/Mongo
Could you explain what the result of the clarification is: no action, or defer to community? Sceptre (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, they're leaving the prior decision intact, "It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above)" but whether to create the article (ie, is ED notable) up to the community, and that if one can link to it is dependent on that notability. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Surely that means remedy 1 is still in effect, yes? Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remedy one of the original ruling, yes, I'd say so. ED links removable unless the community decides ED warrants an article, which I personally think it does not warrant one. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you clarify on the talk of the article? Your comment is being interpreted as saying a consensus can overrule the ruling (which, per Jimbo, it cannot) Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remedy one of the original ruling, yes, I'd say so. ED links removable unless the community decides ED warrants an article, which I personally think it does not warrant one. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Surely that means remedy 1 is still in effect, yes? Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So commented. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Personally, it's a whole mess, and I'd really like the arbitrators to decide: "Does remedy #1 apply to the article? y/n" instead of the decisions which for some mean "we won't regulate the content, but nonetheless the remedy sticks" and for others "we won't regulate the content, including a link and/or URL". The same goes for link bans in general, and whether URLs fall under that. Sceptre (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Camp Minsi
FYI. Please see my comments Talk:Camp Minsi#draft. --evrik (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Advice?
Hi Rlevse,
Really sorry to be bothering you again, but things seems to be getting out of hand here [25]
It may be coming to a close now, but if not... what should I do? It seems to be getting more and more personal and I feel I'm being attached by this user every which way, often with statements that are inconsistent with previous statements they made. They also seem to jump back and forth between policies on notability (for a page), reliability (as a source for a link), reasonableness of a link (e.g. citing where you saw something), and finally broadening an attack that started by saying I linked to resources I published too often (3 years ago - and which I've explained) to saying people in general are linking to me more often than the press coverage my site gets would in their opinion warrent. I don't even know where to start with that last one. If people are using my site as a source because it is the best place to find certain information (original research, historical documents, or archives of things no longer available else where, or indeed the place they saw something regardless of whether it is available else where)... I mean what is that supposed to mean? That I'm guilty of not getting enough press? Or they don't like the press references and scholarly references I gave them? Sigh. Sorry for the long rant. This is just very frustrating and I don't know what to do about it. Perhaps if there are further replies I should just not respond... but doesn't that signal I'm accepting what ever they then say as irrefutable fact?
Appologies again, if you would prefer I bothered someone else for advice and would care to recommend someone I'd be happy to do that.
Oboler (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- re on your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you mean [26] rather than my talk? At any rate after posting this turns up [27] I have no objection to the IP check given the other person is not me and in all likelyhood may well be in another country to me. The "evidence" looks like harasment and coming so close after I ask for advice above, perhaps stalking as well. What do I do? Oboler (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it's not you and someone you have no contact with, you have nothing to worry about. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not me and the only contact I have had with this person has been on Wikipedia. I assume the IP Check has been properly requested and will be done... but I don't see where it will turn up? The accusation will remain there on the evidence page (even after its disproved) unless CJCurrie removes it himself I assume? Where does the result of the IP check show up? Unrelated but sorry again about replying within his evidence (making work for yourself) I saw someone else had done it and temporarily forgot the instructions at the top of the page. Sigh. Oboler (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I found this [28] there is a note there asking if this shouldn't be done by a Clerk (which would I guess be yourself?) Sorry! Oboler (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. Seems CJCurrie has now finished removing every link from every article in English Wikipedia to any source at Zionism On The Web. This can't possible be appropriate given the discussion we were having and other people's views on the subject. This coming after his false accusation and usercheck leaves me at a total loss. I stumbled this because I saw [29] via a google alert which makes unfounded generalistic claims of copyright violation then it goes on to call my site a hate site! I'm very careful about copyright and regularly write to people askign for permission to reproduce things. I also have standing permission from a number of academics, research centers and publications. The hate site claim is however totally unbelievable. I noticed the link which shows all references to Zionism On The Web and was interested myself to see how many links there were (as mentioned before I haven't added any in some years). I found there were only links on talk pages... then found it was CJCurrie himself who had taken unilateral action to remove all links despite conversation to the contrary on the admin discussion board. What do I do? This must be a violation not only of harassement of myself but of serrious manipulation of Wikipedia. If he found one or two link that he though shoudl be changed fine, but removing every link under different pretexts.. wow. Does Wikipedia have a way of resolving something like this? Oboler (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You can put this, with diffs, on the evidence page and propose remedies if you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks... I'll do that. It's going to take me a bit of time though as I have real life things to do. And this is frustrating beyond belief. It make the whole wikipedia concept seem perverse, why bother discussing if someone can just take unilateral action? Why bother editing to improve Wikipedia is someone can take a dislike to you (personal or politically - I don't know which it is) and then work to have everything you do removed, not to mention anything anyone else does that would reflect positively on your work (e.g. citing it where appropriate). I think I'm going to go and have a cup of tea and calm down. Thanks for the fast reply. Oboler (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I put it together here (linking to this talk page) [30]
- What a complete waste of a day though. I supose those dealing with vandalism do this all the time. I hope someone considers it. Oboler (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't work. My evidence was at 1000 words before... this new content pushed it well over. Any ideas around this? Explaining the problem and giving the diffs requires space. I've spent 13 hours on this and am not very happy right now. :( Oboler (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Go over 1000 words if you have to, just be as to the point as possible. Arbs hate reading wordy statements. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, The original statement and rebuttle is under 1000, the new request is 1200 but it contains a lot of evidence and could I hope really be considered as a seperate submission. If I spot awat to make it shorter again I will. Thank you again for all the advice. Oboler (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not seeing any evidence that the evidence I added re: CJCurrie trashing wikipedia wih respect to Zionism On The Web is being considered as part of this case. Would you be able to check if the arbitrators are considering it? And if not suggest what course to take? Also I've just flown in to the US... will only have sporadic access. Oboler (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As the case is about to close, not much one can do. You either filed that evidence too late and they didn't bother to look at it or they looked at it and decided not to act on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in science to look this over and advise me on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- re on your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You forgot to actually apply the block
linky. Also, as is traditional with this user, he started a new sock as soon as the old one wasn't useful anymore. This appears to be the latest incarnation. Enigma message 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- link and link. Credit to User:EJF for discovering the latest sock. Enigma message 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for letting me know. I tagged and blocked 92.5.36.7, SimsFan, and King Monty IV. Let me know if there are others. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- another sock. Every time his account gets blocked, he quickly opens another account. Do you think RFCHU is warranted? Enigma message 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for letting me know. I tagged and blocked 92.5.36.7, SimsFan, and King Monty IV. Let me know if there are others. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, file it, and ask for the underlying IP range to be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SimpsonsFan08 Feel free to adjust it if the case can be improved. Enigma message 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close Sumerophile sockpuppet case?
The request was to leave the case open a couple days. This isn't over yet. Although banned for sockpuppetry, the obvious sockpuppetry is still continuing; today's latest incarnation is called "User:Alwaysingoodfaith", not to mention several more 144.* IP's... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The ones in the RFCU were all blocked, no reason to keep the SSP open. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No reason? So I guess the admin politely requesting that it be kept open is "no reason"? I will now have to re-open it, because the socks are coming out on a daily basis... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Open a new case. Adding new socks to existing ones that are blocked already just confuses the case. If there are lots of socks, your best bet is an rfcu as that will find all of them faster anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No reason? So I guess the admin politely requesting that it be kept open is "no reason"? I will now have to re-open it, because the socks are coming out on a daily basis... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why?
I was wondering why you deleted my page "Deez Nuts". It was not created as a joke- if you look it up on google or some other search engine it is a legitimate game that people play (well, not really a game, but that is the closest thing it can be classified as). As I said on the discussion page, I realize that I did not add very much information (I don't have time- I'm actually supposed to be doing my homework right now) but I believe that if given time, others will add to the page. Please reply. Lambchops4dinner (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that- I am new to Wikipedia. But I have to disagree with you. It really is an actually game/ catchphrase. Please see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deez+nutz Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't help but notice, that link says the phrase originated with a 1992 track, but I certainly heard it in the early 80s... ! Sorry for butting in... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I also couldn't help but notice that in the last month alone, another tried to create a Deez Nuts page, but it was deleted. I think this shows that there are people that think the phrase is notable. Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It also shows there are people who think not. If you want it to exist and not get deleted again, you need to write it in a serious fashion, with good refs, layout, etc. You can work on it on a subpage of your userspace if you want and only create it in article space when it's ready. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks. But I failed to copy what I had already written on the page. Is there any way I can get that text back? Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also- how do you make a subpage in your userspace? Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:Lambchops4dinner/Sandbox contains the last version of the file, just put a forward slash in the address after your username and type the name. Don't make any copyvios either. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I answered your question: [31] Cheers,
--Molobo (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
RE:Fair use rationale for Image:Boy and girl scouts in Vietnam.jpg
Thank you for fixing. I have updated the source of the photo. Thanks again.Motthoangwehuong (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! Re. the above editor, mind if I unblock early if I can get an undertaking that he won't continue to revert-war of those articles? - Alison ❤ 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK with me, I see you and others have turned him down ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great - thanks for that! I've left some unblock terms on his talk page, so. If he'll agree, I'll unblock - Alison ❤ 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Committed Identity
Please see your email for my hash string for the commited user feature. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Warned & Molobo
Hello! As you warned me on talk after Molobo brought my name to AN/AE, I urge you to have a look into Molobo's edits that precedes my responses, eg. on Talk:Karkonosze. As he again attacked me on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Digwuren_edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested, I have answered there and requested [32] that he is added to the Digwuren list. -- Matthead Discuß 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
The warning you gave Matthead didn't help. See here [33] Continued remarks for which he was notified not to make:
Personal attacks are continued "your behaviour on Talk:Karkonosze was appalling"
Accusations based on ethnic background: "desperately trying to push his Polish POV" --Molobo (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also here is something I consider rather disruptive:
Changing names of Polish politicians who resisted Germanisation to German version and giving German names to locations in modern Poland:
[34]
I have nothing against giving German names in historical context but giving names to modern locations in Poland seems disruptive.
--Molobo (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Geez, another name battle. I suggest you report all this at ANI or AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I noted this on AE per your instruction. --Molobo (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Question about Arbcom notification
Hi Rlevse, I've posted a question here but I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this request. If this isn't how I should ask about this, could you pass this on to the correct person? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Re there. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
May I request your assistance regarding a notification again?
