User talk:Rlevse/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Eagle Scout

Your article says you made Eagle Scout in 1971, but your CV says 1973. Your official date is your Eagle BOR date. Which date is correct? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had deleted that page years ago! It was in 1971, June 7. Henrydoktorski (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NTWW 33

It's up now. Sorry it took so long, but I've been really ill, and facing down a 3-hour editing job was not wsomething I was looking forward to. Finally did it in little chunks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. Sorry you were sick. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The fourth file should be there now. I set it up while Sunderland was uploading them for me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. The link should be to File:NTWW 33-4.ogg, if that helps. Try purging the page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Now it's blue. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good. Because that's the part that involves you, you know, so it'd be embarrassing if I cheerily told you I had everything working, and then couldn't get your contribution to work =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers ABOVE an administrator

I have read something interesting on Wikipedia:VANDALISM#How not to respond to vandalism, and it mentions something about users with special powers who can can edit page histories. Can you tell me more about these users? -- IRP ☎ 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

administrators can merge histories but I don't know of anyone that can actually edit a history and I don't see where it says that in the link you gave. Admins can delete pages, block users, grant rollback rights and a few other rights to users, and protect pages. Bureaucrats can flag bots, promote users to admin, and rename users. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a reference to oversight – Alison ^❤ 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah ya. Oversight is a separate bit right, which I do not have. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Hi Rlevse. Unfortunately I won't be able to do any sort of in-depth copy-editing until at least Sunday, more likely the middle of next week. Even what I've done so far is superficial; I haven't had the time to comb through the text thoroughly. Sorry about this; real life is consuming me right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, you've volunteering. If it fails this time, it gives you more time to work on it for next round. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock input

As you were the CU who blocked FBD, please provide input here User talk:Spacefarer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only blocked one account and left the other, but they are definitely the same and edited the same topic. Tiptoety decided to block the other, effectively banning the guy, which is his choice. One was about Landmark, and the other about its owner. There is an overlap. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 05:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

TTN

Does this mean that the 6 month restriction was restarted from the time of the block? And if not, why not? - jc37 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Where in the arbcase does it say something about the 6 month ban restarting? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't inherent in any topic ban? A ban of 6 months would seem to imply that it's an uninterrupted ban.

And if not, what's to stop someone from gaming the system? - jc37 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense, but could you be specific as to the case you're talking about, with details? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asking in general. (And was asking you because you were one of those who has blocked a user who was under such a topic ban.)

If someone has a topic ban for a length of time, should it not be presumed that that is intended to be a uninterrupted topic ban, and that if the person violates the ban (even to the point of being blocked for it), that then the duration should "start over"? - jc37 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Bans are reset if the sanctions specify that or if they've shown little progress, but it's not a given that if they get blocked one time the ban is automatically reset in all cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I can see the fairness in that especially since a each incidence may be different.

At this point, if I have concerns, should I ask arbcom for a clarification? And to be honest, I'm not sure in reading the various pages if the user is "in violation" of the spirit of the case or not. (The user came off the ban to immediately start nominating episode pages again. Though I have not checked the exact dates to confirm when such nominations began.)

My goal here is to prevent disruption, and obviously making accusations may not be helpful, when all I'm looking for atm is a clarification.

What would you suggest? - jc37 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Warn him firmly one time, that if he continues in this behavior, you'll reinstate the ban. Be polite but firm and willing do it. You don't need arbcom to get involved. I recently did this in the John Buscema case, reinstated a ban on my own. If nothing else, you can call it topic ban on general admin action. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has actually already gone back for clarification given TTN started deleting content from the minute his ban expired. The arbitrators felt he had not broken any editorial process since his ban, and he was free to remove content he felt was not verifiable or notable. The problem with his behaviour before the ban was his edit warring and incivility. I don't think this has started up again which is why the arbs felt he was doing ok. The ban simply can't be reinstated without arbcom or a good community consensus. So far arbcom have said he's doing nothing wrong, so the best bet would be to seek communal input and suggest an editing restriction. I'm not sure you'll get a consensus within the community to do this though – opinions characters and episodes are extremely contentious and both sides feel quite strongly about it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point but we can reinstate the ban, there's precedent for that as I've said, and it'd avoid all the drama of a windy debate. He's had his chance, he didn't get it, so let's avoid the inevitable hot air. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can't really reinstate an arbcom ban when arbcom don't think he's doing anything wrong. I personally do have issues with his behaviour, but he's certainly not doing the main thing he was banned for (edit warring and incivility). As I said, a new request for clarification or community restriction would be the best way forward if Jc feels strongly about it – it's not one for doing alone. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've not looked into the merits of the request, ie, what TTN is doing, all I'm saying is we can reinstate the ban without going to arbcom, as I said above, if he continues in this behavior. I guess I wasn't clear enough on that. A topic ban can also be done on general admin rules for long term disruption, no arbcase at all is needed for that. In such a case the question would be is this long term disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but one admin can't really ban TTN on there own as I'm sure many others would disagree that he's doing anything wrong. In seriously contentious cases like this, it should go on a noticeboard for deliberation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a problem with all these long-term disputes: John Buscema, Episodes and Characters, all the various ethnic disputes on wiki, SA-MP, etc....there's always someone willing to defend the disruptors. Sometimes you have to be bold and just go do it. I'm not saying this is or is not such a case as I haven't looked into the details but my personal rule of thumb if they've been at each other over a year and still can't come together cooperatively to build the encyclopedia instead of constantly pointing fingers at each other, then stern, bold, unilateral measures are justified. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of options.

I wasn't looking to take any sort of "immediate action", just was pursuing information, atm.

(Research, 3PO, and sometimes further consensus, are, at times, some of my preferences before "taking action".)

All that said, I have a feeling that this is going to be watched by others besides me, so I'm going to presume that (hopefully) things will stay "within bounds".

Anyway, thanks again for your help : ) – jc37 09:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another vandal

Please look into this: Special:Contributions/76.238.82.210. -- IRP ☎ 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Warned by me too. Report to WP:AIV if he persists. I'm going to bed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Bongomatic is being slightly disruptive.

User: Runningonbrains, has removed the deletion tag from storm train, and said that the deletion request was not appropriate for the article. So, User:Bongomatic tries to war, and he/she puts it back. Do you think that the article should be reverted, and "protected, until disputes have been resolved"? -- IRP ☎ 14:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You may want to see storm train page history. -- IRP ☎ 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if it happens again. In the meantime save the article to your puter so if it's deleted you can merge the data. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK to put it in User:IRP/ArticleArchive, where I plan to place articles I create until they are revised? -- IRP ☎ 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I did save the article to my desktop as "Storm train article backup.txt". -- IRP ☎ 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, such a page in user space is also called a sandbox and it's okay to work on articles there before they go to main space. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How can I get my Template:ArchivedArticle to show up correctly on my archived article. -- IRP ☎ 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I copied the code directly in. Why it messes up on template usage I don't know. Ask User:AGK, he's good at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I must mention that I'm glad that Bongomatic is not an administrator. Oh boy, would Wikipedia be devastated! He/she would have deleted a whole truckload of articles, and probably would have spoiled the site. Luckily all he/she can do is propose and nominate for deletion, and not delete freely! -- IRP ☎ 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

Do you think that the article I created, storm train, should be deleted? -- IRP ☎ 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm letting you know that I also backed up shouting match, to keep it safe. -- IRP ☎ 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think storm train should be merged to that more comprehensive article. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Training (meteorology)? Better, there should be a paragraph about it in that article, and at the top of the section, there should be: Main article: Storm train. -- IRP ☎ 20:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm train has several times more page views than Training (meteorology). So obviously, when storms train, it is usually known as a storm train. -- IRP ☎ 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a similar example: in the article thunderstorm, there is a paragraph about a supercell, and a link to the main article. So in this case, there should be a paragraph about storms (in training [meteorology]), and a link to the main article. A supercell is a type of thunderstorm, and storm training is a type of training. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm train. -- IRP ☎ 20:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

I think it would be appropriate to place a neutrally worded notice to relevant article talkpages regarding the socks involved with these Landmark Education/Werner Erhard articles that were confirmed from the recent checkuser case, with a link back to the checkuser case page. Does that sound okay? Cirt (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny

Funny how the silly, apparently non-controversial matters seem to be the ones that blow up the worst, such as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xinunus. Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Usurp

Hi Rlevse; I've left a comment at the usurpation page. If you could tender to it, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks. Caulde 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum

Thanks for filing the new Jvolkblum socks at RFCU, especially the cross-wiki filing for the Commons users. Since I think the behavior patterns are pretty obvious, some of the socks have not edited recently enough to show up in a CU, and some of my past RFCUs for Jvolkblum did not result in blocking until someone followed up at SSP, I guess I thought it more appropriate to post the case at SSP. (I believe I understand why RFCU and SSP are still separate, but in cases like this it would be nice to consolidate the two noticeboards...) BTW, I still haven't finished documenting the case... --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

re on your page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to comment on my talk page): Glad to know that. I was aware that the proposed merger was being discussed (I may even have commented on it), but I had not followed the discussion lately, and inferred that the proposal must have died. Glad to hear that I guessed wrong. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

User:69.133.114.150, has done repeated vandalism, and has posted the same vandalistic material at several places on Wikipedia, particularly Cartoon Network (United States). Here is the material. -- IRP ☎ 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks. YOu'll get faster response on the noticeboards like WP:AIV when I'm not around. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Artsakh

Hi and thanks for you intervention, protecting Artsakh could perhaps help to cool off. But I don't think I have done anything worth for any restrictions and I think you are treating me unjustified for the second time. Grandmaster and others were just vandalizing the Artsakh page, this is not only my opinion, since Til Eulenspiegel, an impartial user, warned those users 3 times [1] [2] Talk:Artsakh#Adding Original Synthesis tag that they were engaging an original synthesis and that it had even no connection with the topic of the article in question, yet they neglected him to. I hoped anyone who would react on Grandmaster's accusation, would first inspect the talkpages Mihranids, Albania & Artsakh and see how those Users every time try to "attest" an obviously wrong idea and threat me not to remove it from the article. Although it would be just the the reverse: dubious and unclear statements would not been added until they are verified and this refers also to a map. In this case I am under restrictions while Gransmaster is only "warned". I think this unfair accusation had the only purpose to terrorize me. And I'm not going accept it, Please tell me how I can appeal against it and also what do imply AA/AA2 restrictions. Thanks. --Vacio (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster thinks you were vandalizing it and he thinks you were. You were warned twice so you can't say you weren't aware. I'm sure you can see the problems that creates for us admins who are only trying to get users to cooperate instead of constantly bickering over whose version of an article is the "correct" one. I am totally neutral in this too. You can appeal to arbcom but I've saved you the trouble and asked them to look at this already-I did this just a few minutes ago. Also, they're about to release new guidelines for handling nationalistic disputes any day now. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note...arb mbr responded to this on Vacio's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI appeal

I'm appealing what I consider to be your bad decision here on ANI. You have offered nothing more than a personal commentary and a very much skewed view on the issue at hand. I suggest you rescue yourself and request alternative opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

They seem pretty reasonable to me and have broad support across the community, on all sides. I'm not sure where the problem is here, other than that you don't like it – Alison ^❤ 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposals had overwhelming support, including the one on you being on probation. The only real issue was the proposed probation on Sarah777, which I removed myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not one diff was offered by any of you to support the sanctions on me. While I will be appealing this, I will also raise the conduct of Admin’s on WP:RfC as I consider it to be less than satisfactory. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The diffs are in the AE case. File appeals as you like, in fact, would you like me to help you? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah your alright thanks. I'll try get some advice first of editors with more experiance first? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There aren't many editors with more than 60,000 edits, which I have, and if you mean admin experience, few have more admin actions than me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, ask around all you'd like, the people at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Current Clerks are particularly skilled in interpreting ArbCom decisions. Also, feel free to file a Request for clarification, but do remember that you are under sanction until you hear otherwise at WP:AE or WP:RFAR, and I doubt there are any uninvolved admins who will be saying differently at AE. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Final remedies

Quick question regarding the 'Final remedies'; only Domer and myself are mentioned; are these additions to something else? Are the original Tznkai remedies standing bar these changes? I'd be a bit disappointed if Domer alone was sanctioned and the only other mention was the "advice" to me. Is what appears in 'Final remedies' (linked above) the full ruling? Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The final remedies section is all that applies. If it's not mentioned there, it doesn't apply. I'm sorry you're disappointed. If you feel someone else should have been mentioned, I'm willing to discuss it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just interested to note that in an edit war I wasn't involved in and in which Domer wasn't the most blameworthy party, we end being the two who are mentioned when the dust settles. I'm not really surprised, to be honest. I have explained at length why and how this happens. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to learn more you might look at the article on country known as Ireland, which goes in Wiki under the title given to it in the law of the former colonial power rather than the common, internationally recognised, constitutional and legal name. In such an environment it is hardly surprising that a perverse finding like this one appears, is it? Consensus = Anglo POV; on Wiki that is the beginning and the end of it. It would be nice if you'd at least concede that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured List contest

Hey Rlevse, this is IMatthew (talk · contribs), co-coordinator of the WikiCup; just informing you of the Featured List contest, starting this coming Friday. You may want to check it out; it will keep you busy for the time being before the WikiCup starts around January. Thanks for listening! iMatthew (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some sock's message on my talk page

A newbie left this dishonest message on my talk page and declared him/herself having watched me for a while.[3] I think this is his confession as himself as sock given the history of sock/meatpuppeter's appearance at the article. The user also altered the edit for Japanese POV [4][5] without any backingup references, discussion, or consensus which constitutes "falsification of the history". I believe the user is one of indef.socks by my report.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa

Tanaka-san (talk · contribs), Que Sera Sera Sera (talk · contribs), Zerosen (talk · contribs), Honda-Hawk (talk · contribs), Hye-Hyun (talk · contribs). All are SPAs appearing the artricle to do the same thing. Could you look at these account and semi protect the article for a while? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right, so I indef blocked and tagged all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

sul request---droppilot

Im am actually the fr user and i would be glad to get my global account unified under this name. here is the link to the page

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hey there. Well, the wait's over .... Congratulations!!!. I'm really delighted that you made it to the team. Well deserved indeed. However, no time for slacking – we've a backlog!! :) Looking forward to working with you – Alison ^❤ 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, good work! MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all and I appreciate the support. — Rlevse • Talk • 06:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and likewise! -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, I look forward to working with you! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Grats, R :) Ariel♥Gold 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And my bit is now turned on! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're now a checkuser too! --Caspian blue (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

J. C. Deelman SUL request

The requester's existing account is J. C. Deelman (talk · contribs), with spaces between the initials, which is why nothing showed up for user:J.C.Deelman. I've left him a message to say sorry, but "JohnCD" is already taken. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tks, — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

re: off to a poor start

Thank you for this[6]. I admit I may have not added the sources in exactly the correct manner, but I still feel the mistake should have been corrected rather than throwing out the sources and labeling them "linkspam". I felt like I was ganged-up on by the regulars at these articles, though that does not excuse my outburst. I will continue reading Wikipedia policies, and think about returning here, in a different subject area. And I will remember your offer of assistance. Thank you again. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they just made a knee jerk reaction. Let me know if you need help. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by off and on-wiki

Hi, Rlevse. I need your attention and help. As I said, I've been watched by 2channel personnel for almost one year, and they've analazing my edits and stalking me, http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1218372119/ translation

However they recently even created a stalking site dedicated to me http://www3.atwiki.jp/apple-tree/

I feel so annoyed at their continued harassment and wikistalking even with the new site. The site clearly constitutes libel and harassment. Now, some SPA, Bukubku (talk · contribs) who first appeared after the AFD for South Korean cultural claims and has been trying to insert false information to Empress Myeongseong and obviously watches my talk page. The user has been taking over mesh.ad.jp IP user's edits Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Watermint (Watermint (talk · contribs)) Could you look at the obviously sock account and set some of Korean articles on your watchlist such as Baekje, Gaya, Goguryeo, Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, Anti-Korean sentiment, History of Korea, Korea under Japanese rule? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Will work this, give me another day or two. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a useful link that I stumbled upon: Wikipedia:Attack#Off-wiki attacks. -- IRP ☎ 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser-wise, the IPs involved are highly dynamic and span 3 of Japan's biggest ISPs. There is not a narrow enough range for an effective range block. Accounts can be blocked based on behavior without checkuser, indeed checkuser is almost worthless as there are almost no distinguishing features in the IP usage or user agent to make an identification. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-prot'd the articles and warned Bukubku. As for socking, please put together a SSP report with diffs and reasons and the master account rather than making blanket sock accusations. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please change redirect

Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism should redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism, not to Wikipedia:Vandalism. The # symbol in the URL determines the section shown. You will see when you click the links. -- IRP ☎ 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the change. -- IRP ☎ 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You could have done that yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not true, it is currently protected to where only administrators can edit it. -- IRP ☎ 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Ashton being disruptive

Rlevse, Gerry Ashton is being disruptive to make a point. Here on WT:MOSNUM, there is a debate about bringing the formatting of numbers on some of Wikipedia’s mathematics articles into conformance with the rest of Wikipedia’s articles on our technical and applied mathematics articles. The details of the dispute are arcane, but it essentially is debate over delmiting long numbers so they can be parsed easily, such as 2.718281828.

The tone of Gerry’s tenor in the debate on WT:MOSNUM has escalated this morning so he hauled off and posted these two notices on my talk page announcing that he was nominating two templates for deletion.

You should know that the {val} template was extensively discussed long ago on MOSNUM (here on Archive 94) and was further discussed on WT:MOS (here on Archive 97). In both cases, there was a broad-based consensus that the envisioned template {{delimitnum}} was a good and it was well-received by the community. This all transpired in February of this year. The only thoroughly disaffected editor who opposed the template was Gerry (here on MOSNUM Archive 94). He hated the idea and tried to block it with the suggestion that a consensus should also have to be obtained on WT:MOS. Well, a while later—as I mentioned above—that is precisely what eventually happened; I later noticed an issue there about the formatting of scientific notation and told them of what had been discussed on WT:MOSNUM. We had a great discussion that resulted in a tweak to the proposed template. The clear consensus in both venues was that it was a good idea.

Note: The {{delimitnum}} template never worked well for long strings and much greater favor was found with a {{val}} template created by SkyLined. The {val} template is used in a wide variety of Wikipedia’s articles and is used extensively on Kilogram, which just received GA status. The deletion of {val} would be terribly disruptive. The template can also be used to create values in what is known as “concise form” like h = 6.62606896(33)×10⁻³⁴ J·s. This is the same, SI-compliant way the NIST shows the value (see example). We need this tool.

