User talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, RlevseTalkArchive8!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Burnham ref

Here's what I pulled down on it via Google -- it's a Word document. [1] I'm sure there must be a better cite for this, it just seemed weird not to reference anyone, and this was all I could track down. BYT 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

HST

Want to make sure I know what I'm looking at. Is it this disagreement over the formatting on the cabinet box? [2] Question before the house is not related to text in article, I mean? BYT 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. but the one gadget came up with after I left you a note is fine with me.Rlevse 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. BYT —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

Hey Rlevse!
Congratulations on finding the page that does not exist. Here is your reward; you've earned it.

The Hidden Link Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Rlevse for finding the super secret hidden link on Selfworm's page!
Good job!

Congrats! selfwormTalk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 40 1 October 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox" News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST
Automatically delivered by COBot 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :D

Thanks Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive8
I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.

Regards, nattang 04:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Promise

On my honor, I will try, To serve God, and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout law.

Yeah, I'll have to look it over in the next few days, especially if someone is changing the pledge. I'm bogged with school now though. DarthGriz98 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to try and nominate it for Halloween for the main page since that's Low's birthday, it seems like a significant enough anniversary seeing how some people nominate dates because they just made FA and want it up there soon. Although, I can see why it may be hard getting it on that day due to it being Halloween. DarthGriz98 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is they are being anal retentive about only having 5 requests up at a time. DarthGriz98 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

THAT WAS ONLY 90 SECONDS AGO FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!Rlevse 21
55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Resistance is futile. The bots will assimilate you. --B 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
really, that's no joke either.Rlevse 22:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem user.

User:Thistime19 is make repeated and unneccessary edits to the article for the band The Used --Zero Cool 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. Vandalism goes to WP:AIV. Content disputes should be settled on the talk page. Page protection at WP:RFPP is an option. What exactly are you asking for?Rlevse 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi! Just now read your message. I have been away for way to long. I will try to get back and help. Cheers. Anagnorisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.147.39 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

COBot Changes

Thanks, I wished I would have known about those conversations because I do not agree with their decission. I agree with the argument that some awards are relatively minor and don't rate to be a category but even in the case of the Medal of Honor with relatively few recipients the lists are extremely long and must be split up on multiple pages. If we create lists for recipients of the Air Medal which has many more recipients the lists may be thousands of members long or span a large number of pages. Too late now though I guess, just my 2 cents.--Kumioko 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

  • Thank you for your message, at User talk:24.0.42.27. Can you please warn Rorybowman (talk · contribs) at his talk page ? Also, can you please delete the user page he inappropriately created in the first place, for User:24.0.42.27 ? Thank you for your time and your actions in this matter. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
    • I also have no idea what this edit is about, [3], but can you delete that page as well? Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
Done, that was strange. Rlevse 12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A block may be in order here, as Rorybowman (talk · contribs) did not just once attempt to expose an ID, but then reverted me after I removed this exposing info from the page, and put the exposing info back, a second time, with a disparaging remark about me, no less. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
If he does it again, now that he's been warned, let me know. Also let me know if he harasses you in anyway. The creation of the special contribs page makes me suspicious, but for now I'll try to assume good faith. Have you two been in a edit conflict or debate over something? Rlevse 12:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of, no. But his actions are indeed very troubling to me. However if you feel that (two) attempts to expose someone's offline identity do not warrant a block, I will not raise objections. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
Generally, it is preferred one tries to talk to and/or warn on an issue before blocking. As the info is now only available to admins and he's been warned, I'd have no problem blocking on a next occurrence. I'm trying to find the official policy on this right now for more guidance. Rlevse 13:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
See my post to his talk page. Now that he no-doubt will know the seriousness of this, an indef block would be in line for a next vio. You may want to take a look at WP:Oversight and Wikipedia:Request for oversight. Rlevse 13:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More serious, exposing identity in offline postings

  • This is more serious than I had previously thought. Rorybowman (talk · contribs) (I am NOT trying to expose anyone's identity here myself, but the username is exactly the same as described in this profile) - is attempting to expose the offline identity of User:24.0.42.27, not just in Wikipedia postings, but also in offline blog postings and personal attacks, here - [4] (see the post of 09 August 2007 @ 07:24 pm, entitled "Wikipedia".) Relevant text of that post (though there are links in the text to identifying contributions on Wikipedia: "Then that RickRossIsAdick.com guy made fun of me on Wickedpedia so I had to go all John Mackey on his ass and defend my good name." Something should be done about this, this smacks of online and offline harassment, in my opinion, but I would imagine must be a violation of policies. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
Good info and aids the case, but it was back in August. Rlevse 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It may have been back in August, but it does appear that the postings themselves continue as recently as October 5, 2007. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
I don't see a privacy issue in that one. Rlevse 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely of concern, but he's not done any more privacy exposures that I can see. Rlevse 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that monitoring is best at the moment, okay. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
This is a new area for me, so I've asked for input from other admins at WP:AN#Request_input_on_privacy_vio_case, you may want to keep an eye on it.Rlevse 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Still a problem with this user