Hi Rlevse (or whoever reads this),
I'm about to add a subtopic to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Momento edit-warring over criticism section at Prem Rawat. Could someone notify Momento about this? I'm still under an obligation not to post on Momento (talk · contribs)'s talk page, per his request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- My request to Francis was to stop harassing me on my talk page [35]. There has never been prohibition against civil comments. ArbCom notifications are obviously a requirement and he is obliged to send them to me direct.Momento (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Page
Can you please delete this page Burma Aid that I created. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. You really need to stop editing as an IP. Log in every time. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why? 81.86.68.253 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Registered as User Tyw7 Tyw7's Talk
- So people know who you are, you don't look like a WP:SOCK, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why? 81.86.68.253 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Registered as User Tyw7 Tyw7's Talk
- Done. You really need to stop editing as an IP. Log in every time. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fnagaton/DavidPaulHamilton is a tough case that's been waiting a few weeks and is a flash-point in a policy dispute. I can't firmly determine it either way. Could you please take a look?
Also, you emailed me a week ago about another case. Sorry I didn't respond. Do you still need my help, or can you manage it by yourself? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- What was the other case? I don't remember. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki and the one it was in retaliation for. You wanted me to do a checkuser, and I never got around to it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I closed Iwazaki but on the other one we're waiting on a CU (at the bottom of the list). — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm back from holiday now and I justed wanted to drop you a line to say that I have not been using any sock in the first place so your warning is misplaced. I've actually been severaly limited in my use of the internet for the past several weeks. Fnagaton 17:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I closed Iwazaki but on the other one we're waiting on a CU (at the bottom of the list). — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki and the one it was in retaliation for. You wanted me to do a checkuser, and I never got around to it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I Seek Your Advice about Suspected Sock Puppetry
Hello--I was referred to you by user MBisanz. Recently I was engaged in a rather contentious exchange with another user (a new experience for me, a relatively new Wikipedian). Responding in frustration to what I felt was a series of summary deletions of minor edits of mine, done without (I believed) sufficient explanation, I made identical reversions under both my username and my IP address to give my point added weight. I knew what I was doing was rather unseemly, but I wasn't aware it violated Wikipedia policy. I make no excuses, but I want to know if there is some sort of "statute of limitations" or expiration date for my status as "suspected sock puppeteer." Is there a time when the SSP template is removed from the user page and relegated to the archive if there is no similar activity and the user maintains good standing? I have learned a lesson and would like to make an effort to restore my user presence to that of a good-faith Wikipedian. Thank you very much in advance for your view. Sincerely, Lantana11 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (IP Address 67.180.135.133)
- Yea, I couldn't make heads or tails of the matter Rlevse and figured you knew SSP protocol. MBisanz talk 06:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Lantana11, sorry to butt in here, but I removed the SSP tag from Lantana11's user page. Wikipedia does not require that editors wear a scarlet letter forever. Unless there is an active case at WP:SSP or you or sitting out a block for sockpuppetry, you can remove the tag (some would dispute even this much). You may also delete (or preferably, archive) talk page comments as you feel necessary from your own talk page (be nice about it in the edit summary -or at the very least not snide or offensive). For the sake of transparency, and to gain the trust of your fellow editors, I recommend archiving --if there is something on your talk page you don't want to see (for anything other than blatant vandalism or clear personal attacks). Your user pages have been added to my watchlist, but even so, let me know (by leaving a note at my talk page) if you need help with anything. R. Baley (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- R.Baley is correct, you are not required to wear the scarlet letter forever, esp if you have admitted the error of your ways and are trying to reform UNLESS you are indef blocked, then I'd say it needs to stay. Let me know if you have more questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!
Rlevse, I appreciate your response to my question regarding SSP. I am very grateful to you and the other experienced users who collaborated in reviewing my situation. It is very encouraging to find out the extent to which Wikipedians quickly and efficiently communicate with one another to offer advice and support. I wish you all the best, and perhaps we will be communicating again in the future. Sincerely, Lantana11 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Blank
Could you blank this userpage's history. The owner is claiming to be 11 years old and has stated his own location by stating his school. this dif shows that claim. I was going to suggest the user change his username as well. But as long as he does not post his location I see no problem with it right now. I only ask because I know you are online and I see a faster less public response from directly asking an admin. Rgoodermote 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Word of caution
While I appreciate you closing this trolling AE thread (I asked for it to be closed as soon as it appeared, predicting it would lead only to flaming), I believe you should chose your words more carefully. Yes, several trolls and disruptive editors participated in this thread, but so did well meaning, respected editors, and one could think that you referred to all who commented there (including myself) as "the whole sorry pack of you EE flamewarriors" - which I am sure was not your intention, but some could misinterpret it or try to complain about you being incivil (and start to harass you). I've seen this before :( For such cases, of course, WP:REFACTOR is our friend :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, and if you look in the other thread, it's almost a quote from Moreschi. People are really fed up with disruptive editors, whether they are from East Europe, the Mid East, or wherever. Let Moreschi or I know when the problems continue, because I'm sure they will. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete page
Can you please delete this page User:Tyw7/Offline that I created. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Help!
How to write texts that line up on the right of the page instead of the left?
Like this.
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Put colons in front of it. More ::: = bigger indent. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Try the help desk too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom Clerk Trainee
Daniel has told me on IRC about his upcoming inactivity on AC/C. I'd be glad to be your clerk trainee. What will our mode of communication be? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I check wiki (my talk page or WP:AC/C/N depending on the issue and email often. When we're actally doing stuff live, IRC is handy. Test out the clerk channel if you haven't already. For both you and Ryan we need a case to open or close. No new ones on the horizon but 3 are getting close to closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Back yet again as Cowboycaleb2010. Block please (note, he may be blocked by the time you see this). I think that's about 10/12 socks in the space of a week. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
With regards
To our last discussion, please check this out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Camera lobbying decision writeup
The report of the ArbCom decision says that sanctions imposed by two admins are confirmed, but doesn't identify the editors sanctioned. Referring readers to the block log of two busy admins creates an ambiguity which may be a problem at a future date. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Warning
Sorry, but... you just passed through my talk page and decided to warn me??? Say, if I don't know what I did wrong, how I can prevent it from happening again? I checked all the articles I edited in the last week, and the very few of my edits that were overturned, were so by a guy who doesn't like me, my conationals and my country, and follows me around (I ignored unidentifiable IPs). So... ???Xasha (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Contribs tell the story. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry - I missed that part in my haste to file the report, but will proceed correctly in the future. Biruitorul Talk 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very confused. I really can't see how that applies, except the "working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined", of course. Could you show me one of those edits?Xasha (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so now I'm even more baffled. Is sarcasm considered "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"? Cause this is really... strange (yeah, not as disturbing as seeing that what was supposed to be only an irony proved to be quite an accurate description of that guys view [36], but still). Xasha (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very confused. I really can't see how that applies, except the "working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined", of course. Could you show me one of those edits?Xasha (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this user: now I've been called an "ethno-fascist" for a comment that was a) civil and b) not even addressed to him. Biruitorul Talk 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Update - he's changed it to "ethno-rascist (reminiscent of interwar fascists)". Are you the person I should be notifying now? It seems rather too soon to open another Arbitration Enforcement section. Biruitorul Talk 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- 24 hour block. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
JCC friends/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam
Perhaps I am misunderstanding things here, or perhaps I am not showing enough good faith however.. Isn't this the second time that he has requested an account to be closed due to his claim that he made his password available to other people?
the first account being here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=FayssalF&page=User%3ARajsingam
I apologise for my total lack off good faith and tact, but considering the self promotion and the accusations of sock puppetry, this smells of bullshit to me, he is claiming to have given his password out twice?!?
Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
now I feel the need to clarify things a little, was JCC claiming that his Rajkumar_Kanagasingam account was compromised? or just the original account that I linked to? Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The RK account was compromised. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Koalorka
Mathsci recently brought this to my attention.[37] I'm thinking that it would probably be appropriate to put Koalorka under editing restrictions, but I'm not sure which one is most appropriate for Turkey. Digwuren? Or is there another one that's more pertinent? Or would you recommend something more immediate? Right now I'm suggesting that Mathsci file an RfC/U, but there may be enough for more immediate action. What do you think? Thanks, Elonka 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- researching — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is probably most applicable, as it specifically mentions it applies to Turkey, A-A and Digwuren are possible too, but I'd say add him to the A-A 2 restrictions/remedies. A lot of that evidence page you link to would fall under general remedies such as 3RR and NPA. Tell him that too and let him know you're drawing a firm line. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was looking at the AA-2 page, which appears to have been amended, which is fine, but, um, I noticed that in the amended remedy, it doesn't actually say what the affected topic areas are, heh. Do you think it would be alright to add "relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" to the amendment? That way it would be easier to link to people on their talkpages, like I could say, "If there are any further problems, you will be placed under restrictions, see (link)." I'm thinking of giving this warning both to Koalorka, and also to Mathsci (who keeps accusing Koalorka of vandalism despite repeated requests to stop). Then if they moderate their own behavior, great, and if not, then they'd go on The List. --Elonka 06:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- While the amendment doesn't mention countries, it's still a remedy for that region. Do not edit the case page, but I think it's okay for you to put that in your post on the user's talk page. I think your statement is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) Also, just FYI, I put a general notice at Talk:European ethnic groups#Tone of the discussions, reminding everyone that the article falls within the scope of the AA-2 case. Hopefully that will be all that's needed, but if there are further problems, I'll followup with notices to individual editors. I'm pretty familiar with Digwuren, but not AA-2, so if you have any advice on how I'm handling things (or want to place any restrictions of your own), please feel free to speak up. :) --Elonka 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- These difficult editors only seem to understand firmness, so be polite and don't be afraid to use your big stick. If you need someone else to chime in somewhere, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) Also, just FYI, I put a general notice at Talk:European ethnic groups#Tone of the discussions, reminding everyone that the article falls within the scope of the AA-2 case. Hopefully that will be all that's needed, but if there are further problems, I'll followup with notices to individual editors. I'm pretty familiar with Digwuren, but not AA-2, so if you have any advice on how I'm handling things (or want to place any restrictions of your own), please feel free to speak up. :) --Elonka 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- While the amendment doesn't mention countries, it's still a remedy for that region. Do not edit the case page, but I think it's okay for you to put that in your post on the user's talk page. I think your statement is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I take it you speak Macedonian or at least understand a little? At first I was just going to delete your comment, but on second thoughts I think I'll keep it. =) --Hegumen (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I speak some Russian, so the alphabet and language are familiar enough to me that I can figure certain things out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, now I've found the page where Laveol tattled. --Hegumen (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And my knowledge Russian allowed me to tell he's probably correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
cleaning after a sock that you blocked
I went thought the contribs of User:Nina Van Horn, one of the socks listed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jvolkblum_(8th) and I cleaned the mess that he made with the references, and I also cleaned New Rochelle, New York from sock edits, restoring only the information that looked like worth preserving --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
the saga continues
I got this message on my talk page, talking about restoring facts that got lost during sock reversals. The changes suggested look like good faith improvements.
