Jump to content

User talk:Rlevse/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Potential bot to revert some additions of redlinks to some sections of selected articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've reverted this idiot's talk page a few times now; he just doesn't get the hint. Could I impose on you to protect the talk page? I've suggested over at AIV that a checkuser be run on this monkey and his range blocked for a few days. Have a great weekend! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 27 30 June 2008 About the Signpost
Private arbitration case criticized, vacated Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy 
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking" 
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
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) 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentingabuse

Rlevse


I emailed you about the account I started with which to edit accountably at Documentingabuse. (Please note I am editing from my usual ISP which provides dynamic IP addresses).

You have kindly removed the erroneous tag regarding some other ad hoc user BUT the indefinite ban remains.

I would like this removed please and the account unbanned.

Had the circumstances been clear, above board and faultless, I could accept discussion about the name.

However, the circumstances were clearly not. The excuse made were exaggeratedly false and unsupportable. Numerous individuals were acting merely to equally disincentivize my editing on that subjects.

The nature of the opposition is quite clear. I cannot afford to make or use another account for the likehood more spurious allegations. (I respect the intelligence of other Wikipedians over name use and will clearly identify my raison etre on my user page).


Thank you for your reasonableness and understanding in advance. --60.42.244.160 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the email and the response by MBisanz above. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Rleves, I strongly believe that the account should keep blocked for the anon's past wrongdoings and the harassment against me. The anon falsely accused me of making two accounts (well, I just changed my user name via WP:CHU).[1]. I don't know why I'm bothered by the malicious abuses by the anon. If he/she wants to edit Wikipedia, he should regard Wiki rules, and take his/her own responsiblity for what he/she did. The anon's grudge and retaliation on my reporting his breaches on Wiki rules are so annoying. Even if the anon is in no relation with Canadian sockpuppeter, the anon indeed made his own socks and abused it as evading his block sanctions. The records do not change him new person. Why does he/she blame me for his own misconducts? Quite weird way of thinking and self-justification. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Request

Hi Rlevse, a user has violated WP:NPA by claiming that an article is in violation of NPOV because I edited the article and claims that the article is becoming a propaganda blog. This is a very serious allegation and hinders my ability to contribute to the article. Your comment is needed at WP:SLR. The article is in question is Tamil Eelam and it is believed to be one of the main aspiration of the current civil war in sri lanka and as such is a part of SLDR (thought this article was not tagged because it was overlooked). Watchdogb (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's now been over 24 hours and there has not been a single evidence given to support these allegations against me. Can you please take some steps so that I can be left to contribute rather than be attacked ? Please and Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ElboMisery1993 -- another sock?

I think I've found yet another sock of User:ElboMisery1993. Since you dealt with the last two for me, you might wanna check this. This user is real persistent, no? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I've seen far worse. I recall the fascination with table formatting too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think we should do about this user? I can't think of anything else than this continuous game of whack-a-sock. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You could file an RFCU next time and hope they ferret out others, get more than one at a time. If you know the IPs, a range block may be an option. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you log the Olawe block...

at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions? Thanks. - Merzbow (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Facepalm on me indeed, I should have left you a note on your talk page when I re-opened the thread. It's nothing personal, I just don't feel comfortable with the claim that the community came to this conclusion, being associated with the ban. I've started another thread at WP:ANI#Giovanni33 part 2. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't deteriorate into a virtual lynching, that's fine with me. Jehochman Talk 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is fine. Ned, understand and thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hi, I just read your message at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2 asking for diffs that show that LinkToddMcLovinMontana should be blocked. As far as I know there is nothing in that users contributions that would lead to a block, although I will go and check through them all now. Apologies if I did the wrong thing by bringing it up at WP:SSP, but after reading the sock puppetry policy, I took that to mean that the very fact that the account is a sockpuppet account (if that turns out to be true) of another, indef blocked account, means that this new account should be blocked. Given that the other 3 accounts have been indef blocked, isn't this one (if it is a sockpuppet) being used to circumvent a block (and therefore policy?) And if LinkToddMcLovinMontana is not blocked, is there not a way of reaching consensus on whether or not it's a sockpuppet? Do we only care about sockpuppets if each separate account breaches policy? Sorry if I'm being clueless, I'm not too experienced with WP:SSP, as you can probably tell! --BelovedFreak 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking for more evidence that shows he's a sock of this person. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any more than what I mentioned. Sorry if I shouldn't have reported it.--BelovedFreak 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I see now from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2 that the diff you added would have been helpful. Thanks for your help. --BelovedFreak 11:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

Concerning your question on diffs, the puppet now recreated a page with another name that the puppeteer created, and created another similar hoax page. Thank you for your attention. MythSearchertalk 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me some usernames and evidence please. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is already blocked by another admin, but I will still give you the details for future references since this puppeteer seems to totally ignore policies and kept coming back with new puppets. Since the pages are deleted, you can refer to the logs or try a google cache page with those names, and here is the original hoax version of the still existing page of the really existing game page used by hoaxer to disguise his hoax. Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers (Shooter Version), Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version and Galaxy Angel Final are all essentially the same article with only the name changed. The puppeteer is User:Galaxyangelnew, who started the hoax in the Galaxy Angel wikia and got deleted there. It then came to create the same page under the existing game named Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers, and since I have played the game before, I have totally revamped it to a version which tells of the real game instead of the hoax, with references. The puppeteer then created a new page with the shooter version name after it, still with no sources to back up claims made in the article like IGN's scoring and votes, which could be simply found to be false with a search in IGN's webpage. The puppeteer went as far as to add in the hoax into other related pages of the series, until I have reported the hoax and simply showed it to be one with the official page showing no signs of such a game. The first account got blocked in 11 June, and comes back to hoax with this list of puppets. MythSearchertalk 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've just abused the wiki email system and sent you one that has nothing to do with WP! Check when you have a spare couple of mins. Take care sir! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 "ban"

You may have noticed that the ban discussion on Giovanni33 has, predictably, proved controversial, as it didn't last very long. To be honest, I was a bit surprised that it ended when it did, though it certainly looked to be going towards ban. So that this doesn't become an issue again in a year (which it will, quite probably via a Giovanni sock): what would you consider doing about the problem? Shoudl the discussion be reopened and allowed to go a few days? Or should there be another discussion? The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd let it go for now. After a year he can request the community unban him. The arb ban has a limit, the community ban doesn't, so it'd stay in affect after the 1 year unless the community agrees to lift it. This is how I see it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

Thank you for the support!
Rlevse, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, Rlevse, for showing interest in my request for adminship. I greatly appreciate everyone's confidence in me. I apologise for the last-minute notice, but I would like to wait a couple months yet to go for adminship. By that time, I'll have even more experience in admin areas, and will have more knowledge of process and policy (not to mention the support-to-fail ratio at RfA is pretty bad currently, but that would be a non-issue if I had some more skill). I thank all whom have trusted me enough to nominate and co-nominate me for adminship; if you are willing to wait a little longer for my RfA I would be most grateful. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Brag sheet"

The minor achievements:

  • Vandal-fighting
  • New page patrolling
  • Welcoming users
  • New users patrolling
  • XfD !voting

Slightly bigger things:

  • Copyediting
  • GA nom
  • WikiGnomeism
  • Adoption

Not much, I know. Most RfA-regulars expect to see five FAs and 47 barnstars; I have neither, but I believe I would be a useful asset to Wikipedia because I have sufficient experience in admin-friendly tasks, and the like. I plan on starting small at first (UAA, AIV, etc.) , and eventually getting involved in more tasks.

How's this? --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mizu onna sango15

I think you forgot to put your signature at the end of the nominating statement for the above RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Crash-and-burn

Yep. Crashed and burnt. Granted, there were more supports than opposes, but it's always a good sign that it's time to withdraw when someone says "clearly needs more experience". :P I'm not disappointed, on the other hand; I really do need to work on my CSD and UAA edits, and I'll be sure that that's improved next time I go for adminship. Cheers, and thanks for the nom! :-) --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Laughs

If only our checkusers were this easy to convince [2] MBisanz talk 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't AL2TB Artisol2345's sockpuppets?

Both of them have 2 diff IPs. Artisol2345 have left Wiki since October 26, 2007; and after that he close his account and lock them out, and no longer opening that account? Are you sure both of them is sockpuppets? They might be same roomate but two distinctive person. It would be better to semi-protect or portect his talkpage. This will avoid IPs or users to use his talkpage as a WP:CHAT. Isn't YORKABES Artisol2345's sockpuppet. Yorkabes even put is his ssiter's ccount on her talkpage.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet again

Hi Rlevse, just wanted to ask your advice. You recently dealt with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2 and blocked the sockpuppet. I believe another one has appeared, User:JonasBrother1, based on similar edits, similar userpages (especially the 1st edit) and his link to his Myspace page: "CarrieToddMcLovinMontana", which was also linked to by User:TheStuffWillDriveYouNuts and User:TracyLinkEdnaVelmaPenny. I'm sorry to bring this up here, but I wasn't sure whether to file another SSP report, or take it to WP:AIV, or what. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 12:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Is he blocked now? For future reference, should I take obvious ones like this to WP:AIV? Or WP:AN/I? --BelovedFreak 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes he's blocked. See the tag on his user page. You may want to report the next one to RFCU so the CUs and find his IP(s) and block the underlying one(s). — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks, will do. (Sorry for being dense - had thought I'd checked his blocklog before & was empty - obviously not!). Cheers for your help. --BelovedFreak 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MQS

Rlevse, quick question: what specifically convinced you that L.L.King and MQS were the same person? I'm not questioning your decision (you are an admin in good standing and have the right to do as you did), but I'd like to understand why a little better. — BQZip01 — talk 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A combination of things, similar behavior and edits, MQS starts right after LLKING was blocked, and the real kicker -- he says he's making a clean start. A clean start from what? A bad past obviously. If he weren't LLKING and was a new person, he'd be a new user and not need a clean start. MQS also knows too much from the beginning to have been a brand new user. Given he seems to have a clean record since appearing as MQS, the CUs didn't find anything obviously blockable, and there was some support for applying the "clean start rule", I decided to give him this one once, but he'd better toe the line and be a productive editor. Hope this answers your questions. Let me know if not. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For the last time, Mqschmidt was not blocked for incivility, he was blocked for "creating nonsense pages," I don't know (but can guess) where this myth came from that he was blocked for being incivil, but in reality it was because he was engaging in exactly the same behavior he took up under L.L.King. He's already acknowledged the closure of the case on his talk page and said he'd try harder to "follow the precepts of Wiki policy." You don't have a case here anymore. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I still think mqs, MQS, and LLK are the same person. If not they're certainly closely related. BQZ, I'm not sure what exact question you want me to elaborate on at this point. Please clarify. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur that mqs and MQS are indeed the same person. Those two are related to LLK. MQS already admitted that.
However, "...the real kicker -- he says he's making a clean start. A clean start from what? A bad past obviously. If he weren't LLKING and was a new person, he'd be a new user and not need a clean start." He wanted a clean start from user:mqschmidt (see such a claim on his user page) and not LLK. Otherwise, I'd be with you 100%. — BQZip01 — talk 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yea we've already established that there was confusion over that conclusion, but in the end all three of these users -mqschmidt, L.L.King and MichaelQSchmidt- are operated by the same person. They are each sock puppets of the user who has now identified himself as Michael Schmidt. Schmidt wants people to believe that L.L.King is a publicist or some other unrelated third party, but as the evidence in the SSP case indicates, they are all the same person. Now he wants a clean start so he doesn't get blocked outright, but his contributions will be watched carefully and if he runs afoul of the rules he will face sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
BQZ-yea, I see I messed that detail up, but per CC, I'm convinced they're the same person and CC's last post is spot on in my opinion, so the end result for me doesn't change. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand CC's assessment and that you concur with his opinion, but CC is way wrong in many ways,
"Schmidt wants people to believe that L.L.King is...some other unrelated third party..." He doesn't and specifically stated/admitted the opposite.
"...evidence in the SSP case indicates, they are all the same person." The WP:CONSENSUS on the SSP page doesn't seem to warrant that conclusion.
"Now he wants a clean start so he doesn't get blocked outright..." Again, CC is twisting MQS's words. MQS wanted a clean start to put his past behind him. There is a minor distinction.
"...but his contributions will be watched carefully and if he runs afoul of the rules he will face sanctions." This is the kind of statement of which I am wary (especially if you support it) that this conclusion/ruling will be used as a club to suppress any/all contributions by MQS.
I am also concerned that I don't see any evidence of a violation of WP:SOCK. I would really like to hear your opinion on this one and not Cumulus Clouds's. — BQZip01 — talk 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never suppress any and all contributions of an editor (except banned ones who are not allowed to edit at all). To watch him to make sure his past indiscretions don't reoccur is okay I think but it should not extend to WP:STALKING or harassment. I concur with the gist of CC's last comment, not ever fine point of it. The gist of it is that these three are, in my opinion, the same person and I've decided to allow him a chance at a clean start-I obviously wasn't clear enough on that. I see no consensus on SSP for either side, there was more than one opinion on both sides (block vs allow clean start). Any editor that runs afoul of the rules can face sanctions. I think my first post above answered why I felt MQS is a sock. BQZ, what exactly are you seeking here? I warned him and gave him the chance he was asking for. I don't think you want me to block him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification was all I was asking for. You've made your position and rationale much clearer, which is all I desired to understand. Thanks! I also concur that "it should not extend to WP:STALKING or harassment" and the vast majority of what you said. I also never meant to imply that you personally would use it to suppress any/all contributions of a user, only that your conclusion could be used to support such actions.
However, I don't understand how he fits the definition of a sock (I fear this label will follow him no matter where he goes and will be used to suppress his contributions): specifically, he doesn't fit in any category of sockpuppet:
Voting and other shows of support
He has not used it for such purposes
Meatpuppets
There is no evidence to support such a claim, nor has a claim been made
Roommates and sharing an IP address
Not an issue
Administrative sock puppets
Not even elligible
Circumventing policy
As a "clean start" he has not violated policy
So, where exactly did the sockpuppetry occur? What am I missing here? — BQZip01 — talk 23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The socking violations occurred prior to his MQS incarnation. Since he's known as a new version of a sockpuppeteer, that makes him a sock, but as it's an attempt at a clean start, he's not currently in violation of the socking policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That clears things up. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 00:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Query

Per your comment "I would never suppress any and all contributions of an editor (except banned ones who are not allowed to edit at all). To watch him to make sure his past indiscretions don't reoccur is okay I think but it should not extend to WP:STALKING or harassment." ...

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not stalking because it's all on one talk page. Is it harassment? Hard to prove this one I think. At least they're discussing things. Bur I'd for sure keep an eye on the situation if you care to. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What concerns me most is "I will quit bringing this up if you refrain from editing articles for projects, productions or associates that you are involved with." This is direct intimidation and is completely uncivil. It is contrary to the very core of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). It is stalking in the fact that he has undone many of MQS's edits in a wide variety of places, commented on virtually every comment on a talk page after him (always after) or others who support him like myself and Franamax), or undoing the actions of anyone who supports him.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] <- He's never edited this article before, but minutes after I edit it...
[12] <- Another instance of an article I edited where he follows. If it isn't obvious by now...

While he is welcome to contribute, he is stalking me in the fact that he is editing pages only after I make changes and ones in which he has never edited before.

[13]
[14]
[15]
This is at least uncivil and harassment, IMHO, and stalking at most. You thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In this diff your and his edits are weeks apart:[16]. But for the rest, wow. Much better evidence for your points. The last diff where he edits MQS's comments really concerns me too. No one involved is under an arb restriction are they? So we then have standard wiki remedies. Let me think this over today and if you have more evidence, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, this certainly is interesting. BQZip01 has for months tried to accuse me of stalking him and has brought this point to any editor he thought would listen. He's filed RFCs, RFCUs, maintained attack pages, railed against me in a draft RFA and posted countless threads to ANI which I don't care to look up at the moment. Now he's trying to bring a case under some new guideline to try and impose sanctions against me before his planned RFA. To answer a few of the concerns here: 1. Tony Snow died that day and there were many edits from many different parties. 2. BQZip01 has made over 500 noncontroversial votes on IFD to try to bolster his RFA, four of which were to images I had proposed for deletion. The discussion on Paul Keating was either on that same page or the day before it, but either way they were in close proximity to each other so it shouldn't surprise anyone that I offered my own vote on the issue when he did the same for me. When I read his arguments and I discovered that he was trying to make a case under a guideline that he changed with little foreknowledge of the NFCC, I had concerns about it and I voiced those. 3. Given BQZip01's earnest dedication in shopping this dispute around and canvassing for friendly opinions, it has been in my best interest to read what he's written (like here, for instance) and reply to those accusations. I don't know how any of those can be construed as stalking, but I'm certain BQZip01 thinks it's in his best interest to shut me up as the best way to guarantee a better outcome at RFA. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And as for the concerns about MichaelQSchmidt, it should be equally unsurprising that I continue to have grave concerns that this user is flagrantly disregarding the warning he was given and continues to promote projects he is directly involved in. I'm going to point out that he edited both Dionne Warwick and Steve Martin, neither of which I have a problem with because he isn't either one of those people. This is a rarity, however, and this is why I disagree with the majority of MQS' edits, which are primarily to the talk page for his own article or to a show he currently appears in. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse, to answer your original question, how much farther back would you like? He's ceased such edits in the past 24 hours.
As to CC's accusations, I guess this is further evidence of harassment/further misleading information/inaccuracies/outright lies by CC (I'll leave it up to your discretion as to which category they fall under, if any; those are my thoughts on his edits, not his personality). I have not accused him of stalking me for months, only to you in the past few days. I have categorized his edits with regards to MQS as stalking in the past month or so. Of the examples cited where I "brought this point to any editor [I thought] would listen". The first was only at [ the specific request as to the history of CC and myself on my talk page from a respected admin]...and the second is a continuation of the conversation with the same person. In the last example, I specifically requested the respective admin to not get involved and only requested advice as to a course of action.
With respect to conflict, I have followed the dispute resolution process to a T appropriately filing 2 RFCs where CC was involved. Consensus for both was effectively no consensus. Please feel free to read them and judge for yourself. I filed an RFCU against Cumulus Clouds when a specific editor created several sockpuppets against me for the purpose of votestacking/harassment; CC's name was at the top only because his was the oldest account, per the directions. I disagree with the assessment as "declined" for those IP addresses, but, in retrospect, I also concur that it was not CC. I assume those edits to be from TomPhan, who has ceased all IP address and named account edits. Again, please feel free to peruse those pages at your leisure and draw your own conclusions.
In absolutely no way did I maintain an attack page on Wikipedia. I prepared a draft for an RfC as specifically permitted by WP:USER and backed up by the Wikipedia community. This is a continued, intentional distortion of the facts by CC.
The number of "countless threads" I have posted to ANI with regards to CC's actions is not "countless", but is quite countable: 1 and that one was regarding a clear 3RR violation. Please feel free to check my entire edit history to verify.
As for trying to "bring a case under some new guideline" and "try[ing] to impose sanctions" before a "planned RfA", I have no idea where he gets this. All I tried to do was clarify an existing guideline. Obviously it isn't what everyone wanted and it is under discussion. I have no idea, under either version of this guideline, how anything could be brought against CC. An RfA has nothing to do with this at all and whether it is before or after a nomination by another individual, not myself, is irrelevant, IMHO. When is an RfA a negative thing anyways?
An edit mere minutes after my edit on a page with no prior contributions shows a pattern of behavior. Once coincidence, maybe, but with so many, the pattern is clear. Please feel free to draw your own conclusion.
Indeed I have made over 500 noncontroversial !votes on IFD. Why is that relavent in any way?
"...it shouldn't surprise anyone that I offered my own vote on the issue when he did the same for me..." belies an agenda in a tit-for-tat response. I am making comments on all IfDs, his are geared as a retaliatory response towards my contributions.
"...he was trying to make a case under a guideline that he changed with little foreknowledge of the NFCC...'" I was not trying to change any guideline but make it more clear. As it currently stands, it has a huge gray area which is causing problems. I acknowledge my edit may not have been best, but it was an attempt to make the existing guideline better. I also explicitly stated that my change should be reverted if anyone thought it was out of line. Saying I made a change with little knowledge of another policy/guideline is amazing since he doesn't have a crystal ball...
No one is shopping for anything (see LOTS of detail for that above)
No one is trying to suppress his views
My reasons for doing it are that your edits and comments are causing unreasonable problems (no, not all of them, just some of them). Anything else you read into it is your own personal opinion, not my intent.
"...it should be equally unsurprising that I continue to have grave concerns that this user is flagrantly disregarding the warning he was given and continues to promote projects he is directly involved in." THIS is the primary problem. Please leave him alone. He is permitted to contribute to Wikipedia in exactly the manner you oppose as long as his edits meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.
In short, this kind of opposition and tendentious editing runs contrary to WP:CIVIL and the foundation of Wikipedia itself. — BQZip01 — talk 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious you guys have had issues for quite some time and that is beyond the scope of my talk page. I have four suggestions: 1) stay civil and stay away from each other, 2) file more ANI if it's needed, 3) seek mediation, 4) seek arbitration. I suggest option one as if you don't cease now it'll only get worse. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have remained civil and I have requested mediation twice from CC and he has turned it down. Let me also say that I stand by my edits. I have no problem being judged based upon them. I simply asked to be judged by the same standards I apply to CC. If I am out of line, I expect to be blocked or warned. — BQZip01 — talk 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A search of your contributions does not produce any results for an RfM between you and I. I'm curious what you mean when you say I've rejected two previous requests. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm getting somewhat impatient with the constant accusation that I'm some kind of overbearing bully. You have tried to cast yourself as a perpetual victim of my hostility, but it is high time you disabuse yourself of that little notion, your share in this conflict is at least equal (though I would argue much greater) to mine. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I never said I filed an RfM and I am busy searching through my past 3000+ contributions for additional instances of mediation, but the offers I accepted below (and which you didn't) are at least two instances. — BQZip01 — talk 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Attempts &c

I followed that nagging familiarity through several page histories until it struck me to look at my own contribs.