  • Hello sorry to trouble you. DIFF. Thanks for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Also could you please delete that user's user page, again? This user never created his/her own user page, so it is inappropriate for someone else to do so. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
Done, and sternly warned user.Rlevse 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, and thank you so much for your attention to this serious matter, but I am concerned that at what point does this type of inappropriate behaviour, recreating a user page after being warned already, and continually attempting to violate privacy of anons, warrant a block on Wikipedia ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
    • There are two separate things going on here, a) the privacy issues--I have not seen any posted since the warning on this and b) add stuff to the user page (albeit an anon IP). This case could go to ArbCom and when I asked for other admin input, one consistent thing was to make sure the warnings were all in order. We don't want it backfiring, afterall. Has he violated privacy rules since 13:17, 7 October 2007 or has he added to the user page since 13:16, 9 October 2007? I have not found any, if you have, by all means let me know. If there are privacy pieces left from before that, they can be deleted, like I deleted the anon IP user page. Part of this is that I have not handled such a case before--my admin experience is mostly in vandalism, username violations, 3RR, etc. Rlevse 20:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You make very good points, and thank you for the warnings, I just don't think they have done very good or made an impression so far, if you follow the user's behavior. A block may be what is needed to stop this type of inappropriate behavior and activity on Wikipedia related to his determination to expose someone's offline identity - and, as I have shown above, even going so far as to have an off-line blog that does the same pattern of inappropriate behavior. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
        • If they haven't done any good, what has he done since then? It seems you're saying he's doing the same things. Can you provide links?Rlevse 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh. I thought I already had above, he attempted to investigate and reveal identity of an anon user once, then was warned, then did it again, then was warned, then denied it was wrong on a talk page, then was warned, then redirected the user page, then was warned ... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

Guide to layout

I noticed you cited WP:GTL in a recent edit changing the order of appendices in Billings ovulation method. I think the change you made is fine, but just wanted to point out that the Guide leaves such things up to the discretion of editors. From Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, Note 1: It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices. LyrlTalk C 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ya, but there's something to be said for consistency.Rlevse 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: WikiBreak

Hi there. I thought about removing it. But, I'm still going to be on very limited editing for at least the rest of the month. (RL)

The WikiBreak has been good to stave off burnout. While I've been gone, seems like Wikipedia feels different. Many more deletionists.

How's your WikiLife been?

— ERcheck (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Username policy

Hello, Rlevse. :) I see by your history that you contribute to WP:UAA. Another editor has approached me to ask about User:GM Chrysler. I have not had much experience with enforcing the username policy and hoped that I might either invite input from you or pass it over to an admin who has. It seems to me that the name may be in violation of username policy even though the individual is not using it to promote the company. While it is not a vandalism-only account, his efforts at [[Screw (disambiguation}]] are the sort of activity that could cause the company embarrassment. I'd be grateful for advice on how to proceed with this...or, as I said above, to bow out and let you handle it if you're so inclined. --Moonriddengirl 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'd do in this case: ask him to change his name--you can use the template found at WP:UAA and WP:RFCN if you like, wait for a response--2 days is plenty. If he actually files for a name change, leave it at that. If not, report to WP:RFCN. Many similar cases have come up and they almost always get blocked if they don't file for a name change. While it is true so far he hasn't spammed, he has been uncivil and could embarrass the company. The username policy says names matching companies are not allowed especially if they spam. It doesn't say only if they spam. So spamming in such a case would guarantee a block, without spamming it is still highly likely. Hope this helps. Rlevse 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. :) I'll take it that way. --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rlevse, it was I who requested Moon's help. I'm not sure how well the username change issue will fly with the user, he's not been exactly civil towards others in the brief time he's been registered (I was actually requested by someone else to look into his actions, lol) so we'll see what happens with that I guess. I would think that the huge name recognition with the name would be enough to just send it to WP:UAA, even if it isn't promotional or related to the company, just the fact that nearly every American would know exactly what that company is, should be enough to qualify for a disallow at UAA. But that's just how I thought about it. ~*Shrug*~ Ariel♥Gold 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You could try UAA and it may fly (diffeent admins will call things differently sometimes), the reason I went this route on this case is that a dialog was already started.Rlevse 14:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, understandable. It would be pretty rude to block him after he'd already been engaged in conversation by another editor, even if it wasn't related to the username. Thanks again, we'll see what happens with it. Ariel♥Gold 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Rlevse 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've noticed this user tends to be active between midnight and 2am US CDT. I don't know about other times. And thanks to all for helping out with this issue, on all levels. --MikeVitale 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and dropped the tag on his page. Hope that's okay. Rlevse 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I got an edit conflict with my note, but as I said above I am perfectly happy for you to step in. :) I think your approach is a good one. The user's history shows some constructive edits and while his response at Screw (disambiguation) was decidedly uncivil, there's no reason to bystep ordinary procedure. --Moonriddengirl 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh hey, yes that's awesome, thank you! And hey while I've got your ear (euphemistically speaking), what happens when an editor who was blocked for an inappropriate username, requests to be unblocked to rename, which is granted, but then continues to edit under the very inappropriate username? I ran into that this morning as well, and didn't have anyone awake to ask about it, lol. And, another quick one I'm on the fence with: User:I Am Murderman. He's basically admitting he's a murderer? (WP:U re: relating to real life violence). That one threw me too, not sure what to do with it. Ariel♥Gold 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I reblocked the Fukhed66 and left a note on his talk page and blocked I Am Murderman as a vio of the violent act clause.Rlevse 14:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL You rock, thanks! I promise that's all I had saved up overnight for admin attention, so I'll stop bugging you now! Hee hee. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Poo thrasher

You banned Poo thrasher but User:Oh come on pulease seems to be his socket puppet.GordyB 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Poo thrasher was a username block and yes, the new one is obviously the same guy, but now there is the issue of trolling/vandalism. Let me look at it more. Rlevse 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Oh come on pulease. Rlevse 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Scout from Poland :)

Hi!