However, his first edit was creating a copy of the MOS on his user page, this edit summary is similar the edit summaries from EarthCleaner, he made three edits to Wykagyl, New York, and between his second and third edit there is an edit that restores images from EarthCleaner that happens to be from a IP used by banned user Jvolkblum, see proof.
Can you check with this user and see if he has learnt from past blocks and if he is ready to abide by the rules this time?. Meanwhile, I'll review his suggested changes and insert those that I think that actually improve the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- he's a sock of BANNED Jvolkblum and I've blocked him. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your error
I think your ban or block or whatever you call of user Xasha is unjustified. She/he has very truly characterized the person with a fully appropriate description. I feel bad that you, in your quality of administrator, failed to look deeper into the matter and read everything in its context. Otherwise we don't need administrators, a stupid robot could do it as well.--Moldopodo (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. And your equating me to a robot is an uncalled for personal attack. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 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) 07:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching status
Greetings, Rlevse. :) I have a question about your admin coaching; are you currently available to coach an unmatched coachee? No one seems to be available and there appears to be no status shown on the Coach status page for you, so I was wondering about the possibility of you coaching me. Would you be interested?
Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC).
- One do one person at a time, but he's going to do an RFA soon and your userpage intrigues me. So yes, I will take you on now if you want. Click here: User:Mizu onna sango15/AC and answer as many questions as you can. If you haven't been working in admin areas, you need to start as that's a defacto requirement now (though it was not back when I became an admin). — Rlevse • Talk • 10:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Rlevse. Off to answer the questions... Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Co-nomination?
A few months back, you offered to nominate me for adminship. Well after completing admin coaching in February under the watchful eye of Acalamari, I decided that June would be a good time to run. As far as I know, Acalamari is going to write up a nomination today for the Rfa to go live possibly tomorrow and so I was wondering if you would still be willing to add a co-nomination. Now there could be another co-nom from Nishkid64 but I'm currently waiting for their response. Anyway let me know if you're up for it :) AngelOfSadness talk 13:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I'll co-nom. Glad you're there now. Let me know as soon as the nom is up. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great stuff and I will do :) AngelOfSadness talk 14:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do remember that offer and I'm glad you remembered. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I remembered as you were the first admin to ask me and that kind of thing isn't easily forgotten :) AngelOfSadness talk 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do remember that offer and I'm glad you remembered. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great stuff and I will do :) AngelOfSadness talk 14:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- For your information: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AngelOfSadness is now a bluelink. Acalamari 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As we are there, please have a look at the editing history of the article, and namely on the comments left. Interesting, would you find a personal attack against me there or no? Also, User:Dahn's contributions are sometimes fake and supporting a strong POV, please just read the comments in the editing history--Moldopodo (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, yesterday you liken me to a "a stupid robot" and now you want me to help you, but okay, I'll try to. His comments about nonsense concern me. As for your other concerns, please provide diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some of the most interesting diffs:[38], [39], [40].... also
-(cur) (last) 20:43, 29 May 2008 Dahn (Talk | contribs) (16,913 bytes) (huh? it's the goddamn name of the page (used on all other categories), and is not a list of leaders of Moldova) (undo), and
-(cur) (last) 14:29, 28 May 2008 Dahn (Talk | contribs) (16,829 bytes) (Moledopolo, please don't add arguments from ignorance to wikipedia - you clearly have no idea that: a. Moldavia was a polity before being a principlaity; b. Romania was a state before independence) (undo)--Moldopodo (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)- He's now under Digwuren restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some of the most interesting diffs:[38], [39], [40].... also
So it functions both as Scouting and a military unit? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I recall, you proposed a split of this article. It's one or the other, I doubt it was both. Maybe we should remove it from our project totally. But then it is rather unique. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It had to be done
[41] ;) Anthøny 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, as you did the latest warning: [42]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Talk redirs
Hi there. Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you – I was distracted.
So... I was browsin' the 'pedia recently and I came across User:Jpgordon's user page, which had an interesting quote on it from User:Tony Sidaway. It read, "Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering." It's a loose "translation" of Hillel's Golden Rule, and it struck me as the way that I (try) to contribute to this project. I do a lot of deletions, but with every one of them, my goal is to do no harm. Deleting talk page redirects that have no incoming links and have only one revision, in my opinion, does no harm. I apologize for any inconvenience my deletions may have caused you. I personally filtered the list to ensure that I didn't hit the Scouting project pages that you had restored previously. Seems I missed a template though. My apologies for that as well.
I hope you're enjoying the summer and that all is well. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- See your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is an incorrect assumption. Redirects serve at least three purposes other than page renames and incoming wikilinks: Incoming links from outside of Wikipedia, users who type in XYZ in the search box on the left side of the screen and click "Go," and users who type in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ in their web browsers. Before deleting any redirect, you need to ask yourself if any of these three things are plausible. If they are even remotely plausible, and there isn't another good reason to delete that particular redirect, such as to create a disambig page or make way for a page move, then do no harm and discuss it before deleting it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) note: above discussion expanded on and continued on MZMbride's talk page davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't delete anything, it's MZMcBride doing the deleting. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Err... whoops. I pointed him to my post here so I wouldn't have to regurgitate myself. davidwr: Please come to my talk page if you'd like to discuss this. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it's straightened out now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Err... whoops. I pointed him to my post here so I wouldn't have to regurgitate myself. davidwr: Please come to my talk page if you'd like to discuss this. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
RE: Your message
Hello Rlevse. No it really is meant to be take contact, I could change it to something like "talk" instead, if that sounds better. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Take Contact 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't understand that, then it's better to update the signature. I hope you understand it now, does it look good now? --Kanonkas : Talk 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Rlevse but I can't answer your coaching questions now because I'll be gone in around 1 week. Hope you understand. Hope you can help me with article writing too. Best regads, --Kanonkas : Talk 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Assistance and a second set of eyes
I've probably got myself into another debate here that isn't worth my time, but please review my edits and my discussions at Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft. I am quite knowledgeable on this region and I tried to update the wikilinks while clarifying the historical context. The user Jergen reverted the edits, made nonsense claims in the talk section, and stated that since the article is about a German scouting group, that the terms should be in German (!?!). My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that we update wikilinks and always maintain English usage. Anyway, I don't want an edit war, I hope we can have some simple discussions on the talk page. If I'm wrong about something I'm happy to hear it and be corrected (hopefully with logic :). I personally thought I did a good job at updating the links and also clarifying a bit why the certain terms are used and also that the province of Bolzano/Bozen is part of the southern area of the historical count of Tyrol. Alto Adige and especially South Tyrol are more recent colloquial terms. cheers, Icsunonove (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Jergen is very pro-German language, it's caused issues before. I'll take a look. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Well, I think it is no problem to compromise if it makes him relax. I really tried my best to have the historical facts be correct and enrich the article. In fact, I tried to make all the cities listed (with updated wikilinks) but including both Italian and German names -- just in case anyone got bent out of shape. But, I disagree with him reverting my edits and just blowing them off with saying that this is a German group, so German should be used. I guess I don't see why someone needs to do that, the German language is doing just fine. :] He didn't even respond to the points I made in the discussion! LOL. Icsunonove (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
invitation
and thank you very much for the invitation as well! i need to update my main page on current projects.
I'm here!
If you on, can we talk, here? Thanks, Dusticomplain/compliment 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please follow up on this SSP. Note that you closed a previous SSP, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar, involving one of the users accused here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I copy this from my talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we block the sock to discourage this behavior. The sock has not been used since the case was raised, which strongly implies that there's not a real person who has been unjustly accused. David Justin should continue to edit under his own name. (I think it's unlikely that David Justin has forgotten how to sign in. You'll see here that he stopped editing under his own name on 27 April 2006 and resumed again on 6 March 2007 without a problem. A checkuser on the sock could be compared with the earlier Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin might yield some interesting results. Spiro Keats (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll send this to User talk:Rlevse. He's the administrator I consult when I can't handle a situation on my own. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As you took care of this before, User:LN SUX seems to be another sock. Two edits, and same MO (plus the account name tends to give it away). Aboutmovies (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I tagged him and someone already blocked him for a username vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Technical questions
I have a couple of questions:
Aren't ArbCom votes straight majority? For example, if something passes 4 to 3 or 5 to 4, does that mean the thing passes? I note that it says "Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote" here, but would like your word on it.
And second question:
How long does an ArbCom sanction last? Are they all only for one year or something, in such cases as a time limit is not specified?
It would help if you responded on my own talk page. Thanks (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
May I send you a question by email then?