  • In an attempt to head off a formal (and in my opinion fruitless) RFC, I made an informal offer of mediation here:
    • Examination of immediately previous history will show that I was generally oppposing BQZip01 at the time, in fact the thread shows that I was challenged by another editor as having a bias against BQZ.
    • My informal offer was initiated with BQZip and BQ responded with acceptance here.
    • I made the same informal offer to Cumulus once, then followed it up on BQ's acceptance [17] with a link to my initiation of the RFC mediation offer thread.
    • To my best knowledge, BQZip01 accepted this offer, while Cumulus Clouds made no response whatsoever.
    • I several times affirmed my intention to act as a neutral mediating party [18] [19]. That last just after I'd reported BQ to AN/I - so it's not like we've been working together :) We work independently and occasionally agree...and we do so now.
    • I withdrew my offer to mediate after 9 days in favour of voting to a neutral proposal at the RFC. The record will show an offer to mediate which was accepted by BQZip01 in the face of possible bias, which was left unaddressed by Cumulus Clouds.
  • Shortly after that, observe this thread discussing Wknight94's suggestion of mediation.
    • I have no idea whether this accounts for one or both of attempts at mediation. I am unable to trace any direct response by either party to Wknight94's suggestion. I do note my simultaneously combative and mediative approach, which was accepted by BQZip and ignored by Cumulus.
    • Cumulus does however seem to be correct that none of BQZip's undeleted edits show an attempt at formal mediation. CC's statement is notable in that it conspicuously omits the attempts of the community to resolve the situation, BQ's acceptance and CC's eschewing of those attempts.
  • As far as bullying and hostility, comparison of the last 500 or so edits of myself, BQZip, MQS and Cumulus Clouds will speak to the matter.
  • And as to MichaelQSchmidt (MQS) - Rlevse I disagree with your sockpuppet finding to the degree that you find that all of mqschmidt, L.L.King et al and MQS are the same person. Certainly all parties have a relationship, and mqschmidt and MQS are admittedly the same entity. The remaining association has been explained. These salient points should be considered:
    • The current MQS identity has disavowed previous associations and is operating under fresh start. This is confirmed by yourself and others - do you agree?
    • The current MQS identity has been confirmed by a checkuser (Alison via LaraLove) to not be an abusive sockuppet [20] - do you agree?
    • Checkuser states that Alison retained information from the previous L.L.King case and the current RFCU is stale [21]. The logical inference here would be that CU compared current results with historical and arrived at a conclusion that the intersection of account/IP usage was not compelling in any way. I won't ask for your agreement, but would you agree that past-time coincidence of IP addresses is not relevant to the present day?
    • MQS is a known personal entity, verified at OTRS #2008062110007562. MQS can thus not be a puppet, possibly a puppetmaster (though no puppets of MQS are identified) - but certainly a primary entity. Would you agree?
      • And per all the above, is MQS allowed to operate under a fresh start without allegations of "abusive", "puppetmaster", "sockpuppet" and the like?
      • Further, when comments are addressed to the fresh-start MQS persona, is it acceptable to attribute to MQS actions carried out by the previous admitted mqschmidt incarnation? And to the admittedly related L.L.King universe which you have deemed to be the same person while declaring the fresh start?

Ughh, there's a good start to your day. Regards! Franamax (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that the current MQS appears to not be engaging in socking and should be free from claims of socking as long as he does not revert to past behaviors. I also find the ommission by CC of attempts at community reconciliation and ignoring mediation offers, whether formal or informal, very troubling. I've pretty much decided this case should go to arbitration, I may even file it myself. BTW, parties do not have to agree to accept arbitration. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Franamax's request to mediate was rejected because I did not feel he would be competent in that role and I didn't believe his efforts would result in a meaningful settlement between BQZip01 and I. He was clearly biased when he made that offer (he voted with me in 100% of RFCs, MFDs, RFAs, etc) and I was sure that the other party would at some point contest his findings on that basis. I obviously wouldn't accept any offer from him now since he's reversed his bias and I, again, don't feel that his mediation would be a meaningful exercise in diplomacy. Wknight94 only said that we should enter mediation, he did not offer to mediate the conflict. Had he done that I would have accepted. I myself made an attempt at dialogue with BQZip01 and again with Michael Schmidt, both of which crashed and burned following Schmidt's halting replies.
  • The debate over the term puppetmaster or sockpuppet for MichaelQSchmidt seems like a complete waste of time, since it's predicated entirely on semantics. MichaelQSchmidt registered all the accounts in that sockpuppet case. He controlled them all and employed L.L.King and his socks abusively. His current account is his latest incarnation, and he's now confirmed his identity so we can verifiably say who was in control of all those accounts during the past 11 months. Given the contribs of all the accounts, it's not a big surprise. The argument that the "intersection of past IP addresses" should be ignored is completely ridiculous, that information is pertinent to the case and proves that all the accounts are linked. I'm sure Franamax and all of MQS' friends would love to reject that interesting piece of evidence because it clearly shows the same IP address being used by all the accounts. I don't know why, in light of the massive, crushing evidence against him, Franamax and BQZip01 will continue to argue in his favor citing as their primary piece of evidence MQS' claims of innocence. MQS himself has agreed to abide by the rules (but hasn't done a great job of it) so I don't know why we have to keep rehashing these arguments over and over again on every page of every involved person in that case. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Resp to inquiry

CC has decided to leave myself and MQS alone for the time being, but there have been problems with other users. For the next couple of weeks, I'm pretty busy and can't devote much time to the situation. In short, I suggest reviewing CC's recent contributions and, if there are any problems, please address them. If Franamax wants to pursue this, I'll be happy to help. I stand by all of my actions and have no problem with them being reviewed by any board, any time, anywhere. Best of luck to you in the future. — BQZip01 — talk 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I've warned you before about painting yourself as a victim, but you still appear to be convinced that this is a one person witch hunt. My patience with you and your attempt at shopping this around has come to an end. If you want to pursue some kind of dispute resolution, be my guest, but if you continue to try to smear my reputation on this encyclopedia I will seek sanctions against you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and this is the problem I seem to continue to have with CC. His continued mischaracterizations of my actions are inherently hostile/misleading/demeaning and take small points way out of context. In this instance, you will notice that the person with whom I am discussing another issue asked me about CC. I responded. I did not seek out anyone with whom to "shop" for any sort of punishment/sanctions. Furthermore, threats to "seek sanctions" do not work well.
  • As for "I've warned you before about painting yourself as a victim, but you still appear to be convinced that this is a one person witch hunt.": Seriously? You've "warned" me? Warned me not to do what? What on earth do you plan to do? I have sought numerous forms of DR, but to no avail. I've also stated that this is not a one-person witchhunt, but a pattern of edits that are harassment to many Wikipedians through a form of bullying. I'll let my edits speak for themselves. I concur with Franamax's explanation below. Rlevse, sorry to burden your talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The proximate issue for me was Cumulus' aggressive approach to MQS, which I felt was crossing the line to harassment. Inspection of edits over the last 12 days shows no further interaction between the two (and MQS continuing exemplary participation, as he promised) - so I have no immediate issue.

I share BQZip's concern over CC's ongoing behaviour. I would characterize it as a pattern of minor bullying and overstatement. I'm a big boy and I certainly don't feel personally bullied, amused maybe, but not intimidated. The concern is for newer users less able to withstand the slings and arrows, who may give up on contributing or turn to malfeasance as a means to revenge. That may be simply a difference of philosophy, I've found by and large that new users respond well to a patient approach. I have no immediate cause for action, but I do plan some medium-term monitoring all round. Two of the involved parties may confirm that I don't hesitate to contact them off-line and give them heck when I see fit :) Franamax (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, please note in particular this thread where poeple are lining up to thank MQS for a good save. Beware though, late in the thread MQS reveals zomg! that his motivation was personal experience. Which was the desired outcome: we pursue this abusive serial sockmaster so he never shows up again; or we end up with an editor who follows policy, participates in discussions, and creates valuable sourced content?
I defer to your experience with serial abusers and it's early days yet. Nevertheless, I wonder if you could revisit your SSP conclusions - it seems increasingly likely that MQS version of the separation of personages is indeed correct (mqschmidt == MQS, L.L.King et al == related but independent agent(s)). No biggie, but the record may be worth examining for future purposes. I'll emphasize that I wish no retraction, just asking for your consideration. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Followup to your query:
  • MQS account of personages, timeline and events is persuasive and uncontradicted by available facts (edits and CU opinions). If MQS has not previously provided you with private information, I'm confident he would do so on request. I would also ask for a cc: (with permission) to verify against my information. Lies are difficult to promulgate whereas the truth is simple to repeat, I'll be happy to make the comparison.
  • When I say it's early days I simply reflect the caution with which the wiki regards MQS due to his distant past activity on the previous account. I have extensively reviewed the current MQS contributions and I am most pleased with the development of the editor. MQS has taken my, and most likely several others advice to broaden his scope and contribute in areas that interest him. He has joined the WP:FILM project and participated to the extent of addressing an AFD and creating a valid article, a well-received contribution, per the link to his talk page supplied above.
If my previous comments seemed back-handed, well, I'm a squash player, by nature my forward shots go sideways ;) I mean only to endorse all of MQS recent edits - and to express my ongoing caution, of which I believe MQS is fully aware, accepting and embracing. All is well. Franamax (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'd like for you to keep an eye on him for awhile longer. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice (part II)

About a month ago I approached you for advice on how to deal with a conflict at WT:MOSNUM. You suggested I use this RfC as a suitable venue to respond to the accusation of disruption that had been made against me by User:Greg_L. You can read my response and the ensuing discussion here.

Since then I have been blamed for the conflict at MOSNUM by User:Headbomb during the first of his 2 RfAs and accused of disruption again, this time by User:Fnagaton, on Headbomb’s talk page. This accusation of disruption followed my attempt to start a discussion on 5 July at MOSNUM. As might be expected in any discussion, some editors agree with my point of view and others don't. The problem is that those who agree with me are met with ridicule such as

while an editor who disagrees is cheered on with

The net result is to discourage meaningful discussion, giving a false impression of consensus. The best way to get a feel for the atmosphere is to start at the top and read down. Here are some more examples[22] [23].

The question now is what to do about it. I have been advised by one editor to walk away, and I have to admit that option is a tempting one. But last time I came here you suggested mediation as a possible route to resolution. The question then is what does that entail, and how would it solve the problem? Thunderbird2 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This incivility is unacceptable. I'll warn Greg L and if he does it again, report it here. For mediation, see Wikipedia:MEDCAB. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your assistance. Thunderbird2 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rlevse Fine. I’ll tone it down. But I think you’ve been snookered here. Thunderbird2 has been annoying the tar out of User:Fnagaton and User:Headbomb until we’ve nearly lost our minds over his refusal to get the WP:POINT. He has been very disruptive, refusing to give explanations for refusal to go with the consensus. We debated the issue solid and straight for four months. The debate has to end somewhere. Note how his vote stands out in this poll. That’s what this is all about; he simply disagrees with the consensus view. Really, we think that it is uncivil to be hounded no end by the guy. Am I missing something here? Because it seems like he’s just slyly hounding us and when I finally give him a piece of my mind, he then comes here to complain. You know, I’m glad you didn’t *whack* me and gave me a warning. But there really should be something done about Thunderbird’s persistent badgering of people. The issue over on Talk:MOSNUM is over and he won't let it lie. Greg L (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he's stubborn, that does not validate your incivility. You make some claims here about his behavior but the only evidence you gave was a vote page. I'll gladly look at it if you provide more evidence of badgering. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • P.S. And no, I can’t for the life of me think of some seriously great reasons why incivility is a good thing. However, I believe (and you’ll soon see others weighing in here) that if some drunk loudmouth was badgering a group at a picnic, Ward Cleaver himself could be painted to look like a mean nasty person if the drunkard chose to be *ahem* selective with the quotes you are provided. T-bird knows full well what he’s doing and is just being annoying and bothersome on purpose so he can play these “administrator” games. It would be nice if I had the patience of Job, but I don’t. I am fully capable of dealing calmly and rationally with reasonable people. I also note this, from a famous philosopher:
“The King of Oxford sent a troop of horse,
  For Tories own no argument but force;

  With equal skill to Cambridge books he sent;
  For Whigs admit no force but argument.”

 Sir William Browne

Greg L (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If the case is as complex as it is beginning to look, ANI may be better place for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re ANI, this discussion, initiated by User:Omegatron, is relevant. Thunderbird2 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rlevse: Indeed. Complex. And tortuously tedious. Like herpes:won’t ever end. T-bird: We’re not talking about that ANI. We’re talking about a new one to get you to stop being disruptive. Stop gaming the system. Greg L (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GregL, this new ANI should look at behavior of all involved, not rehash old issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Headbomb

Indeed very complex. While I strongly disapprove of Greg's methods and way of handling things, he is right in saying that Thunderbird just won't get the point. I, Fganaton, and Greg L, tried over the course of the 3 or so months of the rewrite of the MOSNUM to get Thunderbird to express his concerns and to give us concrete examples that the rewrite was fundamentally misguided. Many times he was confronted with very precise direct questions and simply dodged or ignored them. For example, after being repeatedly asked ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and on my talk page [31], [32]]) to give us examples of how using bits and bytes to disambiguate (which seems like the sane thing to do since everyone agrees is unambigous, clear, and fully compatible with the spirit of the MOS), he still hasn't provided any. And that's just one question, and from my edit history.

Thunderbird has a tendency to completely misrepresent his opposition, a tendency to criticize but not to help, and a tendency to use "Well it's in the archives" as an arguments without ever saying where (see [33], there's section right under it called "vote comments". Thunderbird's vote is the 7th comment). Plus many if not most of his arguments have the appearance of being valid, and are designed in a way that debunking them requires posts of many thousands of words, and a plethora of references, as well as taking attention away from the fact that IEC prefix are not used in the real world, not even by computer scientists, or in computer science articles (see Google hits on Google and Google Scholar), and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

That is what is annoying and what can get on many people's nerves (just ask Greg L). For example he points out edits that in his opinions "brought down the quality" of the articles (see for examples [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). While he was right about the quality of these edits, they brought the quality down exactly because they did not follow the MOSNUM (If you have too many things to disambiguate, use footnotes. If it's not clear, specify the number of bytes. Don't mix conversions such as 1 MB (220 bytes) and 220 bytes (1 MB)...), but only part of it (don't use IEC prefixes). You certainly won't see him point the various edits I made to the same articles ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], amongst others) that follow the entirety of the MOS, and shows that the MOS-prescribed way of doing things works, makes things understandable to Jimmy Longshort without resorting to units no one heard of.

Another fact that speaks volume IMO, is that I ignored Greg L's warning about Thunderbird since I don't like having second-hand evidence presented to me (Greg's warning, my reply, as I prefer building my own opinions of him through my own interactions, and still side with him on this (other than the issue of Greg's inflammatory behaviour, which I am very glad to see he agreed to tone down in the future). I came to the IEC debate as a newcomer, I had no bias resulting from previous interactions with anyone out there, I had (and still have) a personal preference for IEC prefix, I think that if Wikipedia would put its pants on, it would promote the use of IEC prefixes and bring them back from the dead. I've rebuked Greg L many times for his behavior, I had many clashes with him over the course of the re-write,... The fact that it's Greg L who has me on his side and not Thunderbird should speak volume.

This is a simple refusal from Thunderbird to get the point. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no one uses IEC units, not even those most inclined to use them (scientists), and if things are unclear, disambiguation in a way that has unanimous consensus : explicit the number of bits or bytes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with Headbomb. I’m not asking that you Rlevse, do anything about this problem; it’s the wrong forum. But I am rather annoyed with T-bird for coming here like a elementary school girl picking on boys on the playground and then ratting to the teacher that “one of those boys, Greg L, was being mean (using plain-speak) and made me cry and I just don’t know what to do because I’m trying to be sooooo reasonable”. He knows full well what he’s doing and thought he might get his way by getting a bureaucrat to start silencing editors who stand in his way.

    All we’ve done is gotten Wikipedia to fall in line with the way the rest of the computing industry communicates to their customer base. And because that’s the way the computer industry does it, it’s also the way all general-interest magazines like PC World communicate to their readership and is also the way professional print and on-line encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book communicate. We simply got Wikipedia following real-world practices so as to not confuse our readers with terminology that all agreed in a 12:0 vote was not even recognized by our readership.

    But T-bird just won’t let it go. No rule of conduct in a decent and civilized society says that we have to put up with this. And when I started dealing with him at level he understands (and full well deserves), he came here to complain. What gall. I just hope you’ll be aware of this the next time an issue comes up with this guy at the middle of it. 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think ANI is the wrong forum for this, you (both sides) may want to use mediation or arbitration. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I’ve suggested that before but Thunderbird2 and others in his camp (who’ve long acknowledged the reality of the situation) have uniformly rejected binding arbitration to rule on whether or not a proper, general consensus had been reached. The options have been simple 1) deal with the issues logically so we can address them, 2) accept binding arbitration, or 3) hold your peace. As Headbomb pointed out above (and Headbomb has tried to make it clear above that he came into this with an open mind regarding T-bird), T-bird has refused to accept any of those options. He just agitates endlessly badgers us and won’t let up. I submit that there are more than enough rules of conduct on Wikipedia for Thunderbird2 to abide by that would settle this.

    We’ve occasionally had a helpful editor, Francis Schonken, weigh in on Talk:MOSNUM. Francis has generally stayed out of the issue but has on several occasions interjected himself with usually sage advise as sort of a fairy godmother when he saw an opportunity to be helpful. After the new guideline had been adopted (after four months of intensive debate and a clear consensus of twelve editors had finally been arrived at), Francis offered up the following message for Thunderbird2 to consider. His message was simply to transclude the following from WP:DEADHORSE (Archive 104, 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) post):

::{{WP:DEADHORSE}} --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, we’ve all bent over backwards more than far enough to accommodate T-bird, but as Headbomb pointed out above, no amount of prodding and probing can get T-bird to address the issues. He just keeps coming back with the same fallacious claim that there was no consensus and continues to be disruptive. I ask that he be admonished to not edit against consensus and not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point on this issue, and that he be warned that if he keeps it up, that he will be blocked. Greg L (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To all sides, DEADHORSE seems very applicable here. If you guys can't agree, then there are some options: 1) all walk away and let things be as they are (I don't even know what state the MOSNUM thing is in), 2) you can continue the debate and hope it ends on its own one day, 3) seek mediation, 4) seek arbitration. As for mediation, I think all parties have to agree. As to arbitration, not all parties have to agree to seek it, you file at WP:RFAR and the arbs decide to take it or not take it. For GregL-if you get frustrated, don't retaliate by being uncivil on wiki. For Tbird-if there is a clear consensus, accept it-fighting clear consensus only hurts everyone. For all, if there is not clear consensus, see steps 1-4. The path chosen is up to those involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with mediation is that they tend to find a gray solution. Well this guys says black, the other guy says white. So obviously the truth is 50% black and 50% white.

As Marc Stiegler once put it:

The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."