I think you are a scout :) Me too I am from Poland, and I have a task from my scout group I have to find a scout from USA or England, and talk with him about somethink:)

I hope you help me :)

My e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omiec (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Wanted to make sure you were aware of the RFU at User_talk:Netmonger. I took a quick look and couldn't find anything egregious, just petty back and forth stuff. The prior blocks were noted as being an error (see the block log) and the "bearnstar" did look like a good faith effort to bury the hatchet. Please advise if I'm missing something. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the email in this block is truly from him, the previous block was likely not an error. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
These comments weren't exactly helpful either... [5], [6]. Dreadstar † 04:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The troll thing is tacky but hardly deserving of 72 hours on its own. The email issue seems to be unresolved. I hadn't seen the userbox though, and that makes it look more like a pattern deserving of a multi-day block. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, responded on netmonger's page.Rlevse 10:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse! you have a too big heart, but it should reach others properly.Regentsstag 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The pattern is what concerned me too, there were no individual edits that were sufficiently egregious for a long block - and since the source of the email is up in the air, we'll have to see how things go moving forward - hopefully this will be the end of it. I think you handled this very well, Rlevse, showing good faith and understanding! Dreadstar † 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, both Regentsstag and Dreadstar Rlevse 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure! Dreadstar † 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I received another harassing e-mail from Netmonger. Would you like for me to forward it to you? Wiki Raja 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Do not delete the email until this is long over. Do two things: forward it to me, and also send it via reply, but attach the original email as a file. If you have Outlook, you do it by hitting reply, click attach, hit the drop box and select item, them select the original email. We need to preserve the header info. Rlevse 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

UAA

Hi Rlevse! Nobody seems to be manning the desk at WP:UAA, can you pop over and take a look if you've got a minute, pretty please? It has been an hour since the last activity. Ariel♥Gold 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I totally agree. And I always agree with everything m'lady ArielGold has to say anyway....;) Dreadstar † 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you set me in the right direction?

It's always been difficult for me to navigate through Wikipedia. When I have certain questions or concerns to be brought up I'm never quite sure where to ask or to bring it to attention. I do not know about you in particular (except that you might know your way around here), but how were you able to find your feet here and know where to go/what to do to make a difference and be productive. Could you point me to any place in particular where I can get some answers on a number of general questions?

Thanks for your time Shimdidly 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help_desk, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User or just strike up a relationship with some user you like. Personally, I did it through the school of hard knocks. Let me know if you have more questions. Where did you notice me? Rlevse 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your blocking of User:God doesn't exist

The user name probably warrant a block, but it might not be appropriate for you to block it. As both you and the user are involved in the RFCN/GodDelusion debate for the very reason of your block, your blocking of that account might appear as a conflict of interest. SYSS Mouse 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... why? Blocking or banning a user to gain an advantage is one thing, but this is a technical violation - that person is free to edit and comment on that RFC - just not with this name. There is nothing wrong with Rlevse making the block. --B 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern SYSS Mouse, but that was reported to WP:UAA, which I patrol regularly and it's an obvious violation. However, B is correct, the block was not used to gain any sort of advantage. See also the comment by Mangojuice on the closing of this at WP:RFCN. The block was for vio of the name policy, not it's participation at RFCN. If you look at his contribs, it's obvious it was a troll account. You may also want to see the stmt ArielGold made when she put it at UAA.Rlevse 09:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
SYSS Mouse, so you don't have to dig for it, you can view my report here. I ran across the name during recent changes patrol, and it is a name that would make it nearly impossible to have harmonious editing, especially given the editor's contributions. I reported it without a moment's hesitation, but I do truly appreciate your diligence in making sure there was no conflict of interest. I can assure you that I did not confer with Rlevse prior to submitting the name to WP:UAA, and was unaware of any prior interaction between the two of them. I hope that helps explain the issue. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 07:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Willieboyisaloser

Rlevse, Willie boy is my pet name, and i do not take offence at it. I have dyspraxia and i often refer to myself as a loser. i am not clinically depressed so it is not insulting. I quite like it actually. Would you prefer i was called jaffa cake? Peace out. (Willieboyisaloser 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what that jaffa cake means, but if "...is a loser" is okay with you, okay. But you're not a loser, you may want to change it. Rlevse 17:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A jaffa cake is an item of confectionery with a chocolate cover and an orange centre made of something or other. Go figure. PS I am not changing the username!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even if it doesnt fit the wikipedia standards. (Willieboyisaloser 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Minivans.

Hey man, I have a couple of issues that you many need to resolve with the GM Minivan vandal.

First of all, I forgot about the page Saturn Relay. he is also pushing his POV there, I simply forgot about it. Could you semi protect it?

Second, because of the the nature of this guy, one week semi-protection simply isn't enough. When he was pushing his POV and editwarring with different Ips at Opel Sintra, I got the page semi protected for a week. He simply waited the semi protection out and went back to POV pushing there. On that note, I think that all these pages need indefinite semi protection if we want this guy to finally stop, as he seems to be really determined to gloss up the GM minivan's pages. When we think he has finally done, then we can remove the protection. Karrmann 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HOw long has this been going on?