Wait a sec, I think I figured it out. Looked like something different than it was- they simply neglected to vote either yes or no, so a majority was not reached on a decision. Sorry to bother you. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This one should be easy. Just block NintendoDSKing and close it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oingoboing69: it's basically stale, but for the sake of thoroughness you should block all the accounts and close that case too. As I wrote there, it's obvious. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
re User:Xasha / Arb logs
Thank you - I knew there was something I had forgotten. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I contact you as the first person I recognized who has unblocked Vintagekits in the past. Perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with this user about fulfilling the terms of his block. It sure seems like he's been getting it on with User:84.67.217.88 (undoubtably someone's sockpuppet). On second thought, if it's a puppet, perhaps it ought to be blocked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Pls provide diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- [43] [44] [45] (last diff self-reverted). These vaguely have to do with the Irish-British issues: Talk:Wayne_McCullough#Nationality. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I queried him on that nationality thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
I'm not sure, but in case you haven't seen, could you have a look at this?. Thanks a lot. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
MfD for Haseldine Talk Archive
If you have a min, would you mind closing the following case [46] - the last Admin requested to do so has now voted on the case, so can no longer action it. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I changed my vote, but when the edit saved you had already closed it. Anyway I agree that the deletion was reasonable. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking positive action here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion on this IFD
Hi R, I wonder if you'd care to comment at WP:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 3#Image:Donald G Barnhouse.jpg, perchance? I'd be interested in your views on NFCC in this instance. Regards, JGHowes talk - 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- My guess is that this is just a part of the cover as it only shows this person, not the whole cover. You may simply be able to change the FUR tag to a non-magazine cover one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this, you're right. I cropped it from the full cover, so I suppose {{fairusein}} might be appropriate if it looks like the IFD will prevail. Or maybe the full magazine cover is preferable when a {{Non-free magazine cover}} license is being used. JGHowes talk - 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say FU it and just use the magazine as a source. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see
here. Moreschi's page is long, and I'm not sure how soon it'll be looked into. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Moreshci blocked Molopdopo 48 hours on June 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. If I may discuss that Wikiquette Alert with you a bit - so, I know my recent complaints must be getting tiring, and exhausting people's patience is the last thing I want to do. I'm not seeking retribution against Moldopodo; all I'd like is a civil editing environment where some basic standards are adhered to. That means no personal attacks, a rule he has (in my view) clearly violated. I don't want to go to Arbitration Enforcement again; I don't want to seem like a serial litigator or someone out on a crusade. At the same time, I do want it impressed upon Moldopodo in no uncertain terms that his language is unacceptable. So what do you suggest would be a reasonable way forward, both to end the attacks and not have this escalate? Biruitorul Talk 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- If he won't change, continues to be uncivil, etc, your choices are WP:AE or an RFC on user conduct. If you do nothing, he'll never change. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the nom: WP:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on June 4, but I'm not entirely happy with the hook; improvement is welcome. JGHowes talk - 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- And that he was also a prolific writing of magazine articles for the Boy Scouts of America? Was Peterson black or white? PS, what do you think of the BSA article status? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- A good suggestion, I've amended the hook. Peterson was white. His photo appears in the New York Times obituary, which is cited as a source in the article. I'm about to add some oft-delayed content to the BSA article and then it should be ready for FAC. JGHowes talk - 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a hoax and someone tagged it CSD-A7, actually it's CSD-A3. I was going to put a uw-hoax warning on Kcn1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Talk page, but was waiting for the article to be deleted first. Would you delete, please? IP68.244.149.193 is undoubtedly a sock of his.JGHowes talk - 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Gone. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: clerk tasks
Ah, I wasn't aware that simple act too was steeped in bureaucratic methods. Thanks for the note, anyway. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Scout images
I saw you earlier working around with the "new" {{Non-free Scout logo}} that is replacing {{|Non-free Scoutlogo}}. Its a thing to make all Non-free image tags machine readable by transclusion, and you don't need to waste valuable editing time running through AWB with them, MBisanzBot, will in a couple days, we running through all the changes at User:MBisanz/BotR per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 3 and doing all the name changes. Figured I'd save you a couple thousand clicks at AWB. MBisanz talk 08:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- OH, ok, I don't mind actually, but I'll let you do it--most of them anyway;-). Let me know when it's done. I figured out why the change was made. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
jergen
You'll have to figure out what that dude is up to. He went back and even renamed links from Bolzano (Bozen) to Bozen (Bolzano). o_O Icsunonove (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see a lot of your points, but it'll probably take steps in WP:DR to settle this. The question is, are you willing to go through those steps? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, lets give it one more shot to see if he can just discuss things amongst fellow editors in a relaxed environment. I tried to ask him on the talk page what specific info he feels might be missing. However, if all he wants to do is revert wikilink corrections and pursue the use of the German language on English Wikipedia -- well, I guess we have to ask someone to intervene then (and yes, I will help support that). Or we go to German Wikipedia, start and edit war, and fix their spelling of Californien! just kidding. later, Icsunonove (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Back after a few days, and I see the discussion is raging in all new directions. :-) At this point I think it is beyond anything what is on scouting pages, and should almost be taken offline (e-mail, phone, telegraph?). LOL! I don't think it is necessary to go to WP:DR though, it just seems a bit frivolous now... At least the Lakers won. :) Icsunonove (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, lets give it one more shot to see if he can just discuss things amongst fellow editors in a relaxed environment. I tried to ask him on the talk page what specific info he feels might be missing. However, if all he wants to do is revert wikilink corrections and pursue the use of the German language on English Wikipedia -- well, I guess we have to ask someone to intervene then (and yes, I will help support that). Or we go to German Wikipedia, start and edit war, and fix their spelling of Californien! just kidding. later, Icsunonove (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand Icsunonove's problem. All place names in Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft follow now the rules on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (with the possible exception of Merano/Meran, but there seems to be no definitive rule for this town) - and now he wants them to follow his own inofficial rules. He removes content randomly and without explanation from the article - even if it is non-disputed [47], does not understand the usage of infoboxes [48] ("headquarter" instead of the correct variable "headquarters"), inserts a category that should not be used [49], ...
- Nearly every edit by Icsunonove is questionable, mainly because he does not explain them, does not follow the rules and manuals of style or shows poor knowledge of wiki-syntax. --jergen (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- You both explain your edits but don't agree. I hope you can work this out. To me, this looks like another "what language do we use" dispute that I've seen so often in central and east Europe, like the German-Polish debates, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm asking our project mediator to step in. User:Bduke. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that is a good idea. Can just have him decide what to do. I just think we should use English and also be factually correct with statements. If they want to move the Italian scout org to Italian, then sure, change the links. But I personally feel trying to use English on en.wikipedia really helps our readers, but that is just me. :) I indeed have seen a very strong push by German-speaking editors to cement their language as the way to call places they are familiar with. Seems a bit boring, but, whatever. :) talk to you later, Icsunonove (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm asking our project mediator to step in. User:Bduke. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 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) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom log reversion
Just letting you know that someone partially reverted another editor's notation to the log for the Palestine-Israel case [50]. Perhaps the reversion was proper, but just letting you know about it in case it wasn't. Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I saw that and have been watching since earlier today. It has gotten worse and now has ANI, so I'll follow that. Right now I'd say that since hasn't edited the article it self since prior to the arb case, it appears Kelly is wrong here. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to say this, but I think for once we can say that it has actually been protected in the wrong version. The AN/I consensus is clear that SlimVirgin shouldn't have been added to the notification log, and that Kelly was in the wrong, yet now SlimVirgin is on the list - it's a small black mark on the editor, and suggests she's been undertaking disruptive editing on the page, which is obviously false. I'd appreciate it if you could remove the name, until someone comes up with one diff that shows SV disruptively editing a Palestine-Israeli article. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, the wrong version is in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
|
){kind=link}
WikiProject Good articles newsletter
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Appeal to dignity
Considering this in the view ofthis, shouldn't you block yourself?Xasha (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, I'd rather give him an award. MBisanz talk 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Forgot that moral sense and "law is equal for everybody" don't work on Wikipedia.Xasha (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- So, could we hear a motivation? Or admin responsibility doesn't work here either?Xasha (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did was warn you pursuant to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive22#User:Xasha. Someone else blocked you, not me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes you didn't, but you noted the block in the log with a personal motivation, not consistent with that given by the blocker. A motivation that goes against what you were preaching to me earlier. Xasha (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did was warn you pursuant to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive22#User:Xasha. Someone else blocked you, not me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I changed that entry just now to say incivility which is what LHvu wrote, so it matches now. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.Xasha (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Help needed
Can you please take a look at this incident. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done by MBisanz. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rlevse, this article made DYK yesterday. In case you missed it on the Main Page, here is the final version as it appeared there. JGHowes talk - 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- darn, I missed it. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Software
|
Hello Rlevse. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==.
Thanks, |
RealtyOnlineAdvertising
Only because there are no edits yet. If there aren't any within a few hours, move it to the holding pen; if he never edits, let it eventually be deleted as inactive. For the sake of good faith (we've had a couple recently that look promotional but aren't editing that way).
Thanks for the offer, but I'll get around to doing it myself soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Treasury Tag
Hi Rlevse. Back in November you placed Rambutan / Porcupine / Treasury Tag on a probation strictly limiting him to one account. He's asked on WP:AN if he can create a second account to edit from public computers (link). My initial opinion is that would be okay, providing his userpage clearly identifies the second account, and the second account is clearly linked to the main, but as you imposed the probation, I thought your view would be appreciated. Neıl 龱 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Previously blocked sock-farmer
Hi, you may want to look at this. So far the individual doesn't seem to have blotted their copybook - but then this request. I thought I'd give you a heads up, as a previously involved admin. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- This user has dozens of socks, for the current one, check his deleted contribs, he's gone Mischievous again, given that and his history, I'm blocking. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Block evasion of 60.42.252.111
Hi, Rlevse, I have a difficult time dealing with an evasive sock. 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs) was blocked for his 5RR violation on Comfort women the day before yesterday and 11RR violation on the same article today. However, the anon appears as another dynamic IP 222.150.193.35 (talk · contribs). His massive deletion without consensus does not understand many people except the anon him/herself.