Now Gerry, who has long opposed these templates (he wrote “I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is a bastard.” ) [7] knows full well that these templates were well-received in the community and that the templates—particularly {val}—are used extensively in Wikipedia’s articles. This is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. May I ask your assistance in this manner. The nominations are as follows:

• Here for val and…
• Here for delimitnum

I ask that Gerry be sanctioned for this move. He knew full well this move would be highly disruptive. Greg L (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely belive the Val and Delimitnum templates should be deleted. The attention they are receiving in the MOSNUM debate might cause editors who do not fully understand the non-standard way these display numbers to use them in a greater number of articles, and make their eventual removal more difficult. I do not believe I should be sanctioned for an action that didn't damage anything, and expresses my view on the best course of action for Wikipedia. (By the way, do you like the way the number {{delimitnum|86636.555368}} looks? Have you ever seen someone group digits both with a space and with a comma in the same number? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the way, nor the venue, for what you are trying to accomplish. The record of how well received these templates are in the community is clear, I’ve cited the links above. There is no “debate” about these templates; only an editor who disagreed with the consensus view in two venues (MOS and MOSNUM), got angry this morning on a related issue, and went out of his way to disrupt Wikipedia and be a pure bother. This move is nothing but a pure case of WP:POINT. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The MOSNUM debate has been going on far too long. If you've already been to mediation, then file arbitration as that's the only way I can see this ending. While some of this is content, there are behaviorial issues too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Image talk:Calliandra flwr.jpg – I believe that this page should be deleted because it contains only 1 post that violates Wikipedia policy. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about new page

Hello Rlevse, I just created a page for Mogens Ellegaard and notice that for some reason his name appears in the categories (1935 births | 1995 deaths | Accordionists | Classical accordionists | Avant-garde accordionists) under the letter "D" instead of "E." Why is this? How to fix it? Henry Doktorski (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See this. Apparently you copied stuff from the other persons article and forgot to change his name in the defaultsort line. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see now! Many thanks! Henry Doktorski (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tigris/ Gennarous

Hello. I'm not intending to contradict your decision on this matter, and I am sure you have the necessary evidence before you; however, by quickly glancing at the user contribution histories alone, I have a difficult time believing Yorksirian et al= Gennarous/ Tigris. I've come across Gennarous on edits relating to Southern Italy and IMO his edits- however brash and heavy-handed they may have been- were not in bad faith or disruptive (at least in my dealings with him). Nonetheless, I'm not here to defend him or to say Gennarous/Tigris shouldn't be banned... I'm simply pointing out the material differences in contribution types between the two user groups. Dionix (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• See Yorkshirian's user page and these links in addition to the one currently on AN:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive460#Yorkshirian
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive476#User:Tigris the Majestic
    • The Gennarous/Yorkshirian connnection has FT2, Thatcher, Alison, and myself agreeing, no wiki, plus the CU evidence we can't go into. The connection to Tigris has FT2 concurring onwiki and the CU evidence we can't go into. I do see why you noticed what you did though. That Tigris is socking I have very little doubt of. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Too bad! I was hoping you were wrong about Gennarous. Thanks! Dionix (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All or no references

Here, references 1 and 3 no longer work, however, reference 2 still works. A user removed the non-working references, however, it removed the working reference number 2. Can you please restore reference number 2 and not references 1 & 3? -- IRP ☎ 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That page is not protected, you can restore it. Ref 2 is a blog and that is not a WP:RS, reliable source. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be able to, but I don't know how, because the references were just a {{reflist}} template. -- IRP ☎ 23:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to restore an old version of a file (but you don't have a good case here), call up the page in question, click on the history tab. When you figure out which old version you want, click on its date/time stamp (it'll give you a warning), click on the edit tab, hit save. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just don't know how to edit the references. I can only add all 3 or remove them all, I cannot remove specific references in the list. Do you understand what I'm saying? There must be a separate place for the list of references for that page. Before the reflist was removed, all it showed up as in the editing screen was: {{reflist}}. I cannot edit the list of references from the page, so I assume there is a target for that "{{reflist}}". -- IRP ☎ 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reflist is a template that pulls refs from the body. Click on the ^ in each line and it will take you to the matching ref number in the body. Click on that ref number in the body and it'll take you to the matching ref number in the ref section. If a ref is used more than once, it'll show up in reflist as "a b c ....", in which case you click on the letter not the ^. To edit the ref, edit it in the body. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful! -- IRP ☎ 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet

This is extremely disruptive, and I do not know what could be done. There were several IP addresses that kept redirecting random pages to Rick Astley, and one of them was 84.9.46.3. The user is continually changing his/her IP address to override a block. Can you do something about this? -- IRP ☎ 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can somehow perform a search for "#REDIRECT [[Rick Astley]]" on all Wikipedia pages (including their edit histories), you will be able to list the socks. -- IRP ☎ 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the best thing for you to do is collect the diffs and IPs and report them to WP:ANI or WP:SSP or WP:AIV. This type of vandalism is usually quickly reverted. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

How come you don't have a userbox on your userpage that shows that you are an administrator? -- IRP ☎ 18:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the upper right of my talk and user page. Mouse over the four icons (L-R): checkuser, bureaucrat, arb clerk, admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. -- IRP ☎ 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List size

When I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=10000, and change the URL limit value, I can change it to whatever I want, however, if I set it for anything beyond 5000, it will still display the list of 5000. Is there any way that I can get a list as long as I want that will show changes as early as yesterday? Is there a completely different list that I would have to go to? -- IRP ☎ 18:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The limit is set to 5000 on that sort of thing, not just list size, so it won't crash the servers. Related to this, on page histories such as [8], you can change the date so you go directly to the time of interest, rather than repeatedly hitting "next 500". In that link "20080727" is the start date of the list, just change it to what you want. You can also use the earliest and latest buttons to go to the first and last versions of a page. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes list does not have things like "newer 500" and "older 500". Isn't there any kind of special list like the one you specified, but for the entire site? -- IRP ☎ 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lord no, talk about crashing the server. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It would only show a up to 500 at a time, not like a million. I'm sure there's got to be some kind of site-wide history. Do you know what that would be? ...or does such a thing exist? -- IRP ☎ 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC), modified 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful message

Thank you for your message, Rlevse. I’m sorry, some of my editing style was not good, then I made efforts to edit appropriately. So I discussed on talk page, but no one appeared.[9] Then I recovered the article.

Anyway, some of my editing style was rough. So I apologize to you. Your advice got me better. Thank you. If you find my edition is wrong, please notice me. You are my teacher.--Bukubku (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE report on Thunderer and subsequent block

I am reliably informed that Thunderer has requested that you take a look at the recent edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. I have blocked him for 24 hours for two reverts within 20 minutes (you can see his explanation on his talk page). I'm about to head to sleep, so if you need to undo or upgrade my actions, please feel free. I've asked Domer and Dunc NOT to do any further actions on that page until you can review the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave soon so I've asked Black Kite to look at this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Not everything's moved over quite yet, but thank you for pressing the buttons to give me my new name! [ roux ] [x] formerly prince of canada 12:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It can take a day. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmm

Hi. Thanks for taking action against Cmmmm aka Tre2. I have since noticed from IP-based edits to his user page that he has also been responsible for previous disruptive IP-based edits to articles that I regularly edit, about which I had previously been suspicious. (These indicate his IP to be dynamically allocated, with only the first two octets being constant, though the modus operandi is clear.)

More generally, I've also since noticed that the Cmmmm's IP-based edits have been reverted by admins on his User page, which made me curious whether this is a general policy for IP-based edits when accounts are blocked, and if so, how does it apply to dynamically-assigned IPs? Or if it's just a case of those admins assuming a different user altogether was vandalising the User page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned editors are not allowed to edit, period, so their edits, whether by name or IP are usually reverted. Dynamic IPs are more of a problem as you never know who will be using it, ie, lots of collateral damage if you block them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Question

Hello I just recently had my user name changed via usurp, but I have a problem. When I click discussion on my account, it takes me to DragonZero (Usurp) instead of my own page. So can you tell me how to get past this?
Please post the reply on my page. P.S Make sure the discussion page is not DragonZero (Usurp)
Thanks for your time. DragonZero (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!DragonZero (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf

Hi. Thanks for your attention at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf. It's been tagged as inconclusive. But did the checkuser throw up any other matches with users involved in that poll in question? Or if I don't choose the right two users, is it just game over and the sock puppetry continues?--Jeff79 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did find something on one of them but I'm out of time tonight, will work more later. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Award

I am flabbergasted and truly humbled. It is beyond words. Thank you very much. Taprobanus (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on Articles for deletion

Hello, Rlevse. On the 12th I made my first attempt at an Article for deletion nomination. It is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kascha Papillon. I followed the instructions in Template:AfD in 3 steps as well as I could, and I also took the additional step of notifying the creator of the article. But a bot later tagged the nomination as incomplete. I cannot see what the bot did to complete the nomination. Can you see what step I missed, so that I can make proper nominations in the future? Thank you in advance for your help. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why, but it's listed here now: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and actresses#Kascha Papillon — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't realize it should be listed here. Perhaps that was the problem. Thank you again. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Tom Sayles sock

Special:Contributions/Disliker of humanities. Even apart from his userpage, he shares a lot of mannerisms and stuff. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

File an SSP and post here when you're done and I'll get on it. Give good evidence and diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?

Would this single purpose account be considered one, or the other? How can one check without bothering a checkuser? Must there be an assumption of good faith if the account was created for one reason only? Contribution: Honey And Thyme

Signed User:MichaelQSchmidt 19:23 14Oct08 (sig. added by Franamax (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Okay to archive?

Hi. I was going to archive the Puttyschool RFCU but noticed a call for a second look. Let me know if I should wait or archive away. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Relist it and ask Thatcher to look at it. Mention I asked him to. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Should this be deleted or not?

Do you think my redirect February 17, 2009 (this link goes to discussion), should be deleted, or changed. I think it should be made like February 17, 2005. Please also post your opinion on the discussion. -- IRP ☎ 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Serio is back

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Serio1, which was a pretty easy case of sockpuppeting for those involved. The other user that wasn't included but keeps getting blocked is User:63.224.213.47, which is another. Not sure how to do a 2nd sockpuppetcase, but a quick look at the users blocks will make it clear that it probably isn't needed to see this is vandalism. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone already blocked him today for 6 months. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

After I wrote this, I decided to report it as vandalism not expecting much since there was the single new edit. Technically, it was a sockpuppet case but I really didn't want to report another sockpuppet case (I have one report there now that has been there for weeks...) So I documented the history in the vandal report and the admin at the switch put the block for being a sockpuppet, which is a little unusual. Then again, this whole Serio thing is pretty unusual. Thanks for getting back. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Username policy violation

This looks to me like it is a violation of the username policy. -- IRP ☎ 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind helping, but you need to learn the noticeboards that I told you about. The user in question hasn't edited in 2 years. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Awesome Wikipedia" Day...

Seems only right while Phaedriel is resting. ;) Best, —Ceran ¿? 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you. and yes it does. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, picking up where she left off seems a good move. Anthøny (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. I ran across ariels page just dropping in and saw the award. I got kind of excited because I thought phaedrial might be back but it was just your continuation. a GREAT idea. If you need nay help keeping it up or anything let me know. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think I'd be getting one this quickly, there's many more qualified I bet. Thanks, made my day! :) Wizardman 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Just noticed the username block you set on this user (they're currently requesting unblocking); I don't disagree with the block at all, but wasn't sure if there's a pressing reason for the autoblock to be set -- it's preventing them from registering a more suitable account name, if not. Probably not a big deal, but any insight would be appreciated, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Check, thanks for having a look. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stoked

I'm stoked to be working with a fellow wiki zealot. Hopefully I can convince you to play in the Intellipedia sandbox. --Pair O' Dimes (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When my new job allows ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfarb: Sarah Palin wheel war

I hope it's ok to post here, rather than clog up the Clerks noticeboard. You asked where the abstentions were. Here on 2.1 and here on 3.1, Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer abstained. I wouldn't normally have bothered, since Remedies 2 and 3 had greater preference, but several arbs had indicated that they considered 2 and 2.1 to be cumulative, not exclusive – likewise with 3 and 3.1. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE on noticeboard. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot proposal – comments needed

I'm messaging you since you participated in a Village Pump discussion a while back on the subject. I've since put in a proposal for a bot to revert the addition of redlinks to a subset of list articles and/or list sections. The selection of such articles and the policy of operation of the bot is under discussion there. Your input would be welcome. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tks, but I'll let the bot experts work it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move revert please

Hi
Since you happen to be the first online admin I find: Could you just undo my page move from Woodpigeon (music group) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Woodpigeon (music group)? I was gonna put an A7 speedy tag on it, since it neither asserts notability nor is notable, when I saw that the user wanted to submit it to WP:AFC judging by the transculded template in the article. When I was finished with the move and already requested a G6 deletion request of the then-useless redirect I noticed that registered editors shouldn't submit anything to AFC in the first place. Sigh. I can't move it back myself now, so could you please mop up my mess and do that for me, so that I can properly request speedy deletion? I don't really want to leave the history at the new name. :)
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

done, at least what I think you wanted me to do ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, perfect. :) Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And as it turns out, the band has recieved pretty decent news coverage. Even better, but much ado about nothing I guess. Thanks again, Amalthea^Talk 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Email

Received, read, and replied. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb restictions – end of

Hi. I note that I'll be off the revert restrictions v soon (on 20th). Is there official notification of that on my talk page and/or on the arb case, or does nothing happen? John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It does, as far as I can tell, run out 20 Oct. It simply expires, no one will post on your page about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I blooming hope it does run out then! But I'll give it an extra 24 hours or so if necessary. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

-- Wow a day declared just for me! Thank you very much for the appreciation. I am deeply honoured. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

My talk page was not transferred to User talk:Alcove when I usurped Alcove. Could you possibly help? Thanks – Alcove (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done — Rlevse • Talk •

Unnecessary

I do not need User:IRP/ArticleArchive/Shouting match anymore. Can you please delete it? -- IRP ☎ 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot idea

I have an idea for a bot: AntiPageBlankBot. It would automatically patrol the recent changes list, and the millisecond that it sees "Blanked the page" (or just a blanked page with a different edit summary) within the article namespace, the edit would be reverted. It would also revert a similar thing, an edit that removes more than 70% of an article, with no edit summary (excluding an automatic edit summary), and the IP or username is not found on the talk page (meaning that the content removal was unexplained). This would mean that edits such as "(Replaced content with 'dhlvkjbxcgl.kbjnflkxh bjmlckvnblcnghkldfjlkgjxfkl;gjx this article sucks')", would be reverted. Do you have any idea of how I can establish this bot? I read that I was supposed to discuss it with other users before it was created. -- IRP ☎ 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BAG — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect

Should IPA chart for English be deleted because it is a cross-namespace redirect, or should it stay as it is? -- IRP ☎ 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To me it doesn't matter that it's cross namespace. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed

On {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, the word because needs to be inserted between "indefinitely" and "it". -- IRP ☎ 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I will ask someone to take care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As requested, Rlevse: done. Anthøny (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. -- IRP ☎ 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it

Hi!

I read your explanation of "circular socking" and it makes sense to me. User:Brexx, the puppeteer, has always been on a dynamic IP that's usually difficult to block because many people seem to share the same IP. Because his IP is as dynamic as it is and because some of those accounts are stale, do you think it might make it easier for checkusers to perform requests related to this sockpuppeteer if I listed a more recent account as a main/sockpuppeteer account (ie, IJALB, VPNIP or SHOWCONFIG)? I'm just thinking that listing Girl Get it as a main account creates an extra step or two to for CUs and it would be pretty simple for me to start a new case with accounts that are newer and easier to track. Do you think this is a good idea or no? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but notate that the real master is Brexx via Girl Get it via whomever, so the continuity is not lost. The more recent the edits the better, as you now, they go stale after awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, will most definitely notate this things. So is it acceptable to keep adding to the CU file named Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it listing SHOWCONFIG as a puppeteer or would you suggest that I start Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SHOWCONFIG?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just keep using GGI, making more files/pages just makes it harder to track. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser question – trying to avoid collateral damage

Hi Rlevse – I'm looking at doing a fairly long block (3 to 6 months) of a block evading IP, 89.216.235.26 (talk · contribs) who is known to us with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun. It looks to me as if all the contribs for the IP are from a single editor; however, before blocking the IP for that long, I just want to make sure I wouldn't be causing any collateral damage. Could you please review and let me know? My email is enabled if you prefer to keep the results quiet. Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK but it'll be several hours before I can get to this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a rush. I have the IP soft-blocked for 72 hours, but given the extensive history of socking would be inclined to hardblock it if there is little likelihood of collateral damage. Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed results of CU case. Sending email too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse. I've now hardblocked the IP for six months. Risker (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete User:IRP/TemplatesForCreation/EmptySection. When deleting, please say for the reason "User requested deletion within own userspace". -- IRP ☎ 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Looks like you got to this one first. I'll let you finish off the paperwork. WJBscribe (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just emailed you to finish paperwork, but okay. Second time we did that! ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarion Fund

Hi, Your edit to the Clarion Fund article[10] moved content before references that did not support the content. Why? I undid it. -- davidz (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs normally go after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bronze Wolf Award copyvio

Hello! This morning, I tagged an article you created in 2006—Bronze Wolf Award—as a copyright violation. All of the text is lifted verbatim from this site, and that site has a visible copyright notice. Normally I'd just pop on to a user's talk page and drop in the {{Nothanks-web}} template and be done with it, but clearly you're no newcomer. So, I figured it was best to avoid the template approach and give you a heads-up that I'd tagged the page as a violation. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I haven't edited it in over a year. I look at this soon and try to improve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the source is licensed under the CCPL [11], but that's probably not compatible with the GFDL, right? Amalthea^Talk 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that myself after seeing the CCPL. My guess would be no, considering the non-commercial aspects, but IANAL. Just wanted to give the article's creator some notice about the tag. :) Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[12] —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My stalkers – thank you

Thanks so much for the time and effort you expended on my little problem – very, very much appreciated. The result was unexpected but in hindsight not surprising – I had initially suspected a sockmaster from that part of the globe but the references to Hans and similar interventions from Manchester based IPs sent me off down the wrong track. Anyway, they've been tracked down now and hopefully the blocks will send the right message. Thanks once again, Nancy ^talk 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

M.D Lawes (talk · contribs) is the real master. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

M.D Lawes

Per this edit, are you confirming that all of the socks are M.D Lawes? Even the ones with Hans897 in the name? If so, I'll retag them all as confirmed M.D Lawes. Is Hans897 (talk · contribs) him/herself an M.D Lawes sock? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See note there. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete User:IRP/ArticleArchive/Storm train. When deleting, please say for the reason "User requested deletion within own userspace". -- IRP ☎ 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay MacDonald

Hi, forgive me for appearing daft, but I had no idea a vandalism account could be usurped. Don't Usurps need to have an account first? Secondly, could you confirm you need to ask if they want to use their real name 'every' time the user requests an account? This is the first one I've come across I believe. Any replies would be appreciated \ / (⁂) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a vandalism account can be usurped. My wife usurped a vandal and blocked account. A prior account is not needed, an IP or SUL owner of a name can usurp a name on en wiki without having a prior en wiki account. It's not required you ask if they want to use their real name, just a good practice to follow. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing My Account

I'd like to voluntarily close my account because I'm tired of fighting with overly pushy editors and I have a mild addiction to Wikipedia. How do I do this? LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to close an account. You can simply stop editing though. You can also place the {{Retired}} template on your user page. I'm sorry you're having a bad wiki day. I have them too. Just take a break and come back to happy editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Would an editor with an oversight privilege level be able to close accounts? -- IRP ☎ 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they could delete the page so people can't retrieve it, but there's no reason to do that if there has been no privacy violations and it'd probably be a GFDL issue too in that case. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information -- IRP ☎ 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Dave1185 (talk · contribs) is under a slow-motion attack by a sockfarm that is spilling sexually provocative images all over his userpage and talk page.

The most obvious ones include

DavyJonesHuangDi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

RestoreTheking (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vietyqouc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Viet woman love negro men (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Huang IV 4 fourth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Viet woman love megro men (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Can you look and see if there are any more socks in the drawer and possibly nuke the underlying IP(s)? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

DavyJonesHuangDi and Huang IV 4 fourth were both from 4 Oct, but Huang a tad earlier. No obvious master found, so use one of them for the master for now. No other accounts found.  Confirmed these 6 are all the same user. Block and tag as appropriate. Blocked one IP for a week. Keep eye out for more vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tagged and bagged. Thanks! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, found on one of their pages, so I fixed all the tags. Same guy. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Should I merge VORTEX and VORTEX2 into VORTEX projects? -- IRP ☎ 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this? -- IRP ☎ 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now delete initial page

Please delete User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/VORTEX projects under U1. -- IRP ☎ 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate both you and J.delanoy assistance on my user pages, that sneaky little rascal is really starting to get on my nerve. For laughs, I shall quote my wife saying this: "What's with this constant harassment by someone so fixated (wth!?) on you? I think you got a new secret admirer!". But it's the weekend again, so we shall all have our last laugh, eh? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do the CU in a few minutes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Take your time, I think we're pretty sure that s/he has nowhere to run, eh? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

USURP

Thanks so much for the usurp. When I go to my talk page, it redirects somewhere else. Is it possible you could look at it? Thanks. ^Law _talk 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rlevse! ^Law _talk 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SUL renames

I've declined Footmark to Trace because according the SUL checker, the SUL Trace from fr.wiki has a better claim over the en.wiki username than Footmark does. For Iona to Jonah.ru, something's amiss. I've asked a question, since I'm a little clueless as to what they want done. bibliomaniac15 04:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SSP Question

Is my solution here good enough to wrap things up for this case? If so, how long should I wait before closing the case? I know the user has been disruptive, but based on his comments in the case I'd like to give him a chance to shape up now that I've talked to him (I'll be watching to see how he responds). If he keeps causing trouble, we can bring him back to SSP or another appropriate noticeboard. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is vote stacking and disruption, egregious violations of WP:SOCK and the puppetmaster's block log has many entries. My standard action in such a case (and it's pretty normal re other admins) is to block the socks indef and tag their user pages and block the puppetmaster however long I see fit, anywhere from a week to indef. Having said that, the socks here had been around awhile and my checkuser radar went off for that and other reasons. Results in the CU case. Releaseable CU results recorded in the SSP case link. I have to block the master indef too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume you meant "results at the SSP case," Rlevse? I just spent 5 minutes hunting for the case, before realising you'd posted the results at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/A State Of Trance. :) AGK 12:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yea, DOH on me!! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey...Rlevse, is there any way we could give the master account a second chance? He promised me here that he would stop editing as his alt-accounts. I told him I would try to get him lenience if he did that. And it's pretty simple to see whether he keeps his promise. Is there a satisfying alternative to indef-blocking him? I was going to work with him on his other behavioral issues. The way I see it, he could be a good contributor, but he might come back with more socks if we indef him, especially after (in his eyes) he was offered mercy and received none after agreeing to my terms. I'm sorry to bother you, but may I please have a chance to try to work with him? Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock him, listing you as mentor and his promise to stick to one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More clever way to archive

Please see my talk page. I did it by creating a link to an old revision rather than creating a new directory. If everyone did it, it would save a noticeable amount of disk space on the server, and it can only be edited by administrators. This way, you do not have to beg other users not to edit your archive. -- IRP ☎ 15:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet Another Sock Puppetery Accusation Against Me

You may remember I wrote to you yesterday about closing my account because of annoying editors. Here's why.