Marc Stiegler, David's Sling

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say go to arbitration or report incidents as they happen to ANI. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I note from T-bird’s post below that he apparently saw your above comment about how mediation often results in “split the baby down the middle” solutions. As I had proposed on many occasions before, I think the better option is binding arbitration. Why? Well, for one, I think the arbitration committee would see it entirely our way. Also, the last compromise solution tried on MOSNUM left some computer articles using the conventional prefixes like “megabyte” meaning one thing and yet another in others.

    The four-month-long debate process we devoted to arriving at the new guideline could serve as a paradigm of how dispute resolution on Wikipedia should be conducted and how a solid general consensus can be arrived at. The final 7:3 vote is as good as it was ever going to get. Why? Because several editors still felt Wikipedia should Lead by example and show the path to a better future©®™ notwithstanding we would be confusing our readers the entire time until the world wised up and followed our lead (and not withstanding the fact that no other publication or computer manufacture actually chose to follow Wikipedia’s lead during our three-year-long experiment with using the IEC prefixes). The consensus view was that the wise thing for Wikipedia to do was to simply follow current real-world practices and not try our hand at social engineering by being all alone in the use of unfamiliar terminology like “2 gibibytes of RAM”.

    I’ll take it up with Fnagaton and Headbomb how they want to proceed. Headbomb has already established himself as a good record keeper and he would likely have to do much of the heavy lifting of documenting our case if we went to arbitration. My feeling is that we’ll see how things play out from here out. Now that T-bird has seen this little stunt got him nowhere, we might be able to manage him a bit better. If not, we might consider all the hassle of arbitration. Besides, it’s Fnagaton and Headbomb that do most of the daily grind of responding to all of T-birds games; my role as of late was just to note when the thread was going absolutely nowhere and put an end to it with some ‘straight-talk express.’ I’ll just be a bit more careful from now on…

    I strongly subscribe to the notion that “personal attacks” (death threats, threats of legal action, attacks based on race) aren’t allowed and I wouldn’t dream of even desiring to head down that path; that’s just not me. I also see that “incivility” (suggesting ‘why don’t you leave this stuff to someone who’s more intelligent than you are”) is certainly not my style. If you were to examine the current “Bot removing links to metric units” thread on Talk:MOSNUM, you’d quickly see that my interactions and contributions when dealing with reasonable and honest editors are thoroughly productive and without rancor. There is no need whatsoever to employ “cut-the-crap plain-talk”. Still other editors though, simply don’t, IMO, deserve to be treated with “queen’s-rules, little-finger-out, white-glove dinner manners at the country club”-style interaction when they act like a drunken party crasher who refuses to accept reason and behave himself. Not only do they not deserve it, employing it doesn’t work at all. Now that we’ve had this little dressing down here, we’ll see how far we get with “queen’s rules”. I’ll leave that to the others; my penchant to simply speak the simple and plain truth as I see it (my thoughts, my speech) will one day underly my getting blocked for a week and told to go stand in the corner. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I completed a request for cabal mediation here. I have deliberately not included too much detail in order to keep it uncontroversial. I would be grateful if you could read it and advise whether further information might be necessary. Thanks. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could take another look at my request for mediation. When composing it I was careful to avoid making controversial statements, but User:Fnagaton has added a POV remark here. (The first 3 bullets are mine but not the 4th.) When I tried to move the statement to the discussion he moved it straight back. What should I do? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not POV, my edit contains the facts about your failure to accept consensus and your failure to debate, so when you left out your wrong-doing it is in itself pushing a POV by omission of those facts. Since you failed to mention your own wrong doing it is only fair that your wrong doing is in the correct place in the mediation report.Fnagaton 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest two things, put your sig after each entry you make because it now looks like he made all 4. Then contact a mediation person about this as mediation is not my specialty. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Golly - that point hadn't occurred to me. I've signed my statements, but I have no idea who to contact about mediation (I've never done this before). Any suggestions? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to spend 8-10 hours on writing a detailed history of what happened because what's happening right now is people mixing events that happened after the rewrite with the events that happened during the rewrite. We had a vote where people expressed their degree of support. I've contacted about 20 editors who were involved, about 15 people comments on things. Only you were strongly opposed, and two person were opposed, one of them only concerned with disambiguation rather than deprecation. Considering you didn't substantiate your opposition, and that the other vote was another "I don't like it vote". That's a pretty damn strong consensus. Accept it, move on. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb, I think your comments here on this talk page including the diffs report of Thunderbird2's failure to answer questions and subsequent failure to accept consensus would be fine on the mediation request without much editing needed.Fnagaton 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you guys can't work this out, I suggest mediation or arbitration. Preferably, work it out amongst yourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyannrunning

Thanks for your action. This has been a stressful situation with this person. I saw that you noted the fact that she (I think it is a she) is moving around LA a lot and often uses public internet access. In the past, IPs have traced to UCLA, LAX, Los Angeles Public Library, etc. This is why it is hard to really lay out a succinct sock case. Can you advise as to a better way of addressing this as she pops up, since I'm convinced it won't stop? It would be a great help. Her interest in relatively obscure articles both makes it easier and harder. In passing, there was another username that popped up that I think is connected: User:Downonme, who popped up once or twice and edited on Janis Joplin. In any case, thank you so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The changing IPs definitely make it harder. That pretty much leaves us with behavior and hope the IPs at least are close in range or only use a few ranges. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectful disagreement

Hi, I hope we can agree to disagree about the Shoemaker's Holiday RFA. When I learned he was going up again I did ask him to make a fuller disclosure because the very special circumstances of his case weren't widely known within the community. DurovaCharge! 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the intent of the ruling was clear, whether one agrees with it or not doesn't matter, we should still abide by the ruling. And yes, I know more about SH than most. I agree he should have made a fuller disclosure and I think if he had any doubt he should have asked arbcom. I also think arbcom should be more explicit in these cases. Saying A is possible doesn't answer clearly if B is possible and causes these situations. They should say A is possible, then whether B is or isn't. BTW, I've been an arb clerk for 9 months, so I'm quite familiar with arb cases. In the cases I've seen if they want to enable RFA, they'll say so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, compare the following:

  • For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped

No statement to specifically enable RFA; RFA is presumed. It is only with regard to other channels that the Committee specifies. DurovaCharge! 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but I see not point in continuing to debate it. They need to be more careful in covering all points and thinking of how people will interpret things. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree they should write clearer decisions. DurovaCharge! 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I apologise, but, frankly, I feel uncomfortable going back to arbcom. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman#Statement_by_Charles_Matthews is the statement opening the case - which specifically sets it out as a test case. This "test case" was extremely stressful, and drove me off wikipedia for several months, caused me to lose several grades in my final exams (which happened shortly after the case opened), and so on. As such, asking Arbcom to judge me again is something I cannot do, particularly goiven Charles Matthews' on the evidence page, which he has never retracted, apologised about, or been sanctioned for. I want nothing to do with them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I can see the predictament you you're in and understand the stress, but circumventing them, or even appearing to circumvent, them will only make it worse. If you want I'll even approach them for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I am open to you approaching them, however, I don't want them coming anywhere near me. If they try to make me the subject of another "test case", I cannot be held responsible for my actions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That I totally understand. If you want, contact me at the 6 month point. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Request for clarification. This is not going to go well. Oh, well. Maybe it'll be cathartic and I can move on and begin to forgive them for what happened. Mind, 5 months is an awful short time to get over something where, since the stress aggravated my illness and made me have to drop out of a semester of University, I've had pretty constant reminders of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 28 7 July 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: Transparency 
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed 
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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) 09:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My sockpuppetry case

Thank you for your decision regarding User:Peter jackson's accusation of sockpuppetry against me. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I apply wiki policies and call them as I see them. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Report on Lycianaff1

Hello there. Thanks for taking a look at that report.

...I should let you know that User:Lycianaff1 is the sockpuppeteer—not the sockpuppet as the template said. However, you did block that guy for the correct reason.

Can you please check out Lycianaff1's sockpuppets? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's the oldest account, but it's abandoned. It looks like a newbie that doesn't know better. See notes on SSP and her talk. For the IPs, I think she just forgot to log in. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, sure. However, if the edits continue regardless of the warning, then the issue should be re-examined. Thanks for looking into it, though. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, try to educate her but it continues, I won't have a lot of sympathy for her. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

all the parties...

thanks heaps for your help in structuring the arb case correctly, and clearing up any confusion... would you like me to notify the involved parties (or help by doing some?) - I'll hold off until I hear from you, and thanks once again. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Filing party, YOU, notify the parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
okey dokey - thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Was reading the thread on PM's talk page and noticed: "It seems more an AN issue, besides I doubt the arbs will take it as no DR has been tried other than unblock requests." I think what has happened here is that Guido has ended up in a limbo where no-one wants to do anything, or is able to review the case properly, because of the twin points of bits being on another wiki and the case involving legal threats (hence no-one will unblock until they are clear what is going on). ie. a classic Catch 22 situation. I'll be interested to see what ArbCom say. BTW, some of the links are not as precise as they could be (one in particular is to ANI but the discussion has since been archived). Can I change the links, or should I make a separate statement pointing this out? Or can I annotate within the statement PM posted on behalf of Guido? Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'll post on PM's page you're merely fixing links, so go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Regarding this case, the suspected sock was not blocked. Cheers mate! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

oops, got him now, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!!
Well, that user has come back with yet another sock. Your help in this area will be very appreciated!
Cheers mate!
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Done too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate! :)
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mate

Hey Rlevse, I've left the project I became rather busy in before and have recently returned to editing, hopefully to continue at a rather brisk rate over summer. I've reached the 1000 mainspace edit count and am picking up an average of 200 more per day at the moment; I feel a bit like a bot. Would there be any chance of taking me on as a semi-active coachee for that period? I'd really like to learn more about the "behind the scene" side of Wikipedia and getting myself involved in it. Thanks very much regardless of your decision, MattieTK 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am getting too dang popular as a coach ;-). Since I worked with you before and you're on my possible list, yea. But I am swamped so I may not be swift to queries all the time. That ok? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine mate, just the odd poke in the right direction and letting me know when I'm ready would be very useful. If there's anything you want me to start with in preparation please let me know on my talk page. Cheers! MattieTK 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Go here: User:MattieTK/AC — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

..for working on the clerk updates... seems like 'thanks' are often in short supply when working as a clerk? - you guys do a great job in keeping the wheels turning even if the system is a little fragile right now.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker

I never thought of a photo arrangement on Coker like you just did, but I really like it. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. That new photo is a great find, and I think the article is much better for it. Thanks for finding and uploading it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huh?

It was my proposal and I'm withdrawing it. It'll still be available for viewing in an archived box. Please don't change it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking out or using the box is okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yah, someone suggested the collapsible box thing on my talk page and I couldn't see any problem with it. It neither clogs up the page or interferes with my withdrawal of the proposal (my concerns), or erased the record of the discussion (others concerns). Win-win. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa [45], excuse me? Thanks a lot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time it looked like you were intent on a revert war or something. Sorry I misread the situation. I'll post to Nish and clarify that all is well. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Graphics lab

You wanted to know when Image:VNCivilActionsRibbon.jpg would be vectorized, so here is the SVG version: Image:VNCivilActionsRibbon.svg. --pbroks13talk? 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See comment on the page. It doesn't look like the real thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Nyannrunning

Hi. I had left a comment for you last weekend after you blocked the newest Nyannrunning sock puppets. The user is back with a new name, and has once again restored content on the Pamela Courson article. The paragraph regarding an Esquire article was added in by the sock User:Debbiesvoucher on Revision as of 22:18, 31 May 2008. The sock User:Seth4u2nvcs returned it at the advent of the last sock case on Revision as of 11:47, 24 June 2008. Now tonight, a newly created username, User:Newcastleind returned it again here and here. This is getting to be creepy. All the work has established that this sock is in the Los Angeles area. On the last sock case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd), one sock account made use of the name of one of the Senators from my state, User:Evanbayh. This time, the new username is the name of the town near where I live (New Castle IN). I'm not sure exactly how she learned this, unless she's spent a LOT of time tracking my editing, but this is bordering on stalking. In any case, is this something you can deal with, since there have been multiple sock cases on this person now? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into this. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to note that she created the account here and made a note on the Courson talk page that she was going to restore the Babitz material two minutes later, then actually restored it three minutes after that. While I know that familiarity doesn't prove a sock puppet, this is also a pattern of behavior for her - new ID, restore her old material immediately after. Like I said in the last sock case, if it looks like a duck.... Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Persistent socks is par for the course. In this case you already had his current IP address, but it was only soft blocked, so I upped it. The latest account was created somewhere else, so I blocked that too (unusual place with no other editors) and User:Evanbayh was only used at a library (that he has used with other accounts) but I would prefer not to block a library unless it becomes more persistent. There are a hundred ways he can avoid the blocks and keep editing if he is really determined, but at least his topic focus makes him easy to spot. You should try dealing with Beh-nam and NisarKand some time; that's real persistence. Thatcher 12:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have dealt with Beh-nam and NisarKand, OY VEY! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your quick response and assistance. When she popped up to make the one day edits to Janis Joplin using the nick User:Downonme, she made a huge production out of being at the hotel where Joplin died and that her IP would trace to that. I suppose that was in response to the discussion of traceroutes from the 3rd sock case. I tagged that account and she didn't come back. I wonder if she's using that place too? In any case, thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource help

I’ve been in touch with the folks at the Veteran Tributes site and they've sent me evidence that will show it’s a reliable source. Would you be able to help me with posting the official documentation on Wikisource? I guess the process would be similar to the Coker picture that you got uploaded to Commons along with the OTRS ticket showing the verifying evidence. I've never done that, and would sure appreciate your help! Dreadstar † 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, send it to me. Sounds promising. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It's great material. Dreadstar † 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The documentation looks great! The formatting is absolutely splendid! Thank you for the help. Dreadstar † 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mrs._Leigh-White#Name

When I put the new article on the list, I posted that I can't find any mention of her personal name, and need help in that regard. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Arethusa Leigh-White; added link that shows her name. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

MBisanz would like to nominate you to become a bureaucrat. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfB to see what this process entails, and then contact MBisanz to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. MBisanz talk 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Old RfA

Shouldn't this be closed out? Enigma message 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that never got done after all this time. My nom will prob take care of it (better him than I). He watches my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I don't know what is usually done now, but 1.5 years ago when you and I had RFAs, declined RFAs usually weren't explicitly closed because there's no reason to. My old one - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDT - was never closed. --B (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, usually I make sure to ask users now before i make that template, just in case. In either case, I take it you're not accepting that nomination? ;) Wizardman 03:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a list of 1800 of those B, I'm slowly going through and closing/deleting where appropriate :) MBisanz talk 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the tip. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker, redux

I legitimately felt it was a BLP issue. I just posted to RFB that I later banned myself, with the link. I did work that was transparent, did the self-imposed ban for obvious reasons. It's getting real late for me, if you'd like more info, I'll gladly discuss more later. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you wanna give more info you can, but I was impressed with the self-ban... and so changed back to +S. But as i said there: I urge you to ping my talk if you run for ArbCom. I will then publicly call for you to recuse yourself from any and all cases involving Scouting WikiProject. I think this is only fair. Sorry to be such a stick in the mud. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds fair. It's really late and I'm really tired now ;-) And thanks for switching back. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Problems - Anekantavada

This is with respect to image of Adi Shankara on the FAC nomination page of Anekantavada. Some concerns were raised on its appropriateness. I have received the following response from user:MBisanz. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anishshah19&diff=226942520&oldid=226682293 . He suggested your name to resolve the issue. With an eye on FAC, what do you suggest? Can we keep the image or try to replace it?--Anish (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. See my "personal tools" page on OTRS here: User:Rlevse/Tools#OTRS and follow the directions. In your case, it appears the owner has emailed OTRS already, if so, just have him send the additional details and do the missing steps. When I get permission such as this, I have the owner email me and send that email as an attachment in my email to OTRS. Let me know if you need more help. — Rlevse • Talk • 07:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Best of luck to you on the RfB. I do hope you become a bureaucrat, I'm just slightly miserable because I missed out on the opportunity to co-nominate. :) Regards, Rudget (logs) 09:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your RfB

Wow. Congratulations on your nomination! I hope you succeed, it's certainly looking very promising for you. Looks like you'll be promoted again before I even feel confident enough to be up for nomination ^^ I'd vote in favour for you after all the dealings I've seen you in were it not for everyone there being administrators :D MattieTK 16:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they're not all admins. All users in good standing (not banned, etc) may vote. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I will definitely be showing my head then, hope it counts for something. I'm sure you'll get through! I've been working on those questions also, on another note, I should have a lot more done by the end of the day. MattieTK 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've posted! Good luck again to you. MattieTK 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Socks of 200.215.40.3

Please see this.

I can't find a way to convince Ausonia to stop revert-warring until this is confirmed. Can you please check it out?? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

admin User:MBisanz said he'll look at this for you tonight as I'm about to go to bed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see others got to it before MB. They did what my initial thought was, page protect. Plus they did a block. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dodgechris

Hi Rlevse, it appears Dodgechris has requested a unblock confessing to abusing multiple accounts and agreeing to the fact that it was wrong and will not do it again. Unless you have an objection I am going to unblock allowing the user a second chance. Tiptoety talk 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

His stmts don't convince me yet. Have him work through {{2nd chance}} to show he's sincere. If he does, I won't object then at that point. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds fair enough. I will handle this if you like, seeing as you are prob really busing with your RfB. Tiptoety talk 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am! Be my guest. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, much to my surprise this user actually went through with the whole second chance thing and has significantly improved an article. So, can I haz unblock now? (Your RfB is going great BTW). Tiptoety talk 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you do the honors since you are the one that worked with him. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Tiptoety talk 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EVula

You're not? Better go tell EVula then. :) Acalamari 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL ROFL — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moldopodo

Hey Rlevse, I just thought you might want to check up on this individual. He's accusing people of stuff and I'm not really comprehending some of his ranting. regards, nat.utoronto 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs)

Hi, Rlevse, I know you would be very busy, but could you leave your input at ANI for Lucyintheskywithdada whose socks you blocked and whom you observed with this SSP file His treat on me and Fut.Perf is alarming so I reported his disruptive behaviors. I would appreciate if you leave a note there. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wood Badge

Thanks for the input on my edits re: American history of Wood Badge. I agree the world-wide Wood Badge page could get awfully cluttered with nation-specific info. Not sure there's enough info to justify a separate article on U.S. Wood Badge. I could start it as a stub if you think it'd be useful. btphelps (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Brunodam

Hi Rlevse, since you were the blocking admin last time round, I thought I should inform you of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_-_Ban_for_multiple_sockpuppeteer.3F. Best regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Supported at AN. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

adoption

Hi Rlevse. I'm Soccer5525, and I understand that since you're an admin, you'll be able to answer some of my questions. Well right now, I have a question about Wikipedia adoption. What is it? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's where an experienced user takes a newer user under their wing. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV of an IfD

I'm advising all participants in the IfD discussion for the Image Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg that a subsequent DRV was filed here. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar † 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

Hello Rlevse. I supported your RfB. I've reviewed your contributions in the past. You've contributed to 13 FAs. That's a great record. I hope your RfB will be successful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Truly. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Levy (politician)

Hi Rlevse, I didn't see the source where a charge or investigation regarding the "Stolen Valor Act of 2005" took place. I think his was a stragiht up fraud case and he lied about his military service and used those lies to defraud the government for VA services but I don't think we can just say the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 applies to him. I read the fox news source you provided and they discuss the fraud and lying about his service but I don't think it's true that we can conclude that he violated a statue of law when no investigation, plea or finding was ever published. Unless I missed something, I think he needs to removed from the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 article. Just as a practical matter, the law didn't take effect until 6 months prior to his resignation and 20 years after he first started lying about his service record. As a practical matter it would be difficult to separate his lies from the 20 years before the act to the 6 months after the act so that's why I'm skeptical that a prosecutor would even attempt this avenue given the strength and precedent of fraud. --DHeyward (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If we had an article on fake veterans, this would be okay. But the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is a specific crime which he was not charged, investigated or convicted. it's liking listing someone in the Capital murder article when they were only charged and convicted of manslaughter or even a self-defense killing or 2nd degree murder. It's not really a good idea to imply that someone is guilty of a crime when they haven't been charged, investigated or convicted of the crime. His actions aren't defensible but we can't create an association between this person and that piece of law without a source that says they are linked. Can you please revert your edit and remove him from the SVA article on BLP grounds? --DHeyward (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

 Thank you for participating in my RfA, Rlevse!
I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Just to tell you that Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We'd appreciate a peer review from you if you can find the time, to help us iron out any flaws before we go to FAC. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Brad is THE greatest loss ever to wiki. I most certainly will help. I'll start with the Commons stuff. 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 29 14 July 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: Transparency 
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 30 21 July 2008 About the Signpost
WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics" News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts 
Dispatches: History of the featured article process Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
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) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My farewell to Wikipedia

I am totally shocked by the infamous accusations that I have received: I will no more participate in the english Wikipedia. Only a "kid" can dream of travelling thousands of miles from Colorado to Florida to New York to Italy in order to write some posts on Wikipedia! And why I have to spend my time in order to create multiple socks? Only today I have found some additional hours to write on the english Wikipedia and suddenly I find myself with childish offenses on my talkpage and even this requested ban. I don't have any sockpuppet in your english wikipedia! Many of you know that webservers (like Earthlink) in the USA have multiple IP that can be used by many persons at the same day in the same area: the checkup cannot be 100% precise, ask those who work with it! I have just written a farewell letter to Jimbo [46].--Brunodam (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hehehe

Did you notice that you did the exact same thing I did? :D Enigma message 16:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did actually. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Protection on Book of Concord article

Dear Rlevse: Thank you for putting the more permanent protection on the Book of Concord. The editor that was editing the article was once again the banned editor Pmccain. Your careful work is much appreciated.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB question

Hi Rlevse, I've left a question on your RfB. It's a nice simple one, but one that's somewhat important to me regarding RfA/B terminology. :) Thanks! Acalamari 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to this in a few hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Kintestubuffalo and Chazwozel

I don't understand how you're even considering this as vandalism. I'm making a valid contribution to the article and Mr. Wikielitist doesn't like it, hence why he's running to you. It's not vandalism. I sourced it. It is a relevant statement for the section that it's under. Good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazwozel (talk • contribs)

Fine, fine. I honestly don't give a rip. I'll let the baby have his bottle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazwozel (talk • contribs)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra bit

w00t! Jehochman Talk 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

congrats on being promoted to bureaucrat! Enigma message 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations for your successful bureaucratship! --Caspian blue (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
'tis a shame. You signed off right before Deskana promoted you. Anyway, I removed the notice from your page and added you to the category. Hope you don't mind. Enigma message 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Request for Bureaucratship was successful

Congratulations from Mizu!