- WP:AN3#User:60.42.252.205 reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)
- WP:AN3#User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: 24 hours for reported user and reporting IP)
- WP:AN3#User:60.42.252.111 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours - please see report above)
Can you block the sock ip and extend the block duration? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll get someone to range block, I'm not good at this field. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I blocked range 60.42.252.0/24 anon-only for 31 hours, this could affect up to 256 users. Dreadstar † 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you also take a look at Documentingabuse (talk · contribs)? He filed WP:SSP[51] on me and others because more than 4 people are against his disruption. We're accused of doing meatpuppetry, and I'm the meatpuppeter because I filed one of his abusive 11RR violation. :D --17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked him indef and had already blocked the IP his user page redirs to, 207.112.75.189, as earlier today he made a death threat on the footnotes RFAR page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I stuck my nose in this one too and removed the redirect to the IP address and protected the user pages forr Documentingabuse. If this was incorrect, then please revert away! Dreadstar † 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked him indef and had already blocked the IP his user page redirs to, 207.112.75.189, as earlier today he made a death threat on the footnotes RFAR page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you also take a look at Documentingabuse (talk · contribs)? He filed WP:SSP[51] on me and others because more than 4 people are against his disruption. We're accused of doing meatpuppetry, and I'm the meatpuppeter because I filed one of his abusive 11RR violation. :D --17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note-Kirill and I think these three I blocked are Davkal socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Thank you for clearing up all mess caused by the sockuppeter. I hereby award this barnstar for your outstanding work. With you, Wikipedia has been improved. ^_^ Caspian blue (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
Request for check up
Rlevse, I believe you have done a mistake with me. I am user:Marygiove. Please can you do a check up of my IP and that of user:Brunodam and user:Giovanni Giove? You'll see that we are living in different areas, and hopefully all this mess will be solved. It seems to me that a group of Croatian is doing everything they can to ban we Italians with roots in Dalmatia and Istria. Look what they are doing to user:Luigi 28, who is continuously harrassed with the acusation of being user:PIO. If Luigi will "explode" and write something wrong against some admins, he will do the end of Giovanni Giove, Pio and others who have been banned: this is the tactic of these Croatian guys. And even in this case a simple check up will show that Pio and Luigi live in different areas of Italy and cannot be the same person. Help me please (I know you are very busy, and I will not bother you anymore). Thanks anyway. Maria Gioveanna S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.106 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, it is me again. I forgot to tell you that I use to post from a public library and/or from Apple store in the greater Miami area where I live. There are others who post with the computers of the same public library and apple store, so if you wish I can give you my full name with my address and phone. Thanks again for your patience and understanding. Marygiove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.106 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not a CU. I can not check all those accounts that way. Since Marygiove is blocked (by Moreschi, not me), and you're still editing, you're obviously on a different IP now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you the same. You are very kind answering my question. I hope some admin will help and look at my case (that is similar to the one with the accusation against user:luigi 28 here: [52], done by the same fanatic Croats ). Anyway, I have just written to user:Brunodam for the CU. Marygiove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.151.45 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not a CU. I can not check all those accounts that way. Since Marygiove is blocked (by Moreschi, not me), and you're still editing, you're obviously on a different IP now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Vintagekits again
Another direct violation of conditions: [53] (#8). I am not simply going by the letter of the rule - I am ignoring another violation if only by letter - however, he has actually reinserted himself into the dispute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- More detail. He violated just what and how. This is an edit to a talk page. I assume this has to do with "The Troubles" case. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe you can see the conditions of his unblock on his userpage, which states he can't edit Wikipedia in any way dealing with the Troubles, including talk pages. You can read the current conversation, and see it was clearly VK inserting himself into a content dispute. From the diff, you can see the Troubles are explicitly mentioned. what you do with this information is your judgment call, I guess: I don't want to be the bad guy out there. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 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) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Block of Blueshirts
Hi. Would you agree to an unblock of Blueshirts (talk · contribs) for the reasons enunciated at the bottom of his or her talk page? Sandstein 07:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done` — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is very bad form to reverse a block without attempting to communicate with the blocking admin. Also, edit warring is not the appropriate way to deal with a sockpuppet, unless they are vandalising. Using sockpuppets to engage in an edit war is not vandalism, it is sockpuppetry. Please consider discussing with the blocking admin before you next unblock somebody. TigerShark (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why didn't you ask me about it before you blocked him? I'm the one who handled the SSP case and blocked the socks. Fighting a combined sock attack is not the same as edit warring. If I felt there was justification to block Blueshirts, I'd have done it then. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, edit warring is not the way to deal with sockpuppetry. If socks are being used to avoid 3RR then they can be blocked of course, and if their edits are simple vandalism they can be reverted multiple times, but that does not mean that another user can violate 3RR when warring against socks. You need to consult an admin when you are undoing an administrative action. I did not undo any actions you performed, you undid one of mine. Please consult in future. TigerShark (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not blocking him was a decision which you overturned. I had already looked at this. You need to look over the exceptions to edit warring. Not to mention two separate people asked me to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't reverse an action you didn't take. Even if I had actually reverted an action, that is no justification for you to do so. The only justification that you have given for choosing not to contact me is that I made a decision that didn't agree with a previous decision you had made. If you can justify not discussing the unblocking with me, please do so. As for looking over the exceptions, perhaps you could do so and indicate exactly which one you think applies. So that is two requests, firstly justify reversing my action without discussing with me and, secondly, tell me exactly the exception(s) you used to justify the reverts. TigerShark (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not blocking him was a decision which you overturned. I had already looked at this. You need to look over the exceptions to edit warring. Not to mention two separate people asked me to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, edit warring is not the way to deal with sockpuppetry. If socks are being used to avoid 3RR then they can be blocked of course, and if their edits are simple vandalism they can be reverted multiple times, but that does not mean that another user can violate 3RR when warring against socks. You need to consult an admin when you are undoing an administrative action. I did not undo any actions you performed, you undid one of mine. Please consult in future. TigerShark (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why didn't you ask me about it before you blocked him? I'm the one who handled the SSP case and blocked the socks. Fighting a combined sock attack is not the same as edit warring. If I felt there was justification to block Blueshirts, I'd have done it then. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- (Same statement as at TigerShark's talk page)I think there is some misunderstanding regarding Blueshirt's unblock between administrators. Rlevse took a look at the sockpuppeter's block evasion and bogus SSP report per my request. I of course came to you first, because you blocked the two at the first place but you were inactive for a while, so I went to Rlevse because he was active at that time. I guess Sandstein who asked Rlevse to consider unblocking Blueshirts seemed to think of Rlevse being the blocking admin. I hope everything would be settled down.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is very bad form to reverse a block without attempting to communicate with the blocking admin. Also, edit warring is not the appropriate way to deal with a sockpuppet, unless they are vandalising. Using sockpuppets to engage in an edit war is not vandalism, it is sockpuppetry. Please consider discussing with the blocking admin before you next unblock somebody. TigerShark (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I may be partly to blame; I mistakenly thought Rlevse was the blocking admin. That's why I contacted him with the above message instead of TigerShark. Sorry. Sandstein 15:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for advice
May I ask your advice on how to deal with a conflict? An editor has placed this message on my talk page, complaining about some recent edits of mine, threatening "disciplinary action" and inviting me to discuss the edits at WT:MOSNUM. I consider none of my edits to have been disruptive and am happy to justify them to any editor asking civilly for such a justification, but I am concerned that MOSNUM may not be the right venue to do so. The atmosphere there is bitter, to the extent that reasonable editors tend to stay away to avoid the conflict, with the consequence that the page is now dominated by just three like-minded editors. (MOSNUM used to be a kind of Bohemian cross-roads where you could encounter anyone, with any opinion.) And two recent attempts to start up constructive discussion on precisely the disputed issued were not permitted to continue, despite there being an obvious need for it. The first attempt was by one of the alienated editors, who made a brief appearance to make his proposal and, perceiving the atmosphere had not changed, did not pursue it. The second proposal, by a newcomer, resulted eventually in this hasty retreat. The alienation of such editors gives the false impression of consensus on the page.
The animosity I have seen on MOSNUM in the past months is something I have not encountered before on Wikipedia and I don’t know how to deal with it. (The background to the soured atmosphere is documented here.) Here are some examples of recent discussions [54][55][56]. You can get a feel for ongoing problems on the page itself by reading the aftermath to a major change to the guideline.
How should I respond to the post on my talk page? Should I ignore it? Should I go back into the lion’s den and challenge it? I feel that both paths would lead to conflict. Regardless of the merits of the arguments, is it appropriate for an editor to threaten me with "disciplinary action"? I’m sorry to burden you with this, but I don’t know what to do. Please help. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Another MOSNUM debate. Since this is a recurring problem, I suggest you start an RFC at WP:RFC or seek mediation. Ask all parties to participate, yes and post what you decide on your talk page. This will hopefully solve the issue and show you're trying to solve this in a constructive manner. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing RFC here. Is that a good place to respond to the accusations? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and if anyone involved isn't aware of it, drop a note on their talk page. If RFC is not fruitful, I'd say go to mediation next. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and if anyone involved isn't aware of it, drop a note on their talk page. If RFC is not fruitful, I'd say go to mediation next. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing RFC here. Is that a good place to respond to the accusations? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Your offer at FAC
Thanks for support and the offer to change the images in Indigenous people of the Everglades region to Commons. I would appreciate it very much. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Whew
I knew there was an explanation for that : ). I would never oppose for not using a script. That might be a new one in the future though, who knows. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, I misread that a bit. Nothing surprises me at RFA. Users come up with some lame reasons for their !votes. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, hey some people think my opposes can be lame. Others do not. It's a crap shoot and not everyone is going to see eye to eye. Probably one of the fundamental reasons why RfA has such a thick shadow looming over it. Ah well. With regards to my last RfA. You mentioned my first..are you aware that I had a third two months ago? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah no, I'll go look at No. 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- hehe, I had a third (nominated by Pedro) here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Currently, I do not plan on running again, at least, not any time soon. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah no, I'll go look at No. 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, hey some people think my opposes can be lame. Others do not. It's a crap shoot and not everyone is going to see eye to eye. Probably one of the fundamental reasons why RfA has such a thick shadow looming over it. Ah well. With regards to my last RfA. You mentioned my first..are you aware that I had a third two months ago? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse,
I can assure you I am not nor have I edited ever from Davkal.
You noted some redirection to an IP address 207.112.75.189, that is in Canada, I am in Japan (although not Japanese). Can you provide a link please?
- Can you please provide me with checkuser to substantiate that?
If you go back to the first revision, here; [57] you will see the reversion was to IP address 222.150.193.35 which is in the same dynamic IP block this IP provides.
I am not on a static DSL line, I am giving a new dynamic address IP each time I dial up which is why I had to register a user account.
Rlevse, although I stand by and substantiate the edits to the Comfort Women article, I am also doing this to document and exhibit the weakness in the current editorial system and how they are regularly exploited, and allowed to be exploited, even on topics of considerable geopolitical sensitivity.
Putting side by side the two revisions of the article it is impossible to say the identical revision that the Pro-Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese is balanced, well-developed, better written or according to policy. If there is a failing, it is that the developed version is too sophisticated for the other contributors. To make clear, if I have a POV on the matter, it is somewhere between Profs. Chunghee Soh and John Lie's, both Americanized Koreans. That is the more than victims of nationalism, the women were victims to patriarchal materialism and the unresolved issue of male sexual violence in armed conflict internationally.
The revision that the editors are all returning is essentially atrocity pornography laced with nationalist interest and fit mainly for voyeuristic public consumption. it removes both the feminist POV and the seminal involvement of the Korean Feminist movement in bring it to light. This I see as my most important contribution to the topic.
01:24, 15 June 2008 18:09, 14 June 2008
And, frankly, before you say it. I know
a) what a waste of time pursuing various suggested alternative dispute channels and b) how this is used by aggressive proponents to obstruct and defray other editors.
If this reads to you like the logic of some Canadian making death threats and you are willing to make unsubstantiated judgements on the basis of such as assessment, then I think the WIkipedia needs to rethink its MO.
- I am not denying, nor have I removed any facts from the article.
See comments on discussion page --222.150.190.12 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you --222.150.190.12 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, to me another anon 213.230.203.86 (talk · contribs) at the WP:RFCU looks like an OP, so the final analysis by an admins does not come out yet, but according to User:ClueBot_IV/WPOPreports/213.230.203.86, the 80 port is open.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Post that on the CU page and Lucasbfr's talk page. Open proxy's are not allowed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- But the CU case was closed, and the final analysis on the possible OP does not come out yet (although the bot result seems that the anon is likely an open proxy). The anon's way of thinking as to Wiki rules is very unique, so I wish he or she just accept the CU result and does not come back to Wikipedia.-_- --Caspian blue (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
checkuser
I put in for an extended checkuser against myself, here [58] to clarify matters regarding your public accusations re Davkal and, ridiculously, death threats.