Greengreg (talk · contribs)

Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. :) GreenJoe 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrol vs. unit

Hello, I didn't know where to post this question, but seeing how I usually get my answers from you I thought I might post it here. Is there any difference between a scout patrol and a scout unit? /Natox 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the rest of the world due to all the different organization structures and terms in use, but in the BSA, a unit means either a Cub Scout Pack, Boy Scout Troop, Venture Crew, Varsity team, or Sea Scout Ship; in other words a single functioning group with its own boy and adult leaders. A patrol specifically refers to a Boy Scout Troop's subdivisions. A Boy Scout Troop splits the boys into patrols of 6-8 boys each and uses BP's Patrol method. A troop could have from one to several patrols. The Cub Scout equivalent of a patrol is a den. Does this help?Rlevse 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)...troops, packs, etc form districts, districts form councils, etc. Rlevse 18:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it helped, I think. But it raised another question, what is the difference between a Scout Group and a Scout Troop/Pack? /Natox 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Or, could you say that the different units (troops, packs, patrols etc.) forms Scout Groups consisting of one or more units. Then the Scout Groups form Scout Districts that forms a scout association. If I'm totally wrong, purhapse you could explain it like som sort of hierarchy? /Natox 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
A) A patrol is not a scout unit, it's part of a troop. B) Scout Group is a British term, it's not used in America. I had the same question once and asked a British Scout Leader. See the thread here. There's no BSA equivalent of a Scout Group, but interestingly the GSUSA is built very similar to the Britsh system. Less confused? Rlevse 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Okey, thanks. I think it was the difference between TSA/BSA that confused me the most. Sweden's system is more like the Brittish one I think. We have almost the same levels. I don't think we have an equivalent of a Patrol. The Unit is the smallest part, consisting of 6-8 Scouts, then there's just the individuals. Thanks again. So, the smallest part is the patrol, consisting of 6-8 Scouts. The Patrols are a part of a Unit and so on? /Natox 06:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A patrol is part of Troop (11-17 year olds). Saying unit also includes Cub Packs, etc. In Packs, the equivalent of a patrol is a den. Rlevse 11:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

E. Urner Goodman

Greetings, Rlevse - It's been awhile now since E. Urner Goodman was last reviewed. I've done a major rewrite to address some of the previous shortcomings, hopefully it can be upgraded from B Class. Let me know what you think. Regards, JGHowes talk - 02:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The next step would be Good Article, which you get through WP:GAC. But, I don't think it's ready for that. I'll help you improve it though if you want. I'll look at it more over the next few days, okay? Rlevse 03:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be greatly appreciated -JGHowes talk - 03:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Rlevse on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Rlevse. Thanks. --Rlevse 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your advice requested

Hi, Rlevse. Do you have an opinion on this, which is transcluded into the editor's userpage and talk page? I've tried to raise the issue with the editor here, where my concerns are set out, but so far with little success. Thanks. --Rrburke(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved --Rrburke(talk) 12:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Enjoying one of the last few decent camping weekends left this year, no doubt. Unless you winter-camp, too: in which case, hats off to you: you're mad.
The particular problem I was approaching you about was solved, but there are others involving the same editor. In particular, the display on his userpage of two userboxes -- User:Allstarecho/bushrevert and User:Allstarecho/bushvandal, especially the latter -- that strike me as divisive. I presume I should begin yet again with a polite request that they be removed, but I thought I'd ask for your opinion on them before doing so.
My personal feeling is that the display of politically-oriented userboxes, of which there has been a regrettable explosion, are inherently divisive and detract from the primary purpose of building an encyclopedia, but that genie appears to be out of the bottle. But whatever one's feelings about such userboxes in general, one that begins "this user hates" is probably over any line you want to draw. --Rrburke(talk) 14:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask a non-specific question at WP:AN. This has come up before and I think the rule is that you can put whatever you want on your userpage as long as it's not stuff like pornography, inciting violence, personal info, etc. Rlevse 14:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It was WP:Userboxes#Content restrictions and WP:Userboxes#Potentially divisive words I had in mind. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 16:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

See this WP:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. Rlevse 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar --B 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar opened

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)(copied to here by me from WP:AN). Rlevse 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Category name

If you had a better suggestion for the name of Category:General presidents of the Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I would have liked to hear it. The change I suggested was based entirely upon consensus decisions from previous CFDs, not on my own preference for naming. I would have liked something shorter, but previous CFDs overruled my opinion on that. Snocrates 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't see this until some bot changed and article I watch with that cat. My suggestion would have been to leave well enough alone. Rlevse 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Scouts

Did you mean to delete the references to BB members being at Brownsea? If so why? Thanks Albatross2147 08:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For Brownsea Scout article, it was already in the body of the article and didn't need to be in the lead. As an item of detail and not an item of summary, the body is where it belongs. For the main Brownsea article, I moved it to the body. Rlevse 09:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42 15 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Foolishita

Just to say, I don't think there's any indication that that name is really a violation - it appears to be a contracted "Foolish Ita", and google tells me that Ita is a name. The name doesn't seem to parse with the "shit" considered a component word. Just thought you might like to know. SamBC(talk) 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

hmm. it could also be construed as "Fool of shit a", which is how I saw it. Hmmm. Thanks for the tip. Not sure what to do about this one. Rlevse 11:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
May I just ask what Fool of shit a is supposed to mean?! Ryan Postlethwaite 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
a play on "Full of shit". Unblock it if you like. Rlevse 11:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your 'civil warning'