User:Aervanath has filed a sock puppet accusation against me on behalf of user:Mountolive. The sock puppets he/she accuses me of using are user:Bluee Mountain and user:Warrington. I find this strange because had anybody bothered to check the IP addresses of the accounts in question he/she would readily see I'm not guilty. Why hasn't anybody done that? Also, The report seems to be filed on Mountolive's talk page. This seems very odd to me. So, I have two questions: How do I encourage somebody to check the IP addresses? And where do I post my official response? LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You Accused Me of Sock Puppetry

But you are socking with other accounts, even today, and you know exactly what I've talking about, on the same articles too, would you care to explain that? Note, Luis is correct that the accounts in the SSP are unrelated to him, but, there are those other ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (How come your signature appears differently on this post?) -- IRP ☎ 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, just does sometimes, I wonder too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My Response to sock puppetry accusation

When you refer to "those other ones" I assume you mean Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. Those are two openly declared, alternate accounts I've been using for several months now. I added an alternate account notification to Pasta4470 on May 27 at 10:57 UTC [13] and then one to Thin Man on June 23 at 08:46 UTC [14]. By the way here's the wikipedia policy that allows users to have alternate accounts in case you're not aware of it (though you should be).Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#alternate accounts

Therefore, not only are you wrong about me having sock puppets but you're also wrong about the date of my recent changes. Have a look the contribs for all three accounts for yesterday. You'll notice I've made changes to no articles nor have I left messages on any talk pages. The most recent change I made was the day before yesterday with my Thin Man account before putting the "Retired" tag on all three of my accounts. However, after I left a message for you two days ago about closing my accounts, I tried to put a hash codes on my accounts thinking that that was the way to close them. However, I deleted the hash code templates once you pointed out to me that the "Retired" tag was the best I could do. Perhaps this is the flurry of activity you're referring to. But all of that was legitimate and, as I said, occurred two days ago, not yesterday.

Moving on to another issue: Mountolive is determined to discuss civility. Therefore, I will as well. My first confrontation with Mountolive occurred earlier this month after he insisted on reverting my edits rather aggressively. To his shock, I reported for him for violating the 3RR. Here was the administrator's finding:

...no vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation...[15] Apparently, since this time, Mountolive has considered me persona non grata.

Regarding my behavior: It's true that I wrote one angry message to Mountolive both on his talk page and on the Paella talk page but I promptly apologized for my tone in both places. Talk:Paella#Changes by Mountolive and my reaction User talk:Mountolive#Changes to Paella Article

Not long after that, a few of the editors of the Paella article started arguing over several issues at once. Seeing this, I decided to initiate a dispute resolution. After spending considerable time looking through Wikipedia policy I discovered the way to start was by initiating a wp:RfC which I did here.Talk:Paella#RfC: History of the development of Paella. I then encouraged Mountolive to participate. User talk:Mountolive#Paella Article RFC He responded by accusing me of sock puppetry, as you can see. He then made a change to the Paella article and promptly insulted me on the article's talk page Talk:Paella#Wording (something for wich he has never apologized). I chose not to react for the sake of not starting another argument. However user:Warrington angrily defended me (as I warned Mountolive that he/she might). I then thanked Warrington. Apparently, my warning and Warrington's reaction convinced Mountolive that Warrington was my sock puppet. However, we all know he was wrong about that now because you checked the IP addresses.

So, I have apologized to Mountolive, encouraged him to participate in an RfC and I bit my tongue when he insulted me. Are those the actions of an uncivil man? The answer is obviously no.

In summary here are the issues of the case, each of which I have refuted:

1) Mountolive accused my of sock puppetry. However, you found that accusation to be baseless after checking the IP addresses of the accounts in question.

2) You accused me of sock puppetry with my two openly declared, alternate accounts. However this defies the definition of both a sock puppet and an openly declared, alternate account. Also I showed you that I declared them months before this dispute arose.

3) Strangely, you also said I was socking yesterday. However my contribs show I made no changes yesterday to any article or talk page.

I think I've proven my case.

However, there is one more issue I'd like to bring up. I put in great effort in expanding and improving the Paella article. Here's what it looked like before I began editing it.[16]. Here's what it looks like today (Paella). This is largely due to my effort with smaller contributions from Bluee and Warrington. Thanks to us, it now includes a lengthy history section, two basic recipes, three more images (two of them contributed by Warrington) and many citations. The only person on Wikipedia who has thanked me for all this work is Warrington. However, other editors involved have done nothing but criticize me. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this has happened. I've received tremendous criticism from other editors as well after editing other articles. This reminds me of the expression no good deed goes unpunished.

These conflicts led me to place the "Retired" tags on my accounts. I see no point in editing if it only leads to arguments and criticism. For that reason I will not be editing any other articles. However, if you block me then you will have clearly over stepped your authority as an administrator because I don't see how I've violated any Wikipedia policies. So if you block me, you can be certain I will appeal the decision to a higher Wikipedia authority purely for reasons of principle. LuisGomez111 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

retired?

Hi Rlevse. Thank you very much for your attention to this case, which has brought quite an unexpected (to me, that is) result. It did smell like socks in the end, didnt it?...

On the face of an editor (LuisGomez111) who is capable of editting under three different acknowledged accounts some 400 out of the last 500 edits of any given article (in this case, paella, see history ticker [17]) an editor who has the dazzling chutzpah to deny this very same record [18] regardless of how self-evident it is, who posted this Talk:Paella#Present state of this article but then kept editting at ease right after under two different accounts all the same (business as usual for this user), and, last but not least, an editor who apparently seems to take as personal any changes done to anything "he has written"...well, call me skeptical, but I very much doubt of any real retiring intention whatsoever. Or, if these accounts are retired, I certainly expect others to replace them. I mention this as a comment addressed to the community which should be taking a decission (by now I realise already we are discussing in the wrong places, let it be my own or your talk page, I guess a more proper playground for this should be created somewhere).

Also, as seen in your report, I definitely think that the meatpuppet concern is certainly present (I still fail to see why such an angry reaction coming from other users to what was a minor edit after all).

All in all, I still think he is gaming the system, willingly or less so. And that it should be stopped.

If you want a light-hearted comment regarding this, anecdotal evidence of his true intentions could be shown at the very same user name of one of his admitted socks "The Thin Man Who Never Leaves" :D

As for myself, I am certainly leaving for a leisure trip tonight and I dont think I'll be able to check wikipedia until next friday. By then I'll try to catch up. In the meantime, if this debate is centralized elsewhere, you have my permission (and I will actually thank you) if you copy this post wherever it takes.

For the time being, just have a good remainder of the weekend and, again, thanks for your work with this. Mountolive _{le déluge} 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive: Apparently the revision statistics software doesn't always work right. On the day I first checked it actually did read 48 edits for my primary account and about two or three for my other two accounts. Now that I've checked it again I can see that the total edits for all three are exactly 300. I have no reason to lie about this.LuisGomez111 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf sockpuppets

Two of them, YellowRibbonRedemption and GrassrootsStalk, has not been blocked. Can you block him? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eichikiyama

Hi, Rlevse, could you take a look at Eichikiyama (talk · contribs)'s SSP case? And although I include Bukubku (talk · contribs) for meatpuppeting and disruptive/suspicious behaviors, I'm not sure whether I have to prepare for a separate file. Thanks in advance. --Caspian blue 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give them "warning for their lack of civility"? They are not only blatantly meatpuppeting but also falsely call me "vandal" with propaganda. They don't ever use "talk page" but just blindly reverting to delete my "properly cited info" and then insert fringe theory or "primary sources written during Japanese occupation period" which has been regarded "unreliable and distorted sources" by scholars. If they keep doing so, I think AN/I would be a right place since RFCU or SSP on dynamic ISP are not warranted.--Caspian blue 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ja — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in Talkpage. Thank you for guidance. Talk:Korea under Japanese rule#Please explain.--Eichikiyama (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, thank you your message. I strongly approve of your calm proposal. and Please keep in mind this[19]

Caspian, you insult me in this other users page. How dare you! Answer me When I call you "vandal", I call you Caspian. I only call your assertive edition "vandalizm" You and Sennen deleted sourced article do not lay the blame at another my door. I detest your insult in concealment --Bukubku (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku, this sort of rhetoric will get you blocked next time. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you read my message. I become more careful. I'm sorry--Bukubku (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Good day, Rlevse. I was wondering if you could take a look on R7529Z (talk · contribs), Mccain4pres (talk · contribs), NutsForYou (talk · contribs), Adrastus1 (talk · contribs) (already blocked) 97.117.1.138 (talk · contribs), 24.197.159.68 (talk · contribs), and 24.2.75.206 (talk · contribs). Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated Adrastus1 (talk · contribs), 24.197.159.68 (talk · contribs), 24.2.75.206 (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed Mccain4pres (talk · contribs) = R7529Z (talk · contribs) = NutsForYou (talk · contribs) = 97.117.1.138 (talk · contribs) = Arbysbeefmelt (talk · contribs) = StatingTheFacts (talk · contribs) = JP1123 (talk · contribs), indef'd except IP two weeks, Mccain4pres as master. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind also checking Mikevinpa (talk · contribs)? --Kanonkas :  Talk  07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Possible Adrastus1 (talk · contribs) = Mikevinpa (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another "Hagger" move vandal

User:Tel'Quess (Contribs) is another one I spotted. Is that user blocked? I have already seen other things like this, such as moving pages to things like "H..A..G..G..E..R". -- IRP ☎ 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked way back in June. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this user blocked indefinitely? -- IRP ☎ 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see the block log. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please create User:Tel'Quess with {{Indefblock|historical}}. -- IRP ☎ 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can do that, but leave off the historical. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope it isn't possible for a non-admin to do it as the user page is currently fully protected, I guess to deny recognition. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

then we won't do it at all. and don't indent my post, IRP. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't indent it. You could've said please to be more polite to other editors. -- IRP ☎ 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dealing with socks, vandals, etc all day doing checkuser checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. -- IRP ☎ 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Petermaxlawrence (2nd)

? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, sorry, fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Friendly advice

Im sure you know why people use spas for scientology articles. That said, all of my contributions have been to improve the article, and "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article" is an inappropriately biased view of a minor non-content-related editorial dispute. I appreciate the advice though. Cheers, Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article", someone else did. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Im aware. I presumed that your concern i might be here to "stir up trouble" was based on that, so I wanted to make sure to let you know that the discussion of Project Chanology is not as bad as the comment implies. Sorry if that wasnt clear and happy editing. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Another request

Can you take a look at this? Someone just asked me to block someone who has no edits, and I'm not sure what to do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bugging you all the time. If you would rather that I fill out formal requests, I can. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"absolutely convinced" isn't enough for a CU, you need evidence, but I can say, as you can see, Lyle123 is a big puppetmaster. The person needs to supply evidence or you can block on behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your latest post on my talk page. (2) -- IRP ☎ 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I did post another message on my talk page. -- IRP ☎ 19:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I make an outdent template with that code? -- IRP ☎ 20:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

for the pleasant surprise! I'm sure I don't deserve the honor, but I'm terribly grateful nonetheless. Kind regards — Dan | talk 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please get in talk

You sent us your message,"I strongly encourage all editors on Japan-Korea articles to discuss issues calmly on talk pages not edit war. And stay civil and cease the personal attacks.". But some people didn't obey your advice. And Endless edition War is continuing. Please get in talk, and back the article when you warned us. These three articles,Empress Myeongseong,Korea under Japanese rule,Woo Jang-choon, need third person' help.--Bukubku (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a mediator. You guys need some form of dispute resolution. File for mediation is my suggestion. I protected the pages though. The Japan-Korea editors need to learn to cooperate instead of fighting all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please protect those articles and back those articles when you warned us. And be watching those articles Talk page.--Bukubku (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I already full protected them. But I'm not watching them. You guys all need to learn to get along and cooperate to make a better article. Work it out on your own or go to mediation. If any of the editors can't build an accurate, neutral, well-sourced article without fingerpointing, name-calling, etc, then they need to learn how real fast as I will block when needed. This goes for both Japan and Korea editors. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfair

You ordered us, so I obey your order. I haven't edit and get in edition war after your order. But you protect president version. Thoses three articles vastly changed last edited person. It's unfair. --Bukubku (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

When an admin full-protects a page, he or she does not read the content beforehand. They just protect, without regard to anything. You should read m:The Wrong Version. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, You asked for help and protection and I protected it. I am not going to edit to suit one side's preference. My role is to stay neutral. Again, if the editors involved would learn to get along, you wouldn't have these problems. Take a look at the Scouting related articles, they almost never ever have edit wars or get protected. You should learn from their example. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

People disobeyed your order should be blocked. --Bukubku (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, not accusations. Evidence. Only admins can edit through full protection. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See Woo Jang-choon, last version is writen Japanese are Racist without source by Caspian Blue. I hope your protection is unintended, but this version remains 2 weeks. you should have responsibility.--Bukubku (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See above statements and links. And if you make one more accusation without supporting evidence I'll block you for disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand, you just did your job, that's all. OK. The problem is unwished incident. Whenever possible, release the protection. See as reference[20][21][22].--Bukubku (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It will be possible when all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope so, too. Did you read my references? "When all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing" , I think it is too difficult with no helping thrird person. Please release those protection. Now Written Japanese are Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The door to mediation is here: Wikipedia:Mediation, not my talk page. If you want this to work, you all need to put aside your personal agendas. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee request "all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation", it seems difficult, he delete even "{fact}". Please release your protections or get in talk. Japanese is not Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Leave Rlevse alone. How many times, and in how many ways does he have to say the exact same thing? If you don't stop bugging him, if he doesn't block you, I will block you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Warrington

Thank you, and see my talk page.

Warrington (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR

Hi, A discussion probbaly needs your attention if possible.Taprobanus (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Posted there and on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello. I intended to appeal at Arbcom against the AA/AA2 restrictions imposed on me by you recently. I was recommended to try to reach a consent with you before that. Hereby I friendly ask you if you have a little time to review the restrictions. I would like to have an open discussion with you. Thank you for you attention. --Vacio (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

under review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. See m:The Wrong Version and apply it to the AA situation. What are your thoughts?
2. No one, including you, has edited Talk:Artsakh since Oct 5 in an attempt to resolve this issue that got you under restrictions. I don't expect you to answer for others, but why haven't you tried?
3. In User:Vacio/Appeal you state your version is the correct one but how is an outsider to know that? Cf item one. Note, it's not an admin's job to determine the "right" version. In this type of situation it's to stop edit wars, etc
4. What about the Hewsen ref (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive28#User:Vacio)? Are you saying that's not a reliable source and he's not a scholar?
5. What have you done since Oct 5 to resolve the long simmering disputes on AA articles?
6. Your appeal letter seems to say you see nothing wrong with your actions on Artsakh yet you and User:Grandmasterka (who is still under voluntary restrictions I believe) were clearly edit warring over it. Yet your appeal seems to justify that by claiming your version was the "right" one (cf item 1 and I have no idea which one is "right"). Be advised, edit warring is never justified, that's why we have talk pages which should be used in lieu of edit warring. Using a talk page and being "right" (even if you are in fact right) does not justify edit warring and certainly not while the talk was going on.
7. Why do you think: a) so many ethnic factions use wiki as a way to push their view of things, b) why is it so difficult for admins to deal with these situations, and c) what do you think can be done to resolve these issues more effectively and efficiently? To get an admin's view of this issue, throw yourself into something other than AA (The Troubles, Sri Lanka, Jews-Muslims, East Europe, etc etc etc) and try to solve it. Let me know how it went. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you splent for. I can't respond on all your questions, but only what I think is important here.

• I'm not sure my actions on the Artsakh article were completely harmonious with Wikipedia rules, but that was maybe because of my lack of experience and knowledge about what the rules require and how differences should be resolved. On the other hand I believe, if you compare the current version of Artsakh with the version before I started to edit it, you will agree that in the main the article looks much better: most of the statements are sourced, a lot of text which was irrelevant to this article or controversial is removed, there are more paragraphs, etc.

• Then, I don't deny Robert Hewsen is a reliable source (indeed a very prominent expert of the history of Armenia, I myself quoted him many times), but that's besides the point here; please take a look at these excerpts from my previous complaint on talk:Artsakh concerning the sentence "Hayk and Sisak are just eponyms and not real persons":

1. ...Also your quote of Hewsen is absolute inappropriate here, did you actually read the text above? there is nothing said about Sisak at all! ...--Vacio (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[23]
   
2. Grandmaster and Parishan, you surprise me! There is not a single word said about Sisak in this article ...--Vacio (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC) [24]
   
3. ...I think it is hopeless anymore to say that there is nothing, not a single word said about Sisak ...--Vacio (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[25]

• And this is what I really experience as a grievance: why nobody responded on this cautions? (Except of User:Grandmaster's note "And there's no justification for the removal of the quote from Hewsen".[26]) How fair was it from Grandmaster accusing me afterwards of "removing a quote from an authoritative western scholar", without having reacted on my threefold complaint before? This is the point I feel I am treated unjust and why requested for review.

• Finally, I also want to quote an excerpt from a reaction of a third-party user in this discussion:

Grandmaster, You seem to be using some original research deductions, like "what language they must have spoke PROVES their ethnicity", to claim that certain ancestral people referenced in Armenian history books never even existed. Even if perhaps they never existed, the wording needs to attribute this POV to the sources explicitly arguing this in clear language, otherwise it is known as "POV pushing", ie, siding with sources of one particular POV, rather than treating them all "neutrally". [27]

• As you see, I was not the only one who complained against the above mentioned sentence. I agree that I had to be more patient, but on the other hand I hope you see why I feel I am treated unjust. I still hope we can come to an understanding on this, can we? --Vacio (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If Grandmasterka wasn't already on voluntary restrictions, I'd have put him on it too but I felt it was unneeded since he was on voluntary restrictions. Have you or he been editing war since then? As for the other matters, please allow me time to think this over. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably he was and as far I can see he has not been editing war since then, nor I have been. I only one time was engaged in edit warring – in the article Mihranids again with Grandmaster. Please look olaso on this: I believe he was manipulating with a primary source: Movses Kalankatvaci, a 7th century Armenian historiographer wrote this:

With treachery in his hart, he [Mihran] invited the Eranshahiks, the ancient native Armenian (haykazean) family ... and at that feast of their own blood he beheaded sixty man.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi, History of Aghvank. Book II, chapter XVII.