Congratulations Rlevse, I have closed your Request for Bureaucratship as successful. I remember how scary it can be at first since suddenly you're not unable to undo all your mistakes easily, so remember that us other bureaucrats are here to help if you want it. Feel free to mail me at any time, for instance. Best of luck. --Deskana (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, buddy! Good luck. :D GlassCobra 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, Rlevse! - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, Rlevse! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay, I'm not the newbie anymore! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll join the Congrat.s, R! - now was it cigars, or red wine you were after to make me an admin? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Now if I was you, I would be taking Húsönd up on his offer... I mean you might as well stretch this whole 'crat thing for all its worth right? Tiptoety talk 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, indeed!! Excellent news .... I know you'll be awesome :) - Alison ❤ 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So which means more... being an eagle scout or a crat?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all, truly. Balloonman-being an Eagle Scout of course. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations R! Ariel♥Gold 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
LADY ARIEL WOW!!! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I had to log in to see how the RfB went! You did not think I would forget, did you? Miss you! ~*Hug*~ Ariel♥Gold 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations Rlevse, I was supposed to be the first one, though I was to lazy sleeping this morning heh, other then that get a RfA today and close it! Best wishes to you. Regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! We have high expectations on you ;-) --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFB ... Best of luck ! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Rlevse, didn't see your RFB, but nice to see you passed without my help. :) · AndonicO Engage. 09:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, admincoach. :P Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Me, eiher! (Why, Tangobot? Why?) Congratulations. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though its a bit belated, congratulations. Synergy 09:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See, Rlevse, you're already getting lazy. ;P Hurry up and add some sort of 'crat UBX to your userpage! Yes, you! —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 09:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see congratulations are in order!! Good luck! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and best of luck from me too, thank you for your message. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

woot indeed. who'd have thunk that a sensible person could become a crat? user:Everyme 10:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done. See, the wait was worth it. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You crack me up Lar. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well!! FloNight♥♥♥ 11:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Flo! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
GOAL! MBisanz talk 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And the crowd goes wild! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to self, Tangobot is fired -- Congrats! I would have voted, but it appears that Tangobot's RFA counter no longer shows RFBs... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late but I think a huge congratulations are in order! Best of luck as a new crat, --Mifter (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WAY COOL! Couldn't have happened to a more deserving editor!Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Wonderful news, and well deserved! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I KNEW IT! And he did good! My hubby the crat !!! YIPPEE!!!! — Jojo • Talk • 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Newcastleind/User:Nyannrunning

Hi. I guess I thought from the discussion last week that was between you and User:Thatcher that the User:Newcastleind had been permanently blocked, although it's possible it was just the IPs that were blocked, and not the new account? Nevertheless, she's back tonight and is up to her old tricks. This time, it's on Gertrude Lawrence, an article that Nyannrunning and her troops has diddled with before. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of ways for blocked users to sock. Please provide user names and evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BOR

I demand your recall - in the 37 seconds since you joined the category, you have been completely inactive as a bureaucrat! Franamax (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, count me in, too. Rlevse, you slacker!! Go close an RfA or something - quick! :) - Alison ❤ 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys are a riot! ROFL ROFL! I plan to close the RFA that ends today. I'm off work so I can instantly close it. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Grr - I'm requesting recall too!!! Seriously though, good luck, and best wishes. I'll be sure to jump on you if you screw up ;-) Cheers mate. —Giggy 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad I can count on you Giggy ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 08:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well done and welcome to a world of pain! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You haven't even made an admin action as a bureaucrat!! I demand you rename yourself to Rlevse-the-Slacker. Maxim(talk) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I say close it now... and close it as unsuccessful... that way you can prove that RfA isn't a vote and that you won't be tied to some artificial constraints about how people !vote!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! If you need any help with CHU issues, just ask me. :) Rudget 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing and I'll undoubtedly need help. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Newcastleind sock

You blocked Nyannrunning sock puppets after this sock case on July 12. The user came back with a new name, and again restored content on the Pamela Courson article. The paragraph regarding an Esquire article was added in by the sock User:Debbiesvoucher on Revision as of 22:18, 31 May 2008. The sock User:Seth4u2nvcs returned it at the advent of the last sock case on Revision as of 11:47, 24 June 2008. Then the newly created username, User:Newcastleind, returned it again here and here. I contacted you above on July 20 and you and Thatcher discussed it and I thought the username had been blocked along with the IPs related to it.

She created the account here and made a note on the Courson talk page that she was going to restore Babitz material two minutes later, then actually restored it three minutes after that.

Tonight, User:Newcastleind returned and reverted changes made to Gertrude Lawrence back to a nearly identical version contributed by one of the User:Nyannrunning socks, named User:Dooyar (which was actually the first name this person used on Wikipedia) here. The few differences were the tabling of the filmography/Broadway appearance table, a few minor removals of wikilinking on dates, and two references. She also made changes on the Richard Calvin Cox page here, although it wasn't a revert, this is another article User:Nyannrunning also made additions to earlier in May here.

All the earlier sock work established that this sock is in the Los Angeles area. On the last sock case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd), one sock account made use of the name of one of the Senators from my state, User:Evanbayh. This current username is the name of the town near where I live (New Castle IN). When I looked at the block log on User:Newcastleind, it hadn't been blocked on the 20th, although Thatcher said that he'd hard blocked something in relationship to it. All of the other socks are blocked. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Newcastleind. Are there more? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The only one I'm not sure about being blocked is User:Downonme. Thanks much for following up on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on that one. — Rlevse • Talk •

Vanishing

Thanks for replying. I still don't know how to vanish after reading the link you sent me. Please help!!! --Fabrice Wilmann (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed

hey, I would have liked a more clear admin consensus before the ban was applied. However, could you clarify the matters I inquired about here?Xasha (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are okay, posted to both talk pages and the Digwuren page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

About your RfB

Congratulations on your successful RfB! I know it's probably not what you were quite expecting, but here's the admins' T-shirt! Evidently, you've been an admin for well over a year, but as far as I know, you haven't received one of these yet. :) According to this, you now have the third highest supported RfB of all time. It's nice to see that you've been doing some bureaucratic work already. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Second'd - contratulations! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats!! America69 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hew

Hi there Rlevse. I see you renamed User:Hewus to User:Hew for SUL reasons. There's a slight problem with this - he doesn't hold the right to the name with regards to SUL - if you take a look at this, you'll notice that a user on ja.wiki has the most number of edits on one project, so they hold the right to the name. When SUL is expanded, User:Hew here is going to lose his account (as accounts which have the most edits will automatically take over all accounts sharing their name on different projects), and he'll have to have another rename. Just something to ponder when doing future renames. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AGH, Maxim was training me and he said it was okay. He trains all the new crats in renames. I'll advise the user. Thanks for the tip. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've learnt not to listen to Maxim when he's offering advice - it always ends in tears! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Tear I can deal with, it's mistakes I don't like. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Right... d'oh!!! I totally forgot to check for that... Meh, Ryan's comment at 15:59 makes sense though :p Maxim(talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Congratulations on joining the cabal. :) I see no reason why not to close it 30 mins early. I have closed some RFAs 6 hrs prior to closure, so 30 mins is ok. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I close RFAs early, (up to 6 hours), I usually keep these points in mind: 1. Support > 90%, no drastic change in !voting in the past few hours; or if the candidate is gunning for a record such as 100 or 200. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll start working it up. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ummn no, none that I know of. The last time there was some off-wiki bureaucrat discussion was when WJScribe contacted each of us personally through email to look at an RFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Crat

Concrats (!) on your first promotion. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rambling Man! — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to welcome the user on her talk page? Some folks is waitin' to hand out t-shirts and back-slapping congrats and all...  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me time! I just did that ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, just because you're new doesn't mean you aren't expected to be perfect! ;-)  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HarHar. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to let her know too, actually...

[13:00:05] >Rlevse< you know, when you close someone's RfA, it's usually best to leave them a note saying "oh by the way you're an admin now" ;)
[13:02:03] >Rlevse< bah! I know you're there, you old coot. I see you making edits still :P

Haha. Congrats and well done, buddy. :) GlassCobra 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, Mr Crat, I have your back! Enigma message 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Enigma! GC-it's the last step on the procedure list and I did them in order ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you'll be great. Sorry I missed your RfB, I would undoubtedly have supported. --John (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB thanks

Like sending out thank you cards after a party, the obligatory thank you talk page posts after a successful nomination have become a perfunctory part of the Wikipedia nomination process. While I am deeply disappointed at your unwillingness to directly respond to the specific issues I had raised at your RfB, I do hope that your commitment to "have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart" is reflected in your apparent efforts to resolve the outstanding issues at George Thomas Coker. These issues can be completed in minutes if you would like to see them through to a conclusion. Please let me know what I can do to help resolve them as quickly as possible. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppetry Case

Dear Rlevse,

I am writing in good faith to appeal the decision made in my sockpuppetry case.

I have not opened a new account in the name of Plasmons. This is a different user.

The references to IP addresses used as evidence against me are not valid. The reason they are not valid is that they were not new accounts but merely anonymous postings. I freely admit to posting without signing in, in those cases.

However, again, the sockpuppetry definition is about opening a new account and in my case specifically the account Plasmons.

Finally has the IP location of Plasmons been identified as per the discussion on the sockpuppetry page.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course

Justinmarley (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleared the tag on Plasmons page. How do you explain you two using the same singularly unique way of signing? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear RLevse. This is a coincidence. I have not created the Plasmons account. Please confirm the IP addresses of my account and Plasmons. This should settle the matter. I am innocent of this accusation and must continue to seek justice. I appreciate your task is a difficult one. However, under these circumstances, there must be additional options available yours sincerely Justinmarley (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a CU, I can't confirm the IP addresses. Try User:Thatcher or User:Alison. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Justinmarley (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rlevse, Would you please reconsider the sockpuppetry case. I have confirmation from Thatcher that I have been editing from UK and that Plasmons has been editing from India - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thatcher#Request)- I look forward to hearing from you in due course Justinmarley (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1) have Thatcher confirm with me and 2) if such is the case, how do you explain you two having the same unique signature? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rlevse, as per your instructions I will request Thatcher to provide you with the information. As for the latter point, I am responsible for my actions alone. Again, I am writing in good faith Justinmarley (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)justinmarley
I saw his talk entry. Yet, you still haven't explained what was going on with you two having the same very unique signature trait at the same time. The sigs and other evidence in the case still make it highly suspicious that something was going on. You were merely warned, not blocked. There are no sock tags on either user page, yours or Plasmons, so I don't see exactly what you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia definition of sockpuppetry is clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry) - a separate account opened deceptively. On my user page - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Justinmarley) - it states falsely that I am a confirmed sock. It also states that I am a suspected sockpuppet. These statements are made on a page which is displayed publicly. Furthermore in my usertalk I am erroneously given a warning. If I am vindicated since the two IP addresses are separate then why am I being warned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Justinmarley). The end result is that despite proving that I have not opened Plasmon's account, the false statements remain and remain publicly. I would like these amended please Justinmarley (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just remove the tag on your user page and talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely it would be improper for me to do this myself as I am the one that was accused Justinmarley (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Users are free to remove whatever they want from their talk page, it's considered admission they saw it. If anyone asks about you rm'ing your user page tag, tell them I said you could. You won't like this, but the evidence in the SSP is very very suspicious--things in it are way above chance level, therefore, I won't rm it myself but won't object if you do. Keep in mind meatpuppetry falls under socking. My advice is put this behind you and keep on editing productively. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly the meatpuppetry accusation is a new allegation - is that what you are alleging? I am at the current time dealing with the accusation levelled clearly by Collectonian namely that I created a separate account under the name Plasmons. Collectonian declared as a statement of fact that I had created the account Plasmons and did so publicly. Your comments on the page detailed below are made in this context. Secondly the term meatpuppetry is also a derogatory term that according to the sockpuppetry page 'should be used with care'. Thirdly you have archived the following page - as far as I am concerned given the above this page should be revised by you - it is both public and it implies that I am a sockpuppet - you have added none of the new evidence and the page states clearly that it should not be modified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Justinmarley Justinmarley (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you answer the above points please Justinmarley (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I updated the SSP case with the CU evidence. Now simply remove the tag from you user page and thread from your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rlevse thank you for your help in this matter yours gratefully Justinmarley (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK

I'll repost when the candidate has accepted. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 23:15

Your RfB

Congratulations! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot needs flag

I've left a bot available for you to promote. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

warning?

This wasn't vandalism. He was the initiator of the case, so he was blanking it to withdraw the request. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it gets put on the withdrawn cases list. He didn'tput an edit summary, so how to know? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it's obvious! Put it on the wihdrawn case list then, no need to revert him - I'm guessing he doesn't know the ins and outs of arb clerking. I've seen many users in the past withdraw their request by removing it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We're supposed to list all withdrawn cases, not just delete them. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's cool - just do it for him. As I said, he can't be expected to know the ins and outs. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I did, and I posted a 'oops' on his page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah right, thanks. I just think the guys had a rough time over the past couple of days and it's not really fair to pile it on even more, not that that was your intention. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

Hello, I wanted to point out that Image:IndianaJ.jpg was not the image that was kept at IFD and DRV. The other one, Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg, was -- see IFD and DRV. The image of Indiana Jones and Henry Jones, Sr. was removed based on a separate discussion at WT:FILM and was not related. In addition, the Cross of Coronado image was moved to be more adjacent to the relevant context since it could not be immediately established the significance of the image with its placement in the Plot section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks, but it does appear he was edit warring with several editors. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, but I just wanted to clarify that particular difference. Congratulations on becoming a bureaucrat, by the way -- I noticed the thankspam going around. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man

Congrats on the RfB, I'm sorry I hadn't noticed it while it was on-going. Its what I get for not looking at RfA too much these days. I know you'll be a great one. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KOS! — Rlevse • Talk • 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Age groups in Scouting and Guiding

Is Age groups in Scouting and Guiding according to the Wikipedia policy a galley? All images were removed on that basis. --Egel Reaction? 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's right about the non-free not going in galleries, but those aren't galleries. See my post on his talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come on, the fact that they don't use the code for 'galleries' does not stop them being galleries. How is this any different from album covers in discography pages and screenshots in episode lists? We do not need to have pages with a non-free image for every entry- that clearly is not the 'minimal usage' required by the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep this on your page to keep it in one spot. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Replied. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's any help, here is the pivotal discussion on screenshots in episode lists I was referring to. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: CHU

Thanks! (Now you know the real reason I !voted for you in your RfB :P ) J.delanoygabsadds 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

/me chuckles. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks alot!

Amirreza (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Alextwa

What do you make of User talk:Alextwa's unblock req? I see no IP, autoblock, or direct block? But it does seem odd he'd give the old "someone else had my computer" reason. MBisanz talk 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was rangeblock but I don't find that either. Ask either BC, Luna San, or Lucasbfr. That's who I go to on these sorts of things. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC

Copyediting has been completed on the article and it should be ready for FA status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

What do you think of the latest RfA? People were discussing at WT:RFA whether it should be early closed. My initial thoughts were no, but now I think I'm leaning towards the opinion that it should be closed to prevent further... Enigma message 21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the candidate? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Two did. Waiting for a response. Enigma message 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pabopa

Hi, Rlevse. I come to seek your opinion on the new user, Pabopa (talk · contribs) and 2channel related case. The user in question has been topic-banned by Fuf.Perf since two days ago because the new user appeared to be making disruptive edit warring over Korea-related subjects; Samjeondo Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Taekwondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kowtow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yesterday, an open proxy user edited one of the disputed article between Pabopa and Manacpowers, whose edit is exactly same as Pabopa's edit.[47] The open proxy is caught up by WP:OP so being banned for 5 years. Today the edit by the OP was reverted by Manacpowers, and then Pabopa reverted it again.[48] Since Pabopa is not allowed to edit Korean related topic, he breaks his given restriction. Pabopa alleges that I made a personal attack against him because I speculate the open proxy may be him per the circumstance. Pabopa also appeared to edit here after 2channel began discussing the three articles on their forum.[49] Since Fuf.Perf is not active, can you review the case as looking into User talk:Pabopa#Topic banned?? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Pabopa is a sockpuppeter confirmed by checkuser as well as Northwest1202 (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa. They waste my time a lot. The bigger problem is unrevealed 2channel meat/sockpuppetry within Wikipedai. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Congratulations, and best of luck with the tools :) -- lucasbfr talk 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lucas! — Rlevse • Talk • 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Belated congratulations from myself as well, Rlevse. Use the tools wisely. ;) Anthøny 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

SUL

I've never handled such requests before, so had to sit down and think. To begin with, I'm not happy with IPs making the address without any security check. So, I would like to amend the policy so that the IP who made the request, also place a confirmation request on his home wiki. This needs to be brought up on BN. Plus those points on meta about usurping. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

re on your talk to keep in one place. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Where did I threaten to RV him? - Kuzain (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That is to day, I commented on editing an article and feeling that changes needed to be made which I may always do. We then spoke outside of the talk page and reached an agreement as is the ideal consensus. My advice would be to be careful of getting involved in issues too early. You do not do the community any good when you do so. - Kuzain (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Getting involved early is the best time, it heads things off at the pass. Waiting only makes it worse. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. When you are needed is the best time. Jumping into a situation, especially one half resolved, does not suggest you were looking to head anything off. - Kuzain (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am needed now, or there would not have been a request at AE. Heading something off is exactly what I'm doing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah. By the time you'd made this last statement the issue had been resolved. You were at best a victim of someone who doesn't have any faith in this community's ability to resolve its issues and at worst a little too trigger happy. I'm just suggesting you read the comments made regarding an issue or not jump in if you lack the time to do so. - Kuzain (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping

See my reply to you here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deutsche Freischar

Hello Randy, could you please transwiki import the history of de:Deutsche Freischar and merge the histories? Thank you. --jergen (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Never done this, but will try. Did you do the export? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
PS, read that link, it says it's disabled on most wikis and appears so on en.wiki as Special:Import gives "No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." — Rlevse • Talk • 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it did work de.wp. But it seems to be disabled on en.wp, the respective log shows only one entry [50].
I was one of the main contributors on de:Deutsche Freischar, so I'd like to be mentioned here... de.wp sees most translations without previous import as copyright violations. But I should not think in the lines of de.wp when in en.wp. --jergen (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jergen#Generic_trefoils

Randy, please get Jergen to slow the heck down. He's called me a liar today, and is now removing images without replacing them. If I am in the wrong, I will accept that, but he's going about it in the complete wrong way. You know my present situation, this is one more thing I do not need. Sorry for writing you here, my e-mail is down. :( Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He has now removed Image:Scout mongolia badge.png

Image:Scout centrafricaine badge.png Image:Scout guinee badge.png Image:Scout burundi badge.png Image:Scout antigua and barbuda badge.png Image:Scouts uruguay badges.png Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada and Carl Daniels

Hi, Rlevse. Can you take a look at Carl Daniels (talk · contribs)'s talk page and WP:AN#Lucyintheskywithdada: Indef blocked user's trolling and revenge? Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) or Documentingabuse (talk · contribs) evaded his indef. block again and spread this personl/racist attacks against me over to multiple users whom he think would likely side his malicious revenge. Per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and WP:NPA, I removed such attacks from the users' talk page. Regretfully, among such users, Carl Daniels (talk · contribs) reverts to keep such material [51][52]. I requested him to remove it, however he refuses. He even cites that I have to follow a certain official rule that I've never heard of before.[53], and even says to support the banned user's scheme.[54]. I want the attack messages from Lucy to be removed. Can you help me on this? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's his talk page, not worth edit warring over. I was going to block the IP for disruption, but Ryulong beat me to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, but I don't get what is difference between indef.blocked user's evasion and banned user's. Admin, Lifebaka's comment[55] sounds like Wikipedia allow any contributions including personal attacks from indef.blocked user during his block. Is the policy worth to be mended? --Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Banned users are formally forbidden from editing by Jimbo, community or arbcom. An indef block is a defacto ban, but it's easier to get it overturned than a formal ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IP RfA

My question was intended to show how seriously I am taking this nomination. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So you were being facetious? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very. I see this nomination in much the same light as I see this nonsense. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, hadn't seen that link yet. Bet this is someone's sock. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Drama, drama, drama. Pah, what a waste of time, I think I'll go and spell-check something! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi, Rlevse. Am I too late to start an RFCU with these IP-s?