I am playing this with an open hand. Frankly, what is going on the other side is entirely transparent.
You may be due me an apology. Thank you --222.150.190.12 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the WP:TSQUAD is working on it at the moment. If you have any suggestions for it, I'm sure everyone would appreciate them. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems as if you're trying to turn the article into a hagiography, with blatant disregard for NPOV, removing properly sourced material without any good reason, as seen here and here. Why would this be? -Oreo Priest talk 07:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oreo, the Arbcom just examined this in nauseating detail at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes and didn't see any problems. MBisanz talk 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- While "nauseating" is remarkably accurate, Arbcom made no determination whatsoever on the validity of Rlevse's actions regarding the Coker article. Somehow, Arbcom decided that it had no interest in addressing the issues of Rlevse's actions (or tagteam editing, etc.) but somehow used it anyway as a justification to address the whole BLP issue. Any attempt to use the Arbcom case as a justification for the use of the magic letters "BLP" to justify keeping sourced material out of the Coker article is baseless. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have not edited that article in almost two months. Back in Jan I made a mediation offer which no response was received to nor was a counter offer to settle it made by the other parties. I do not have blatant disregard for NPOV, but there are other policies in play here. Just because parties do agree on an issue like this does not mean they have "blatant disregard". You may want to keep in mind that there are several sources that show Hearts & Minds is a very biased film. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- OP...did you look at the whole case, article and talk, arb case in question before you posted to my talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I didn't, I don't usually check talk pages unless directed there. Having looked at that and the ArbCom decision, it changes little. You did remove properly sourced material without any good reason (we can leave the quote out of the reference if you want), and you do have a conflict of interest, as you claim Coker himself has asked you to remove it from the article. The added material, or some trivial variation on it, is well sourced and not in violation of BLP, and as I have explained to MBisanz, it certainly is not of undue weight. Please explain. -Oreo Priest talk 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- On top of that, the onus is on you to show that Hearts & Minds is biased, and even if it is, the fact is he was shown saying that. I do not believe it was taken out of context, and even if it was, the fact is that he said it, and it has shown up in a number of publications as such. It still merits inclusion. -Oreo Priest talk 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- One of the long term problems with BLP is it tries to mesh conflicting policies and any look at the BLP board will show vast differences in interpretation. Properly sourced does not merit auto inclusion when it comes to BLP, but I see no reason to belabor that which has been gone over multiple times. The onus is on you, not me. The arguments on both sides have been made already, what is needed is resolution. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, regardless of who has the onus, you're stonewalling, and using your admin powers and friendship with other admins to back it up. I can't contribute effectively with the block threat MBisanz has given me. -Oreo Priest talk 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't used my admin powers once during this, I haven't edit the article in a couple months,--so how is that stonewalling, and as for other admins taking actions on there own, that's on them. These statements by you are not exactly an accurate portrayal. I proposed mediation on the Coker article back in Jan. Alansohn did not respond til May and he refused mediation and made no counter offer to settle this. Looks to me like he's the one who stonewalled. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, regardless of who has the onus, you're stonewalling, and using your admin powers and friendship with other admins to back it up. I can't contribute effectively with the block threat MBisanz has given me. -Oreo Priest talk 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- One of the long term problems with BLP is it tries to mesh conflicting policies and any look at the BLP board will show vast differences in interpretation. Properly sourced does not merit auto inclusion when it comes to BLP, but I see no reason to belabor that which has been gone over multiple times. The onus is on you, not me. The arguments on both sides have been made already, what is needed is resolution. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- On top of that, the onus is on you to show that Hearts & Minds is biased, and even if it is, the fact is he was shown saying that. I do not believe it was taken out of context, and even if it was, the fact is that he said it, and it has shown up in a number of publications as such. It still merits inclusion. -Oreo Priest talk 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I didn't, I don't usually check talk pages unless directed there. Having looked at that and the ArbCom decision, it changes little. You did remove properly sourced material without any good reason (we can leave the quote out of the reference if you want), and you do have a conflict of interest, as you claim Coker himself has asked you to remove it from the article. The added material, or some trivial variation on it, is well sourced and not in violation of BLP, and as I have explained to MBisanz, it certainly is not of undue weight. Please explain. -Oreo Priest talk 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- OP...did you look at the whole case, article and talk, arb case in question before you posted to my talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) You claimed that "In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases." If you don't mind could you point out that policy to me? Thanks, -Oreo Priest talk 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't recall where I said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- In your initial explanation to me of why you removed my first mention of the film (this diff) you stated that "Yes, I personally know Coker and he's asked that no reference be made to the movie. This was by a phone call to me. In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases." That was my eye-opening introduction to the whole WP:COI issue and your determination to keep any reference to the film out of the article using BLP as a justification. This still seems to be a rather slim reed to hang a groundshaking policy change on. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah yes, WP:BLP said then and still says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:". There are several arb cases on this topic, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Does the bare reference to Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds fail the "error clause" or the "unfair clause"? Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd really be interested to know why we are still at Rlevse's talk page discussing this. He hasn't edited the page recently, his behavior was placed before Arbcom and they found nothing to criticize in it, and they actually criticized the person who was on the opposing side of the edits for policy violations. What gives? MBisanz talk 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was Rlevse who created the BLP issue and pushed it before Arbcom, despite his conflict of interest both in the article and in the Arbcom process itself. Rlevse could not be any more involved in the issue and has repeatedly inserted himself into the topic, despite the clear pattern of questionable actions. Arbcom studiously ignored the actual article, neither praising nor criticizing Rlevse's actions at George Thomas Coker. It is in extremely bad taste and bad faith to use Arbcom's results on entirely unrelated issues to excuse Rlevse's actions. Does anyone have any actual policy leg to stand on, or will the defense solely rely on ad hominem attacks. What gives with your involvement in this article? Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, in case any onlookers assume impropriety on the block I just made, I'd never heard of George Thomas Coker before seeing this Arbcom and Alansohn's subsequent trolling of it through unrelated pages, I quit the Boy Scouts when I was 12-ish cause I had other interests and was bored, I never served in the military, and I was born after the Vietnam War ended and the memorial had been built, so I have no connection to the political happenings of that era. MBisanz talk 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I, for one, assumed no such thing. I also had never heard of the subject before seeing Rlevse's objectionable reverts. I think it's unfair to characterize Alansohn's actions as trolling, so please be civil. -Oreo Priest talk 06:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, in case any onlookers assume impropriety on the block I just made, I'd never heard of George Thomas Coker before seeing this Arbcom and Alansohn's subsequent trolling of it through unrelated pages, I quit the Boy Scouts when I was 12-ish cause I had other interests and was bored, I never served in the military, and I was born after the Vietnam War ended and the memorial had been built, so I have no connection to the political happenings of that era. MBisanz talk 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was Rlevse who created the BLP issue and pushed it before Arbcom, despite his conflict of interest both in the article and in the Arbcom process itself. Rlevse could not be any more involved in the issue and has repeatedly inserted himself into the topic, despite the clear pattern of questionable actions. Arbcom studiously ignored the actual article, neither praising nor criticizing Rlevse's actions at George Thomas Coker. It is in extremely bad taste and bad faith to use Arbcom's results on entirely unrelated issues to excuse Rlevse's actions. Does anyone have any actual policy leg to stand on, or will the defense solely rely on ad hominem attacks. What gives with your involvement in this article? Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd really be interested to know why we are still at Rlevse's talk page discussing this. He hasn't edited the page recently, his behavior was placed before Arbcom and they found nothing to criticize in it, and they actually criticized the person who was on the opposing side of the edits for policy violations. What gives? MBisanz talk 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Does the bare reference to Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds fail the "error clause" or the "unfair clause"? Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A last salute
Rlevse, I believe you are one of the few honest and impartial admin in wikipedia. I wish to salute you now that I understand that I will never get my justice in wikipedia. All the mess around the ban of every italian who opposes the ring of croats is astonishing. The croats do all they want and never get punished, not even for a simple 3RR, while admins like Moreschi and others attack quickly only the italian side. What a delusion is wikipedia to me. Did you see how fast came the admin Moreschi to satisfy the requests of Direktor and Alasdairgreen27? Unbelievable (and he never punishes the croats, very strange indeed). To me his uncivil "Cheerio" to the poor Luigi 28 means the end of wikipedia. With these partialized admin there its no future -soon or later- for the enciclopedia! BTW, I am sure the slavs created the strange user (Ciolone) from Venice needed to ban Luigi 28 in a few days, this is a typical Tito-era trick! user:Ciolone has served only to the croats, but admin Moreschi is the only who cannot -or doesn't want- understand this reality. Now the slavs, thanks to Ciolone/Moreschi can do whatever they want with dalmatian and istrian related articles on wikipedia:bingo and cheerio! What a delusion from this encyclopedia. I too will stay away from Wikipedia from now on. Again, what a delusion from this encyclopedia that has no future with these rings of fanatic nationalists and not impartial admins. A totally disgusted Marygiove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliement. Sorry things didn't work out for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
possible sockpuppet of Atari400, 71.107.84.105
I think I may have come across a sockpuppet of User:Atari400.
This edit [59] lead me to my accusation, along with the fact that many of this IPs edits seem to be similar to those of Atari's. The IP is hesitant to Afghanistan being considered South Asian [60]. Atari has made similar pages many, many times. Their edits also coincide with Atari's interests as per his userboxes [61]. They both have edited regarding slave trade, Middle Eastern military, and various Middle Eastern and Central Asia articles.
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for replacing a couple of uploads/duplicates of mine over at Wikimedia Commons [[62]], very much appreciated. The job is almost done: there are two more photo's that will be replaced with better versions so bear with me one more time...
Sander Rapturerider (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have started a follow up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tottering Blotspurs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
South African Scout Association GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed South African Scout Association and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you try closing this? If I may summarize:
- Totophi tried to pretend an anonymous user in a discussion was a different person. They are the same person according to checkuser.
- Totophi used uncivil language against his opponent in that dispute, Nrswanson.
- KieferSkunk is mediating that dispute and does not think a block is necessary.
- I am uninvolved in that dispute (aside from my role at SSP) and suggested a block of one month on Totophi.
- Nrswanson asked me if Totophi will be blocked. Not being an admin, I cannot execute a block, though I think one is justified.