This is what Grandmaster wrote in the article referring to that source:

• "Mihran's great-grandson killed all the members of the previous Arsacid dynasty and became the ruler of the country."[28]

The Arsacids were of Persian origin and were absolute different from the Eranshahiks (or Aranshahiks), which is regarded as an Armenian house, by all historians I could find, including R. Hewsen. I almost literally quoted the above mentioned primary source in that excerpt[29], but he reverted the article again back[30] to the previous version and look how he treated me on this:

• And why do you delete a link to Arcasids, and who do you think these "Haykuzuni Arranshahs" were? Even the title of the dynasty is Persian, there were no other dynasty before Mihranids other than Arcasids. Grandmaster (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[31]
• OR is to claim that there was a "dynasty of Erranshahiks", you have no reliable sources to support that claim, yet you make your own interpretation of primary sources. This entire "Erranshahik" claim should be removed from this article, first, it is irrelevant to this topic, second, it is OR. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[32]
• There's no reason to believe that Arranshahs were anyone other than Arcasids. After all, Mihranids had to kill them to take over the country, and no other dynasty is registered between Arcasids and Mihranids. Both those dynasties were Iranian, it is a well documented fact. Therefore Vacio's edits that he tries to force into the article on Mihranids are clearly OR and POV. ...Grandmaster (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Denying that the Eranshahik dynasty ever existed, he also rejected the map, which I made specially for Wikipedia, and it was removed. Since then, I have had very strained relations with this user. Nevertheless, I really don't want that you impose restrictions on him, please don't do that! If you agree with me that he was acting improper on talk:Artsakh and talk:Mihranids, an admonition would be probably enough. Also, we already had reached consensus on some points in the article Artsakh (although very hardly) and I still believe we can work together... if only this AA/AA2 restrictions were lifted from me. I know, I losing my temper I have done many mistakes, but you will see that I am absolutely not wanting to reach any kind of information in Wikipedia by means of edit-warring. I'm just a lover of medieval Armenian historiographers and want to use the knowledge I have. --Vacio (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what still concerns me Vacio, you won't talk about why you have made no attempt to settle the article in question, when Euptator (sp?) got me to rescind the first warning I gave you, you went right back to the same old ways, and you still see nothing wrong with your actions, you still seem to think that if you're right you can ignore the rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No I don't say that, I was indeed wrong in the Mihranid article for edti-warring, though, frankly I was not aware of it initially. In the Artsakh article I think there is something different, Grandmaster neglected all the objections of me and User:Til Eulenspiegel, including the three warnings I have quoted above here, that Sisak, about whom Grandmaster wrote in this article, was not at all mentioned in there, this would be the same as if I would write in the article George Bush "Barak Obama is not a good politician". So I even thought:

• Grandmaster and Parishan... I think I have grounds to accuse you two for vandalizing this article.[33]

Why do you think I should splend almost a month seaking for a review on this? If not that I take an umbrage at this, and believe me I am rather disappointed with my contribution in the EW now.

I think the problem is not in the article itself that I should try to settle it, I think the problem is that user Grandmaster apparently did not read what was said by other users in the talkpage. Note, that most of my edits in Artsakh were joint with a post in the talkpage. In one of my last edits I even removed all the statements were no consensus was reached for, including things I myself had written earlier. I hoped that this points would be further discussed in the talkpage. But how I should try to settle the issue now, if this attempt to reach consensus itself was used to make a wrong accusation followed with restricitons? Don't you see the point that is frustrating me all this time? --Vacio (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is frustrating. I see this sort of thing all the time, both sides of an ethnic war is convinced they are right and that being right justifies their actions and that the other side is wrong. These ethnic wars will never end until this attitude changes and the users involved learn to put the past behind them and work together instead of being so focused on using wiki to get their version of history into place. In these situations, it is behavior that will get you in trouble, not so much whether your version of history is right or wrong. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree we should work together. But I am afraid we did not get a mutual understanding in the main. In the Mihranid article I indeed was engaged in edit-warring, and you have warned me rightly. But in the Artsakh article, after a month, it is unfortunately not clear for me what exactly was wrong in my behavior, I should try to avoid it next time. To Grandmaster, I was guilty for removing sourced text. If that's the point, I suppose this very day he will place the excerpt "Sisak is not a real person" back to the Artsakh article... Anyhow, thank you for your attention. --Vacio (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Get back to me around Nov 15th on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hanna Barbera dual TFA

(Responded on my talk page). Raul654 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New user – please check

This relates to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teamxrsx. Please look at/keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Black Key, who has started making edits to Fusebox Funk with uncited comments that could be only added by someone with ties to the project. I am making some minor edits to their recent changes. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are your friend. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/66.177.185.11 making the same edits. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These are unrelated to Teamxrsx, but it is likely that Black Key (talk · contribs) = 66.177.185.11 (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ACA

I got it :) Daniel (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

GOOD because for some reason I always have trouble with ACA, have never figured out why ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't click the header edit section link, but edit the whole page :) Daniel (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the remedies, m'dear :) Daniel (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't, they were there, I just accidently cut them, haha, Pls rm case from ACA pls. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, will do. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think by omitting the SlimVirgin remedy from the notification, you're not reporting the full resolution. Also, there's a lot of redlinks in there :) Daniel (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the links. I mentioned the slim remedy but not her by name. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bukubku

Can you input your thought to ANI report on me filed by Bukubku (talk · contribs) since you're also mentioned on the report? Well, I see same old harassing stuff on me again such as by Jazz81089 (indef.blocked), Opoona (indef.blocked). The user not only lied about my edits and my suggestion for him to open an discussion for Woo Jang-choon[34] but also also accuses me of using sockpuppetry, so I think checkuser's clarification would be also appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and could you also look at my addition to the thread WP:ANI#Checkuser's attention needed and newbie User:Bukubku's harassment? I don't think that Bukubku (talk · contribs) is a newbie at all per his depth of Wiki knowledge and activities, and the report on me is very similar with reports filed by Pabopa (talk · contribs), or Opoona (talk · contribs), Jazz81089 (talk · contribs). --Caspian blue 01:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow COI

Sorry to send you a template. I didn't realize it was a faux pas. So I'll just speak plainly: As an Order of the Arrow member who has pledged not to reveal "safeguarded" info about the OA, you should recuse yourself from the discussion on the inclusion of such content in the OA article. Thanks. --Spirit76 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That does not prevent me from participating in a talk page disucussion. I already decided not to use my admin bits in this case, FYI. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can do as you please. Just a suggestion. --Spirit76 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin-Lar

Are you sure about "Slimvirgin's conduct" passing 5 to 3 with 1 abstention? I thought it was 11 active arbitrators, less one abstention gives 10 total, so required majority would be 6? I guess not. 87.254.91.148 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Abstentions reduce the required votes to pass. See PD page section on arbs and clerks implementation notes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they normally reduce the required votes in exactly the way I said above i.e. it's treated as though instead of 11 active arbitrators there are only 10 but a majority of 10 is still 6+. I'm sure you know your own business though so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the response. 87.254.91.148 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you're talking about, the implementation notes were made before Sam changed his vote. I'll ask the arbs about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My Guestbook

Hey there! Fancy signing my Guestbook? I'll give you cookies. ;) -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this

Here, there is somebody who objects a Wikipedia entry about him, and when he tries to blank the page, it is reverted. Please take a look. -- IRP ☎ 21:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN, that is not a specialty area of mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Report posted -- IRP ☎ 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

An invite for you

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32(UP) 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clear, but we are changing names for a move to Meta.Mitch32^(UP) 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to come tonight? Its at 20:00 UTC – and I want some large amount of users.Mitch32^(UP) 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My rfa

Hi Rlevse, and thanks for closing my rfa. It is always an ordeal for me to go through an rfa, and I'm grateful that you closed it for me. I hope that I'll be more useful for the community now that I have the old tools again (looks as if nothing has changed since 2005).--Berig (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, am sure you'll be an asset to the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again :).--Berig (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Boyce

I am in Cleveland working on the Obama campaign. I will try to get one when I return.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm.

[35]. I don't want to block without knowing who. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the clumsiest sockpuppeteer I've ever seen! I think that guy even beat me :P Sam ^Blab 13:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See User:Suckpuppet's user page and that of his master (talk page). — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

big mistake on my part... --smadge1 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women

Can you look at the Comfort women and editors who have been disruptively blanking properly cited info and altering information without consensus nor discussion such as Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs), and Amazonfire (talk · contribs) did? The latter returns after his 8 months break and his block by Fut.Perf for the reason of harassing and stalking me.[36] Amazonfire was suspected as somebody's sock per his meatpuppeting to block evading users like Azukimonaka or others.[37] I think he manages his other accounts in light of his behaviors, and timing. Please take a look at the SPA. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I made some notes on this round. Amazonfire just put the big section back. So, it seems okay right now. Let me know if it flares up again. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Big section back with massive alteration after my point-out. I'm saying he is an obvious sleeper sock per his long term break.--Caspian blue 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Of whom? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He commented and did a same thing as Bukubku (talk · contribs) (see User talk:Amazonfire#November 2008), but Amazonjoke (talk · contribs), Northwest1202 (talk · contribs) Blue011011 (talk · contribs) could be potential ones. Amazonfire meatpuppeted Blue011011 back then.--Caspian blue 15:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku hasn't edited Comfort women in ages, if ever-so how is he connected to Amazonfire?. Amazonjoke and Blue011011 haven't been used in so long they're stale. You need recent connecting stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the behavioral pattern is very similar. After his falsification was pointed out by two editors, Bukubku deleted his sources with false contents on Empress Myeongseong[38] just like Amazonfire's putting back of Comfort women and their rationale are just same "I only reverted to Sennen goroshi's version". Blue011011 is a confirmed sock of Northwest1202.--Caspian blue 15:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Annals of Joseon Dynasty is good source, but you didn't accept. so I deleted it. That's all.--Bukubku (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hut, you forged the content with the citation in which does not state any single of your claim. As I repeatedly said, Gojong Sillok is not the same as Annals of Joseon Dynasty. Do not lie again.--Caspian blue 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm asking Korean reader Admin Deiz‎ to mediate us.--Bukubku (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You falsely said here and there that I rejected your meditation.--Caspian blue 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Carry out your content disputes on MEDCAB, not my talk page. Only report solid socking/meating evidence here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fly protection needed at Tutenkhamun

Tutenkhamun has been semi protected for awhile, because for some reason the article attracts vandals like flies. Recently the article was unprotected by a user who doesn't seem to be an admin.... does that make any sense, and is once again being vandalized at least once a day if not more often. The original blocking editor seems to be busy. Any chance of a little semi protect over there.(olive (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

It wasn't unprotected, the 6-months ran out. I re-semi-protected it for 6 more months. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't check closely enough. Many thanks. You are fast with the fly swatter.(olive (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Although, it seems to be vandalism for the most part recently. Not sure why a mummy draws so much attention from vandals.(olive (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks!

Thanks for the compliment of " ERcheck's Day!" While I have had less time for contributing to Wikipedia in recent months than in the previous years, I continue to appreciate the educational contributions that Wikipedia offers. As much as Wikipedia is a place that holds information, it also provides an opportunity for its editors to learn more about so many subjects as they work to improve and update its articles. — ERcheck (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers checkuser

Thanks for the SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers checkuser. Bonus points for discovering the extra WP:OUTING sockpuppet that I didn't know about :-) Thirdbeach (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You've already returned to the SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers checkuser an extra time to check into another IP, but the semi-protect on eNom lifted last night and the vandal added three more IP "notches" on his/her gun. The checkuser isn't archived yet; I'm going to add the new IPs but am apologizing here in advance if that's not protocol. Corrections welcome. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename

Didn't expect it to be that quick, am grateful for it. Anything else I need to do? TravellingCari 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Make sure all the pages move. Sometimes they get stuck. Change your signature. Change name on other wikis and reunify under SUL. On an account your size, the changes can take up to a day. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Working on the sig right now. Right now I'm just archiving everything rapidly from my talk. The rest can move as it wants to. People are a bit too ... Weird really. Do you have oversight? I'm not sure if what I want to do is oversightable but in every revision of my user until the current one it had the roots of my name, which I guess is how the person found me. Can that be removed or is it impossible? Thanks StarMi 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have oversight, but I do have checkuser. See WP:Oversight for a list of people with that right. Yea, there are some weirdos out there. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew you had some extra flag, couldn't remember which. Thanks! StarM 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of detail in my request

Just trying not to write the manual for him. I do take checkuser very seriously. Please contact me if you need more detail in the future—in that particular case, every single edit by the account was blatantly obvious. If I'm not sure, I wait. Darkspots (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What's obvious to someone familiar with an editor is not necessarily so to another. In this case, at first I wondered, then I noticed all the prior cases and decided to check for sleepers and that's how I confirmed this guy. If you have info you don't want to post, you can also contact one of us privately. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I haven't run into a new checkuser in a while—congratulations, by the way—and everyone knows this guy really well by now. I've seen him change his behavior over time to get rid of obvious clues, and I know he's a regular reader of his checkuser case page. Why let him know what all his tells are? I guess that this ANI discussion provides pretty clear arguments on both sides of this question. Darkspots (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

IPcheck of Eremia

Thanks for looking into that; it temporarily slipped my mind that Checkuser results go stale. She has edited my talk page approx. 3 times in the last 2 months as an IP, without (I think) any other edits on each IP. If she re-appears again, I'll file a new one, including those IP's, and hopefully that would give you more to work with.

Anyway, sorry for the busywork, and thanks for taking a look. --barneca (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		MISTER ALCOHOL's Guestbook Barnstar
		For signing my guestbook, I, Alberto García, hereby present Rlevse with this award. Cheers! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also have some cookies, amigo!

creating sockpuppet categories – a request

Thanks for your work on the sockpuppet categories. When you created these categories in the future, could you take the trouble to add a template such as {{Sockpuppet category}} instead of just putting "socks". Including this template will keep the category from cluttering up cleanup reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Best wishes, - Stepheng3 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but it's interesting I've been doing this for almost 2 years and processed 700 sock cases and no one mentioned this before ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When you do your job correctly and well, no one knows or cares, because everything that should happen does. (i.e. The internet works, you pay exactly how much it costs for your groceries, your hamburger is cooked enough and has the right condiments) People only notice when you do something wrong. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I know how you feel. I'll try to spend some time finding/notifying the sockpuppet category creators. Let me know if you can help or have suggestions where I should start. - Stepheng3 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

request

Since you are listed as a clerk, would you please look at this statement. Would you please consider changing or removing "Yes I put that hanging rope for Sukashvili, and yes I believe that the "censored" should be hanged for what he did this august." He is of course referring to Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia. Are wikipedians allowed to use talk pages for making such comments? Thanks, Ostap 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At first glance it looks bad but the more I looked at it, I don't think so. The writer is saying he thinks "should" be hanged for the invasion of Ossetia, which the writer obviously perceives as a crime. He doesn't say he's actually going to kill him or anything like that, just that what the writer perceives as a crime deserves capital punishment. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets

Nguyen214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Nguyen229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Special:ListUsers/Nguyen214 shows a lot of names, but I don't know which, if any, are socks. Can you take a look? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Contribs make this likely, so I'm working it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed Nguyen214 (talk · contribs) = Nguyen229 (talk · contribs), no others showing. But both are brand new, so I suspect more are out there. Note Nguyen is a very common Vietnamese name. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks, though. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PrimeFan

Wow, looks like I should have dove in deeper. Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, PrimeFan has made many useful contributions to mathematics and number articles. PrimeFan's sockpuppeteering is certainly very bad, and you're right to block him. Nevertheless, it seems to me that an indefinite block is rather harsh, especially since there haven't been any warnings (as far as I know). Would you please consider shortening his block? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He was using 17 accounts to edit the same articles, spread over only 4 main areas. This is major socking. Given how long he's edited and the number of accounts, I highly doubt he didn't know socking was against policy, but I'll think this over. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question for the CU: I'm just curious about something because I had an adverse encounter with this guy. Is it possible that all of the 17 were not socks of prime fan? I mean, if the IP range was shared, some could be one guy, and the others could be a bunch of buddies/neighbors? They might still be abusively meatpuppeting themselves, which is no less a violation, but it seemed like, as far as the two of them I enountered (Slappywag42 and RobertHappleburg), they were supporting each other, but each had a very different and distinct writing style. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible but it this case the other CU and I think rather unlikely because of the technical and private evidence and contribs. The first two I can't go into, but as for the contribs, if you look at all 17 accts' contribs (not just one or two of them)--which is all public and on wiki info, you'll be able to figure one of the reasons this is a pretty solid case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm almost certain that there's some kind of persistent violation going on across the 17 accounts; I just wasn't entirely sure what kind, because of the privileged information which you have and I don't. Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. Also, as a personal note based on that limited interaction with this guy, I think wikipedia is better off without his or her contributions – he, she, or it had a major-league bad attitude. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced they were all socking and/or meating. It is possible more than one person is involved, but it'll take some serious convincing and if so, they're still guilty of meating. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I thought it over for a bit. I agree, he probably knew the policies against socking, and even if he didn't know, it is obvious that there is something wrong with it. Nevertheless, it's a first offense. It has to be balanced against the positive contributions of the user, which are many. That's not only my opinion; User:OwenX gave PrimeFan rollback. I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in these circumstances and I don't think it's supported by the blocking policy. I do seem to remember that there have been cases like this before, but I can't find them; the only one I could see is JoshuaZ where not all data is public (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests#February); it seems that in that case no block at all was applied. Please reconsider the indefinite nature of your block. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking. Blocking of the main account is perfectly allowed. I've processed about 700 sock/cu cases. If abusing 17 accounts isn't a major violation, what is? While the PrimeFan account (per se) hasn't contacted me, one of the other accounts has. We're still talking. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment – I think it's not just the usage. Having 20 accounts but using them productively without harassing other users, following the five pillars, and committing civility violations, 3RR-evasion, or other sorts of "wheel-war-of-one" conduct, (however unlikely) would not in my very humble opinion, be a serious violation. Not that it ever happens that way – anyone who is willing to create that many accounts is almost always willing to violate those other policies and usually does.

The real concern is when someone does a "good hand/bad hand." The good hand/bad hand pattern is especially proscribed, probably to reflect the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do it are people who show that they know the rules, and want to appear to be following them. In fact, I think it is a particulraly egregious violation of the sock puppet policies for several reasons. First, it's underhanded and deceptive. Second, unlike some newbie or whacko who just is not capable of following the rules, anyone who good hand/bad hands obviously does know the rules, and does know how to appear to be following them, otherwise there wouldn't be a good hand. That actually makes it worse.

Here, we have a serious violation, not because of the sheer number of accounts, but because of the nature of what was done with the accounts – namely to vex other editors with some, while maintaing legitimacy with others -- a classic "good hand/bad hand" pattern, multiplied over 17 accounts. The CU would be well within administrative discretion to treat it as presumptively intentional, and unexcusable.

That being said, I am willing to give productive editors a second chance. I had a recent case in whichh I reported a repeat offender to another CU, a very patient CU, and he ended up deciding to limit the offender to one account. The offender didn't get the message and continued to be, well, disruptive, and ended up getting permablocked -- but that was his decision. I am all for mercy – and certainly wouldn't complain if that's what you wanted to do. I can't speak for any other victim though. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the input from everyone here, but the private communication, is still ongoing. That person still needs to answer some questions. Until then, I cannot make a final decision. And obviously, I can not go into the private CU evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The evidence here is overwhelming that these are all the same person. I'm unblocking User:Del arte, which seems to be the real master, to time served with a warning not to sock again. I advise interested parties to watch the IP range and articles related to this case. I am also renaming Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PrimeFan to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Del arte and retagging the socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rlevse! Thanks for the update. I have a related question: I seem to be having a disputed with a related user about whether PrimeFan's userpage should be blanked (except for the sock template). He's re-added Primefan's original userpage content three times, and I've blanked it twice. Is there an official policy on this? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You must mean Robert's page, not PrimeFan's (found it in your contribs). Indef blocked socks get a tag on their page, nothing else. I don't know if it's written anywhere, but it's sure standard practice. Let me know if it continues to be a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rlevse I think we have another. 141.217.173.37 made this edit. Also on my talk page you mentioned about watching the IP range, I'm not sure what it is, but should I? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And another..

[39] When you get a chance... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated J.d.j.wales (talk · contribs) unrelated on tech ev

 Confirmed You Will Never Stop The Hollaback Girl (talk · contribs) = I Am The Hollaback Girl (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being less specific, I was thinking I had asked you before, but I must have asked Alison last time...