Hi, aside from not templating regulars WP:TEMPLAR, I did not make a personal attack. I said that the reasoning behind was "I alone think a move should happen. He alone thinks one shouldn't happen. I'll do the move." was stupid, and if you can't see that it is then I am very sorry. As I said, it was not a personal attack and I have removed your warning from my talkpage.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the template because discssing it seemed to have no effect on you. Removing it admits you saw it. Calling his reasoning stupid is calling him stupid, if you don't see that, I'm sorry. Pls stay civil in this matter. Rlevse 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Grow up. Please don't ever speak to me again. You say 'Removing it admits I saw it' - my message about it also admits this! Do you deny that his reasoning is stupid?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You ask me to not talk to you and then ask me questions? I choose the first option.Rlevse 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your email

What precisely do you mean by it? The issue's been resolved now.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Like you said, it seems to be resolved now. Not to worry.Rlevse 14:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SLR

We tried to reconcile and we agreed upon some of the most contentious issues but few decided to stay outside although me and Sebastian (the other founder) tried our best to bring them in. I felt they stayed out because they did not want to reconcile and create/edit neutral articles (because Neutral articles most of the time tell the truth!!!) hence Wiki process will at some point has to catch up with them. Unfortunately one of the guys who was amenable to reconcile is perm.blocked because he/she violated WP:SOCK twice, but reality he/she was one of the few who was reasonable to any attempt at reconciliation. One of the temporary solutions would be Block some of the agregious violators from contributing to Sri Lanka related material as Fu.Perf suggested in the ANI. In the ANI Fayssal wanted to give us Sri Lanka specfic wikipedians some cooling off time before undertaking such drastic measures but from the edit patterns, it looks as if no reason will prevail with some of us. As soon they woke up, they went back to editing controversal subjects without making an attempt to find out what the consensus would be. Just keep an eye on these edits and you will swee what I have noticed. Only bold Admin action can prevent it from getting out of hand. Thanks for noticing and trying to help the project. Taprobanus 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

I'd appreciate it if you would not open reports at RFCN without truly and properly giving the user a chance to discuss. You're an admin, you've been active there for a long time, and this is one of the rules at RFCN that was mandated by the community. Your report on User:Yer Momma was invalid as you left the message but gave the user no chance to actually respond to it. Similarly, your report on User:GM Chrysler was opened without even answering his first response to your message. Please make a real attempt to engage in discussion -- it's what WP:U says to do and it's the right thing, because RFCN can be very unfriendly and users engaged in polite conversation can be quite responsive, if they're given the chance. Mangojuicetalk 11:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yer mamma had a chance he didn't take it. You're an admin too and I'd appreciate it if you'd call a vio a vio instead of needlessly dragging things out. Rlevse 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But don't worry, I won't be on RFCN or UAA anymore. Rlevse 14:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse, if it's just this circumstance that is giving you the desire to stop working in these areas, please reconsider. You have great knowledge of policy, and you definitely add a great deal there. If it's a series of things adding up, then it's your call. Just letting you know that your say will certainly be missed there. Cheers, нмŵוτнτ 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto SGGH speak! 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for the information. I was not sure. Bearian 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter

Might have a new one:

JohnSalway (talk · contribs)

My latest suspect. IP4240207xx 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One edit is not much to go on, but keep an eye on him. Rlevse 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

EBot2

I will look into this, and will get back to you shortly. — E talkBAG 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Panicathedisco

This user has copied another users userpage and is using it as his own, he is also impersonating an admin, not sure what the best way to report this is so i thought i would just let you know. Let mw know how to report this in the future please, thanks. Tiptoety 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have left a message on the users talk page, he has rm the userbox saying he is an admin, and blanked my message, not sure if there is anything that can be done at this point, but i would appreciate you taking a look. Tiptoety 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.
Conflict resolved, thank you! Tiptoety 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. Other user's pages can actually be used as everything on wiki is GFDL, but it is preferred they make they own copy on their user space vice linking to another like he did. Also, I did not see where he claimed he was an admin. Can you give me a diff or tell me exactly how to find it? This is definitely not good. Rlevse 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
PS, if an admin isn't readily available, report this sort of thing to WP:ANI.Rlevse 12:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, i am aware, thank you! Tiptoety 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