I suspect that these IP's are sockpuppets of banned user:Justiceinwiki (you've banned him, [56] that's why I'm referring to you) due to following reasons:
Interest:Prebilovci.
IP-range:62.63.212.xx.
Compare to edit from 17:46, 21 Dec 07 [57] (author defends banned user:Justiceinwiki. See his comment "Read Justiceinwikis arguments, because their're the same as mine.", and of course, accuse the opponent for vandalism - typical behaviour pattern of IP-vandals)
Some of these edits are open revert-wars [58] .
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the data that CUs can see only stays about 3 months. These guys are all inactive now. — Rlevse • Talk •

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff (2nd)

Thanks for the blocks you doled out based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff (2nd), but I don't understand your comment in the closing: "Red Udvar was blocked and tagged the first time, nothing to do here". Was there another report of this? I just filed the case yesterday. User:Red Udvar is only a few days old and not involved in the previous Issacharoff sockpuppetry case. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see his block log, I did it yesterday. Maybe I forgot to close it and thought the report reappeared. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded

A admin has already voiced that, another is not needed. Also that user has done nothing but talk down to me and make false accusations. I will call him a lier if he tries is going say he's treated me fairly when all he does is say i'm out to hurt the article and censor it.

That user is not following the good faith thing by repeatably saying I'm censoring. Also i haven't made any edits to that article today and also those users were also edit waring. If you're going post on my talk page about my actions then you have to do the same on their talk pages.Yami (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've full protected it for 3 days to let things calm down. If these behaviors persist after that, the problem editors will be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia has a problem on their hands since Atom who is the main problem has been hovering over the article for 7 years or so as he has said. He is contently making accusations that i find the images pornographic and want to censor them. He even goes so far as saying hiding the gallery is censorship when all it does is keep navigation easy and stop the scroll bar from jumping like a idiot.

Two editors have hidden it myself ans Asher and he's undone both 3 times which is see as being a 3RR violation but did not issue him one, though i probably should but that might hurt any peace you wish to gain through the full protection.

Yami (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't fully protect still. Yami (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

oh ok i see now the edit this page button is gone. the lock icon tat read semi protect threw me off. Yami (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! What a nice surprise. Thanks for your help on Commons and Wikisource! For that help, I think you deserve a barnstar too:

The Guidance Barnstar
For providing invaluable assistance and teamwork in uploading and formatting the Coker military documentation on both Commons and Wikisource, I salute and present you with this award! Dreadstar † 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Neuropedia Chu

Thanks; have updated my CHU request with info you asked for. —Neuropedia (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Last time (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_22#Question) you and Ryanposs said to contact you if PM started going back to BLP edits. So I'm contacting you re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Giovanni_di_Stefano_and_the_GFDL and User_talk:Sarcasticidealist#before_you_hop_in_your_Kia. MBisanz talk 14:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Long time no see. How you doing? See WP:CRAT, I'm a crat now. Long way from those early days huh? Let me know if you ever need anything. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Randy. I'm doing pretty well, though I guess I haven't edited much for a while now. Congratulations on becoming a bureaucrat -- I guess everyone finally dropped that whole, oh-no-we-don't-need-any-more-'crats thing, huh? -- RG2 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yea, we've had a couple new crats this year. Keep in touch. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

You appear to have locked the article without the disputed image which was under attack. I appeal to you to restore the image to the article. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Work that out on the talk page during the coming week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not been involved in the mediation, and I am sure that others understand the current difficulties better than I do, but it appears that locking the article without the image is giving one side of the dispute what they did not get in mediation. That seems unfair, and it seems to be contrary to the mediation agreement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If I locked it with the image, the other side would say the same thing, just in the opposite direction. I simply locked it at the point I discovered the edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your point. It was my understanding that the mediation only decided to move the image for the location of the article it was in, not to remove it from the article altogether. Perhaps I have misunderstood the decision. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest you ask an admin mediator about this. Try Daniel. If an admin mediator wants to change the protection, I won't object. But there was clear edit warring and I merely prot'd the version in place at the time. In the meantime work it out on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changing my user name! /Oddjob (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Np. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hallå, Dreadstar and I were discussing whether it'd be appropriate to extend Yami's block. Would you be partial to this? He does appear to be refusing to abide by our policies. Or would you be more inclined to let the block lift naturally and see if that sets him straight? I'm okay with either, but he does seem unrelenting, to be honest. Wondered what your opinion was. Thanks. Hejdu! ScarianCall me Pat! 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an extention is in order as he's refusing to see the problems he's causing and he's ignoring consensus. Feel free to extend it yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

SUL

Hello Rlevse, I've confirmed that the username Macy on eswiki is mine. Thanks, doña macy [talk] 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dodgechris

Well, so much for my good faith... Tiptoety talk 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. No one, not even yours truly, gets them all right. As long as you're right most of the time, ok. And in this case you gave him a 2nd chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just really messed up on this one. Oh well, just thought I would let you know that your suspicions on the SSP case were confirmed. (Oh, someone was looking for a 'crat on IRC) Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

Good day Rlevse, I'm currently trying to reply to all of the coaching lessons. I was wondering if you could comment on it (just want to know how I am doing it) Thanks! Regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1RR violation on SLDR

Please see this incident. Per SLDR, violators should be dealt with harsher than normal. Watchdogb (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

seems he rv'd himself — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the next DC Meetup

Greetings! You are receiving this message because you said you wanted to be reminded about future DC meetups on Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_4. We are planning the next DC meetup in late August/early September at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_5, and would love to have your input. Staeiou (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WilliamH RfA

Hi, Rlevse. The archived discussion Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilliamH indicates that you closed it on 2nd June. Axl (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, fixed. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More trouble with User:Moldopodo

Hi. You asked me to let you know if Moldopodo was continuing his earlier disruption after his one-month block expired. Well, I think that time has come, as he's begun moving and messing with pages again, in violation of consensus. I'm referring to Moldova (disambiguation)‎, Principality of Moldavia‎ and in particular Moldavia‎. For the last page, he made a move request in June - no consensus to move. He made the same request on August 3; that closed with no consensus yesterday, but he went ahead and implemented the move anyway today.

And, might I add, he's still filing frivolous ANI reports. Biruitorul Talk 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In the history of Principality of Moldavia, he alleges 'move per consensus', where is the talk the move if any? Same for the dab page.?? And who put those bogus protect tags on the page? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The protection tags are old but never got removed. The "consensus" he cites is here, but in fact that debate closed without consensus. Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, it was a multiple request. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More trouble with User:Biruitorul

Hi. Please see how the aforementioned user violates the reached consensus that the article Moldavia is about geographical region (see the talk page at the requested move section). User Biruitorul continues his disruptive contribution being unpunished till now, also denying anything that pertains to Moldova, its nation, culture, history, people, language. (see the talk page for Moldavian language). I wonder when will be the Digwuren arbitration enforcement applied to User Biruitorul by you?--Moldopodotalk 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, since your one month block expired, you have falsely claimed consensus here, here (both today), filed and another friviolous ANI report, filed Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move_1 and Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move, both of which were no consensus to move the articles which you chose to ignore. You've made several false statements, disrupt the encyclopedia, ignore consensus, and appear to only push your own POV. You leave me with no choice but to indef block you on standard wiki principles and policies. Last time I did this and changed to one month to give you another chance but you've clearly shown you are not here to be productive in building the encyclopedia. I'm listing this at the Digwuren case logs too since there is so much overlap therewith. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, Moldopodo, I will when someone provides evidence instead of making wild unproven claims. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the notification about this case. Looks like you made the right decision. Given the long history of disruption here, there was probably not much else that could be done. Good call. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you FP. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I orphaned the image because I only now, on re-reading the IfD, became fully aware that those straightforward replacements existed, so I drew the obvious editorial consequence. I would have done the same earlier, during the IfD, if I had been able to open Calliopejen's links. Now, could I please have your personal opinion on whether Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif or Image:ManzanarBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif or this of this could serve the same encyclopedic purpose on Granada War Relocation Center as Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Personally, I like this one best. Just uploaded it from [59]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
On a slightly different note, shouldn't these be interned scouts, not interred scouts? Hopefully, some might still be alive... :-P Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the cat name. I've put in a fix with a bot on Commons. The Manzanar photo is no good for the Granada article as it's taken at a different camp. I don't want to rehash the debate again, but I still think, as others noted, the image Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg is probably PD. If it's not, it's still a very unique photo: WWII era camps in America, interned Scouts, band, non-Japanese adult, faces are up close and you can see them well, all under a US flag, etc. This makes it useable to me, but I know you don't agree, and that's fine. Of the others, I like this one the best and since it's also a McClellan photo who worked for the gov, it's also PD so I'll go upload it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's here now: Image:GranadaBoyScoutFlagRaising.jpg — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, great. Sorry about the mistake with the Manzanar one, but the others are correct, right? As S. Dean Jameson has also agreed to using one of those, can we tell Peripitus we've solved the dispute? Under these conditions, the old image would end up legitimately orphaned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the others are correct. If SDean and Peripitus work something out, that's okay with me. Pls make sure their agreement is onwiki and if it's somewhere other than Peripitus' page, pls point me to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the, seemingly appropriate, change of image in the article to a free one, perhaps we have a resolution. Original can be tagged unused-fair use and non-controversially deleted in a week, via the normal process? Peripitus (Talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've saved the image and info, like I always do in these cases, just in case ;-) Can you make a call and close this one too: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_31#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - I'll look at that one later tonight (unless someone closes it first) - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Rungius

No problem. I had some Rungius (I'm pretty sure it wasn't original though) in my house growing up, so I wanted to see it reach DYK. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought the photo was from Canada, and thus had an expired copyright, so I've replaced it with one that is, and incidentally shows his face better. Good work all around. -Oreo Priest talk 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sample of "critical reception" section for film

The article for On Golden Pond includes a section called "Critical reception". While the play seemed to have received broader positive response, the article for the film does an interesting job in providing a balance of positive, negative and mixed reviews for the film, and may serve well as a sample in expanding the similar section in Hearts and Minds. I will certainly acknowledge that Hearts and Minds is far more challenging in that it has garnered critical reviews that tend to treat it either as a masterpiece in political documentary film making or as a hatchet job anti-Vietnam War propaganda film. In many ways it truly is both, not unlike Farenheit 9/11 and the current war in Iraq. It is no simple task to provide a balanced, neutrally-worded summary of the reviews of this film. I had tried to think of an approach to write a WP:NPOV-compliant description of reviews of the film months ago, but gave up several times when I failed to get past an opening sentence that would have read something like "Hearts and Minds has attracted extensive critical attention, almost all of it either glowingly positive or damningly negative, but rarely anything in between." I think the On Golden Pond (1981 film) may be a useful model (despite its dissimilarities) in crafting a similar section for Hearts and Minds. Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support both sides of opinions being represented in the review section. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Buscema

I'm not too clear on the situation - I was waiting for the ArbCom clarification response and I see it's been archived - and this ban - what exactly happened, there?

--Scott Free (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed arbcom about the case status, what my thoughts were on the clarification and AE case, and they did not object. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for me to see a copy of this correspondence? --Scott Free (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, but I assure you all it said was, basically, that if they had no more input on the clarification, I was willing to close it and intended to reinstitute the bans if they didn't object. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that some of my questions weren't addressed and I still had a few things that needed clarifying - it looks like Anthony, who had put the request on hold, had concurred that there were still a few valid procedurial questions that needed to be cleared up. I would like to know more about this e-mail system. Who receives the e-mail, and how many arbitrators replied?

--Scott Free (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact them directly, via their own email or the arb email list: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, or their talk pages. The path at the clarification seemed pretty clear to me though. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the following - 'Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.'

It might have been a good idea to leave the explanatory note that you've given on the archived request. If I'm to make further inquiry to arbitration, I would like to have a copy of your correspondence with them, so that I'm aware of all the facts before proceeding. Nothing personal against you, it's just that I'm not all that familiar with the intricacies of the adminstrative procedures and the niceties of certain procedurial policies and guidelines - so although things appear clear to you, they don't appear quite so to me.

--Scott Free (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am an arb clerk, so I can remove requests, see Wikipedia:AC/C#Current_Clerks. Just ask them what questions you have remaining. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks - I'm still not comfortable with the notion that there has been off-wiki discussion of the request that I'm apparently not privy to. I think I'll just make another clarification request for the other questions I have. I'm not blaming you for this, I can see that your e-mail was aimed at trying to help move things along, probably just the dual role of being arbitration clerk and arbitration enforcement administrator on the same case threw me off a little.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably get a faster response if you use my suggested route. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Buscema 2

Hi, and thank you for volunteering to clerk this case. I had a question about my banning. Arbitrators jpgordon∇∆∇∆ and Sam Blacketer wrote at the clarification page that the the arb decision "require[d] that after your topic ban expired, both of you 'respect consensus developed in the interim,'" and to "respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate."

None of my edits changed the consensus-developed version. Scott Free added material that did, including the Nationmaster link referenced above, which I along with other editors removed. But I didn't add anything that changed the consensus version.

Based on that, I'm wondering if there is an appeal process. Thank you for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that may be true, but you were uncivil to Scott Free and you two are still going at each other and that's what I based my call on. Now when you two learn to get along and cooperate in a productive manner, I may entertain a change in my opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Understood — and thank you for the quick response! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.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) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Extremely sorry, I should have informed you before removing it from the article. However it was just for hours and I was actually consulting some other editors regarding the issue with images. It is only because of the objection of one editor in the FA nom. Thank for your comment in the FA nom, I have added the image back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA Count

hey Rlevse, Just a minor request, when you are updating the tally on RfA's it is a common practice to put the count in the edit summary. That way, people who have the RfA watch listed will know what the latest tally is.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I'm lazy about that ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
First you refuse my request to fail an RfA candidate with 98% support... now this!!!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Haven't you noticed that I've been (jokingly) campaigning you to fail a candidate with 98% support to show that RfA isn't a vote... show you independence! ;-) Thus far, you haven't done that... now you are saying that you're too lazy to put people's tally's in the summary box!
Harhar ;-) Actually, no I haven't seen the 98% campaign. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
here and here---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw the slacker link but not the 98% one. 98% is a pretty strong consensus though ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
ROFLMAO!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna

Great work on the article so far! I think the article needs an expansion and more reliable references before you bring it to FAC. I'll go digging for some obituaries and send them to you via email. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tks! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FA nom

Hi, can you please comment at the FA nom of the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany? There is continuous disagreement over image, your comment will be necessary. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


User Xasha is hurting the topic ban

In this article he seems to start a new edit war with the user Daniel 1918 concerning a disputed map (see also the talk page of the image). Xasha seemed to ignore his topic ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xasha#Topic_ban). More can be seen in the talk page of the disputed map. --Olahus (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey stop that. Daniel1918 (talk · contribs) is clearly one of your meatpuppets, as uninvolved users on Talk:Roma people have observed. He edits only two topics that you're very active on, and he supports your POV (is it just pure chance the fact that he changed that image immediately after you requested its removal?). You have a history of sockpuppeting, so please don't act as you were innocent.Xasha (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, such defamatory and slanderous accusations against me are on the wrong place here. If you think Daniel1918 am a sock of me, make a checkuser request. Don't try to justify your violation of the topic ban with such a trash. Be honest and admit taht you just violated your topic ban. --Olahus (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So you think making legal threats may help you obscure the evidence?Xasha (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats? That's exactly what you did with me in the last months (remember the discussion on the talk page of Tariqabijotu?). But hey, return to the discussion. You hurt you topic ban. Why didn't you discuss the issue in the talk page of the article before you made this unallowed edit? Didn't you notice that the map posted by Daniel 1918 was the one appointed on the consensus in the talk page of the article? Moreover: why didn'y you say nothing in the talk page of the disputed map posted by you? --Olahus (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, "meatpuppet" means the sock is a different person who happens to be in coordination with the sockmaster. The different person can be on a different computer, geographical location or even country, so checkuser will be useless. Meatpuppets are usually caught with the WP:DUCK test. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So if 2 users edit the same article, they are automatically meatpuppets? Benacause in this case, Xasha might be the meatpuppet of user Moldopodo in the past. Just compare the edits of both them. --Olahus (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Besides, on Talk:Roma people the user Daniel did participate on different discussions than I did. --Olahus (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Calm down, man. Your desperate denial and attempts to blaim others help only reinforce my case.Xasha (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Try better to show arguments for your topic ban hurt. If you have anything to say about you're infringement, do it. --Olahus (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
will get to this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Xasha most definitely violated the topic ban. One week block for Xasha. As to whether Olahus and Daniel1918 are socks or meats, I do not see enough evidence to prove that to a blocking level. But, I think it is possible they are socks or meats. That situation should be watched by interested parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SUL account Times

Hello Rlevse, I try to switch my current user name into User:Times to complete my global SUL account. I placed a request here but nobody has answered, yet. Are there any restrictions or problems? Thank you for answering. --Times.uk (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Rlevse • Talk • 12:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt service. --Times (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to ask you a question

How do you get that status template/thingy on your user page do you have to be an admin? "MyAccount 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't have to be an admin. Ask user User:TheDJ to help you set it up. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

a shiny

The Awesome Bureaucrat Award
Wow, you sure came out of the gate quickly after your RfB! You are an excellent addition to our team of bureaucrats. Keep up the good work! J.delanoygabsadds 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Why thank you! Actually, I am a bit surprised at this as I'm just now starting to get comfortable in the crat role. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite cleanup

You might be interested in User:Gadget850/AWB cite parameters. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to ? on my talk page

I've replied on my talk page and on the AfD itself, but here is what I said: Look at the edit history of the article and the discussion on [[60]] in section 38 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs) (the slasshes etc foul up a direct link here). I did restore it to user space (a sub-page of Mayalld's talk page), but it quickly got moved back to article space by this editor. As far as I am concerned, what I did was not incorrect, and the later action of moving it was not of my doing. This is the crucial message which shows the extent of my actions here. I hope that explains my actions, and shows that if anything was done incorrectly, it was really not of my doing.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This is when, after I restored the deleted article to user space, the user concerned moved it back to mainspace or article space.