That person has been using multiple accounts, almost all including the phrase "hollaback girl" in some form, to vandalize Jimbo's userpage for quite a while. Someone (I can't remember for sure, but I think it was Alison) blocked his underlying IP range for something like a month. Regardless, apparently the block has expired, and I was wondering if you could re-block it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Too big a range. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

(Mnbhchrti (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Thank you so much!

NP — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 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.

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bukubku's harrassment campaign

Could you leave your input on this continued harassment campaign by Bukubku (talk · contribs) at ANI again. The user has rejected my suggestion to open a discussion at Talk:Woo Jang-choon for his concern because he can't believe Koreans. All he left on the page is spreading his hoax report on me.[40] The user has been lying that I "object his suggestion to take it to meditation", and then has been accusing that I'm a liar and racist distorting sources to not only ANI, but also saying to many admins and editors without mentioning his faulty behaviors. (blanking, falsifications, lying etc) I think Bukubku's behaviors consitutei a serious personal /racist attack and harassment. The user obviously takes no interest to develop articles with discussions, but just wants to defame me continuously with his lying. After his bashing about me and his weird opinions on Woo Jang-choon were pointed out on WP:JA by several editors, he just has been busy for forum shopping again just like what indef.blocked sockpuppeters did such as Princesunta (talk · contribs), Jazz81089 (talk · contribs), Opoona (talk · contribs). He even distorts my comments at the ANI. His intention looks like he wants to report me as many as he can, so my reputation is tainted. I'm fed up with dealing with this SPA's extremely dishonesty and incivility, so please take a look at it. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Expand template

Can you add my {{EmptySection}} template to the see also on the Expand template? I think it should be added because I have always found {{Expand}} on empty sections. The reason why I'm asking you to do it is because it is protected to where only administrators can edit it. -- IRP ☎ 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

[butting in] The green documentation section is not protected; edit as needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- IRP ☎ 21:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Template change

Should I discuss before making any changes to Template:Editlink? -- IRP ☎ 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if you think it may be controversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think any other editors will have a problem if I make the brackets round? -- IRP ☎ 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The brackets around "edit" or the "round i"? Either way, why would you want to move them? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "(edit)" looks better than "[edit]". -- IRP ☎ 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think that is not used in articles, talk pages, etc, it'd make it different from the edit link in section level headings those pages. That'd potentially be an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

___________________|
|

Should I test, and if it is different, revert it? -- IRP ☎ 01:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You could. If it affects articles, user pages, talk pages, etc, I'd revert it immediately. I prefer [] myself. () makes it look like a minor afterthought. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I won't change it at all. -- IRP ☎ 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to move your icons in the corner of your userpages because they overlap with "Support Wikipedia". -- IRP ☎ 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's only temporary. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User disruptively using socks (again)

Hello Rlevse. I'm just notifying you of wp:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 -- I've updated it after those last scrums by the user. As you know, it was already clear to him/her to not engage/continue disruptive editing, especially not by use of socks, so it's pretty much out of my control. He's logged on as 189.31.111.17 just today. As hard as it is for me to say, I wouldn't have liked to take part in this one bit, but the truth is simply that those edits seem like they are in direct confontration similarly to the ones before. From my understanding, he's certainly wikistalking my edits; otherwise, he would not have been doing much within my sight. Of course, I'm limited to doing anything in response other than to revert those edits, and I would rather not spend my time doing that. ~ Troy (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar is way more familiar with this. Ping him. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps enwiki is more vulnerable to cases such as this; not what I expected ...anyway, I'm on it. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

How can i change my name to rogerchocodiles? Pedrovip (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip

If the name is not already in use, see WP:CHU — Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dalits

We need edit protection please, one guy whom you once blocked uis now using diiferent acounst and anon accounst to just keep reverting without discussing. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rlevse, this user 'Taprobanus' is stubbornly reverting without concensus. The contents that he wishes to maintain have nothing to do with the article whatsoever! - Power Curve Surge —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Work it out on the talk page, that's what protection is for, to make people settle things instead of edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've talked it out but this user refuses to accept the terms; the contents have nothing to do with the article. The user is very biased and insists on having it his way, in spite of Wiki POV rules. - Power Curve Surge —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

In my experience with all the ethnic wars on wiki, each side says the same things about the other, so here Tapro would probably say something similar about you ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with vandal

Hi, I hope you're the one who could help (picked your page out of "done" renames):

I'm quite enerved about one vandal who on the very first days when SUL was open to everyone, on may 27 and 28, managed to create accounts under my at-that-time nick WeHaWoe and to vandalise in more than 30 Wikipedias, starting in anWP and "running" through the alphabet. This was obvioulsy possible due to some bug in SUL. Can you please arrange a CU or address this request to a person who can?

I constantly use the same ip for more than one year, so, hopefully I could prove that way that it was impossibly me. Although I meanwhile changed all my account names I really created myself and which I plan to use fürther, their history still will point to the account name used by the vandal -- besides: My rename on en WP is pending for a while.

My at-that-time real WeHaWoe accounts were COM, deWP, enWP, dewikisource and meta. Besides I had created arWP, which was a silly idea and where I'd rather want my account to be removed, if possible. See http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=WeHaWoe&blocks=true&lang= Thanks. --Wolfgang (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

---

It's too bad the guy caused you this problem. I am a crat (so I can do renames) and a checkuser (so I can do CUs) but those rights are specific to one wiki. Only stewards can rename and CU across wikis. SUL shows your en wiki account is clearly the SUL owner. So the first thing you need to do is, on en wiki, go to your preferences tab and unify your account. Then unify all the other wiki accounts you control under that SUL global account. Then go to crats on each wiki you want to unfify, explain what happened (just copy what you wrote here pretty much), and get those accounts usurped. You may need to get a steward involved at some point. This link will give you crat listings on each wiki, just change "en" to whatever. Then check their userpage to see what languages they speak, most speak English. If a wiki has no crats, ask a steward, such as Rdsmith4. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, when trying to unify WeHaWoe from enWP (which I tried this morning), I see (of cpurse) the list of all those vandalised accounts, from an--zh, where I never will contribute. I therefore did not unify, but would like to be renamed first to user:W., then ASAP unify my accounts from COM where I'm "at home", and later, by+by, start chasing the vandal (if appropriate at all -- is it BTW possible to have such kind of accounts deleted and blocked for re-creating ever?).

Do you see any objections on that idea? Thanks, --213.47.146.118 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

W is taken on many wikis, including enwiki. Pick something with no SUL problems. To check a name, when you run your own SUL, just change your name to the name you're considering. And log in and tell me with your current name. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no: W_dot is only taken on wikis where I took it: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=W.&lang= --Wolfgang (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, "user:W" did some 106 edits on enWP, and most of them around 2006. I'd say it was a kid which meanwhile focusses on viWP. http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=W&lang= --Wolfgang (talk) 14:35, 7 November 200Is there some "international" list, or would I have to check eachone, hoping I'd get a reply? See, e.g., some itWP admin threatening me for vandalism for having added text to my vandal's it-user page: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussioni_utente:WeHaWoe&action=history --Wolfgang (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One last note: I'll activate SUL anyways under "user:W." within ca. 48hrs. I however learned, a few months ago, that it would be a problem to add some differently named account to an already existing SUL. That's why I tried to be renamed here BEFORE activating SUL. In case, this can not be done, I'd just inactivate WeHaWoe/en, and in the future do the few edits I might do as an ip or however. So, my final question is, will it be manageable to remame WeHaWoe/en within ca. 48hrs? Thanks, --213.47.146.118 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Was told, meanwhile, that former bug of adding accounts to existing SUL has been resolved for a while. Might have been able to create SUL [?] -- cu tomorrow. Best, Wolfgang --213.47.146.118 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed "WeHaWoe" to "W." Vandals can be blocked; in your case if it's recent vandalism, it is possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really_DO feel very much more "at home" here, by now.

Maybe I'd address you on "how-to_have_vandals_blocked", soon, but for a first try I'll ask that question on de-user pages (which are by far easier to communicate, by me ;) Best, --Wolfgang (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Some problem left

Hi, I'm grateful that you renamed me, but probably due to some bugs I still cannot unify my enWP-account:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:W.&redirect=no -- User:W. redirects to User:WeHaWoe,
  whilst, imo, the opposite should rather be the case.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:W.&redirect=no -- User_talk:W. redirects to User talk:W. (usurp).
  Whether the lastone does have any effect on the failing of unifying, I do not know, I just report it.

Can you help? I'm not in a hurry, but I'd be pleased if this could be done within about one week. Thanks, Wolfgang (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it the way you want it. If not, please be explicit what you want. Thanks and hope this helps. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, enWP could be merged to SUL, now. In case you'd be able to help for itWP, too, where local's reaction is "reluctant" at least, it would be great, but do not worry if you cannot, nor will I. In case you could do and would be willing to do something about, I'd give you the links for "recent" talks on itWP (in en). Best, Wolfgang (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no authority on ITWIKI. Contact User:Rdsmith4, who is a steward. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a GREAT time (which I for myself plan, BTW, too ;) -- I'll contact Rdsmith4 tomorrow. Wolfgang (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IRPSWebmaster

This is a disruptive throwaway account that was used for only one edit. See user contributions for proof. -- IRP ☎ 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He links a name in a article to a public web page about that person. How is that disruption? But agree it is probably a throwaway account and the acct name bothers me. And that edit was over 3 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading that throwaway accounts are disruptive. -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They usually are but he only edited once over 3 months ago. So blocking it wouldn't accomplish much and if he reappears, we may be able to gain more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. -- IRP ☎ 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A page to see

Please see this. -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd. I courtesy blanked the page, semi protected it, and asked an oversighter to perm delete the intervening edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The information was probably libelous anyway. -- IRP ☎ 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the last revision by the userpage owner. -- IRP ☎ 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Not only may it be a joke account (orange hair? poss but not likely), user should not put private info on their pages, esp women and children. See note I left on his page. Lots of weirdos out there and this only encourages them. Now if the actual user puts it back, okay, but then it's on him, not us. Smart move here is leave it alone-blanked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the decipherment. Should I put {{pp-semi|small=yes}} on it? -- IRP ☎ 22:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

I think you may have forgotten to unblock the new account; I'm having to tell you will my old account.--Brittish incompetance (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

fixed. BI should now be blocked and JPB should be unblocked now. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I figured that I should tell you that there is a registered user that is disguised as an IP. Please see this link. I know that because IPs cannot create new pages, besides the fact that this user is introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look. -- IRP ☎ 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If he keeps it up report it to WP:ANI. I deleted the template and its talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it against the policy for a registered user to be disguised as an IP address? -- IRP ☎ 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If he's simply forgetting to log in, no. If he's using it to vote stack or avoid WP:3RR, yes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

But no, it is really a registered account with a name that makes it look like an IP. It appears as an "IP" creating pages, but it is an actual registered account disguised as an IP address that creates pages. That's how I figured out that it is a registered user. Is that a violation of the policy? -- IRP ☎ 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it is, because it is deceptive to other editors. -- IRP ☎ 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure, post at WP:AN and ask. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it is. Similar to User:!. An administrator declined that user's unblock request and said "Inappropriate username". -- IRP ☎ 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that is actually an IP address. IPs cannot create pages, but they can create talk pages. In addition, I am pretty sure that MediaWiki disallows actually creating an account with a username that looks like an IP address. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone at AN or UAA will know for sure. I'd say it's blockable as misleading though. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Scout image

[41] Where did you find this is under copyright? Please post to WT:SCOUT — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that BSA rank insignia is under a free license. Old uploads of mine were deleted for being unfree. -- Cat ^chi? 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's Canadian, not BSA. So you're going on assumption here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am. I see no detailed description on the image description talk page. Unless proven otherwise all images are copyrighted. A link or an OTRS template would be more than sufficient. I am not doubting what you are saying but evidence supporting it shouldn't be too hard to find I think. -- Cat ^chi? 21:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload that, I agree the burden is on the uploader, but your post implied you found actual evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My post implies there is a lack of evidence that the image is free, hence "all rights reserved" unless the evidence contrary to it is provided. I can technically tag it for "deletion in 7 days" as a copyvio, but I am nicer than that. I am going to notify uploaders in bulk once I am done processing a number of freely licensed images. -- Cat ^chi? 21:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)

Would I have a right to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)? -- IRP ☎ 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins can close XFDs/SSP/etc and experienced user that admins who work that area trust can close noncontroversial XFDs. This close looks potentially controversial so I'd say not close it. If you want to know if you can close XFDs that aren't controversial, ask the admins that regularly work in that area. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful information. -- IRP ☎ 00:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Test those new tools!

So I've discovered that there are a number of indef IP blocks "per checkuser" and was wondering if you'd like to test your new buttons on them to see if the blocks can be reduced to some finite period of time. The list is at User:Nixeagle/Sandbox/6. Thanks in advance. MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming ArbCom elections

Hi,

I'm rather unhappy about the sorry list of candidates at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements. Would you consider running? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm filing right now, working on the questions page now. Thanks for thinking of me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I was hoping you'd run! Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Naturally, I'm prepared to deal with the inevitable opposes and such, everyone gets them. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review}

I responed on the availability page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Could you indicate which scheduled show youd be able to attend from the list here. There are a wide range of times available so hopefully one will suit you. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a username block

Heya, on the block of Retard078crab (talk · contribs), he is asking for unblock. I agree that the name is unacceptable, but he did seem to make a good edit,[42] and he is amenable to changing his name.[43] Would it be alright with you if I unblocked? --Elonka 21:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. I'll even do the rename if he picks a good one. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

'_rtnjkk() (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Ichompyourshadow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are obviously socks of each other. Can you see if there are more? Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

and 234n5 & (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Basically look at the history of Fraps. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated to the others Ozbeepa (talk · contribs) and Ichompyourshadow (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed '_rtnjkk() (talk · contribs) = Account created to post on Reference Desk (talk · contribs) = 44444444 t (talk · contribs) = FFF 4JFKSMSK (talk · contribs) = Joh4j Aysh % erm (talk · contribs) = Oiwerjth area (talk · contribs)

 Possible 234n5 & (talk · contribs) = to the above set of confirmed's

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can bag and tag as appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me know who you call the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

All socks tagged, bagged, and in the hamper. I called Account created to post on Reference Desk the master because it was created a couple of weeks before the others. Thanks for your help. J.delanoy^gabs[[Special:Contributions

/J.delanoy|_adds]] 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked. Just shocked. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

arbcom

Hi, you forgot to ping me (as I requested) when you nommed yourself for ArbCom. ;-) But of course it's OK. :-) I see you said you'd recuse on some Scouting articles, but not all. I hope you'll have a broader definition of "some" than you stated... But good luck. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I did forget. Sorry. By some I mean the ones I've worked on a fair amount. I do not automatically support an article just because it's Scout related. I've supported many mergers and deletions of Scout articles that did not meet Wiki criterion. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Template

Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and best of luck to you too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Can you take care of File:Miamihurricanelogo.jpg on Commons and block the uploader there (I blocked him here)? See [44] – there's some TSL trolling today. --B (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --B (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CU

Thank you for the answer. I really only "need" it once in a blue moon, to find suspected sockpuppets who are also vandals, e.g. Cruftcutter. I can always make a request at WP:Checkuser, or wait for a few more months. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

disruptive?

Please, tell me how I have been disruptive, I would love to discuss this with you??? Sbrown146 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, first, I don't consider my edits WP:OR, because my conclusions were simple enough to be cited as sources. And about the removing of pictures, that was a mistake, I just realized. I apoligize for that, in the process of reverting, I failed to realize that the last person added images. my mistake. And my removing of reliable sources is no worse than the other editors removing my reliable sources. How is it fair that my sources are labeled as unreliable and others as reliable???? And in any dispute, I have always listened to the other editors' points and I have on multiple occasions discussed with them. Sbrown146 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You've gotten several warnings. Think about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll remember about WP:OR for future edits, but I'm still not convinced that simply using the Koppen system to classify climates can be considered WP:OR. It's just disturbing that on the Koppen article on here, it has a specific set of criteria to classify climate, and yet on the pages for some cities on here, the Koppen system is largely ignored. Sbrown146 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, I found a Bermuda site and it described it as sub-tropical, not the same thing as tropical. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the difference:) Sbrown146 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom election

• User:Jc37/Userboxes/Deskana4Arbcom
• User:Jc37/Userboxes/NYB4Arbcom
• User:Jc37/Userboxes/Raul6544Arbcom

Per the above (which were created through discussion with those under discussion), I'd like to select three candidates to do the same with this year, and you're one of the three. (Though I may decide to pick 4 or 5 this year, it's quite a selection.)

So if you don't strongly oppose the idea, would you help by suggesting/selecting a few appropriate images? - jc37 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean you're putting them on your user page/box page, I think that's okay. Several people have done that in prior years. THanks for the support. I'll think about what is a good image. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the intent. (And for others to use if they wish.) I'll wait to create it until we have an image, then. (I seem to recall that it took Raul awhile last year : ) – jc37 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Dog The Teddy Bear.jpg This one! Freshly taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Jc37/Userboxes/Rlevse4Arbcom. - jc37 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, okay with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Input in discussion

Hello – I can see that you are an experienced Wikipedian, both an administrator and a FA writer – I request your input in this discussion regarding the long-term semi-protection of FAs? Shiva (Visnu) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Good luck with the respective election candidature. You will make a great arbitrator – I am sure of it. Kind regards, Caulde 23:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ArbCom questions

Hi. In case you miss it, I posted a follow up question here. Feel free to move the question to wherever you prefer it before answering. Cheers, and good luck in your candidacy! Giggy (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a hectic day, and week. Sorry. I'll answer now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Best of luck. Giggy (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Room

I know! lol. I was watching the launch! :D And now I'm heading to bed, lol. Will you be around tomorrow? Ariel♥Gold 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath's RfA

Thanks Rlevse for closing Aervanath's RfA, it was undoubtably a tough one to close, that some may disagree with your close... While I think you made the right choice (for the right reasons) I wanted to thank you for taking it upon yourself to digest it all. It's why we made you a 'crat... and to think, I remember when you refused an RfA nom ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is net positive dude – don't start changing it to net benefit... :) Good close, and I particularly appreciate the courtesy to the community in giving a good and full rationale at the top. Pedro :  Chat  16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to Pedro's comments. Bencherlite^Talk 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to Balloonman's and Pedro's comments. No matter what one might personally think of this candidate or the RfA, I really think you did a great job in closing the RfA. :-) SoWhy 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the support on the close. I wanted to give this one very careful consideration given the nature and numerous locales of the commentary. Yes, Balloonman, I recall refusing that first RFA. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view, while it wasn't an easy close, the consensus was clear enough that Aervaneth was trusted (even by the opposers), but a crat note is always appreciated. Is it just me, or is this trend of crat explainations largely to due with the crat's starting to take the part "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions" from RfB more seriously? In any case, agreed with your closure. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

there is that, but also the fact that I asked for an explanation.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed prior, but I figured Rlevse would explain things anyways. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I leave a note when I expect there'll likely be some questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good practice to get into. In any regard, you do the 'crat name justice (and hopefully soon the Arb name as well) Master&Expert (Talk) 04:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again M&E. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

An award for the closure... --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Brass Balls, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit late at this point, but I did still want to drop by to express my support for your decision to close Aervanath's RfA as successful, as well as your stated reasons for doing so. Good close. ↔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Never to let to get a pat on the back, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Colourwolf

Wow thanks, regarding that CU cannot get conclusive evidence: You just admitted that its next to impossible for you to catch me. Nah-nee!

BTW, I'm the one who created Bookworm Short Stories. I have more good articles to come your way! Whee!