Bottom line: I'd suggest a compromise given KieferSkunk's leaning toward leniency to block Totophi with an expiry date of June 30, noting that anyway he has not edited since June 13, and allowing him to resume editing next month.
You decide. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
note for u
there is a note for you here [63]--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Rfa thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
Terry Sanford
Worked on this today, see Talk:Terry Sanford#Education and Lead JGHowes talk - 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Documentingabuse
Hi,
I would like my Documentingabuse account unblocked please.
I am very sorry but it was a piece of nonsense to connect me with some guy from Canada.
I am have been open and upfront that I was editing from Japan (Although not Japanese) and that my ISP was dynamic. I made clear that on all my edits. I only made Documentingabuse at the very end to file a report for all the other reverting my work.
Thank you, Documentingabuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.16.244.243 (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The other problem with that account, as I mentioned before, is that the username is problematic. It'd imply every edit you make is to fight abuse, which would be highly unlikely. Would you consider another username? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment needed
Hi Rlevse. There seems to be a small problem regarding "see also" and sourcing on a WT:SLR related article. Can you please comment on this situation under two specific places here and here. I know some admins do not like to get involved into edit war debates but I think a comment, or at least a suggestion, could really help in this problem. Watchdogb (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Can you comment in that section again because a user seem not to understand what a WP:RS is and so it would be really helpful if you can comment if you think the shown citations here are indeed WP:RS or not. Thanks again Watchdogb (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Moldopodo, again
Hi. I wonder if there's any chance I could receive an expedited hearing of this "case"? Of course I could wait, but I don't appreciate having my name at the top of the AE board, especially for no good reason. Anyway, thank you for your consideration.
And by the way, Moldopodo, despite being under a final warning regarding his conduct, including a specific injunction against disruptive page moves, has been merrily doing more of the same. Perhaps we have reached the at wits' end stage? Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I indef'd him. He had a final warning two days ago and continues. I suggest you take a short wiki break or go edit other areas to chill out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, it's all fixed now - thanks! Biruitorul Talk 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Xasha is his evident sock. Pls fix him also. 2scalesoon (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, it's all fixed now - thanks! Biruitorul Talk 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- By my reading, the Digwuren restriction only applies to edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"; Moldopodo's infraction was disruption, which fits into none of those categories, it followed a last warning that was not given under the Digwuren case, and it came after an ANI thread in addition to an AE one - and ANI threads have been known to lead to indefinite blocks. Nevertheless, a month is a month, so maybe it will bring back a reformed Moldopodo... Biruitorul Talk 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point and almost made a similar call today, but I went with the one I made. If he continues in this vein after the month is up, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rlevse, I know you're busy with the FAC review for Terry Sanford, but thought you might like to take a look at this article's FAC, which I self-nom'd yesterday. JGHowes talk - 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- sure, but your promised BSA this weekend too ;-) You still have about 31 hours ;-0 ! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contrib and comments at FAC. I'm happy to say this article was promoted to FA on the 4th of July! JGHowes talk - 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Image
Hi, I am not sure if it will be right to ask you, but you once helped me uploading an image for the article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I want to use this image for the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany under fair use. I am still not well-versed with images. If you help in this case by uploading the image, it will be a great help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- done, see Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Agnistus Note
Please see this. Yours sincerely, Agnistus (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you ever get frustrated again, take a wiki break. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think those edits can be considered as personal attacks deserving a 72 hour block. In one of the edits I called Itaqallah "most forgiving most merciful", is that an attack? The last one which you is an outright incivil attack; I can only see the sentence "he gifted me with2 reports" and the word "sidekick" which you might consider as an attack. But saying he gifted me with two reports is not an attack. Nor is the word "sidekick", because Webster dictionary syas sidekick means partner or subordinate. (So there is no violation of WP:NPA). Please end the block since it is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnistus2 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Indef block on Moldopodo
I don't know anything about the the circumstances of the Moldopodo block, but I do know that blocks under the Digwuren remedies are to be no longer than a month [64]. Do you want to review this? Martintg (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, I've changed it to a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Indef block on Xasha
Under the Digwuren remedies, Xasha is the same conflictual pattern, same disruptive as Moldopodo. [65]. Do you want to review also this? --2scalesoon (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Build the case, with diffs, and file and WP:AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
More socks in the drawer?
- Nah. It was only this one, for vote fraud. I think you/we've sent them all into the laundry. Permanently. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 15:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Kossack4truth
I tried comparing Kossack4truth to the IP's edits in the Rex sockpuppet case. They are almost certainly two different people judging from the dates and times of their edits. Of course, if the IP is not Rex then maybe Kossack is Rex, but they aren't both Rex.
Regarding the statement that he was "using" Wikipedia for four years, that probably means he was reading it, not that he had a previous account. Note that one of our admins, Faithlessthewonderboy, wrote in his second or third edit ever that he used to edit anonymously for the previous two years. Sarcasticidealist, another admin, said on NTWW 18 in a special interview for the WMF Board Election that he first found out about Wikipedia in 2004, thought it was a really dumb idea, then joined in 2007. So I think we'll have to judge Kossack4truth on his own behavior, no more, no less. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:PeterAgreEagleNobel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PeterAgreEagleNobel.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Revised Lead - Boy Scouts of America
Hi, with 8 hours before deadline, here's my draft proposed revision. I've tried to give a complete overview per WP:LEAD. There are fairly numerous inline citations because of the contentious nature of the subject that would likely be challenged otherwise.
How does this look? JGHowes talk - 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, too many details and refs in the lead. If you support your points in the body, you don't need details and refs in the lead, or very few at the most. If you want, Ed and I can edit the proposal and btwn the three of us, it should be good. Let me know. I asked him to comment here. I do think your prosposal will get us past our 'deadlock'. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fine with me. The part about Mays and Bloomberg could be placed in the "Impact on American life" section JGHowes talk - 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've trimmed the remainder a little, and removed some refs leaving just those for direct quotes and data figures. Is this better? JGHowes talk - 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fine with me. The part about Mays and Bloomberg could be placed in the "Impact on American life" section JGHowes talk - 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nguyen Van Nhung
The article has been renamed: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dagoth Ur, Mad God
Hi Rlevse, in case you're interested the user mentioned above has already been blocked multiple times over at UESP for disruptive edits and harrasing other editors, I see you have already blocked him once for 48 hours but I'm concerned that he may display similar behaviour here. --Volanaro (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Coker self-ban
Hi Rlevse, I wanted to let you know that it seems that the consensus at Talk:George Thomas Coker is that you can participate at talk, and your self-ban will simply apply to actual editing of the article. So if you would like to return to engage in discussion, you are welcome to do so. :) As an uninvolved admin, I will continue to monitor the discussions, and it is my hope that with civil and good faith discussions from all involved editors, that it will be possible to come up with a neutral compromise that will be of benefit to the article. If you choose not to return, I understand, but I just wanted to let you know that the door is open. :) Best, Elonka 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for being willing to help solve this and to all who agreed I should be able to edit the talk page. I'll think this over. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya, just as a followup, the discussions at the talkpage seem to be generating some heat. So, could I please ask you to back off a bit? You are still welcome to participate, but perhaps with a more measured tone, and not quite as often? Thanks, Elonka 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks
Thanks, Rlevse, for taking me on as your coachee. It's been great, and I've learned a lot. Should I become an administrator in the future, I'll owe much of my success to you. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC).
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For being an excellent coach and mentor. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
I'm sure you may have already seen this from my message on the Scouting WikiProject's page or if you watchlist the article itself, but just to be sure, I wanted to let you know that I have reviewed Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) and have placed it on hold as it needs a few more inline citations. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Happy editing!
Personal attacks
I've had enough with User:Biruitorul panromanian and anti-moldovan POV pushing and personal attacks. While he doesn't explicitely target me, he does so implicitely, as I am a Moldovan ethnic and Moldovan citizen. First, he calls my ethnic group a "figment of the Stalinist imagination, created in order to deprive Romania of her rightful territory" and the state in which I was born and I lived most of my life as an "illegitimate entity" which "Romania ought to control " diff. Moreover he calls my people " brainwashed by Soviets" diff and states that Moldovans can't be trusted when they say they're Moldovans because they are "exposed to a drumbeat of Stalinist-inspired anti-Romanian propaganda " diff. The problem is that he does not only spread this ethnic hatred in talk pages, but also uses it to justify edits in mainspace. I find this highly disruptive. Moldopodo has been blocked among others for creating an article about the factual criminality of Romanians, but User:Biruitorul goes around disseminating anti-Moldovan propaganda all over Wikipedia and nothing happens to him. I'm sure that if I go around saying Romanians are thiefs and gypsies I'll be blocked on sight. Does an ethnic group have to pass a certain population threshold so that ethnic insults toward it be taken into consideration?Xasha (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just a minute there! First of all, being of Moldovan descent myself, I have nothing but the highest praise and admiration for the people of that country. However, I also lament the ideology its people have been conditioned to accept. Nevertheless, in the interests of maintaining a productive editing atmosphere, I am quite ready to focus more carefully on matters of content and not veer into political side remarks. However, the accusation of "ethnic hatred" could not be further from the truth. And I do not "disseminate anti-Moldovan propaganda all over Wikipedia" - I'm in the business of using reliable sources to paint an accurate picture of the situation. So please, Xasha, assume good faith, let's call off the politics, and focus on productive editing.
- And, Xasha, while we're at it, accusing other users of following in a Nazi tradition merely for opposing the notion of "Molovan" separateness is not helpful either. Biruitorul Talk 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Truce guys. Xasha, in one diff you gave Biruitorul was being very polite. The others are very weak as far as supporting your claims. The diff he provided from you is far worse than any diff you found of his. I'm sure I speak for many admins when I say we're tired of all this long term ethnice strife on wiki. The East Europeans (and Arabs/Jews, Koreans/Japanese, etc and so on) need to start building an encyclopedia instead of using wiki to fight their battles. If not, indef blocks will be forthcoming very soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now exact quotes are my personal claims? wtf?Xasha (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Good day Rlevse. I just wanted to ask if you got any advice on how to make a featured list? --Kanonkas : Talk 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey. I'm an FA person, but not an FL person. One thing I noticed is you have no images. See other FLs (I did help with FL List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)). Check other FLs to get ideas. Be very consistent in formatting. User:Gadget850 could probably give you better advice than I can on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Closing
Yeah, I think I'll be free tomorrow night. If I'm not on IRC, drop me a line on my talk. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll be on IRC from 7:00 to 7:30 tonight. After that, I'll be unavailable until midnight or so. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I get out of work at 4:30. I should be online from 5–6 and then 7–7:30. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 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) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Documentingabuse
Rlevse,
I read the now erased response to your blocking of my account Documentingabuse.