If someone would accuse you with being someone you are not and provide some similar looking diffs (while being silent about the differences), how would you prove that you are not him/her? Squash Racket 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad the check user on you and him never got done, that certainly would have helped. Proving you're not a sock or proving someone is a sock is often very difficult when they have similar edit patterns, topic interests etc. This is why making calls on the SSP cases is so hard unless there is some sort of solid proof like someone admits they're a sock, two socks edit from the same IP, etc. Even using the same IP is not always proof, such as in cases where two people live in the same house, edit from a school, etc. I know this may not help much. These are the reasons why handling sock cases is one of the tougher admin roles here. Let me know if you have more questions. Rlevse 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deskana attempted a checkuser, but said all data on the banned user had been lost. He also said I was not editing from the same IP range as the banned user. You didn't even know that? Squash Racket 12:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I knew that but I forgot that I'd seen it, sorry about that, but that wasn't the question you asked, you asked how to prove you're not the same two people. Sock cases have to be taken as a whole. For example, if two editors come from the same IP does that alone prove they're socks? No, it could be a school or office IP; it could be a husband and wife's home IP. I did not block you, so I'm not sure what you are seeking here. Can you be more specific? Are you still trying to show you're not a sock of VinceB? Rlevse 13:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it is not about you and I thank you for your decision. Tankred started this whole accusation thing one and a half months ago and I don't know what happens if he starts it all over again. I just wanted to know if Wikipedia has a 100% reliable way to prove who is who. Also forgive me, but day and night being associated with someone you are not is pretty frustrating. Squash Racket 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If he files another complaint, just respond to it with whatever evidence you have that you're not him. Ask any admin you trust for help.Rlevse 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SSP: RS1900

Regarding your requests for this case:

  1. I have updated the ANI link.
  2. What sort of evidence do you consider hard? Most of my diffs have been obsoleted by the accused deleting his user pages. Of the diffs that do remain, the suspiciously similar peculiarities of interest (ie. atheist Nobel laureates) in editing, and the timing of the edits seems pretty strong evidence to me. I can forward you the emails exchanged between the accused and myself, if that helps.
  3. There is really no new information to report, other than the fact that the RS1900 and Jai Raj K accounts both abruptly stopped editing after the sockpuppet report was made. I can make a new section with a brief summary of the evidence I have, if that would help.
  4. Would a checkuser help? I've not requested that before, but I will do so if that is what is needed.

Thank you. Nick Graves 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jai Rak K is an obvious throw away account. Has RS (or anyone) harrassed you since Sep 30, the date of the harassment in the ANI case? Rlevse 01:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone else closed it.Rlevse 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Closure

Hello! Although I'm not a bureauracrat would I be able to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thebestkiano? Regards, Rudget Contributions 13:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bcats have to close the ones that pass. The obvious failures can be closed by an admin, but your RFA is still running, so I'd leave it alone. I might close it myself though. Rlevse 14:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, :) Rudget Contributions 14:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A few questions

I'd like your opinion on a few items. I've sent you e-mail. — ERcheck (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Looks like I lost ya!

The IRC Buddy Barnstar
Always a pleasure to chat with you! And may your connection always be swift..! Dreadstar † 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Max I. Silber

Greetings from New Hampshire! I finally got back up here, and got all the buckles photographed, and was given an official quantity listing for the majority of the buckles from the museum. I showed Dick Zeloski, the Museum's Chairman the Wiki page, and he seemed happy that I was working on it. With the exception of two recent buckles, I now have complete data for all the rest. Which is exciting. So the next question would be what the next steps for the article should be. I wanted to get your opinions, and to see if the article was worthy to garner a higher quality level with the additional datum that I've accrued. I'll be back at Dulles tomorrow afternoon, but drop me a line if you can. Thanks! RobHoitt 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of progress there. The lead needs to be beefed up and be a summary of the article. When you get that done, let me know and I'll take another look. Rlevse 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look now, I am curious if I am on the right track... Thanks! RobHoitt 03:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About the user Mattisse

I noticed you made a comment on Mattisse's talk page about he/she continually makes tags on articles that already have references. I'm not sure if you've seen ALL of them. Look at their contributions page. Mattisse is not a bot, but tags hundreds of articles a day. This user has had a strange history of problems at this site. Recently it was noticed by a bot that some of their articles had evidence of copyvio and Mattisse was notified. Mattisse overreacted, threatened to stop contributing to Wikipedia (has done this several times for unrelated incidents), and then nominated dozens of his/her own articles on the copyvio community page for October 20th. I and another user made an RfC about a specific incident with Mattisse, but it went largely ignored by established Wikipedians, which is a shame. I also noticied that Mattisse threatened you at the end of his/her talk page. I don't know if you saw that yet. What is your take on all of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg Ninja (talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He'll eventually quit or goof so bad people will do something. For the issue at hand, I think he's mistaken because of these:

POLICY: WP:VERIFY - It specifially says that:

"any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" -- this is possible from looking at a Reference section

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." -- so the "requirement" is for material that is likely to be challenged GUIDELINE: WP:CITE -- not policy

When to cite: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." - it does not say to cite / footnote everything

GUIDELINE: WP:Footnotes -- tells how and why; doesn't require

ESSAY: "When to cite" -- not policy, referred to in WP:CITE - clearly indicates one should not over-cite.

  • take care, Rlevse 09:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

GrantChuggle and sockpuppets

You asked why the sockpuppetry case was filed, so I thought I'd fill you in. You may be unaware but Grant has bypassed the indefinite block about 15-20 times. He has stated "he'll be back" and Colaatje5 was created during the problems with Grant Chuggle when he knew he was causing problems. The edits were similar if you look close enough. That's why I asked Daniel to look into it. IrishLass0128 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you file a WP:RFCU then.Rlevse 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for taking care of Jcvides...he/she was becoming quite a pain in the neck. Peteweez 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

No problem.Rlevse 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FQ troll

OMG, she is absolutely hilarious! Fantastically smart, witty...awesome admin..so glad you and AG pointed her out...! Dreadstar † 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scout Jamboree 1937.jpg

Hi again Rlevse - I noticed you've tagged this {{ScoutingWikiProject|class=Image}}. It's also tagged{{Non-free reduced|01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)}}, would you look at that?