Elemental of Truth (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This one's bagged at least. You really should put all that energy to something more productive though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf

Perhaps we need to alert all Singaporean ISPs as to what is happening, and perhaps try to either force him off the internet, or have someone bring legal charges against him. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish

Have you been drinking? or are you talking complete and utter rubbish just for the sake of it Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath. You deliberatly slap the face of every editor who contributes more than three words "Our primary reason for being here is to build an encyclopedia; which does mean article writing." You should retract at once and resign in shame. Giano (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would note that RFA/Tadakuni, RFA/Zedla, RFA/Sean Black , RFA/Luigi30 3 and RFA/Krimpet @ 73%, 72%, 72%, 72% and 67% support were rather uncontroversial promotions. Seems this just fell within the range of discretion that good faith individuals can differ on. MBisanz ^talk 16:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Giano has any problems with promoting Aervanath, at least none that he mentions above. He just seems to be upset by Rlevse's assertion that article writing is part of building the encyclopedia. Darkspots (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it might be a discussion better had at WP:BN or WT:RFA since it it more to the theoretical nature of things like promotion guidelines, factors, and process, which the wider community could benefit from discussing. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I'm sorry you disagree with me and I respect your opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I think you made a poor 'crat call. My note to Aervanath here explains why. I've also started to wonder: does the 70-80% "discretionary range" ever mean that RFAs in that range are failed? Because I never seem to notice that happening. Do you recollect any such cases? Is there some place where I can check? If 70% plus has started to mean "invariably positive bureaucrat 'discretion'", I think the RFA page should be changed to reflect it. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I am sorry you disagree with me and I respect your opinion. Unsuccessful RFA candidacies are listed here: Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. I knew that no matter how I closed this particular RFA, one or more groups would not be happy. I simply made what I felt was the right call in interpreting community consensus and hope you can at least understand that. I respect those who disagree with me. I recall RFAs in the discretion range not being successful but don't recall them off the top of head, so I went to the "A" page of the unsuccessful listing and quickly found this RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2 from May 2008 that was 71% and unsuccessful. There are more in the range you ask about that were unsuccessful. In case you're interested, all the RFA/Bs I've closed are listed here: User:Rlevse/Tools#RFA/B closings. Prior to the RFA in question, all my closings ranged from Snow to 68% for unsuccessful ones and from 79-100% for successful ones. So this one at 73% was the lowest one, numerically speaking, that I closed as successful. There are also some here: User:MBisanz/Qs that you may find interesting. There is also this one closed in Oct 2008 by EVula at 73% as successful: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tadakuni. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be "respecting" everyone's opinion but only paying heed to your own. Doubtless when your insulting bahaviour has driven off those that do write, your admin friends will learn how to write themselves. Giano (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how the part of Rlevse's closing remarks you quoted, "Our primary reason for being here is to build an encyclopedia; which does mean article writing", is insulting to article writers. If anything, I read that as the exact opposite. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, I did do a mispaste "our encyclopedia is not built solely by article writing, many other tasks, including admin tasks, need to be carried out." It seems odd that the non-contributing admins now appear to outnumber the few who are actually writing high quality content. Wikipedia's attitude to the writers of this project stinks, and itis 100% the fault of non-writing admins. Giano (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still confused why you think so. Why is it an insult to writers to promote people who do not write? I mean, we would promote writers as well – there are just not those many willing to get the buttons. We can only promote people willing to be promoted and I have yet to see a prolific writer fail RfA at a similar amount of support. So when Rlevse says that writing alone does not create the 'pedia, he is completely correct. The best writers are useless if noone fights the vandals attacking their contributions, helps them clean up the mess or sorts articles into categories, to name just a few important tasks aside from writing. But please, enlighten us how giving those people the tools they need to do such tasks is against those who write articles? SoWhy 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, giano, if you were really concerned you could have participated in the RfA while it was open, as you are just now chiming in, I have to wonder how you found out about it? I should also point out, that of the last 16 !votes, 15 were supports. Also, during the period that the last 16 !votes participated, one of the opposes switched to neutral. So, I think Rlevse closed the RfA in a manner completely consistent with the current trend at the time of the close. Plus, I think you mis-represent Rlevse closing comment. While writing the encyclopedia is a major component to building it, it is not the ONLY component. The strength of WP is that there are numerous areas wherein people can contribute to the project. The project survives because we have an ecclectic assortment of people contributing to a diverse needs. If we didn't have people performing my least favorite task (Speedy Deletions) then the project would be overrun with garbage articles promoting some high school kid whose greatest claim to fame is the ability to fart out the national anthem. If we didn't have people discussing BLP, we'd have articles full of garbage and attacks. If we didn't have people working the orphanage, then many articles would be lost and inaccessible. EACH person who contributes to the project helps to build it. One aspect does not have a monopoly on "building the encyclopedia." Now, I do believe that article contribution is one of the most important aspects, it is hubris to claim that it is the only one... which is what many people seem to think. Rlevse simply is reminding us of that basic fact.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)(PS I've nominated a number of strong article builders and niche candidates---but it is very difficult, if not impossible to find article builders who want to run.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Giano) Rlevse is not exactly a "non-writing" admin. He has, according to his /files page, 15 featured articles to his credit, plus a smattering of other items. Thus, by your breakdown of admins (i.e. writers vs. non-writers), Rlevse is on the "good guys" side. And as Balloonman said, no one was stopping you from commenting in the RfA. To use a phrase I've used many times recently IRL, "If you don't vote, you can't bitch". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!!

Happy Birthday Rlevse! I hope you have a wonderful, awesome, happy day! ~*Big hugs*~
Ariel♥Gold 16:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for remembering. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Caulde 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is today your birthday? Here is a type of tteok, Korean rice cake, for celebrating the birthday boy. :)--Caspian blue 23:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday to you!

Thanks to all. It was a fine day for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

祝你生日快乐！Or if that doesn't show up on your computer, "Zhu ni shengri kuaile!" Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows up, and thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Belated birthday wishes, Rlevse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Happy birthday from me as well. Hope all is well with you. I don't know what we'd do without Ariel. :D Enigma ^message 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I'm awesome!

I knew I was awesome!!! Joke aside, thank you very much it really made me laugh when I discovered it on my talk. Thank you so much! (funnily enough, the first thing that crossed my mind is the How I met your mother line when Ted dumps a girl on her answering machine on her birthday "Listen... You're awesome...") ^^ -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Happy birthday! May your cakes always be sweet and your candles lighted! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question for you

Regarding this, I'd like to co-nom (assuming it's ok with you and Mizu). I assume I just add my waffle below yours before the page gets transcluded? Regards, EyeSerene^talk 17:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ok ask her. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you a *new message* on this archived heck of a CU mess. Please help out if you can (not that I would blame you for not trying :D). Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

LukeTheSpook

Could you check out Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as he reinstated Sum88 edits on atleast two occasions. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated to LukeTheSpook, but Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs) = Smithy_14 (talk · contribs) = Stebucko313 (talk · contribs), I've already indef'd all 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on my talk page. Much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NajiimP

Please double check. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has confirmed the results. Have replied to you and Tiptoety separately too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate clerk behavior on RfA

Rlevse, there is an RfA here over a disruptive editor. I had what I labeled as a “statement” here and which clearly conveyed germane information that spoke to the issue. I even had an editor leave a note on my talk page stating that “your ArbCom post is great.” But a clerk, Tznkai, deleted my statement. Wikipedia is not a is not a bureaucracy and it shouldn’t be so damned hard to weave through the convoluted procedures. There is already an exceedingly large amount of human effort being devoted to afford an arguably disruptive editor every protection. But this deletion, and Tznkai’s stated reasoning for just flat erasing my contribution just makes this an absurd amount of hoops to jump through in order to have every procedural T cross and i dotted. Greg L (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually he didn't delete it, he moved it to the talk page because he felt it was more of a statement than evidence and that goes on the talk page or workshop page. I can talk to him if you like, but please understand there is no head clerk, clerks work for arbcom. I'm flattered you came to me with your concerns though. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea who Tznkai is directly accountable to—if anyone. However, my statement speaks to A) how one should select a specific external article to serve as a paradigm reliable source so that the tone of fringe-science articles can be modeled after it, B) explains that editing contrary to the tone of that template of a reliable source should be considered as editing against the consensus, and C) details my interactions with Pcarbonn and offers an plausible explanation as to why he persists at doing what he is doing and how it affects other editors who try to deal with him rationally. All three points are buttressed with evidentiary links.

  Whereas my 2¢ there do not conform to the layout of the page, I did try to keep my post close to 1000 words (others have gone way over the limit), and it obviously is germane. So what if I didn’t put my zip code in the “zip code” field? Editors who are trying to offer good-faith comments to this issue and clearly intended to speak honestly to what they perceive as the heart of the matter shouldn’t have worry that some clerk will pull a knee-jerk reaction and say “that’s not *technically* close enough to ‘evidence’ ”. It’s hard enough learning wiki markup and html and doing good technical writing to really improve articles without also having to become expert in administrative and procedural matters in order to have a voice here. I certainly see no reason to toss what I wrote onto the “discussion” page with an [expand] button; it mutes my input beyond reason. What I entered should be available for arbiters to directly consider and should be part of the record.

  And just so you know where I’m coming from on this, his moving that to a [hidden] section on a talk page tickled my “censorship” radar here and I tend to fuel my SAMs whenever this occurs—whether it’s me being affected or someone else being so affected. Someone should have to be way out of line with irrelevant garbage, personal attacks, flames, and vitriol to have their contribution neutered so. You know, with an accolade or two posted on my talk page over my contributions on this issue, this shouldn’t even be considered as a close call; it obviously passes the “grin test”. Please, I would appreciate it if you would see to it that my voice is properly restored. Greg L (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse is a clerk, the same as Tznkai, I suggest you post to WT:RFAR or contact an arbitrator if you disagree with his actions. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• And a Bureaucrat too, yes? And I am addressing Rlevse here; thanks. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my 2cents here is that the Arbitrators have an enormous amount of information to read through and analyze, so it’s imperative that the established process for posting information on an Arbitration case be followed – the /Evidence page is clear about this: “It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format." and "Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible."

It appears that a large majority of the post in question moved from the /evidence page is not actually evidence, but instead a long statement capped off with an “open letter” to another editor, totaling over 1200 words. This isn’t the appropriate use for the page, instead most of the comments (if not all) should have been placed on the talk pages or on the /workshop page.

Your post wasn’t the only one touched, others were too, [45] This was a move to make the Arbitrator’s job easier, so I think the clerk did the right thing here.

I recommend following the instructions at the top of the page and submitting a short and concise presentation of evidence, focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior. Post the “open letter” and other general comments on the talk page or other appropriate pages such as the /workshop page. There's nothing really "hidden" on any pages of an Arbitraion case, the Arbs see all.. :) Dreadstar † 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are you really trying to tell me that the very last paragraph (the “open letter part”) is why the whole thing was tossed? That’s easy, I’ll copy the thing back and leave that last part off, which will also keep it under 1000 words. In the mean time, how about we dispense with going to “WT:RFAR or contact an arbitrator”, which basically amounts to “fill out more paperwork to file a complaint about how improperly-filled-out paperwork was ignored.” Greg L (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• …And… done. re-posted at 987 words. I left the “open letter”-portion behind on the talk page, which, I agree, didn’t belong on the main page. Note the links in my evidence to the relevant information. Please, let’s dispense with the bureaucracy-run-amok here. If my evidence is weak or unsubstantiated or poorly supported, or whatever other shortcomings you find, then it is what it is and take it as such. There are multiple arbiters and some will no doubt view my evidence differently than others. Let’s just not have some clerk banishing the whole damned thing to remote backwaters where it has near-zero voice and no arbiter will really see it, huh? Greg L (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said at all, the open letter is just the capper to a long statement that contains a very small percentage of actual evidence. I wouldn't recommend just pasting most of it back. Collect the actual diffs, then write a short statement about how they illustrate the relevant behavior for the issues raised in the opening statements. Good evidence is short and concise, with short explanations about the behavior being presented in select, targeted diffs. Dreadstar † 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Too late obviously. If someone deletes it again because there is too little evidence link-to-verbiage ratio or whatever your latest objection is (“because it doesn’t look exactly like everyone else’s posts”), I’m not going to put it back in. But such a deletion will certainly make it appear that the people sitting in judgement of Pcarbonn are about as intransigent and stubborn as he is. Greg L (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot went on while I was soundly asleep. OK, let me deal with some of the key points. I am a crat, but crats have no role in arbitration or clerking, but I am a clerk. The crat areas are renames, bot flags and RFA/B. I have talked to Tznkai about this. Honestly, I can see why he did what he did but I also see Greg's points. Given this reposting, it's best if Tznkai and the arbs deal with this, it's his case and clerks work for the arbs. It is also true, ask any arb, the more you write and the less focused it is, the less the arbs read it, so Dreadstar's points are oh so true here. Evidence should be evidence, not personal opinions, essays, etc. Give facts, with diffs and links. Things like opinions, vice evidence, go on the talk page or workshop page. What Greg wrote was a mix of evidence and opinion; that is why I see both sides here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your wise counsel. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this warrant a checkuser

[46] ? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of that page, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

EggOne (talk · contribs) = EggLeader (talk · contribs) = CrackingEggs (talk · contribs) = StaleEgg (talk · contribs) = SixPackOfEggs (talk · contribs) = WikiLinux (talk · contribs) and even more here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EggOne, so I stopped looking since Nish beat me to it.

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

Premature archiving

This was premature; I was still awaiting further clarification. Could you please restore it? Everyking (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AC/C/N#Other work Bainer directed the clerks archive it, being a clerk, that's what I did. You'll need to take this up with the arbs or if you prefer I'll ask on your behalf. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated Thanks

Thank you kindly, Rlevse, for the "Today's Wikipedian" day. I'm not sure I belong in the presence of such venerable company, but am grateful all the same. MfG, Эlcobbola _talk 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse

Hi, Rlevse, if you have a spare time, could you take a look at the RFCU file, Occidentalist? Since you've had to deal with the evading indef. blocked sockpuppeter many times, your assessment would be great help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it later today, don't have time for it for several hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA Co-nominations

I am about to nominate an editor for the bucket. What is the proper way to solicit co-nominators? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can ask the candidate if there is somebody they want to have co-nominate them, or you can approach the other party directly and simply say, "I'm thinking about nominating USER:XXX, what are your thoughts about a co-nom?" You might be interested in my essay on how to nominate people, you can find it on my user page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what Balloon popper man said. You want users who are familiar with the candidate and/or the RFA process. I'd suggest no more than one nom and two conoms (3 total) as some will object if there are lots of conoms. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've come to see 2 total noms as the proper amount. One nom doesn't always give me the sense that the candidate has been vetted while 3 is starting to get to be too many.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one thing that I LOVE to see in candidates, is if I approach the candidate and suddenly a bunch of people I know and respect starting adding "I want to co-nom" before the candidate even has a chance to respond. When I see that, I feel that I've found a good candidate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Honored

Wow... I really can't say how honored you made me feel today... there are literally scores of people I would have given this award to before myself... so it means a lot, because your opinion does matter to me... and it was nice coming from a crat because I think most of them are pissed at me right now (and I don't think one will ever care for me.) So, this REALLY REALLY meant more than I can say. What a simple, but wonderful idea.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You deserve it. People will differ on wiki and that's okay. I got the idea from Phaedriel, used to do this. I have dozens of people picked out for this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User rights

How can I become a transwiki importer? -- IRP ☎ 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than making the links at the bottom of an article, which show up on the left of the article when you look at it, I don't know. Ask at WP:AN. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting, this is a special userright that only stewards have and only they can assign it to other users. Because of GFDL concerns, importation is deprecated on en.wiki. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What about exportation, so I would be able to move dictionaric pages to Wiktionary? -- IRP ☎ 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any user can use the Special:Export facility. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And if there are GFDL concerns, why is there a feature that allows import? -- IRP ☎ 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Boyce Building

I don't know if I can get a shot until the summer. With short days and the clacks set back, I have not been near the building in daylight recently.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Back

Hi. I am back for my earlier request for review. --Vacio (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) In the meantime I have tried to use talkpages to avoid edit-warring.

Yes, you seem to be making a good faith effort, so I'll lift the restrictions; and please continue down this path of constructive editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot names

Yup, I know that. I usually refer them to BAG in my concern note. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

I was considering deletion review of the following articles:

• February 17, 2009
• Aimé. M.

At first, I agreed with the deletion of February 17, 2009, but now, I'm starting to question it. I never thought Aimé. M. should've been deleted. It was deleted in the middle of the rescue process. -- IRP ☎ 16:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I start a deletion review? -- IRP ☎ 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV — Rlevse • Talk • 17:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quissamã and Zephynelsson Von

As you know, I have used both accounts: Quissamã and Zephynelsson Von.

Could you block the Quissamã account and leave a message addressing that this account is a socket-puppet of Zephynelsson Von?

I believe that doing so everyone will contact Zephynelsson Von if they want to talk with me.

Thanks. Zephynelsson Von 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephynelsson Von (talk • contribs)

I put in redirect on Q's user and talk pages. That'll redirect people to your new pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was so busy with my RfA I forgot...

HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY! I can't believe I didn't even think of that, all these days. Are you going Trout-fishing any time soon? Cheers! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and good luck with the Election! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on both! As for trout, the only trout I catch are ones I use to trout-slap someone on wiki ;-0 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First action

First protect: Semi-pp. What do you think? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I think that's fine. Next time give me a link so I don't have to look into your logs ;-0 — Rlevse • Talk • 18:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin "toolbar"

Rlevse, do you know where I would find one of those "admin toolbars" that contain useful admin links, such as to UAA, CAT:CSD, AIV, AfD, and the like? I'd like to use one on my userpage or user talk page, for easy reference. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See User:J.delanoy, scroll to the toolbox section, copy that stuff and/or this {{WP_navbox_with_icons}}. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, {{Admin dashboard}} is good, that's what I use. L'Aquatique[talk] 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, either will do. Thanks you guys. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Rose star

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viewing deleted pages

How would one actually view deleted pages? At the top of a page I recently deleted (db-A7), it says that I can restore it, but obviously I don't want to do that. There doesn't seem to be any link for actually viewing the page (but maybe that's just my browser). —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, that confused me at first too. Clicking the "restore" link just lets you view the deleted edits. You have to click the "restore" button on that page to actually restore the page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To view the page that is deleted, scroll down to the section with the version date time stamps. It confused just about everyone at first. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A similar question: I recently closed an AfD, so far everything is okay, except at the old log it still shows that the AfD is open. Do I just go right in and remove the link to the now-closed AfD? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read the admin instructions for AfD. Or consider using Mr.Z-man's great closeAFD-script. SoWhy 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That AfD appears closed now, in the log. Never remove one from the log unless you are relisting. I second the advice to use Mr.Z-man's script. (It helps you avoid mistakes and it makes relisting trivial). EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnson. My point is, SoWhy, I've already read the admin instructions more than once, but it wasn't disappearing until now. Regards, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for the "Awesome Wikipedian" banner. It was kind of you to think of me. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

'Nother question

Regarding prods and AfDs, does an article have to be deleted or (AfD) closed precisely at the time given (for example, 4:28 UTC, on the minute), or can it be closed early if the time is approximate? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could close it a tad early, but to be safe, close it after the ending time. The clearer the consensus, the more leeway for an early close. Until you get more experience at this, wait til at least the official ending time. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI CheckUser

Hi. Would it be possible for you to do a check user on User:The Mad Pigeon and User:Jdfielder for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Divulgance of personal info about a possible editor using throw away account to post a lot of personal information about me in an article (and possibly other accounts to do other harassment). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jfielder account is stale, but if anything along this line reoccurs it may be worth looking into. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations:Salamandar → K90

I get some diff to prove it and put this on the page, can you help me please?--Salamandar talk 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--K90 ^d 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. But the user and talk pages wouldn't move, so if you need help, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious expired prod

Hey, Rlevse. I'm a little unsure about a certain prod that expired several hours ago, but has not yet been deleted. The article is Cultural Experiences Abroad. My problem is that while the article should be deleted, the reason is less than legitimate; it does little to explain why said page should be deleted, except that it does not merit its own entry on Wikipedia. At this point can I remove the prod tag because I don't believe the reason is sufficient, or must I just delete it because it's already expired and no one has found any problem with it? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, even deleted PRODded articles can be undeleted upon request, so think of this as a request by yourself to undelete the article another admin might have deleted. I'd either let it die if you think it would fail AfD or deprod it, try to improve it, and if you can't improve it, send it to AfD or get some help improving it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, this should probably go to AfD, as a non- or marginally-notable organization. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I was pretty certain it wouldn't last AfD, but I didn't agree with the actual reason for the prod. Either way, though, I don't think this will survive, so I'll see if this gets deleted by someone else. If not soon, though, I might take it to AfD anyway. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

If it's not deleted by evening, AFD it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

De Beers

Please could you take a look at the De Beers article. I suspect that Aliceinorbit may have a conflict of interest here, as all this person's edits are to this article, and furthermore, reflect a pattern of sanitising information added by other editors that may portray the company in a bad light. (e.g. this edit which waters down the terminology from the cited article.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPA (which you didn't mention to her yet) and WP:COI. Approach the user, point them to these policies, see what they say and go from there. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be obliged if you could keep an eye on this article – I'm quite sure that systematic censorship of this article is taking place. Added some well-referenced company history, which has just been reverted by one the "custodians" of the article. Have opened a socket puppet case, but suspect that this one is not going to go away lightly due to the vested commercial interests in keeping this article sqeaky clean. e.g. De Beers is cited in economic textbooks as a classic example of monopolistic behaviour, but the very use of this word is guaranteed to have your edit reverted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Those two are taken care of. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a star, thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you...