Admin Coaching

I'm not sure what you meant by "not accepting new ones" at WP:ADCO (Either not because you have more you can handle, or not because you just do not want to Admin coach anymore on any grounds). Given my confusion, and since one of your current coachees is now an admin, I'm going to be bold and ask: Would you be willing to admin coach me? Thanks for the consideration.--LAAFan 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking new ones, sorry. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Hi, I see you declined RoccoWebb's CHU request, as Roccowebb did not exist. However, even though Roccoweb was the 1= parameter, the user who made the request is RoccoWebb. Therefore, renaming is still possible, think you could look that one over again? Thanks. Soxπed93(blag) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag fix

here. Sorry for stuffing them up in the first place. TravellingCari 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the puppetmaster is either the oldest account or the one with the most edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I think one entered my frame of reference first and that's why I thought it was the oldest. Now if I could get them to stay _out_ of my e-mail that would be even better. TravellingCari 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another page to update

As you did this, would you be able to update Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as well? Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, plus several expired ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Was a bit out of date, wasn't it. Are the clerks aware of that page, or should it be added to some probably overly long list? Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We're aware of it, but we tend to forget when things expire. It is on the procedures list. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

CupPup -> ComicDude

Hey Rlevse! Take a look at the Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL page. I need your approvell (or someone elses) to change my username from CupPup to ComicDude... PLEASE!!! --CupPup (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an SUL request, so I moved it to WP:CHU. Once Soxbot checks it, I'll rename it. It looks like Soxbot will not find an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

If I'm wrong here, I have no objections to a revert. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, obvious typos by me. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Thomas Sales <-- User:Tom Sayle

Can you confirm this sock? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI I've already blocked the account.-Wafulz (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
OK I put a better tag on his page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blasted renames...

I'm going ahead and processing some of the renames that got side-swiped by vandals. The only "tainting" by Grawp is that it's just slightly harder to perform the rename; no end-user is going to associate the usernames with Grawp, so I don't think it's a big deal.

I am, however, preemptively hardblocking the renamed (pre-registered) accounts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

There is a disagreement over the inclusion of Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg in the article in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. For this reason a consensus is necessary and discussion is going on in Talk:Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany#Consensus_for_Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Notifying you because you are involved in it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation

Thanks for facilitating my name change from HouseOfScandal (talk · contribs) to Boston (talk · contribs). It seems my old talk page din't get moved along with the others and I am wondering the best way to correct this. Thanks! - Boston (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We can leave the redirs on the old name in place or I can delete them, up to you. Yea, it wouldn't move your talk upon the rename for some reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image removals

Re. [61] and [62] :

  1. Shrug. Not that I care. It's a 100% obvious open-and-shut case, waiting out the five days is a mere formality. By putting it back you are merely creating more unnecessary work for everybody, when it will finally have to be removed again, sure as eggs is eggs.
  2. More seriously: where did you get the bizarre idea from that removing non-free images is somehow out of process? It's an editorial measure that anybody can perform boldly at any time, and indeed should perform as soon as possible. If nobody objects, they get orphaned by consensus and can then be deleted. Why do you put it back if you can't even be bothered to defend it and vote keep? Putting it back only makes sense if you wish to be responsible for the editorial judgment that the image is appropriate. It very clearly is not, as in this case even you yourself seem to have acknowledged. So why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

Rlevse, as an admin you should make yourself more familiar with our policies regarding the use of images. "Purpose = Used to show DeVries" [63] is completely invalid for a fair use rationale.

As that guy is in the army, it wasn't hard to find a PD image of him. --Damiens.rf 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, good thing I wasn't an admin when I uploaded it

over two years ago... ;-) I'm not currently disputing the IFD, just the manner in which the nominating admin went about it. Also, there was a TIME Maganize Template at the time. The template was under review, and the policy was obviously changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to rub it in, but if you keep saying you are still "disputing" my procedure, then I'd ask you to please respond to what I said just above. And, just for the record, Damiens is also right: your "rationale" of "Purpose = Used to show DeVries" was written in 2008, and it really is something I wouldn't expect from an administrator. Also, there was really no change in policy, at most a change in seriousness of enforcement. The old "Times" template had pretty much the same text back in June 2006 that our current {{Non-free magazine cover}} has. In particular, it also already asked for a separate rationale, and it noted that it should only be used for articles that explicitly discuss the publication, not just the person shown. That upload was as wrong back then as it was in February when you "fixed" that rationale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Were you an admin by the time you wrote the defective rationale? --Damiens.rf 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
in Feb 23, 2007, the Time template said:

"to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover", Which indicates that a Time mag cover could be used to "specifically describe the issue in question" Which the article on DeVries does, it specifically describes the issue in question: "DeVries was on the cover of Time magazine on December 10, 1984." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Rlevse/Archive 11, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008

Changing username

Could you review my CUN request? Thanks, --Meldshal42? 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --LordSunday 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Haven't been ignoring you, just swamped with RL stuff. Will get back to you soon. east718 // talk // email // 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Filed it at PR and GAC today. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Spectre requested rename

I'll handle the task of renaming if necessary. There is more to it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge problem

Hi. Hopefully you remember this sock issue, which you have blocked on several names, including User:Newcastleind [64]. This just came up on my watchlist. Besides the fact that it confirms conclusively that User:Newcastleind and User:Dooyar (who was confirmed as a sock of User:Nyannrunning) are the same person, she has managed to stalk me to the point that she's discovered my name, which has never been given out on Wikipedia to anyone. She's now managed to have usernames that make reference to me - my state Senator (User:Evanbayh) and my address (User:Newcastleind) and she's revealed my name. This is a serious issue to me, considering that a couple months ago, another confirmed sock (User:ColScott) put a request for information about me on his private webpage forum, managing to find my MySpace page (which is now set to private) and sent harassing messages to me on there. What can be done to remove my name from this history? She has always moved around from one public interent connection to another. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CU and OVERSIGHT is needed. I've contacted people about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The oversight has been done where your name was needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Thanks for all the gnoming. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep an eye on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AN

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=233599481&oldid=233599427 Yami (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 31 28 July 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2008 wrap-up WikiWorld: "Terry Gross" 
News and notes: Unblocked in China Dispatches: Find reliable sources online 
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 32 9 August 2008 About the Signpost
Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy" 
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 33 11 August 2008 About the Signpost
Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members 
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies Dispatches: Reviewing free images 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 34 18 August 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: Help wanted 
WikiWorld: "Cashew" Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mohsin

Hi there, thanks for moving my username to a new one, but the talk page has not moved, will you be able to fix it? Thanks. Mohsin 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

done — Rlevse • Talk • 19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

As you appear to be online at the moment, could I request my +sysop back, please? I voluntarilty gave it up a couple of months back to ensure I actually stuck to a wikibreak :). Thanks, Black Kite 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you in IRC or Skype? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I can be in IRC in a few minutes - channel? Black Kite 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
start in admin or enwiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Done, verified non-controversial, see here — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Sorry, looks like we crossed wires for a bit while trying to put things in the proper place. I would have left it to you clerks to do, but it just aggravated me so much seeing it in the wrong place. ;) ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I noticed we were both trying to fix it. No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"As regular user"

Freudian slip? ;) El_C 22:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed, though I've seen lots of people use "regular user" ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, it does sound like... you know... [Stand back!] you have powers! El_C 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Name change request. Bot keeps denying me

Please capitalize the c is my name. the Bot won't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCat4680 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 August 2008

I renamed you this am, see your user page: User:TomCat4680. If you have problems, be more specific. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MS Wikipedia

Greeting from MS Wiki. Your request is done. Yosri (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet Resource Providor

Isn't it possible to completely remove the old "Internet Resource Providor" from wikipedia, rather than it saying "name block"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete the old name pages for you. Please don't recreate them. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I definately won't recreate them, that's why I wanted them deleted. Also, I'm sorry for forgetting to sign my posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New article

I have created a new article: Storm train. If this article does not meet Wikipedia standards, please do not immediately remove it. Explain what is improper about the article (if it does not meet the standards), and revise it. Also, please prevent this article from being vandalized (no need to semi-protect it), please just do whatever needs to be done to make sure vandalism is reverted shortly after it is committed. -- IRP (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation

I think the moment I simply created the old account, it is been reverted to the old version. Can I put re-redirect at the old one to new id? Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and check out this thread: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Odd_happenings_with_renames — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at Kiribati Scout Association? About 80 % of the article are a quotation from a copyrighted book - and I'm still not sure how the story told should be relevant for the article. I think we have to remove it. --jergen (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Laomei

Hey, I noticed you've kept this user off of the Falun Gong page. There's a Wikiquette complaint about comments they made on the Li Hongzhi talk page. Not sure if that deserves another look too. Thanks, BMW(drive) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I already saw it that was part of my decision. Thanks for your concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Auson

Hi Rlevse. While I have eventually lost my interest in a certain sock puppet case (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3), User:Auson appears to be another sock of the same kind, but from a little earlier on. The issue is that there are similar editing patterns, and a two letter difference (User:Ausonia and User:Auson). That has me a little concerned, even though I thought that it was an ordinary case of sock puppetry. How am I supposed to deal with things like that? ~ Troy (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

File a new SSP case, with good evidence and diffs, esp stuff that occurred after the last SSP, mention Auson is indef'd, and since Tiptoety handled that SSP case, ask him to look at this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ Troy (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scetoaux 3

Was this done on purpose? I'm simply curious, I've got no idea what the 'c' might signify, but I wanted to check with you. GlassCobra 04:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not on purpose, just a typo. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog aka User:HanzoHattori

Thought I would bring this to your attention seeing as you had experience with the this user. He has a very similar pattern of edits as indef-blocked [65][66] User:HanzoHattori (Chechnya, Caucasus, My Lai events, Ninja in popular culture, Iraq) as anyone can see - [67], [68]. He also shares Hanzo's penchant for swearing. [69] "Fuck this shit, I'm outta here". Obviously this is the same guy.--Miyokan (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Will look later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
He has been blocked as a sock puppet of User:HanzoHattori. The blocking admin, User:Alex Bakharev, has made a proposal which would see him unblocked here, although personally I am against it as it is essentially rewarding banned users for socking and violating policy (not to mention Hanzo's sock continued to break 3RR (3 times in a month-check Captain Obvious' block log) and be uncivil-""Fuck this shit, I'm outta here").--Miyokan (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and apologies for edit conflict

Hi Rlevse, congratulations of passing RfB while I was away. Looks like I edit conflicted with you with Dweller's RfB close - sorry about that, I didn't mean to step on toes... WJBscribe (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FAQ skipping

When I have two minutes, it'd be helpful if I could read up on any tips/advice you got when you passed, to avoid FAQs. Got any diffs you can post, or emails you could forward to me? (My email is enabled) --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure later today I can work on that. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Answered by email. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Rlevse, English is my second language. Please explain to me what to do. I can't get into my account, because my account is taken. Bressler 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Instructions and click on the "click here to place your request link". Then fill out the form. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And what is my "CURRENT_NAME" exactly? Bressler 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Put NONE if you don't have a en wiki account. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Did I act OK? Bressler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.140.45 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is an SUL request, so I moved it to WP:CHU/SUL for you. Will look more later. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Bressler (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

Template:Nutshell

I cannot edit Template:Nutshell, but I want to create a link for "nutshell". —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHUU

I replied to your note saying that I am very certain that I still wish to rename, and that this is my last request. LeiaY 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. it wouldn't move some of your subpages, so you'll have to do that manually. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited and forgot to sign in.

I have edited Central US Tornado Outbreak of 1990 and forgot to sign in. Is it possible to completely remove the publically recorded IP address in the page's edit history, and I'll redo the edit signed in? The IP address follows the edit "Overview: link" by Robina Fox. -- IRP (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really as it doesn't qualify for oversight. Just leave the edit alone. Just remember to sign in every time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the diff from this history, and requested oversight for it (Rlevse, I thought the same thing as you did until I clarified recently with an oversighter). Feel free to readd the diff logged on. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good to know. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and also, I don't know if this is a good place to suggest features, but I suggest that there be a confirmation message that appears when a user is not signed in and trying to edit, to confirm with the user that he/she wants to edit without signing in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion, but the best place to suggest it would be at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Don't forget to sign your posts using ~~~~ Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've posted my suggestion, and I do not use "~~~~", I use "-- ~~~~". I put the 2 dashes in to separate my message from my signing. -- IRP (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry

If the work has no copyright notice, then it will be in the public domain due to US law. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we can move it to commons with the other one. Cool. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum

Thanks for your continuing attention to this banned user.
New socks, but I do not have enough time to start a new sockpuppetry case:

  • User:69.86.225.179 -- Whole contribution history is characteristic of Jvolkblum, but particularly see this diff (clearly connected with blocked sock FlanneryFamily).
  • Special:Contributions/StanFielderstien -- who but Jvolkblum would create new unsourced articles about New Rochelle topics and immediately add them to the New Rochelle template? (One of those articles lists a source URL, but it's a long hike from the National Register of Historic Places home page that is cited to any specifically relevant content -- and I have not verified that the content exists.)

--Orlady (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Stan. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert and no answer

Nissanaltima reverted my edit to Denver, Colorado, and I asked him/her why he/she reverted it. He/she didn't answer and deleted my question from his/her talk page. My edit was providing exact elevation information, because in reality, it's not quite a mile in elevation (5,280 feet). It's 5,278 feet (2 feet below a mile). -- IRP (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Put your concerns on the talk page of the article. People are free to rm from their user talk but not the article talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article: Robertize

I was wondering if I could see the deleted article Robertize. I will not recreate it, I just want to see the contents of it. Is it possible to view the article? Also, could it be put (not on the main site), but in an archive? -- IRP (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Only admins can look at deleted articles. I have copied it to your sandbox: User:IRP/Sandbox. There you can work on it. It's certainly not notable as it is. You have lots of work to do there. Putting in a larger scope article may be better, but I don't know what article that would be. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now I see why it was deleted. It wasn't a constructive article at all. Am I allowed to keep it in my sandbox, or should I load it onto a .TXT file on my computer? -- IRP (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You can keep in your sandbox til it meets wiki standards, but my prediction is this will be deemed a non-notable band. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Palin

Hi there. I was wondering if you might be willing to add John McCain to your watchlist, Rlevse. It recently became a featured article, and I hope that outstanding editors like yourself will help maintain its featured quality. As the election approaches, it would certainly help to have more eyes on the article. Would you please?

Also, in view of this recent edit of yours, I hope you will check this out. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Made a comment about the pic. Will look at McCain from time to time. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/62.158.99.212

Evidently vandalism only. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
1 year block. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rlevse, I don't want to seem unfriendly, but this outright overdrawn block length enticed me to comment. Probably you didn't know that these DTAG IPs can never be assigned to the same user for more than 24 hours. A disconnection is enforced after 24 hours and you anyway get a new IP on every login (this is the case for the most other non-cable German internet providers, too; you have to pay extra for a static IP, so the usual home internet user doesn't want one). Therefore any block length that exceeds 24 hours will exclusively affect innocent users. The IP pool from which you get your IP assigned is usually a /16 - /18 range depending on the location, in this case it's 62.158.64.0/18, so this vandal has access to at least 16384 IPs. The second effect is that you can get a new IP simply be resetting your connection what takes about 10 seconds, so a some hour block is sufficient - either they go away or take a new IP and continue. A long-term block on any of the dynamic IPs does not have the desired effect; please unblock after 24 hours, any additional block length cannot affect the vandal. Calling a dynamic IP a "vandalism-only account" is also pointless, since the owner changes every some hours.
I've done a bit of research, and found that we have a constant vandal here (excerpt from 2008-07-23 to 2008-08-01, also to show dynamism of the IPs: 62.158.64.90 (talk · contribs), 62.158.98.233 (talk · contribs), 62.158.97.254 (talk · contribs), 62.158.65.61 (talk · contribs), 62.158.79.144 (talk · contribs), 62.158.92.184 (talk · contribs), 62.158.103.222 (talk · contribs), 62.158.93.121 (talk · contribs), 62.158.91.122 (talk · contribs), 62.158.121.254 (talk · contribs), 62.158.104.49 (talk · contribs), 62.158.100.101 (talk · contribs)). The options are only to block his actual IP for a short time or do a rangeblock if he persists. The vandal wasn't active from 2008-08-02 until today and there are constructive edits from this range inbetween, so I think a range block isn't justified now; but if the vandalism reaches levels near those from end of July, a some days rangeblock is possible without much collateral damage (I can provide you with a full list of IP edits from this range if you want). This vandal is also not unknown at de.Wikipedia.
Kind regards --Oxymoron83 17:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Feel free to change it. Too bad it's an IP. He should be indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree that the person behind it should be indef blocked, but unfortunately this cannot be done by an IP block. Will unblock the IP tomorrow then. Regards --Oxymoron83 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the advice. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

dyk

what should be the hook or angle they should want? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pick the most famous one and say dyk so and so had or say dyk that the bronze wolf was the only medal for.... — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

canvassing mails

"Can anyone who has received canvassing emails regarding this rfa please forward to myself and to User:Deskana." — Have there been any? Was that the cause to put up the notice? Will those who sent such mails be appropriately admonished, if only in private response? user:Everyme 20:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've only received the original one. Before we admonish anyone, we need to prove who sent them. Yes, I'd admonished if we can prove that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. When I saw the notice, I searched through the page and talk page to find anything about any canvassing emails but didn't find it. user:Everyme 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR Archive

Thanks for archiving the case; note though that the case link you provided leads to the wrong case. And could you have a word with Chet/Coffee about his remaining page cats? Cheers, Jayen466 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I already dropped a not one Coffee's page, after yours. The "Case" is removed. It was a paste error. There is no "case" to link to as there was never formal rfar arb case on this. I change CSCWEM's "case" to a "perm rfar link". — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Tx. Jayen466 02:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE CONFLICT!

My article: Storm train is conflicting with the existing article Training (meteorology). Training (meteorology) looked like this, until WxGropher did plagiarism of my work. When trying to revert the plagiarism, I received the error: The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits. I'm asking before doing this, but what I was going to do, was blank the existing article (since 90% of it is my work), and redirect it to my storm train article, because I believe it is mostly referred to as "storm train". Otherwise, what should be done? -- IRP (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

When people edit the same article at the same time you get an "edit conflict" (ec). This happens. Also, we don't keep two articles on the same topic. In this case, these two articles should in fact be merged. Wiki uses the GFDL license, so using something you wrote in another articles is not plagarism. Use the talkpage to figure out which article you guys will keep, otherwise you two will likely end up in an edit war and may get blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna

Very good article, but you could you please explain what the colon and extra number that come after a reference mean? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 15:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's very ready. Good luck! Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll end the PR and file FAC. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice (part III)

You may recall that you advised me some time back to seek mediation concerning this issue. Well, I followed your advice, but unfortunately it came to nothing because no mediator would take on the case. (The discussion here more or less sums up the story.) Worse than that, it led to increasing harrassment by User:Fnagaton and User:Greg_L, including two frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry here, biting a newcomer and here.(The evidence upon which the accusations are based seems to be along the lines of "the two editors share the same opinion; therefore they are sock puppets"). As a result of the harrassment I no longer enjoy editing here, and have therefore stopped doing so. [Fortunately there's more to life than WP :)]. However, I feel responsible for the second editor named in the SP case (the one accused of being my sockpuppet), who is now on the receiving end of the harrassment that was previously directed at me. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at what is going on here and put a stop to the silliness. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Thunderbird2's talk page sandbox it is clear that the user is using it to misrepresent other editors and therefore using it to harass other editors. That kind of harassment violates the rules regarding Wikistalking. Fnagaton 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a well-founded basis for suspecting sock puppetry. There is no mistreatment of the other editor (assuming he is real) unless the administrator finds for sock puppetry in error and prescribes sanctions. Thunderbird2/Tom94022 can just be patient and let the process run its course. The administrators have access to check-user tools that regular editors just can’t avail themselves of. If I were unjustly accused of sock puppetry, I’d sit tight and watch without pounding on the keyboard whatsoever; the burden of proof is on the accuser. If our evidence is flimsy, there will be no finding of sock puppetry. I personally think the evidence—when considered as a whole—is compelling and convincing. We’ll see. I have long said on the page in question that I will apologize profusely if the check-user tool proves the two editors hail from completely different cities. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. I note that the link to the suspected sock puppet page that Thunderbird2 provided above, (duplicate here), was a historical link posted 01:24, 27 August 2008. What is notable about that link is that it was only the second version of the article and contained little in the way of substantive evidence of Thunderbid2’s sock puppetry. Sorta seems a bit self-serving of Thunderbird2. When I make permalinks, I always snare the latest version in the history; it’s the latest & greatest and I’m guaranteed that someone won’t come along and pull the rug out from under my link by archiving the page. Had Thunderbird2 been a little more (*ahem*)  ‘candid’, he would have provided this 21:18, 31 August 2008 link to the suspected sock puppet complaint page when he made his above 22:24, 31 August 2008 post. That version was then-current and was 36 entries newer than what he provided. Note the substantially more compelling amount of evidence for sock puppetry. And for reference, here is the latest & greatest. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Either RFCU or RFAR arbcom filing is needed here. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you help?