I've added the {{Non-free media rationale}} template as well. (Fair Use Rationale was already provided, but not in template format) JGHowes talk - 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • yes, I realize the licensing is unrelated. What I meant was, since you were looking at this image and it's also tagged "Administrators: if the previous version(s) did not satisfy the non-free content criteria, please delete them on Oct-23-2007... Otherwise, please revert the image and remove this tag." could you as an adminstrator please do so, since today is the deadline? JGHowes talk - 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Brownsea Photos

Hi, unfortunately not. Im hoping to go sometime within the next three weeks. I can only go on the weekends and the last few havent had good weather. As soon as I go and upload the photos though I will post a message. LordHarris 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kraken7

I'll admit my unfamiliarity with these "policing" aspects of the pedia; we don't see so much controversy in the history cluster as in other more volatile areas, like popular culture and current events. In my roughly two years of sporadically editing, I'd never personally run across an obvious case of sock puppetry, and so when I saw something I said something. I'm not trying to sound whiny here, but what do I do next? Continue to make the same case and see the same result? The page space has been on semiprotect almost continuously since July, and this IMHO unsatisfactory process conclusion neither clears the accused (and I still strongly suspect the user) nor assists established page editors avoid this kind of puppetry. To my mind, it sort of makes a joke of the SSP process, when long-term abuse is proved, but the process makes no additional investigation to discover the identity of the abuser. BusterD 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but keep in mind we're all volunteers too. This is a very complicated case and determining who the master is from edits alone is almost impossible. This will take a checkuser case, so the post you left there today is great and Haemo supported it. Maybe it'll do some good. All I can say is that if it is important enough to you, keep collecting evidence and ask those who have checkuser rights or are knowledgeable there (like Haemo) to keep seeking a resolution. Those who watch the articles closely, like you, are the best sources in SSP and CU cases. Rlevse 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, re: volunteers. Perspective is important. I keep expecting Law and Order; what we have more closely resembles very sophisticated cat-herding by some more or less dedicated cat-lovers. Here's hoping the checkuser process is revealing. BusterD 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good analogy. I hope CU works because I don't like the disruptive users. Rlevse 21:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ColourWolf

Hi Rlevse, in cases like this where it's not obvious what to do with the evidence, I usually decide that things are inconclusive and close the case. Either things sort themselves out or another SSP case gets filed. Thanks for working on the SSP page, I think things go better there when multiple editors look over the cases. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/66.162.176.102

The thing is, the fact that they're on different ISPs isn't particularly important, one of them is registered to a lawyers office. A while back I googled on T. Rugg and there's a lawyer of that name in Ohio, there's probably some grudge there or something (i.e. essentially BLP issues); and one of the ISPs seems to be a lawyers office (Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter). The other one is presumably the perps home IP address. The vandalisation pattern isn't just one round of replacing the mayor with T.Rugg either, and both are semi-regularly vandalising:

From Special:Contributions/205.133.190.7:

[7]

[8]

[9]

also: [10]

And on Special:Contributions/66.162.176.102:

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

This has to be either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet- how many groups of people would be obsessed with somebody like that over such a long period?

They can only be the same person.WolfKeeper 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a much better presentation of an SSP case. However, there doesn't seem to be much SSP blockable actions going on such as vote stacking, avoiding 3RR, etc. Also that much of it is old, would also make it non-blockable. What's more readily blockable is the vandalism. Also, we are not allowed to block IPS for long periods as readily as named accounts. My prediction is, based on their edit histories, you'll have a better chance proving vandalism and harassment. I just warned the 205 IP about the note on your talk page yesterday. It's required that they have recent warnings on these things. Always put a note in the edit summary too, makes it easier for those coming along later to find. Whenever they do something, warn them and note it; if it's enough to warrant a block, notify an admin or report to AIV or ANI as appropriate. While you can remove stuff from your talk page, it's not a good sign the the 66 IP removed the IP block and other stuff from his. Based on what I've seen before, this guy will really goof before long. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh

Ariel likes your new signature! Very nice! Ariel♥Gold 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 :-) — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hrmpf... — Edokter • Talk • 12:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I told her I got it from you. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just being sarcasticly annoyed :) — Edokter • Talk • 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Rlevse, I have a question- where does one go to complain about the questionable conduct of a certain admin? (not you, of course!) If you'd like to email me JGHowes talk - 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Where'd ya go? Hmm? Ariel♥Gold 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I left. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that... please check email. Ariel♥Gold 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
See answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Giant misunderstanding with that, explanation is in your email, please read. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize sincerely for any misunderstanding; Tried to email you, but nothing enabled. Feel free to contact me any time. Ariel has my email address. Into The Fray T/C 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It was an unfortunate misunderstanding. I'm sorry too. I just felt it better to leave because if I'd stayed it would have become a slugfest. My email is off right now because a vandal I blocked was harassing me. I'll likely turn it back on soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA

Dearest Supporter,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!
Rudget Contributions 09:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More Max I. Silber Questions