...since I don't know if you're busy, but Thehelpfulone's RFA is almost three hours late. I doubt that he will dare to ask a crat to close it for him, and he did not ask me to ask one, but I know how I felt the morning my RFA was closed, even though I got sysopped an hour early. So that's why I'm asking you. If you want, (if I'm allowed to do it?) I could help with all the "paperwork" that surrounds closing an RFA. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already closed, Deskana got it. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Only crats can close RFA/RFB, unless SNOW or NOTNOW applies early in the stages of the RFA. If one is overdue to close, feel free to ping one or more crats and the WP:BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparent shared account

Please see User:NERIC-Security, thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. There's an old discussion about this in ANI. See the user page history, talk page, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See comments on both pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It might not be used by only one person. -- IRP ☎ 20:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My day

Thank you very much. Not sure what I did to deserve it, but it's nice to know that somebody here appreciates what I do. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you also; it was very kind. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

		Happy Thanksgiving!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving! Hopefully this one has made your Thanksgiving Day better. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family! — ERcheck (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Switched username of indef-blocked user?

Austindavid817 (formerly Ad.sell) has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and abuse of block templates, and it's reinforced by his subsequent block evasion. Why did you grant his username change, when he requested one last week that was rejected because of his block? Mr. Darcy talk 04:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I missed that he was blocked indef. I can rename him back if you want. He has another request at WP:CHUU, Ad.sell → Sell A. D., which I've just denied and noted he is indef'd. Appears he made at least 3 name change requests. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and named him back to Ad.sell. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I hadn't realized he'd made multiple requests – I thought you had overruled the rejection ... it doesn't matter, as long as the user remains blocked until he agrees to stop causing trouble, that's the key. Thanks. Mr. Darcy talk 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi Rlevse, in responce to comments by EdJohnston here, I raised the matter with them on their talk page. EdJohnston suggest that you may be able to clarify for us what the 1RR actually means? Is it 1RR a day or a week? This needs to be clear to editors, and since this is an area I edit in, it would really help. If their is a breech of the 1RR AE imposed sanction, were should we report it? Should we go to AE or the Admin's who imposed it. I've no wish to go AE if I can help it, (bad memories) and it gets so cluttered there. In addition to this, you leave yourself open to Admin's who may not understand the history of the 1RR on Troubles Articles, or why it was imposed. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. When a time is not specified (such as 2RR per week), an RR remedy is per day. So in this case, the 1RR is per day. That is how I've always seen this done. Hope this helps. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, it helps to know. That is the type of clarity we really need on the subject. Would you agree with EdJohnston that it could be filed as a normal 3RR report including a link to the AE agreed sanctions or should we go through the AE process? Personally I think treating it like a normal 3RR sends out a much stronger message to editors that this will be enforced. That AE sanctions are not to be trifeled with, and editors should not try to test the limits on it. That's just my opinion though. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You could do that but I'd suggest using AE since the AE restriction is more stringent and has it's own board. Up to you. FYI, "per day" always means a 24-hour period, not a calendar day. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for clarity on the subject. I take on board what your saying about AE, just can't stand the thoughts of it. Always a last resort though, when reason goes out the window. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Keep in mind AE is there because of the special arbcom remedies in place on whatever case/situation and that the reason the issue went to arbcom in the first place is that those involved and the community couldn't settle there differences earlier on in the dispute resolution process. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, in my opinion if arbcom are seen to be serious the ripple effect will produce results. I've raised some issues with Rockpocket on how the 1RR can be gamed, and will put them up for discussion when a solution if formulated. I don't think its right to say to Admin’s / ArbCom here is a problem, fix it. Editors have to be part of the solution, and while working on the coal face (Troubles Articles) it is easy to point to problems, no so to offer solutions. If we find the right solutions, it could possibly be a template for the other areas of disputes, within the project. One thing I will say though, far too much attention is paid to edit warring on the article pages, and not enough on the talk pages. If editors are not conducting themselves in an appropriate manner on the talk page, chances are their doing the same on the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Many good points there. Editors have to realize they need to work together to solve issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC sock check needed

Can you check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS at your convenience. There appears to be an accusation that the subject has used three accounts improperly. Jehochman ^Talk 08:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed EmilEikS (talk · contribs) = EmilEik (talk · contribs) = Fiandonca (talk · contribs). I'll let the community decide their fates. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Jehochman#Sock whatever. Thank you! EmilEikS (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser on blocked IP?

User:Ad.sell continues to cause trouble via 99.155.212.135, which I just blocked for the third time, this one for a week. Can you run a quick checkuser to make sure I'm not catching anyone else inadvertently through this block? Thanks. Mr. Darcy talk 15:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As good intentioned as this is, I'm not sure that is a valid use of the CU tool. I'll double check. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Range blocks: If you propose to block a significant range, or for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral blocks – that is, for the presence of other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block. This is just a single IP address, but given the weeklong block and the potential for longer blocks in the future, I decided to play it safe. I'm only looking to see if any other users have recently come in through that IP address; I don't need or want their usernames. If no one but User:Ad.sell has logged in through that IP address for weeks or months, that's good enough for me. (And, FWIW, Ad.sell is signing his edits made while he's not logged in as "AustinS," linking to his user page, so it's not a secret that the anonymous user is him.) Mr. Darcy talk 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I got some good input on this from other CUs. The short answer is it depends. I'm working on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought. You blocked this anon only so named accounts won't be a problem. If this were from a large ISP or business, then yes, we could look for collateral damage and hand out IP block exemption. We could also wait for autoblock unblock requests to get filed and the blocking admin, other admins, or OTRS could handle it. On the other hand, User:Ad.sell has been causing problems and this IP alone has been blocked by you 3 times recently, so a CU check solely on that basis is warranted, so that's how I'm justifying this. If he has a stable IP, a long block can be justified. If it's dynamic, only a short one. Back later with more. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks of 1-2 weeks would be about right. No one else is on his IPs. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll stick to that length of block, and I'll keep them anon-only. Mr. Darcy talk 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reminder

About this. iMatthew 15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wakamusha's edit summary vandalism

This user made an offensive and vandalistic comment. Please see this link. -- IRP ☎ 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh that was 11 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Happy OhanaUnited's Day!

Thanks, Rlevse. I was so surprised when I see this! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem you're one of those good, silent, hard workers. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and those userboxes don't work because it still points to Phaedriel's userspace. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Working very well. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA to close

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JRH95. Malformed? Has 6 main space edits, 3 article talk page edits. Due to close on 2 Dec. Please take a look? — ERcheck (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not malformed, just a newbie. It can be snowed. It has not be transcluded to RFA page yet either. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see someone already did. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper noun

Hi Rlevse could you give us your opinion on this. I would with my limited grasp of English grammer have to agree with O Fenian, and say yes this is the actual name and therefore should be in caps. I can reference this but think a basic grasp of English makes this pointless. Your opinions are welcome, --Domer48_'fenian' 09:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a special category, no caps. But it were an actual category created by law then yes, it's probably caps. Ask East718, he's better at this stuff than I am. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse, it was an actual category created then removed by the British government. There are many books concerning the IRA and hunger strikes use that particular capitalisation, like this for example. I check it out with East718. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case I'd say caps. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to create a DYK

for the new Gilwell Ada's Hoeve, if eligible? Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

This is where you make a DYK nom:Template talk:Did you know. The only thing I can't verify is the ref for the DYK hook as the refs are all in Dutch. We need a ref for "DYK...that Ada's Hoeve is the Netherlands' oldest Scout campsite". WHich ref does that? I should add that info to the nom since it's in Dutch. You can nom it if you want, otherwise I'll nom it. Let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In at the deep end First DYKsug I did. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC). PS. The first ref is also in English, for the linguistically challenged editors :-).

USS Liberty Incident

Hi,

Could I ask you to take a look at the Talk Page of this article. I don't wish to skew your conclusion in any particular direction so I'll leave it at that for now. The bit that concerns me is the Friendly Fire Incident. Regards. Justin talk 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry problem

Hello! Your submission of Gilwell Ada's Hoeve at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. I am not sure if you had commented there as a co-nom, but in any event I'd appreciate your additional input. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the post on my page. Decide to edit mostly in the mainspace for now, not getting involved in any long debates or reviews. For now, I'm concentrating my efforts on the attacks article page. As a local, there is a lot of misinformation on the topography going on, and I have to fix these issues time and again. Do watch the BN, CHU and RFA pages for now, I'm not too keen on looking there at this moment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ammo dump or warehouse?

Can you put some of your military expertise to this question: Talk:Delftsche Zwervers#Ammo dump or warehouse? --Egel _Reaction? 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

'Caulde' day

Thanks. It has cheered up my day. :) You've actually reminded me of the ArbCom elections – I'll have to get my supports and opposes in soon. Kind regards, Caulde 11:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're happier. Vote as you wish. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Email soon. Caulde 20:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

my vote

Thanks. I am reconsidering my vote, just want time to think bout it, I appreciate your taking the time to reply. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for reconsidering. Glad to clarify anything if you need me to. No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure – one of the values of this process is, it becomes one of the few venues for a community discussion of what is going on at Wikipedia and where it is going – whatever any candidate believes, it is a service to the community to discuss these issues thoughtfully, I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

typo

Hi, just wanted to let you know I edited a comment of yours on the Tutankhamun talk page. I try to refrain from doing this, but it said "edit warn", and it took me long enough to figure out you had meant "edit war", that it seemed to justify fixing it. Hope it's alright. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with changing my username    Juthani1   ^tcs 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Np. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sawadee krab!

Hello there rlevse. I saw you recently reverted one of my messages to another user. Anyways, i received a message from that user telling me I was engaging in some sort of edit war! Not sure what he's thinking or why you're reverting my message to him, but have a great day! User5802 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Where was this? Can you give a link or diff so I can look into it and refresh my memory? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry rlevse, I posted this in the wrong place! : ) User5802 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, np. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:144.136.148.19

User:144.136.148.19, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:144.136.148.19 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:144.136.148.19 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. smadge1 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page and made a note on the MFD. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My Day

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For brightening up a bleak, work-filled day, have this barnstar! And keep on bein' awesome! :D Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks so much! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you too! — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day R

Hope you're well – and I hope you don't mind me slightly jumping the gun by offering congrat.s, or sympathies, on the arb election – it's looking good (depending on your perspective :-)....

I'm actually writing about something else, and dropping you a line in your capacity as a checkuser. A while ago, Mackensen noted, in his role as a checkuser ombudsman, that at the individual checkuser's discretion, a checkuser is free to notify the subject of a check information concerning checks run – following this jpgordon let me know that I had been 'checkusered' 12 times, by 10 checkusers, on 9 dates – this was back in July.

Would you mind updating this information, to let me know when subsequent checks have been run :-) – no biggie, but I maintain an interest in this system – thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Emailed number stats only. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

received, replied, and much appreciated :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerking

Hi! I came across ArbCom a little over a year ago, and started looking at pages of it, although I did not put imput in it, since I feel the job should be left to people who are more experienced about it. I think now I am ready to become a clerk, though I'm not sure what ArbCom would think, so I am asking for your imput. Thanks. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll look into this for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider is being an admin. It's not required to do that to be a clerk, but it sure helps. Have you considered an WP:RFA? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tried to re-open old sockpuppet case

Hi, the automated sockpuppet reporting facility led me to inadvertently reopen an archived case of sockpupperty for user Andyvphil. Would appreciate you re-assessing the case. This person is the most disruptive editor I have encountered in several years on wikipedia. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Create a new case with the same name, but put a space then a 2 at the end, list it at WP:SSP, and add evidence to it. You need evidence, not just suspicions. Diffs are your friend. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing username

I got a message in my talk page regarding my user name. I confirmed adding a link to my global account--Xaverius 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your candidacy

Your notification, and your prompt answers are appreciated. 24 hours from now, I will be reviewing each candidate and preparing final votes. Thank you for your time, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Account only to be able to create redirects while drunk

You think that Account only to be able to create redirects while drunk (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of User:Account created to post on Reference Desk? I'm just saying. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible. I don't see the need for a CU though, both are blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for your attention. I am still mulling over your response to my questions – and the responses from other candidates, and generally reassessing my votes. Regardless of how I vote, it looks like you are doing well. I happen to think ArbCom is in need of serious reform and ultimately I think my votes will more be gestures of principle than anything that makes a big difference. Frankly I am still working out my own views and priorities.

• I think trolling is a major problem at WP and am distresed that the essay on trolls was removed from Wikipedia and moved to Wikimedia, and the "do not feed the trolls" warning was deleted, and that when in the past I responded wo a troll by posting "DNFTT" I was rebuked for having made a personal attack.
• I think WP:DE should be made a policy because in its present form at least (which is not to say it cannot be improved) I think it is the best tool against trolling. (I so not think other policies cover long, spread-out patterns of disruptive editing, and focus too much on single edits. Or they focus on the grossest forms of incivility when there are many subtle ways a person can derail consensus-building efforts. If you really do not think this guideline currently merits being made a policy, perhaps you can spell out what kinds of changes – I mean, edit it or comment on the talk page – would make it policy-worthy)
• I think there is a need for much greater transparency at ArbCom.
• I think ArbCom was created as a last resort in conflict resolution, at a time when we had a robust mediation mechanism – and I think 75% of the problems with ArbCom is that our mediation mechanisms have fallen apart and cases go too quickly to ArbCom when what we need is a clearer set of mediation mechanisms (binding, non-binding). ArbCom needs to refuse to accept more cases until they go through these steps
• I think the mission of ArbCom has expanded way too much ... it is not just a matter that it ought not be making policy, or acting likie a supremem court in providing authoritative interpretations of policy, I think it should limit itself as much as possible to conflicts directly related to editing articles.
• I think that ArbCom was designed NOT to make decisions concerning content disputes, but the result is that in conflicts we focus way too much on civility and not nearly enough on the what actually leads to quality articles...
• I think hierarchy is a serious problem here and while I agree with you that you cannot legislate equality, I think you can legislate hierarchy and various people have been trying to do that and their actions need to be rolled back.

Now, some of these issues may not be relevant to an ArbCom election, but given the importance ArbCom has taken in the past couple of years, and also given that Wikipedia seriously lacks forums for community discussion, this campaign/election process seems to be one of the few and best arenas for airing these issues. So I am saying all of this to be frank and honest with you about the things that are on my mind. None of this is in any way a criticism of any stance you have taken, but I am looking at all candidates to see (1) who may use ArbCom as a pulpit, or who as a member of ArbCom may work on its procedures in order to address these issues ... or (2) who will do everything possible to limit ArbCom's role in some of these "big" issues and instead – as editors, not as ArbCom members – push the community, through some sort of community forums, to address these issues so ArbCom will not have to. Of these two diametrically opposed strategies I am not even sure which one is best!! I just know some change is needed. So I am looking to candidates statement's to help me clarify my own thinking on the matter. I believe in AGF and I take it for granted that you take it for granted that even if (and if is the key word here, I am still considering/reconsidering) I end up not agreeing with you, it doesn't mean I have a negative opinion of you. Whatever my ultimate vote is, you can be sure of a few things: I do respect your work here, and know your candidacy is in good faith (which sadly I do not believe is the case for some people), and wish you luck. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. I'm on the way out the door, but I will respond more in depth. I agree with a lot of what you say here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My views on disruptive behavior and arb reform, including more transparency, are well known and stated in my arb stmt and answers. As for WP:DE, if the community could expand it to include how to actually deal with long term disruptive behavior it would make an effective policy. The community has soundly rejected arbcom making policy and I support that view, arbcom should not make policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I fear you may have misunderstood me – I agree completely ArbCom should not make policy. But you are not just a candidate for ArbCom, you are an editor, a member of the community, and it was only in that capacity that i ask the question about WP:DE. Whether you are or are not elected to ArbCom you are clearly a thoughtful member of the community and care about it, so I value your views on the matter. If you think that DE could become a good policy, I hope that you would edit it, or make concrete, constructive suggestions on its talk page ... not because you may be/become a member of ArbCom but simply because you have already shown yourself to be a throughtful and committed member of the community. (Similarly, I do not think ArbCom members can veto a policy proposal ... but assuming that other leading candidates for ArbCom are thoughtful and committed members of the community, I would want to know what objections they have to it as a guideline or as a potential policy. I know ArbCom members have to be careful about how they present themselves while editing articles or discussing policies ... I think in the past some administrators have in my opinion abused their authority by suggesting that because they are admins, their views on article content or policy should have more weight than those of other editors. I do not think this is true, of admins or of ArbCom members. But that doesn't mean that admins – or members of ArbCom – should stop editing articles or discussing improvements to policies, in their role as editors. I certainly hope you will not stop! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy day

This morning I left the house in the pitch dark, hideous traffic on the way to the station, train was late, bus from Paddington was standing room only and by the time I eventually got to work I was feeling very, very sorry for myself indeed. I then logged on, checked my watchlist and suddenly my mood lifted and my day was back on track – thank you! – what a lovely gesture. Nancy ^talk 09:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Arbcom

Hey Rlevse, I don't really have any "concerns" as such. I feel that you are a very mild-mannered, inoffensive person who picks his fights well, which is absolutely great for the positions you already hold. However I feel that people who are willing to take stronger stances on matters should be on Arbcom – not strong to the point of divisiveness of course, but certainly somewhat more willing to make their voice heard. I can't fault any of the work you have done, so please don't take offense if I feel I must abstain. None of the problems I have with your candidacy are bad things :) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have a fan

See User talk:Sawadeekrap. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That account was made before I put "Sawadee Krap" on my user page. It simply is the way a male would say "Hello" in Thailand. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... never knew that. I learned something new today. :D Master&Expert (Talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

I am curious as to why you interjected a rigid suggestion for a DYK process into the DYK talk page on the subject. I have not seen you around DYK, and I do not have a sense that you are familiar at all with the problems there, judging by your suggestion. You are the only person commenting so far who is not involved with DYK. I am wondering why you felt the need to make the suggestion. Could you enlighten me? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second that query. Your interjection, which ran wholly against the trend of the discussion, was made without any explanation at all, and risked reigniting a disagreement that after a week of pointless debate I had hoped to put behind us. I very much doubt you understand the underlying issues since you have had very little to do with DYK in the past. I also think your policy proposal is pointless, there is no need to take issues in one part of the project to the wider community unless there is strong dissent about something in particular.