Hello. Could you rap Xasha a little? He seems to ignore the ban he received last month ([70], [71]). For your info, I've also just reminded him of the ban. Thank you. Ovidiu2all (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's messages like these that expose you as a sock.Xasha (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I reported this to WP:AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

About Momo's login-name usurpation

Hi Rlevse, Give me a few days to work it out. I'm preparing for a exam right now. Thanks for leaving me a message ! --Mochi77 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,
I've left a message at this user's talk page.
Now, it's time to wait and see.
--Mochi77 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rlevse,
The user won't change his/her login name.
Thanks anyway.
--Mochi77 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The same old problem again...

Xasha, remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xasha#Topic_ban

See this ... Xasha, I don't think you hurt the topic ban in this article (actually I think your changes were fine), but you modified some articles that are definately disputed concerning your topic ban: Moldovans (the article that brought this topic ban to you and me) and Moldovan-Romanian relations. I don't even dare to think about editing those articles in order to prevent a topic-ban hurt. --Olahus (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See above, take this to AE thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by socks of proven sock master User:Nyannrunning

I posted this twice on WP:AN/I and finally was told to take it to checkuser because they aren't familiar with the case. On your suggestion, I had sent a rather lengthy compilation of data about this person to both Thatcher and to Alison. I've not received a response on it from either. I know Thatcher was off for a bit. I also left a note for Alison to inquire as to whether she received it, but no response yet. In any case, I know you are aware of the details of this, so I'm going to post it for you.

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Post it at WP:RFCU then vice their talk page, then it can't be ignored. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Error

Thanks for the tip. I've changed it. I haven't seen Uninvited Company in a long time. I very much want the Wikback back again! bibliomaniac15 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about mentioning him, but I decided that since he wasn't an arb anymore it wasn't needed. bibliomaniac15 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna

I believe I've seen Dabomb87 around, but I don't recall having the pleasure of meeting him before. I'm glad you found a copyeditor for WH. I'm back in college, so it's a bit hectic right now. Regarding refs, I can't tell you where it says that in the MoS, but I know definitively that refs are supposed to be placed in numerical order. If you want an exact link, I guess you can ask Sandy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WxGopher is not responding

Should I just go in and redirect Training (meteorology) to my article? I don't want to start an edit war, but I'm not getting a response. User_talk:WxGopher#Storm_train_vs_Training_.28meteorology.29 -- IRP (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say go merge your storm article into that one. You ask, he didn't respond, and if he's edited since you asked, it's on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is referred to mostly as a "storm train" and I've even stated in my article that it is also known as "training" -- IRP (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Then merge whichever one into the other but both can't exist, they're too much duplicative. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'll redirect Training (meteorology) into mine. And if a problem occurs with another user, I'll post a message for that user on his/her talk page. -- IRP (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I didn't copy the exact text, I reworded it and distributed the information into the appropriate sections. -- IRP (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
According to WxGopher, a "storm train" and "training" are different because "training" could occur with just snow or rain showers. So I would say that "storm train" is a subcategory of "training (meteorology)". See User_talk:IRP -- IRP (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Then you need to merge storm into training. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I could put a classification section in, and redlinks for things like "shower train" or "snow shower train"...should I do that?
Even better, write paragraph on what they are, they probably don't warrant their own article. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited AGAIN and forgot to sign in!

The not signed in warning is not noticeable. They have already had the discussion on the village pump, but nothing has been done. Please do the same thing that was done last time, and give me advice on what could be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no control over the developers. You just have to get in the habit of signing in. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well hopefully the edit will go down the list to the point that hardly anybody will view. But isn't there a browser add-on for Firefox 3 that would automatically sign me into Wikipedia when I visit? Otherwise, who would have control over the developers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadasprincess (talk · contribs)

I'm fine if you want to review the block. I wasn't involved in a dispute with the user; I speedied their article, they made no other edits except to vandalise my user page (edits reverted by another user), and I applied a block that is not unusual for a vandal-only account. It's over to you now for a follow up if you like. Harro5 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The user page thing is what I was talking about. I don't view it as vandal only either. Though it is also true she's mainly been promoting herself. I think I'll shorten and leave some comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your help with the SSP backlog. Thank you! Enigma message 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Orphaning tactic

The images are going to need to be orphaned eventually anyway. Their use in these articles is simply not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about self-fulfilling reasoning and rule by a consensus of one. Since you refuse to discuss this and only listen to yourself, we'll end the charade of discussion at WT:SCOUT. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the consensus already exists over at WP:NFC. This is just the same as five people turning up on an AfD and saying 'I don't care that there are no sources, these guys are notable!'. That 'consensus' does not override the consensus at the various notability guidelines. I am more than happy to discuss this, explain my reasoning and work towards a compromise, if possible, but the NFCC are not criteria that are easily worked around or compromised. No one has actually provided much in the way of reasoning yet; most people just complain about my methods. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What does and doesn't meet NFCC is not so clear cut as you think, especially #8. Your view that your interpretation is the only one is not how one should work in this case. If it were, there would not be so many IFD debates. This "Their use in these articles is simply not acceptable." shows you are absolutely not willing to work towards a compromise nor seek consensus. And your tactic, as well as others who work images, of orphaning them so you can delete before discussing them is simply not right. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Their use in the articles as they are is unacceptable. If the articles change, then maybe the images will be acceptable. I am honestly not orphaning with the intention of having the images deleted, I just hate to see so many non-free images in an article. A lot of people are challenging my methods, and even my good faith, and so I am stepping away from the scouting articles to see if the scouting editors can deal with it- which seems to be the preferred solution of many. I doubt much will get done, but I would certainly be happy to be surprised. Which is the RfC that you mentioned? I really don't habituate RfCs, but this one sounds like it may be of interest to me. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Their use in the articles as they are is unacceptable." You added "as is". That's progress. We have few people who work images issues, but I'm not one. I work more on writing than imaging. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not me, I'm not brave enough and I get seasick... I'm away "rambling" round the world. I'm hoping that when I'm away I can still at least let you guys and girls know how and where I am, and remain semi-active. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Collective:Unconscious

Hello Rvlese, at your convenience can you explain why you "protected" my own talk page for 40 hours, please? Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (Also, please don't "ban," "block," or "protect" my page or otherwise use any other admin-only powers just for my asking, as you did about 40 hours ago for what, without discussion, you singularly decided was "unblock abuse," and which was thankfully lifted by admin Golbez, with similar admin-only-powers. My appeal to another admin for unblocking my own talk page was my only recourse as a mere "user" (which some in Wikipedia term an "editor," but which seems to be all all "users" without admin-only powers like yourself -- why call non-admins "editors" at all if they can be "banned," "blocked," and/or "protected" by any admin at that admin's discretion?). Please also realize that if you would "ban," "block," or "protect" me for asking to discuss this may reflect badly on the party who took that action. Thanks! --Justindavila (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) --cross-edit, sorry. --Justindavila (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Golbez says you admitted abusing unblock: "19:13, September 4, 2008 Golbez (Talk | contribs | block) unprotected User talk:Justindavila ‎ (user has promised to stop abusing unblock; slap him if he does it again)". — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you can't use that information, which occurred after you decided to issue this block, to justify why you made this decision to use your admin-only powers. Golbez's comment is "Per discussion on IRC, I've unprotected so long as he doesn't use unblock. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)" There is no mention of "abuse," I did not use unblock again, and you have not explained to me how you claim I abused this process. Rvlese, as an "admin" and as a "bureaucrat" with special powers, please clarify your thinking and justification of the use of your powers for me and other regular "users." Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(Previous conversation) -- Collective:Unconscious--

Hello, can you explain why you "protected" my own talk page for 40 hours, please? Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock abuse and you weren't listening to what several admins were telling you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the only way for a user to avoid a ban or block to "listen" to "what several admins were telling" that user? Can you explain your understanding of this particular situation (as long as my question does not lead to your banning or blocking my own talk page)?. Thank you --Justindavila (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests, you hit the limit and your conduct on your talk page was not indicating it was going to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you identify where you other other admins identified this numerical limit to me, or where this was identified in any other official unblock discussions, hopefully more definitive than "You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests," as you (perhaps arbitrarily? certainly at least 'unreferenced') commented? Also, can you point out how you came to the conclusion that my "talk page was not indicating it was going to stop," despite my efforts to work with you and other admins to resolve all identified issues? Looking forward to your response. Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason to be putting this here and copying to your talk page. As for pertinent comments on your talk page, see "Considering that this editor has several times refused to acknowledge any conflict of interest on his part, I find this doubtful. GlassCobra 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)" and "I notice that you ignored my question. I have to assume that was intentional, and that it indicates that you have not considered following the conflict of interest rules that you've been warned about so many times. Thanks; that information is useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)" as examples where other admins saw ongoing issues. As for unblock policy and protecting your talk page see Wikipedia:UNBLOCK#Appealing, especially the third paragraph. If you're looking for "2-3 unblock requests are allowed" clause, it's not there, but that's a long standing rule of thumb here on wiki, just ask around to verify that. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate you admitting there is no such clause (I looked), your condescending response that this policy is a "long standing rule of thumb" that you suggest I "ask around" (presumably to admins) "to verify" reflects poorly on you as an admin. There no such rule or published policy, and your unmeasured and uninformed use of your admin-only powers, without any discussion with both parties, really speaks for itself (c.f. Cabal, except admins have exclusive powers). Your specific actions are tantamount to abuse of your admin power, but then I'm just a lowly, blockable user, with no such powers. (Also, please don't block me again without appropriate, public discussions on the matter, even though you obviously can. Thanks.)--Justindavila (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The unblock template reads at the bottom, "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the unblock template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected." Admins are promoted because the community trusts their judgment. You were repeatedly told why you were blocked. Your refusal to grasp does not equal admin abuse, and your repeated claims of such are becoming disruptive. Read over our policies and guidelines. Try editing something other than this article. But continuing on the same worn path is going no where. Jennavecia (Talk) 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Guide read. Unblock template used appropriately. Page "protected" by an admin who used your and other admins simply unjustified claims. Not a "refusal to grasp," (thanks for being condescending, admin), but a valid request for justification for use of your admin powers. Your claim of community trust (c.f. Cabal) is simply and obviously self-serving, with no method of redress except to other admins in your admin "community of trust" (c.f. Cabal). --Justindavila (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Re:enwiki CHU/SUL request

Hi, I'd still very much like to usurp Erwin. My home wiki username used to be Erwin85 and that is my username here.

There are indeed still a couple of conflicts left. I can usurp Erwin@kowiki in December and have to wait for further policy for the dewiki and zhwiki ones. In any case thanks for allowing me to usurp Erwin@enwiki! --Erwin85 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Erwin (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you perhaps move User:Erwin85 and User_talk:Erwin85 to keep the histories? Thanks, --Erwin(85) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I did a paste of the current version, but ok, I'll try. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help. --Erwin(85) 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption/Account Creator

Hi there, saw your name on the recent changes and thought I would have a look around your page. Looking through you seem to be very experienced. I was wondering if you would adopt me? Also I wanted to enquire about the account creator flag. I wanted to know how to know if you think that I would be able to have it or not? I have seen alot of wikipedia although I may not have alot of edits I have participated in AFD's and also welcome new users from the user creation log using the welcome templates. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time anymore to do adoption or admin coaching, but you do seem well on your way to being a fine editor. See WP:ADOPT to find someone. Try User:ArielGold and say I sent you. As for account creator, I've not worked that area and know little about it. For that, ask User:Prodego and look at WP:PERM. As a crat, I can give people several flags though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I have added a request at the WP:PERM for the account creator and await the result. I have also left a message on User:Prodego talkpage about the possibility of adoption. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Pornthip

OK, thanks for telling me. I wasn't sure about that one.   jj137 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Remontoire/Conwan

Hi. I got a message from you on my talkpage about my usurp request for a SUL. I answered the question, but now my request is erased from the request-page. Does that mean it was denied or approved, or a third thing..? Thanks in advance.. --Conwan (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I looked through the history of the request-page and found that my request was granted. Thanks! --Remontoire (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Google and Palin

I have replied. Cheers, ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

John Buscema

For full disclosure and so that the relevant clerk/admins are aware: User:Scott Free, the erstwhile User:Skyelarke — who like me is currently banned from editing the John Buscema article, though not the talk page — removed from the talk page a large amount of relevant discussion involving himself, by unilaterally and without discussion moving it into an archive.

I reverted this. Neither he nor I should be removing pertinent discussion related to our editing and our ban. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How old was this discussion? Give me diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
2¢... ish...
The span of Scott Free's four edits is here covering a 20 minute span on the Sept 7.
All the material removed seems to be pre-July, however... When he archived he left the lat post to "Reliable source" orphaned on the talk page - no header, and no context. Also, at least one of the threads was split when he did the cut and paste archive. Keep in mind that this is just a surface look.
And I do tend to agree: Either of the two should be posting a 3rd party, either on the talk page or a user talk page, to perform maintenance work on the article talk.
- J Greb (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
J Greb summarized Scott Free's edits well. Even had Scott Free archived everything perfectly, I don't believe a banned party should be moving or removing Talk page material. There is no urgency that would preclude waiting for after the ban, and even then, either of the post-pan parties could simply ask an admin to perform the archiving, and thus avoid even the appearance of selective erasure. In this particular case, I believe Scott Free's actions fit a longstanding pattern of behavior contrary to the spirit of the ArbCom. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. Blocked for 31 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quary on Neutrality(?) policy

As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN. however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republic of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used.... If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue. As unimportand as it might seam to you: 1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy 2) it is malinforming and incorrect 3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute 4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN thank you very much for your attention 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Killthebaddies

There hadn't been (and still aren't) any edits yet. It might be a good-faith new user who simply isn't aware of the username policy (we get a lot of those) and could be persuaded to change it once they start editing (or before); it might be a vandal aging the account. Its cartoonish nature suggests the former to me, but we don't know and we have to assume good faith.

My hunch is that this user will probably never edit, and the UAA will be moved to the holding pen and then off it and eventually the page will be deleted as inactive. That seems to happen a lot, without any action on our part. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be preemptively blocked and the name changed. I disagree with the idea of waiting for edits, it's still a name vio whether he understands the name policy or not or has edited. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Thanks for pinging me (when Sandy uses my last name only, you know she's mad :P ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You have great timing - I literally got the talk message bar when I opened the Hanna FAC. I'm not looking for anything in particular (that's why I didn't oppose). I just don't know much about Hanna, and I am always a little wary when there are good books available that haven't been consulted. I trust your judgement - if you skim through the book and don't find anything relevant to Hanna, I'll be satisfied on the comprehensiveness front and change to support. If you do find interesting tidbits, then the article will be improved, the comprehensiveness criteria satisfied, and I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh hay

Hay I noticed that you have a multi coloured signature. How you do that? Shy Guy Gunzel (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With this code (without the quotes) "<span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span>" in your my preferences signature block, and click "raw signature. Modify as you like. Note there are few templates that don't like it, so in those cases just sign outside the template.

Thank you so much! — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 09:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Can you pop on please sir? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No one, banned or otherwise, should be removing legit talk page edits

I'm afraid you've lost me on that one - what are you referring to?

--Scott Free (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall where I said that, but it's true, legit talk page edits should not be removed-certainly not from an article. Though you can remove comments from your own personal talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was on my talk page, so I'm assuming you're implying that I improperly removed legtit talk page edits outside of the standard archiving process - please provide the proof.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Only have time for a short answer now, can respond more later if you like. It appeared you orphaned and split some threads. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned - not to my knowledge, maybe inadvertantly - please provide proof when you have a chance -

Split thread - a minor split simply because the archiving structure is based on a jan-june & july-dec segmentation.

--Scott Free (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan here. This is the one I was talking about and you said was inadvertent. Combined with the split thread so close in time this looked like selective archiving, but I can now see where they could be otherwise. A suggestion for thread that run over archive months is to always keep them together by either first or last post date. I use first post date myself. Let me offer constructive input here on this article. It's been a problem far longer than it should be, primarily between you and Tenebrae. It should have been worked out by now. Therefore, I suggest, though your bans allow talk page editing, to have someone else who is neutral do the archiving until your differences are worked out. Hopefully that will be soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff - as far as I can tell, that passage in question was never removed from the talk page - therefore I'm still left with a problem of having apparently been blocked on unfounded pretenses - In the future I would appreciation it that, if you have any allegations of improper conduct against me, to provide proof - which is why I have repeatedly requested that Tenebrae and JGreb make their complaints through formal channels (i.e arb enforce, arb clarifications boards) where formal evidence is necessary before administrative action is taken.

--67.68.31.239 (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC) --Scott Free (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 35 25 August 2008 About the Signpost
WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell" News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Interview with Mav 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 36 8 September 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured topics Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk template

I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. —Sunday Scribe 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Username Usurptation

You asked me to post as Gunrun on Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#TheGreatZorko_.E2.86.92_Gunrun and I have done. Just thought I'd leave a note here for you. Thanks! Gunrun (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look

This post claims User Chris Wattson is a sock of Andy Bjornovich, who was idenified as a sock of Tom Sayle. You created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tom Sayle, so I thought I would post here. I started on this route via TfD Temp, a template create by Chris Wattson. His early posting history shows the creation of circular redirects. If you have some time, please take a wide look at the situation. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy claims to have "aspergers" (note that Chris uses the same spelling and stuff, usually it's capitalised, apostrophed, with syndrome, etc) here Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Indef'd CW. See Xeno's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources at unsourced articles removed.

Hi, Rlevse. I noticed your edits at some animation-related articles. I added citations to the Beck book on Animated Films to several animated film articles, many of which were unsourced. Another editor has removed them. This makes no sense to me. I an new here-- could you please let me know who is correct? Thank you. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To explain further, his additions were removed because he mass added a single book to a ton of film articles but the book is not actually used anywhere in any of the articles. I've tried to explain to him that just adding the book to the page does not make it a source if it isn't actually used for any thing and that potential references should, instead, be noted on the talk page if he is not comfortable making the edits to incorporate information from the book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

BB-you can either list the book in "Further reading" section with no page citations or use it as a standard reference. Just follow the way the others are done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups articles

Hello, I've replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat. Thank you for taking an interest. I've been piled on by two admins who don't really address the issues, but simply continue to threaten, something I find very intimidating as a long-time and productive editor, as I was simply restoring non-contentious, mostly-sourced text and requesting the use of "Discussion" and "fact" tags rather than the blanking of entire articles or enormous amounts of mostly-sourced text. I don't believe the first editor to have warned me is impartial, from the discussion link from the warning editor to the blanking editor regarding the attempted deletion of ethnic groups articles which I linked in the discussion. Badagnani (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I was not expecting to wake up to have to read a novel. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Could you pls speed up the checkuser process that Jehochman started against me at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Imho the "evidence" is ridculous, all I did wrong was voting against Cirt (because of the secrecy, not because I support Scientology in any way). This is a stain on my good username, and I hope you help me debunking these accusations as soon as possible. Thx. Gray62 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a checkuser. But I would like to as why after such a long absence you appeared is so many RFAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, your english seems to be as lousy as mine. Why I am back, and participating in RfAs? Really, I'm getting weary of this spanish inquisition. Why don't you ask the dozens of editors instead, who haven't shown as much interest in RfAs as me, and still showed up to enthusiastically support Cirt? I have a proven record of regularly participating in RfAs. And I repeatedly stated that the reason is that I want to help preventing abusive admins. No secret, this. Gray62 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Preventing admin abuse is of great interest to me. Perhaps you would be interested in Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights and Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal. I am sorry for any stress this situation has caused you. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Gray62, trust me I am looking at EVERY voter. You need to show more faith here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pengguna:Rlevse on w:mr

Hello,

You createdmr:Pengguna:Rlevse. Did you mean to create a user page with that name? If so, the namespace for user pages is सदस्य:, so you can move the page to mr:सदस्य:Pengguna:Rlevse, or leave me a message to do it for you.

thx,

mr:सदस्य:अभय नातू, bureaucrat, w:mr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asnatu wiki (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pls move for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Your member page on w:mr is - mr:सदस्य:Rlevse

Regards,

mr:सदस्य:अभय नातू, bureaucrat, w:mr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.48.4 (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

More apparent socking

I've matched up six socks with pretty good evidence. [72] and [73] Hopefully a checkuser will come along soon and render an opinion. In the event that they are not socks, can you look at the contribution histories and see if they would qualify as meat puppets? Checkuser isn't good for that sort of detection, obviously. Jehochman Talk 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Say when :)