My answer is I am not willing to register another account.
The reasons are as follows in order of importance.
- a) your indefinite block was made on the basis of me being a sockpuppet of another individual. Without even having to do a checkuser, this was utterly fallacious. Looking briefly at the other editor, their topic interests were entirely different. I request that you do checkuser, clarify the matter and remove the block as it stands. Thank you.
- b) you public comments regarding me being a user from Canada that had made death threats that day were utterly fallacious. Again, I ask you do ensure a checkuser is done to comfirm this.
I listed both the above points on the sockpuppet page but they have not been acitoned. I made it clear and evidenced that my ISP used dynamic IPs on dialup and made no effort to hide or disguise this matter. Indeed, I honestly linked the pages.
- c) if I was to make another account, it would only be used against me by other editors suggesting that it too was a sockpuppet account. I do not seek to use sockpuppet accounts. Editors who seek to discredit me personally rather than address the discussion placed on the topic talk page.
- d) I do not believe, given the above, that your latest allegation used to discount the user name has good grounds. I have made no pretense of the purpose of my account. What does interest me is the manner in which Wikipedia policies are knowing abused by editors to forward their personal interest or editing position. In this case, Korean and Chinese-Taiwanese anti-Japanese sentiments quite obviously making neutral editing impossible whilst avoid any discussion of the topics.
- I also clearly and honestly state again that I am not Japanese.
Lastly, I would like to ask you to strike out the comment you know to be, or are in a position to know to be entirely false regarding the second IP address in Canada and the other blocked user.
Thank you. --118.16.244.243 (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you'd check here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse, you'd see I already admitted I goofed and apolgized. You can also see this was moved from the CU page to the CU talk page by Thatcher. I am not a CU so I can't perform a CU check. You can ask the CUs about doing one if you like. You are still socking as the CU confirmed by editing while logged out. I'll ask for another opinion on the username issue, but I in good conscience can not unblock it. I made the strikeout your requested. Now you kindly strikeout the statement that I am a liar. I am not a liar. I made a mistake and admitted it. There is a difference. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable unblocking, per Thatcher's positive CU that he was logging out to IP edit war, also the username issue is a significant concern to me. I might consider a {{second chance}} if it was renamed and promised to not log out to war in the future. MBisanz talk 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Imperial Napoleonic triple crown
- Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Error
I'd argue that it was, in essence, a "ban" from that specific behavior, as the restriction works in the same way as a topic ban, but only on incivil edits. I have changed it to "restricted", however, as that's the precise wording that ArbCom gave. Ral315 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:BANNED, 'banned' means they can't edit at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, if a user is banned from the site, they can't edit at all. If they're banned from a specific activity, they're banned from that activity, but other editing is fine. Many arbitration cases, for example, have passed with "topic bans" banning a user from editing articles related to some point of controversy (i.e. blocked from "Pseudoscience"-related articles). I consider a restriction against making personal attacks as a "ban" in the same vein. As I said, however, I changed that particular usage to make it crystal clear. Ral315 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- But you didn't say "topic ban", you just said "banned", which people are going to interpret as a total ban. Your initial statement was inaccurate and misleading. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I said 'banning Alansohn from making any edits judged to be "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"'. I believe that initial statement was accurate. Ral315 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- But you didn't say "topic ban", you just said "banned", which people are going to interpret as a total ban. Your initial statement was inaccurate and misleading. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, if a user is banned from the site, they can't edit at all. If they're banned from a specific activity, they're banned from that activity, but other editing is fine. Many arbitration cases, for example, have passed with "topic bans" banning a user from editing articles related to some point of controversy (i.e. blocked from "Pseudoscience"-related articles). I consider a restriction against making personal attacks as a "ban" in the same vein. As I said, however, I changed that particular usage to make it crystal clear. Ral315 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Trimming
I hope the trimming I have now done is sufficient. My apologies for the previous message being so long, but the new, unfounded, and potentially quite damaging allegations made against me by Yorkshirian seemed to require it. Can I ask whether Yorkshirian is going to be asked to make similar trimming attempts? DDStretch (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just did. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. In fact, I think Jza84 could probably do with a request to trim as well, having looked once more at the instructions, which I had stupidly forgotten the details of when I was prompted to make a response to Yorkshirian. Thanks again. DDStretch (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(<-)Thats no problem. As someone experienced in the area, can you point me in the right direction as to what you think could go? --Jza84 | Talk 01:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nope I just added the diff of the trim and made a spelling correction. There was a trim prior to that. I hope that is acceptable. --Jza84 | Talk 01:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, ok. Now if only Yorkshirian would get onboard. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Response
Please follow WP:assume good faith. I do not see how putting a little note linking to my full message is "disruptive", in fact its constructive because it links the reader to the full version where many references can be found. Jza has been allowed to[66], a clear double standard. Keep in mind that part is my space to present my case, not yours or anybody elses. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yorkshirian, Rlevse was correct to warn you. We are following ArbCom case procedure. When we move a full statement to the ArbCom talk page, we will make a note on the case page of our move. That is sufficient enough notice of our action. Jza84's link to his trimming is acceptable because he trimmed his statement by himself. Note that his original statement was not posted to the case talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely, plus we already had a link to the talk page where the full statement was. We warned you and you presisted. You added the full statement at least twice. I asked you to trim it even before the case opened but you did not do so. When involved in an arb case you need to follow arbcom policy and listen to the clerks and arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is not currently a direct link to the full version.[67] And also if you check the diffs, I added my full statement... and then Nishkid64 brought it to my attention that it couldn't be, so instead I added a link to my full statement. Again, I'm directing you towards WP:AGF. My intention is to present my case so it can be read, that is all. Not disrupt. And I don't need you screaming "STOOOOOP or else" at me on my talk, is civilty too much to ask for? - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yorkshirian, I've added the link. Please calm down, and stop instructing others about AGF and CIVIL when they've done nothing but follow the case rules. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is not currently a direct link to the full version.[67] And also if you check the diffs, I added my full statement... and then Nishkid64 brought it to my attention that it couldn't be, so instead I added a link to my full statement. Again, I'm directing you towards WP:AGF. My intention is to present my case so it can be read, that is all. Not disrupt. And I don't need you screaming "STOOOOOP or else" at me on my talk, is civilty too much to ask for? - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
R, I am wondering — are non-admins permitted to comment there? I know that any user can make a complaint, but can any user comment? I ask because I've been following the proposed ban of VintageKits with interest and have strong views on the subject. But I hesitate to comment there as a non-admin. JGHowes talk - 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- ANYONE can comment at AE. Most of those on the VK thread are pro or anti VK and tied to Ireland or Britain, ie, massive canvassing and buddy following are going on. Those who are neutral are almost all for the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I tried reading the thread, and perhaps I'm a bit dense. What exactly did VK do that was so much worse than the last 2 times I contacted you? Because you went from "not that bad" to "indef block" in a heartbeat. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Last straw. And if I recall right the circumstances were shakier. And on the one case (diff from the first I just mentioned) it did not involve the troubles. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in with a question Rlevse, but with the rather blatant breach of creating an article (albiet a redirect) to a troubles aticle, does discussion need to continue? I voiced my opinion that VK should be allowed to come back and have a final throw of the dice but won't community consensus simply divide the editors on wikipedia along (mostly) Anglo-Irish lines? I mean, Anglo editors are not going to love seeing 'Anglo-Sphere' accusations bandying around on the AE...it just seems that this is more evidence of the damage potential of VK when he strays into this area of Wiki. It is only going to tempt otherwise productive editors (Like Sarah) to get into trouble. Narson (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Last straw. And if I recall right the circumstances were shakier. And on the one case (diff from the first I just mentioned) it did not involve the troubles. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I tried reading the thread, and perhaps I'm a bit dense. What exactly did VK do that was so much worse than the last 2 times I contacted you? Because you went from "not that bad" to "indef block" in a heartbeat. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Page
Can you please delete these pages User:Tyw7/ann and User:Tyw7/announcement and User:Tyw7_2 that I created. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Just make a sandbox page and change as needed. No need to create pages and then delete them, usually. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Adminstrator Support
Can you please support my request for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyw7 2.
Thanks,
Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll just comment here rather than vote. Sorry, buy you have nowhere near the experience to be an admin. Just stay active, follow wiki policies, and work in admin related areas and you'll eventually get there. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
OM RFAR
I made some changes, based on the available information. I hope you don't mind, but feel free to mercilessly revert me or edit my changes. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also: Re this diff: I'm confused. My read of the statement was that it was remanded back to a normal vote on whether to open or not, you say it "was opened", can you clarify that. Also re the diff just before that one... given the fast nature of this case, I think you should have left a link to the statement by CM behind, there are a lot of pointers to it that now are not going to work, and unless you look at the history it's hard to tell... ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did leave a link in the RFFAR, clerk section, Wikipedia:RFAR#Clerk_notes, where it says in part "# The Clerk shall note the request on the main arbitration page and give immediate notice of the request to Orangemarlin, Oddnature, and other appropriate parties. The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted, following which the arbitrators will then vote on-wiki on acceptance or rejection. If four or more net arbitrators vote to accept the case, it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week. If the case is accepted, the decision previously posted by arbitrator FT2 shall be considered as a set of workshop proposals and the Clerk shall post them as such for consideration and comment." which is the way (except for the 48 hours) regular RFARs are handled. To me, what to do was pretty clear, but then as confusing as this has been all around, I could be wrong. Hope this helps and let me or the arbs know if you have more questions. By "open" I meant the RFAR was opened, not that the case was open and accepted. Sorry if I caused confusion. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
SPAs
Hello Rlevse. Rather than discuss this at WP:AE, I would prefer to do this here. You said there SPAs can be indef banned without an arb ruling, using standard wiki policies, which I find disconcerting. I am not familiar with a policy that allows blocking of SPAs on the basis of being an SPA only. The only thing I know of is this: Wikipedia:UN#Single-purpose_accounts and the essay WP:SPA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll clarify. SPAs are usually socks and disruptive socks can be indef'd. I strongly suspect the accts MastCell is talking about are socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Note that while many socks are SPAs, not all SPAs are socks. So, yes, WP:SOCK gives us the ability to indef block, but only if there is disruption: Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Note that while many socks are SPAs, not all SPAs are socks. So, yes, WP:SOCK gives us the ability to indef block, but only if there is disruption: Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy close
I can get on IRC right now. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll be on 7 or so. Is that fine? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Should, plan for 7pm. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)