I have to say that ATM I cannot imagine a reasonable defence for the positions you outlined, so have maintained my oppose at your arbcom candidacy, although I have downgraded it from "strong oppose" as I think I overreacted. I might be prepared to reconsider my vote if you would be willing to provide a reasonable defence of your views. Since it looks as though you will be elected, my vote is probably of little consequence and you will be elected in any case, but I would certainly appreciate the gesture. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

re: EmilEikS

I'm not sure if you recall this, but you determined that EmilEikS (talk · contribs) = EmilEik (talk · contribs) = Fiandonca (talk · contribs). Jehochman then blocked Fiandonca as a sockpuppet but didn't block EmilEikS to allow him to participate in the RfC, which he refused to do and instead "retired", effectively killing any outcome on the RfC. Since then, the IP 217.209.96.57 (talk · contribs) has popped up, editing the same articles as Emil, and protesting the same issues, using the same arguments and bad faith accusations, and trying to involve adminstrators, all of which is noted at User talk:Kingturtle#Mae West Grave. The IP admitted there that he/she is using the same computer as Fiandonca and EmilEikS, and like Fiandonca/Emil, make references to their "serious injury book" file they've compiled, made overt accusations of a "cabal of negative, personal editors [who are] persecuting Emil Eikner and the other users of this computer." The sockpuppet blocking was included, since apparently I am "so powerful that she has managed to get Emil and Fiandonca unfairly assessed as "sock puyppets" by an administrator who showed heavy bias in doing so." Since then, the IP has made serious accusations of cabalism and bad faith editing against myself and one or two other editors, all of whom work together congenially and usually without issues like this. I also noticed that the same IP that left the note at User talk:Kingturtle [47] is the one who removed Jehochman's sock puppet notice from the EmilEikS talk page [48]. According to WP:SHARE: Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. Since Fiandonca and Emil were determined to be the same, wouldn't this qualify as an ongoing block evasion? In any case, since this anonymous editor, who calls himself "Anonymous", has clearly admitted to editing from the same place and continues the problems that were present before, what should or can be done? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look at this tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed 217.21.225.53 (talk · contribs) = 217.209.96.57 (talk · contribs) = EmilEikS (talk · contribs) = EmilEik (talk · contribs) = Fiandonca (talk · contribs). The main IP appears after the block. All users show a narrow set of interests. There are no other users on these IPs, which you'd expect from a business IP. Behavior and comments are very similar. If you and admins already working this need more help, suggest ANI for more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I recognized this already. I do not yet see how the editing has violated WP:SOCK. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Rlevse--apologies for the error in my vote. I'm not sure why I believed you'd been on MedCom. For what it's worth, I have this as a general objection--nothing specific to yourself. In fact, I likely would have withheld my vote if it seemed likely to effect whether or not you were on the committee, as I have enormous respect particularly for your content work. Since you were situated comfortably, I decided to register my concern about the issue of many hats. --JayHenry (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the note. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You'll do well as a new arb, Rlevse! Congratulations again! --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

+Me, too; I think you know just what's ahead, so I'll not warn you about the amount of work entailed ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

+me Enigma ^message 08:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks! I think ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And congratulations from myself – I'm sure you'll do fantastic again as you have done consistantly through our encounters. Mattie^TK 12:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, my friend! Very best of luck to you in your new job. :) GlassCobra 20:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto :))))Taprobanus (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

code tweaksies

See here where I left Cas a note; I also tweaked to code of the 'Day' box, and if you've got a template you use for these, I can do the same; I could get the italic 'R' in there, too, as in your sig, if you like. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just update the code in the section here: User:Rlevse/Today. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done^{[49], [50]} Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the box you left on Sgeureka's talk page after closing the RfA (which I supported); it included </br> which is invalid; the proper form is <br /> (including the space). I also tidied closed motion page re mine; I noticed the typo in the word 'restrictions' and then the copy-pasted "anchorencode" so I did the {{sofixit}} trick. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The master for that is here: User:Rlevse/Tools#Admin stuff. It is a copy of the note Essjay put on my talk page when I became an admin. Can you fix that one? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done — I went ahead and did a few other bits, too, since you're seeming agreeable ;)

The diffs will look rather scary, but that's just the diff engine getting quite confused. Most of the changes were with a script, and I trust them a lot. I just redid your User:Rlevse/linkbox, too; html in wikitext is evil, unless, of course, there's a good reason for it; in this case, there wasn't and it will be a lot easier to maintain now and stuff centers nicely. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

more; I just tweaked User talk:Sgeureka, mostly to get your user name out of the links. You need to paste the user name in or this box needs to become a parametrized user template that you subst (preferred). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the admin promotion box a template where the new admin's name is a parameter? Also change the background color to NavahoWhite? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure; that's what I had in mind. I'll put it at a subpage in your userspace and drop you a note about it . Oh, I'll use a number, not 'NavahoWhite' ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

a test

by the power arrogated by my own self, I do make thee an Admin! (ah, again; no effect on other bits, my millage may vary, void in Florida)

Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

notes

'NavahoWhite' is spelled 'NavajoWhite' — a 'j' — and I've used the numeric equivalent #ffdead.

The above was created by subtituting;

• {{subst:User:Rlevse/IssueMop|Rlevse|Rlevse 2}}

where arg 1) is the username, and arg 2) is the username used on the RfA. If they're the same, omit the second, as so;

• {{subst:User:Rlevse/IssueMop|Rlevse}}

I have changed the link target for 'now an administrator' to give their log, not the whole log; seems right, to me. Compare with the one in the box on the tools page. If you'd prefer another page name, see 'move' ;)

(I resisted the urge to test this on my talk page)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, and NavaHo was a typo, I actually do know how to spell it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm chuffed, as the mates say. Disclaimer; I missed the typo on my first read ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

another test

Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator!
Useful Links: Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • New admin school Administrators' Noticeboard • Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents Administrators' Noticeboard for 3RR • Suspected sock puppets
Your admin logs: blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads

I've just tweaked things a bit further along. I recoded the 'My admin log' w/better syntax and generally nudged things. The specific links are, of course, an open-ended question and more might be nice. I broke the 'Useful links' to get things flowing nicely and on typical screen there's a fair bit of l/r space left; maybe a big fat mop icon on the left? This would probably mean that the centering of text would go, since much would be centered, but off-center (and look funny). I saw the wp:bn thread and smiled; thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Rlevse, just a message to express my thanks and gratitude! Your kindness on awarding me my own wikipedian day is most appreciated. I never got around to getting some pictures of the finished Scout complex on Brownsea Island, but will hopefully get some next year (unless someone else beats me to it!) Have a good Christmas period and thanks again. Best regards, LordHarris 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nimbley6

Many thanks! These socks have been driving me batty!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC maybe?

Your eminence,

If you have a moment, would you kindly take a glance at Towson United Methodist Church to see if it might be suitable for FAC? Many thanks,  JGHowes  ^talk 16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's close. But I'm not a good copyeditor, for that, try one of these people: User:Rlevse/Tools#Helpful and good FAC reviewers. You also try to a Peer Review beforehand too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

76.210.68.126 checkuser request

Can you use your magical checkuser powers to examine 76.210.68.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This user added flagrant vandalism to Joseph Farah which is now causing bad press for Wikipedia (see [51]). The same individual was obviously in possession of the IP for the six days it was used, but he claims on ANI that it is dynamic. I don't put very much stock in that claim, but just in the off chance that it is true, can you make sure that there aren't any good faith users that will be effected by a long-term hard block of that IP? Thanks. --B (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not very dynamic. Blocks up to one month would cause little collateral damage. No one else on that specific IP either. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was stunned when I saw the article posted on WR and then looked at the history and saw that the IP had not been blocked. Dealing with vandalism to BLPs is really something that Wikipedia fails horribly on. --B (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving of Alastair Haines amendment case

Earlier today you archived this case due to a motion having passed regarding Abtract. Abtract's conduct was not the primary focus of the case. The original issues (which can be seen in John Vandenbergs initial statement) were: 1) Should enforcement of users' sanctions be reserved for uninvolved editors, and 2) should something be done to prevent further violations. The Abtract issue was secondary and raised later, and there was still an outstanding vote on whether Alastair should be banned. Now, I don't think this latter motion would (or should) have passed, and given Alastair's current activity I don't think any more motions would have been necessary, but I feel the case should have been brought to a proper conclusion. Anything else stinks of the kind of Arbcom laziness that I'm increasingly (and disappointedly) growing to expect. Ilkali (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:AC/C/N#Other work. Brad told us to close it. And at 1-5, the other motion would not have passed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the regulations here. What part of his message meant 'close the case'? The 'post' part? If so, that's some unusual terminology.

"at 1-5, the other motion would not have passed". At point of archival, the text indicated that 7 votes would be a majority, so unless something changed, five votes would not be definitive. I'd be fine with could not, but would not sounds like speculation. Ilkali (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Rlevse, thank you for informing me of the committee's decision. Please be advised that Abtract has not interacted with me since the motion was proposed. I wish to vouch for his apparent seriousness in respecting your decisions, even from hearing of their proposal. Far from being blinded by our personal interactions, I can see he is a quality editor and trust others to continue to encourage him in the many good things he has to offer Wikipedia.

I also note Ilkali's post above. I have commented elsewhere that I believe the focus in this case has been misplaced, and perhaps that is becoming more evident over time. There may be some outstanding issues that could need a little tweaking. I wish to encourage you that I will seek every avenue to resolve any ongoing issues in a manner that allows the committee as much freedom as possible to protect not only the text of the encyclopedia, but the happy management of its many committed volunteers.

Thank you for time taken associated with this case. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and fyi Brad told us to close it. If there are remaining issues, they need to ask the arbs about them or file a new RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Awfully sorry to trouble you, but it seems I was wrong about Abtract. I'm not quite sure where to report this most discretely. Not only does this involve insisting on a deletion he knows I've objected to. It obviously involves one clearly relevant source; and the additional material is (as I noted on the page's talk previously) sourced on other works cited in the body of the article. I'll keep my part of the bargain, and leave Abtract alone. But I would like the text restored or discussed with me please. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The place to report arbcom restrictions is at WP:AE. Note below here on my talk page he links to his stated intent to ignore his restrictions. Also note he has previously edited the page where he reverted you. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do exactly what you say. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What an unusual motion!

Think you made a mistake here Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

oops, hope I fixed now. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for CU check

Rlevse, if it is possible could you do a CU check on Guido den Broeder to see if there is any possible sockpuppeteering happening at the moment? I've been looking over some past diffs – one example – and the user is currently the subject of a ban proposal on ANI. Any information would be helpful. Regards, Caulde 19:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I support this request. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tishtosh20 seems to be the same as the IP, as well. --Smashville^talk 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen him/her living in my house though. Please try to refrain from assumptions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I said the same as the IP. --Smashville^talk 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a tad fishy, got any more evidence? And consider this, a simple geolocate, which anyone can run, shows that IP as being in the London area, so unless Guido lives in London, that isn't him. His userpage seems to point to him living in the Netherlands. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience with Guido, he is not likely to be sockpuppeteering. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your attention

is directed here: [52] Abtract (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was only the clerk on that. I am not at the moment an arb. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of judgment

Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu from the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.

In this interval between the close of Arbcom voting and whatever comes next, this could be a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy -- with an emphasis not in the original:

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604

I hope this becomes helpful in the year ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting and wise, thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorly ^talk 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Relist?

If there have be no !votes at all at an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotec) and it's time to close, should I relist or can it be deleted because no one's expressed concern or dissent? Thanks in advance, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

I cast my !vote. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. Thanks (and great job at the election, by the way!), Rlevse. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU Tajik

Well done! -- Avi (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I finally figured out how to use CU ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You've inspired me

You inspired me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Neato fellow Eagle. We need more recognition of positive contributions. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse/Prologue

Phaedriel's orchid

Top stuff is now in the above subpage; shared by user and talk page. It does not use the {{administrator}} template anymore, so you're safe from folks who might edit that. Your user page is rather similar in structure to Cas's, which I just had my way with. Seems you both are fans of Phaedriel — with whom I had a number of pleasant chats. Old versions of my user page contain several lovely paintings she gifted me with; I'll be fetching those back to the current page at some point. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the trout on Cas's and my pages; added class="plainlinks" on the wrapper-div.

If you would like him back, I'll do it tomorrow; or some other icon there. The lock icon issue will manifest on any full url link on an icon, and the fix will work for any of them. Let me know. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The trout still shows on the left of his page. I'll pass. Thanks for all the tweaks! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Ya, I intend the trout be on the left. All the cool folks have their best icon there ;) It could be a scouting fleur-de-lis top-left; my concern is more with the layout mechanism than any specific icon. The issue with the lock should be sorted, though. I'm not sure if I purged the secure:cache (or if they're actually distinct). I dropped Cas a note about the naming of orchids; someone will know. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Happy First Day of Winter!

A stand of Pine trees beautifully coated in winter snow.

Wishing you a Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Winter}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, neat. Many thanks. I'll do my best, of course. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the ArbCom appointment! Chuckiesdad (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully your experience will be better than that of part arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the pile-on! Congrats on Arbcom! Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedian

It just isn't the same without the poetry. Still, glad to see the legacy is being continued :) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks, I'm not much of a poet ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You and me both; I always find it amusing that I've never read a Brontë novel in my life (the closest I've got is Genesis and Kate Bush), even though I live in the eponymous country. And the Pennines really are wuthering, especially if you head out west away from the mill towns. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Access granted

Your Oversight access has been granted per request at Meta. Thanks and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry I missed you earlier. What's up? — Dan | talk 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I found someone else. Tks for checking. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Question re IPBE

Nick_Cooper has been autoblocked about a million times. I was going to just give him IPBE, but his talk page is not incredibly encouraging. What do you think? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, no blocks himself but someone close to his IP range gets blocked. See if there's a connection, if not, give him IPBE. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But... if he's getting autoblocked, how do I check for a connection? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the IP or user who was blocked, then do an SSP-like investigation, if he looks like the sock of the direct blockee, no IPBE, if you find nothing, give him IPBE. If you have more questions, ask. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sawadee krap

Is that really hello? Garden. 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sawadee is hello, krap is what a Thai male says to be polite, women say Kaa. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! You see, in most places krap is anything but polite :D Garden. 22:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I know. Such things are common in the world's language differences. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Day

Hi Rlevse, thanks for the "Awesome Wikipedian of the Day" award; the thought means a lot. :) I wasn't online this weekend when I received it, but nevermind, that's all right. :) Thanks again for the award, and good luck on your new appointment to ArbCom: I'm sure you'll do well. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 20:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You earned it and no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Please log on as soon as possible. ayematthew ✡ 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You were not there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was out :-( Come on, now. ayematthew ✡ 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist

An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks, but I will probably recuse from that. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup notice

The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew ✡ and Garden. 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and congrats to you, Rlevse! You're gonna make an outstanding Arb :-) – Just remember: I scratched your back, so, if any cases come up where I've been a bad boy, you'll know to reject them, right? Good man. Have a great New Year and keep it safe! (Disclaimer – I am whole heartedly joking about that corruption/bribery thing) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

NP. I need a good laugh. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

MERRY CHRISTMAS (or other winter holiday) AND A HAPPY GAMEDAY

--B (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Go Tech! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks I'm looking forward to it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks, but I'm a little surprised. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Rlevse, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know – I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That tune was neat, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Rlevse! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Again, merry Christmas! Ashbey 00:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't celebrate Christmas, then happy holidays!

Email addresses as usernames

I don't remember exactly when, just that some time ago others' comments on the page suggested that email addresses were not per se blockable. I will ask rspeer, who's usually the biggest advocate of a lenient username policy, to see if he knows exactly when this change was made. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to pretty much disagree with it, unless the person can prove it's his own. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, that misses the point. You're discussing whether the name is appropriate or not, while Daniel Case is discussing whether blocking is appropriate or not. If someone has an e-mail address as their username, there are a number of reasons that they should change it. However, when you want someone to change their username, blocking is not the first resort.

This is especially true in cases like this that can easily be attributed to good faith mistakes. (Something like half of the sites you need to register for on the Web have you enter your e-mail address as a username; doing so on Wikipedia should get you a welcome and an explanation, not a block.) rspεεr (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

William D. Boyce

Hi Rlevse! First of all, congrats on your successful arb campaign! I am glad that someone with experience in administrative matters as well as strong content contributions was appointed. Now, as to your request for the William Boyce copy-edit, I have already streamlined the prose in the "Personal life" subsection, and left a couple inline comments (I see that you addressed most of them, I left one more). Hopefully, I will be able to finish the job tomorrow. I have already been to church, and will not be too busy until noon central time (18:00 UTC) and should be able to finish amid the preparations for festivities. Hope all is well on your end. Merry Christmas, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tks, whenever you have time is fine, it is the holiday season, appreciate all help. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

File:Christmas tree.gif		Merry Christmas!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hopefully this one has made your Christmas better. Cheers, and Happy editing! MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Wiki-style

• MediaWiki talk:Common.css#captions are off-center

which has fixed a huge number of pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Rlevse, Merry Christmas!

Rlevse,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Merry Christmas, my dear Rlevse!

A special message, just for you! → → → →

Happy holidays, R!!

May your holidays be filled with family, friends, and fun, and may the new year bring you much joy. And for everything you've done this year for me, thank you, mere words will never be enough to express how much your friendship and support means to me. ~*Giant Ariel Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As with many designs on Wikipedia, this one was of course, inspired by the wonderfully talented Phaedriel, the "design Obi Wan".

Thanks Lady Ariel! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

contents on Nazism in Intrauterine device

I am a sysop at chinese wikipedia, today when I checked interwiki Intrauterine device on en wikipedia , I found the page was full of red and with contents on Nazism like this:

<div style="overflow: visible; position: fixed; left: 0%; top: 0%;">
<table border="2">
<tbody><tr>
<td bgcolor="black"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="red">
<center>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">"We must protect our white nation</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">And murder the savage subhuman</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">Jews, Niggers, and Muslims."</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">- American Nazi Party and Consultec Software Founder rm'd</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">To donate, contact us at:</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">40 SQUANNACOOK DR</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">GROTON, MA 01450</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">rm'd</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">You're help to kill the black and zionist beasts</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">is greatly appreciated.</font></p>
<p><font color="white" size="+2">Heil Hitler and White America</font></p>
<div class="center">
<div class="thumb tnone">
<div class="thumbinner" style="width: 402px;"><font color="white" size="+2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg" class="image" title=""><img alt="" src="Intrauterine_device_files/400px-Flag_of_Germany_1933.png" class="thumbimage" border="0" width="400" height="240"></a></font>
<div class="thumbcaption">
<div class="magnify"><font color="white" size="+2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg" class="internal" title="放大"><img src="Intrauterine_device_files/magnify-clip.png" alt="" width="15" height="11"></a></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

code redacted per WP:BEANS and Page widening Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried different browsers , but this problem always exists. When I logged out there's no problem. I'm wondering why this thing could happen? Is there any way to solve this problem? Thank you.--Kegns (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#contents on Nazism in Intrauterine device, we can continue there, I commented there. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a spree of template vandalism and is being dealt with. To see if an article template has been vandalized, select Related Changes in the left-hand toolbox, then change the namespace to template. In this case, you will see that {{as of}} was vandalized, reverted and protected. You may need to refresh or purge to clear this out. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is conferred to Rlevse for all his hard mopping work. butterfly (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf (talk · contribs · block log)

I noticed via his block log that you indef-blocked him back in late 2007, and he hasn't been unblocked since. Does that mean ColourWolf is banned? If so I will add him to WP:LOBU, as well as adding {{banned user}} to his userpage. Please respond on my talk page. (You can get there by clicking on the 620 in my signature.) --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 14:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf already has an LTA page, FWIW. But I'll take your reply as a green light to advance. Congrats on becoming an arbitrator, BTW. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 15:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the below thread on your "awesome Wikipedian" thing, is it possible to suggest other users? I would like to make a suggestion. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On his userpage, he says to suggest users via Special:EmailUser/Rlevse. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Happy Roger Davies's Day!

I'm extraordinarily honoured (and falling on Christmas Day too): thank you very much indeed :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Closer tool and re-relisting

Hey Rlevse, I need your opinion on this. A bit ago I relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Alter (using Z-man's AfD closer tool) and I somehow put it in the October AfD log, see my talk page for the diff. So, I have to place the AfD in the proper log, but I don't know where it belongs now, since it's been in the wrong place for about a week or so.

NB — the AfD closer tool has been causing some problems for me since I installed it, and for the first time on Wikipedia I can candidly say it's not my computer's fault. The same thing happens at the library computers, so I think it may be a bug, though I can't be sure.

Any ideas?

—Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never used that tool but just move the entry from the Oct log to the Dec log of about a week ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: William D. Boyce

Wow, that new lead looks great. Sorry that I never got a chance to help out much, but Nishkid did a better job than I could have. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Crat Stats

I'd be hopeless! My abilities with wikimarkup are poor, as is my basic arithmetic. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

TRM is quite good with tables etc, so maybe him when he gets back. But it needn't be a Crat – could really be anyone reliable. How about advertising the vacancy at BN? --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea and TRM will be gone for awhile still. Feel free to post on BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do this, perhaps. Majorly talk 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, see comment at BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much, Rlevse. I am both touched and honored. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeting

Wish you a happy new year.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup

Delivered by neuro^(talk) for Garden and ayematthew at 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Rlevse was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On December 31, 2008, User:Rlevse was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Erin Heatherton was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

Happy New Year – the inscription is in the description. --David Shankbone 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm humbled. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)