I guess it is your call [74]. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Jeochman is asserting [75] that I am attacking him with with this comment. I think my comments was proper. I would argue that Jeochman is not helping the process by attacking editors that are opposing this the RFA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

More than 10% of the oppose votes in this RFA have been confirmed by checkuser to be sock puppets, and I've got 6 more in the queue that seem very likely to add to the total. Jossi has been pressuring me to desist from investigating vote fraud. He and others who edit Prem Rawat, with whom Jossi has disclosed a personal financial connection, have all opposed Cirt. This is a most exceptional situation. It seems like Jossi has a strong conflict of interest in this matter, and his pressure exerted against me is most unwelcome, and is definitely inflaming this situation. I urge Jossi to stop commenting on my activities, and I will extend the same courtesy to him. This is a most unfortunate turn of events because we have always gotten along well. Jehochman Talk 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeochman, I appreciate your work in Wikipedia, and I respect you for that. As for your claim above, I think that, again, you are over-stepping. My declared COI has nothing to do with this RFA, and it is most unfortunate that you bring this up in this context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree re "...Is Cirt one of your enemies too? Jehochman Talk 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) " was a bit over the top and ask him to be more careful. I think your, Jossi, response to that was fine as you civily expressed legit concern. That is how I see it. As for the work Jehochman is doing on the RFA, there is clear socking and canvassing going on that needs duly investigated. Investigating it is certainly legit. I, and others, including Jehochman, have spent many hours over the last two days working on this. At this point, I've pretty certain it's going on for both supports and opposes but most of it does seem to be in the opposes, so that is why it appears he's focused on them, ie, that's where most of the "smoke and fire" is coming from-that we have found at least. I'm equally interested in the socking and canvassing on both sides here and if anyone has evidence to present, I'd love to see it. Don't confuse legit investigation of these concerns with attacks. If you have more evidence of actual attacks or incivility, feel free to present it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not opposing investigations of sockpupetry. My concern are comments such as this. See also the comment by Nsk92 [76]. My point: some of the comments to opposing votes are not helping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just struck that comment, Jossi. Sorry about that. I am heading out for tea. Catch you later. We've always gotten along well. I am sorry to have this disagreement with you. Jehochman Talk 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Jehochman's claim, I, Jossi, and Risker are ganging up to attack him. He said he would not stop his vadid scrutiny (accusation) as long as the 'crat does say to him to stop doing so.[77] So Rlevse, any comment on this?--Caspian blue (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone calm down. I support anyone doing legit scrutiny of this RFA as there is solid evidence of socking/canvassing on both sides. It's a lot of work involved here. Everyone please stay calm and civil. Jehochman struck that one comment so hopefully that'll help. However, everyone be careful in how you word things. Now I'm really tired and have to go to sleep. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pressing concerns

People are running around screaming "witch hunt", when in fact there are witches, lots of them. YellowMonkey has blocked two sock farms associated with the opposition of Cirt's RFA. We need a statement posted to reassure people that Cirt is not being unreasonable, that there has been actual malfeasance. We also need a bunch of votes indented so that people viewing the RFA are not deceived by the vote stacking that has occured. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand. I won't be able to fully work this til later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I've been working on patching relations with various parties after the disagreements. The heat levels have decreased considerably, and I think everyone is working together to help keep things "clean". Here is a list of my outstanding concerns. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your efforts throughout the entire process during my RfA. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot list

Here is the list of all bots, that are not interwiki bots, that don't have the term "bot" in their username: BoxCrawler (talk · contribs) CanisRufus (talk · contribs) Chem-awb (talk · contribs) Comics-awb (talk · contribs) D6 (talk · contribs) Kl4m-AWB (talk · contribs) Pearle (talk · contribs) PoccilScript (talk · contribs) PsychAWB (talk · contribs) R. Hillgentleman (talk · contribs) Thadius856AWB (talk · contribs) Tuonela (talk · contribs) deflagged, program was deleted VixDaemon (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Signpost (talk · contribs). I don't think we need to worry about the ones with AWB, since that is obviously a bot using the WP:AWB program. I'm not sure if the others are small enough in number to grandfather in to the new scheme. MBisanz talk 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Concernong User:BoxCrawler

This was already discussed at the bot's inception and the name was approved then. I don't want to change the bot's name, I see no reason to change it as "crawler" is just as useful as "bot" in determining that the account is a bot. Adam McCormick (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey, seems MaxSem grandfathered this name in when he approved it. MBisanz talk 11:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA

No, just one unsuccessful one, and I'd love to, but I can't really stay up another minute, let alone an hour. I'm exhausted. I'll just have to wait. I'm surprised I've not yet closed more than 1 RfA, but think I'm pulling my weight with username changes. Yet to dip my toe in the BAG waters; waiting to give it some serious attention. Night night zzzzzzz --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

QED I was tired! --Dweller (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free media (Image:Undisputed2002.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Undisputed2002.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) 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources at unsourced articles removed.

I'm sorry, but nothing you can say and no rules you can point me to here will convince me that any article I added a reliable source to is better off without that source. If I did not add the sources in the proper place or mis-labeled them, then the other "editor" should have "edited" it. I would have learned from this, as I learned how to use citation templates from your own editing of my book citations at the Hanna Barbera articles. Even better, the "editor" could have left me a note asking whether I intended to add material from these sources into the articles. I would have replied, "Yes I intend to fill out the articles, both the text and the references, with this and many other sources from my collection." As I understand it, simply moving the citation to an inline unsourced fact would have fixed this situation. Instead my contributions were mass-deleted like vandalism, and even equated with "linkspam" by another administrator. So the lesson I learn is that my contributions are not welcome here. I'm sure there are other projects out there that treat new contributors and their contributions better, and who value print sourcing more. Sorry for having wasted your time. Good day. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry your start at wiki is off to a poor start. I agree the people who you were dealing with could have handled it better. If you want, I'm willing to help you. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator

i was wondering how can i become an administrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMJMEM (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RFA. When you have an RFA that is successful a bureaucrat, such as me - see WP:CRAT will make you an admin. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies to see what sort of background you need to be an admin. Also, participating in ongoing RFA's and in admin areas will help. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Holler House

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I'm still fairly new to the area up here, so I don't really know anything about the place, but I'll be happy to help if I can. (One thing I note, and please don't take this as a criticism, is that I would try to tighten up the tone a bit... it seems slightly too informal for "encyclopedic".) Best, umrguy42 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool if when you get a chance, you could swing by there and take digital picture and upload it here or Commons under PD, GFDL, or CC (free type), that'd be awesome. And constructive input on the article is fine. Thanks for help. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations! I saw that William Hanna was promoted. :) I'm always impressed by the amount of work you put in during an FAC nom! Karanacs (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you truly. I couldn't have done it without you! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Username policy?

Do we have a policy about non-alphanumeric character names? I seem to remember there being one once, but I can not find it. Of particular concern to me lately is usernames with a punctuation at the end, such as a period at the end, and user names that employ special character/ ansi text-drawing symbols, like "©¤®¥" or "^.^" Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy is the name policy. It gets changed a lot. I know that slashes won't work in a username, [ { don't work. Periods and hyphens work. If it works in an article title it should work in a username. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions) for details and hope I'm accurate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

the RfB

Just wanted to let you know that I thought you did the right thing. Synergy 11:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt it was the right thing too, that's why I did it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for closing it. It was already ugly, and becoming uglier. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Good call, best for all parties. MBisanz talk 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the info

But the source that was previously posted stated him to be Lebanese, and it was either a BBC or The Sun source, which make them heavily reliable. Either way, if I do change it again, I will post a source next to the info. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeThePublic (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The BBC would generally be reliable, but given the info in his autbio, it'd be hard to overcome that. Even the BBC can make an error. Given his family spoke Italian and he only calls himself Sicilian, nothing else, you'd need something along the line of "Barbera's father's grandmother was Lebanese". I think this confusion comes from the fact that Barbera is common to both Italy/Sicily and the Arab countries. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this a mistake?

[78] If so, it happens, don't sweat it. If not, I'll have a follow-up question :) Plasticup T/C 15:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea looks like oops on me. Pls fix, I have to go do RL stuff now. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I fixed it. No problem. Plasticup T/C 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User Vacio

You wrote on his page: "You are now subject to these restrictions, including but not limited to 1RR." Aren't you supposed to give him a warning first? That doesn't sound like one.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That is his warning prior to being subject to the other remedies such as being blocked. Nothing here: "List of users placed under supervision...List here editors who have been placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation by notice on their talk page...." says they have to be warned before being placed on restriction/supervision. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You're placing him under restrictions per the "Amended Remedies and Enforcement" from AA2 using the Discretionary sanctions clause. In there it says:"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." "...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". Editing restrictions which you have placed him under is a sanction right? So where is the prior warning? -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Joseph Barbera Review

Hello, I did the pre-FAC review of Joseph Barbera as you requested. The comments are on the article's talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your questions on my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 37 15 September 2008 About the Signpost
Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi" 
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
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) 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for username change

Thanks for changing my username (it took me a while to work out why I couldn't log in!) Everything seems to be fine apart from the talk page wasn't history moved (but the archives were). I just blanked the page as the posts were all stale anyway. Thanks again, and all the best Verbal chat 13:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography FAs

You are on a roll with William Hanna (FA) and now working on Barbera. I'm guessing that you came to work on Hanna since he was an Eagle Scout and now Barbera since they were partners.

Any interest in working on a non-scouting biography? — ERcheck (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I might. Yea, I got to Hanna because he's a DESA and did Barbera since they have so much overlap it'd be easy to get him to FA. I love their cartoons. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you get Barbera up to FA, you should THEN put them up for Featured Article of the Day... how often will two separate FA's be featured at the same time?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Good point. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vacio

Hi. User:Vacio was officially warned by another admin, just a couple of days before, but chose to ignore the warning. [79] I think he should be placed on editing restrictions, as no one gets warned twice. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see this thread on my page: User_talk:Rlevse#User_Vacio. The plot thickens. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read that. You were given an inaccurate info there. Unfortunately, I was inactive in wiki during the weekend and was not able to provide any input. Clearly, Vacio was duly warned, and Khoikhoi said that he was not placing Vacio on parole, as Khoikhoi himself was involved in the dispute, since he mediated it, but said that Vacio would be placed on parole if he continued edit warring. So Vacio was very well aware of consequences, but still chose to edit war. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am surprised you admonished me by reason of an accusation of Grandmaster, but didn't notice that he was concerned in that edit-war as well. I think he is also guilty for it. I have expatiated on this in my talkpage, but you didn't react to it. --Vacio (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Epic late congrats...

...on Hanna's successful FAC, and good looking out with that image stuff too. I'll see if I can be more helpful with Barbera. east718 // talk // email // 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm at it, a belated congrats on your b'cratship! :P east718 // talk // email // 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh thanks on both counts. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have one. Caulde 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

VartanM

In light of your earlier warning [80], the user in question is back at it: [81], [82]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a moment?

Hi, can we have a quick chat on IRC if you have a few minutes? WJBscribe (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

User:69.66.56.90 has been vandalizing pages, has been warned many times, however, he/she was not blocked. This user is a major disruption to Wikipedia, and I request a block for this IP. If you look at the user contributions for this IP, almost (if not all) edits are vandalism. This user should have been blocked by now. -- IRP ☎ 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you look at User talk:69.66.56.90, you will see how many warnings were received. -- IRP ☎ 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one month. Too bad policy prevents us from blocking IPs indefinite. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography

If you have time, take a look at David Packard. Would be nice to get it up to B at least. — ERcheck (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's second on my list now. Keep reminding me every few days. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tom Sayle

Is User:Mr. Opensockpuppeter something to take a look at? I noticed that you blocked the professed puppetmaster, and thought I'd refer this over to you. GlassCobra 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already taken care of. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Template:Sockpuppeteer

I would like to be one of the people to edit this template. I would like to reword it for better grammar. -- IRP ☎ 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's protected so only admins can edit it. It is very subject to vandalism. If I open it up they could get to it. Put your changes on the template talk page and then ping me here and I'll post them for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are the suggestions: Template_talk:Sockpuppeteer#Suggested_changes -- IRP ☎ 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any ideas of how it can be reworded to where "this user" isn't used redundantly? -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
See my proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at Template_talk:Sockpuppeteer#Suggested_changes.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Hi

I have been trying to clean up the article Dalits. There [user] who has been around now for a while insists on removing RS sources because he doues not like them. Taprobanus (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here and here.
Warned him. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
He did it again and again:)Taprobanus (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please protect User:68.39.174.238

This page should be protected due to excessive vandalism, attacks, etc. Look at the ridiculous deletion log!!! -- IRP ☎ 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If any of the vandals, attackers, etc. were established users, the page should be protected to where only admins can edit it. -- IRP ☎ 04:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, see the full log. -- IRP ☎ 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see that there's much to do here. Unless you can give me more detail and better reasons, I'm not doing anything. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There was plenty of vandalism, attacks, and a long deletion log, and this user does not want a user page. -- IRP ☎ 23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So? There's no requirement that you have stuff on your user page. Since he's an IP vice named user our options are limited, like we can't indef block him or ban him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say to ban or block him. Please do not, he does not need to be. Just his user page needs to be protected so that nobody can post attacks and vandalize it. You realize how long the deletion log is? -- IRP ☎ 00:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
His talk page can remain the way it is. But the user page needs to remain deleted, and to where nobody can recreate it (well, except for admins). -- IRP ☎ 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The most recent incident was: 02:43, 2 September 2007 Rick Block (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:68.39.174.238" ‎ (user has consistently said no user page is desired - content was: '#REDIRECT User Talk:68.39.174.238' (and the only contributor was 'Angel David')) -- IRP ☎ 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If he wants it protected, especially since there's been no activity on it in almost a month, why are you so interested in this instead of him? Why isn't he asking me? This is a long time anon user who obviously is familiar with how to use wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I conclude that you should ask him if he wants it protected, and if he doesn't, then don't protect it. It should be left up to him. -- IRP ☎ 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Report at UAA

There's a bot-reported username at UAA (User:Iwillkillutomorrow) that I think may warrant some quick attention. I saw you had posted recently, so I thought I'd ask for an assist. Thanks! TN‑X-Man 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

got several of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! TN‑X-Man 19:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations!

Thanks! I've been waiting for this for quite a while. Off to new admin school... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep you worked hard and this time it went very well. Congrats! — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Packard style

The one place that I've worked on is the citations/references. I've been using the various citation templates. For repeated book citations, I've added the books to the Reference section with {{citation}} (using year, and first/last) that ties with the {{harvnb}} for Harvard referencing. I've reviewed all the citations, with the exception of Lindorff, which I can't get to online. I've got no other preferences on any of the rest of the article. Looking forward to seeing the improvements. — ERcheck (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate harvard refs. It separates the page numbers from the ref itself and you have to scroll and click around to find it. It is really a pain if the ref gets used a lot. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you know this already: One of the interesting things with using {{harvnb}} with {{citation}}, is that if you use "last", "year" in the citation, and then use the same in the harv, if you click on the harv ref, it will bring you to that point in the references. See Using Harvard and Citation templates. Try it on Packard.
I generally had not used harv references, but it was they style already used for Lindorff when I read the Packard article, so I decided to see how it might work with templates. — ERcheck (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably from reading a lot of academic writing, I am used to reading Harvard referencing - though most often in the text rather than in footnotes. I do prefer having an alphabetized reference section after the footnotes; though for very long articles, with many, many citations, this becomes unwieldy. Not surprisingly, Wikipedia seems to have a vast majority of references from online sources, including periodicals, as opposed to references from books, where Harvard referencing seems most natural. I have revisited Hanna and Barbera's article and the FAC comments on the Barbera page — I guess I'm of the same mind with {{rp}}, I find them hard to read. — ERcheck (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems with Harvard is it makes a separate line item in the refs for every cite because each use of it needs its own line, whereas RP only requires one line for the ref. Take Barbera and his auto bio, if we use Harvard for that, there'd be an additional 30 line items in the ref section. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
True, but they are short and work well with {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|3}}. — ERcheck (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If you use the inline, parenthetic version, then you have some of the benefits of {{rp}} that you note above. Though, I see the inline version very infrequently in Wikipedia — which seems to favor the use of <ref>. — ERcheck (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate ref|2 and 3 and it still means there are just as many refs. What do you mean inline parenthetic version? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll just stick in refs. If you don't like them, just change them around. I'll concentrate on the body. Pls show example of inline parenthetic version you talk about. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I made a change to Packard, removing the harvnb. — ERcheck (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Glitch?

In Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Tom_Sayle, User:Mr. Secondattempt is under U, however, User:Mr. Opensockpuppeter, is under M. Both should be under one or the other. -- IRP ☎ 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because in Mr S's case no one tagged him, just put him in the cat. I've fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Also, I would like to get your attention about this: you did not reply to User_talk:Rlevse#Please_protect_User:68.39.174.238. -- IRP ☎ 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes made

Just letting you know that the changes were made to the template. -- IRP ☎ 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Time

I had guessed you were very busy. I talked to your wife about how to reach you. can we correspond? I have a situation I am trying to clear up. I am not a new user; I have been on Wikipedia a while, perhaps not as long as you though! Flyinghigher9 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
She mentioned it to me. Since you have email turned off, we have to use the talk page or IRC. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Russell Harding rename

Sorry for not spotting this sooner, but there's a problem with a rename you've just done. The username is the same as a real life famour person [83]. He used city money to access child pornography images - it was quite a big case and covered by many news agencies [84]. In short, the name is against our username policy. If the user is called Russel Harding, he will need to confirm this through OTRS. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AARGH — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, an easy one to miss. I just spotted it because I remember the case well. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jdxboom

You blocked him, but the message is a warning about a future block.Kww (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks, fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Eagles

Thanks. Good to know. The problem is, if I see an article such as "List of X," I expect it to contain all X, not just ones someone has decided are notable. Since a complete "List of Eagle Scouts" would run on endlessly until it looked like a phonebook from a large city, it seemed helpful to accurately describe the very limited scope of the page. Qualifying and delimiting the scope of the list in the lead paragraph also works, I suppose. Edison (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured list, so all on it have to have articles, meaning they meet notability. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the requirement that all members of a "featured list" must be notable, or must have an article, at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, although I do see that it says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries." In providing a "complete" set of items, I would expect that nonnotable ones must often be included. A list of "Maine State Senators" would include many redlinks, since few [85] have articles, although I suppose all legislators are considered inherently notable. Not so Eagle Scouts. Edison (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia should not have articles on subjects that aren't notable, then it follows that persons with articles are notable persons and that if they are also Eagle Scouts, then they are notable Eagle Scouts. When we find some notable Eagle Scout who is not on the list but does not have an article, then we can create an article. If an article is ever found to be non-notable and deleted, then the name comes off the list. Thus, we do not have notability guidelines that differ from the Wikipedia norms. See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: "Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope", where the scope here is notable persons who are Eagle Scouts. You will find that lists of Eagle Scouts are rampant on the web; this list is unique in that each entry is verified and referenced. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well said, as usual Gadget. There was also a discussion about not having "notable" in the list title but I'll be darned if I can find the one I'm thinking of. That particular piece of this puzzle was a community consensus decision and a bunch of lists got renamed to not have "notable" in them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Consider my proposed List of former Maine State Senators. All present and former state legislators are , for better or worse, considered notable per the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. Very few of the many former Maine State Senators have articles. In your judgment, is it forbidden to have a comprehensive list of Maine State Senators, referenced to a state government website and print state legislature journals? Should the ones presently without article be redlinks or just plain names, with years of service, district, and years of birth and death? Many appear to have little well sourced information beyond what would create a brief stub article. Edison (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that all senators will almost always be notable, whereas only a fraction of those who are Eagle Scouts will ever be notable. If a proper article on a person can't be written, then they probably are not notable. By requiring an article, we don't have our own special notability standards. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, but aside from the Eagle article, do you see the proposed "former Maine Senators" complete listing as a suitable list, and shoud the names ne just names or redlinks? As for all the former senators being notable, for many there is nothing in Google Books or Google News (other than a directory listing in a printed legislature journal from 1870 or some such) and many never made it into Who's Who, although they might be in some local vanity directory or their local newspaper. Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This has drifted off the topic of "notable" being in the title. You can have list members who don't have an article, but if you can find the info to make an article, it's good to do so. For the Eagle list, it functions quite well as we maintain in with standard wiki rules, but in the Maine senator case, I can see your point. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:VandalProofErrorRlevse.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:VandalProofErrorRlevse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I saved you the trouble and whacked it for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Rlevse for your understanding :), There are many projects like dupes one if you're free, by the way. :) --OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_11&oldid=1181767817"