I think I have exhausted the gammut of web sitable articles about Max. I am now looking to see if interviews of family, and colleagues would help me flesh out the article, is this allowed? I can't find a policy that says yes or no... If I can, can you steer me to a style sheet that would guide me in the proper ways of siting interviews. (I will most likely interview by email as it affords the interviewee the time to respond when time allows and gives me a written source to quote.) Thanks!!! RobHoitt 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See George_Thomas_Coker. I personally know this guy in real life (IRL). Note how I ref'd my talks, calls, and emails with him. I put them on my own site and use that. I've not had a problem with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Ariel Smile*~

Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, Because today is Thursday!! I am going to try to get some rest, if my head will stop pounding long enough, lol. But I did want to pop in and give you a smile, and say hello, I hope you're having a very good day! ~*Hugs*~
Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better! ({{subst:smile}})

Ariel♥Gold 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hearing from My Lady ArielGold ALWAYS makes me feel better! Get well soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep I'm here! Ariel♥Gold 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for help with the Rosa Blasi troll. Will see if I can get page protected until troll goes away NoHenry 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Netmonger request

Indef blocked for now. Dreadstar † 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See all the "sri lanka move" edits I just made, ck the summaries of my contribs and go to the specific proposal I just made. What is Net asking for? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There might be additional users on the affected list, namely Supermod, Bodhi and others. Sinhala freedom 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ask if they should be added on that subthread I just started. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
On another issue, the main Sri Lanka article is not listed there and is site of contention. Sinhala freedom 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Just fixed that typo. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant to say user Bodhi dhana. Sinhala freedom 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A more comprehensive list is at the sri lanka wikiproject [17]. Cheers, Sinhala freedom 22:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
But in terms of other key names include: Lanka07, Nitraven. Sinhala freedom 04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Orlandofiges

I think your actions regarding this user leave a lot to be desired. I would have responded on the suspected sockpuppets page, but you closed it too quickly after you replied to me.

I fail to see how the tiny number of edits which have been made by Penguinchristie (talk · contribs) and DavidPricesolicitors (talk · contribs) to that article constitute an abuse under the sockpuppets policy. They did not collectively violate WP:3RR or each vote in anything. It would be a very, very broad stretch to say that they were used to create an illusion of broader support than actually exists. In fact, DavidPricesolicitors (talk · contribs) actively removed material from the article which may constitute defamation. The edits by these users violated NPOV, but this could be explained by inexperience with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and probably could have been remedied by a simple note.

I told you on the suspected sockpuppets page that Orlandofiges (talk · contribs) had stated on OTRS that his lawyers and publicist/publisher (Penguin) had edited the article in an effort to counter the WP:BLP violations in the article. Despite me telling you this, and providing you with a link to the OTRS page on meta so you could confirm that with another OTRS user, you went ahead and accused Orlandofiges of creating two sockpuppets and using them "to collude on the article Orlando Figes".

Further, you put an "It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively" on his user page, despite the concerns you state about him using a user account that has the same name as a well-known person. Am I the only person who sees the farce there? Also, the links on the pages of the blocked users appear to point to the wrong page.

Anyway, the lawyer's account should have been blocked under our username policy (as a username that is a company name, or a non-permitted role account, or for making legal threats), and the publisher's account I don't know what.

I have emailed Orlando Figes' university email account as listed on his web page (from info-en@wikimedia.org), to ask him to confirm his identity. He used an ISP email account to contact us. - Mark 09:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the links in the sock tags. If you feel something was incorrect, feel freee to change it. I won't object. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not the end result (blockage) I disagree with, just the line of reasoning which got there (abusive sockpuppetry). I'm not about to unblock those two accounts. :) - Mark 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. So we got the same result via different paths? All I can say is I'm new at SSP cases and just trying to help. I do not have any bad faith intentions, I assure you. I appreciate your view. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement within agreement regarding rv from vandalism

While I agree something should be put in to revert from obvious case of vandalism, I have seen that term being justified to revert when there is a content dispute between two parties. So my suggestion to further refine it and say, rv from undisputed vandalism. Sinhala freedom 16:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC boot

Hey buddy, sorry again about last night. Was just havin' some fun, but I should have thought that you might have taken it personally. No hard feelings, I hope. :) GlassCobra 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. No problem, let's just move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

First of all let me thank you for sacrificing your valuable time and energy, in order to solve the the SL related issues. I went through your suggestions and my first impression was to join it. But, after going through it more carefully, I have noticed that the blocked users, lahiru_k and netmonger are still remain blocked even after showing their innocence admins consent to unblock them. I think the whole issue would not be solved as long as innocent users remain blocked for a thing which they did not do. As long as they remain unblocked, I am sorry, I can't join it with an open heart.
Secondly, several SSP has been made against ME and others and we were cleared by the admins. And I do like to have a same test,a proper check user, for users like, watchdogb(I have no doubt that he is the banned user Elalan,),sinhala freedom,tabrobanus, and etc. As long as we tolerate socks, this project bound to fail. Only after a proper check clear all the users from sock puppetery I would like to join the project.
And I would appreciate if you take a look at this, a complain made by neutral editors. As long as we have a clear POV pusher, do you really think we can achieve any goodness from the project ?! I don't think I have to quote from the WP:COI, doesn't it clearly says, COI edits are strongly discouraged. Why can't admins impose this simple rule in SL related articles?

Thank you,in advance, for letting me to use your user space.Look forward to you reply.Iwazaki 会話。討論 02:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking with me. I'd strongly urge you to reconsider. The alternative if most Sri Lankan editors don't get onboard with this is a continuation of what has been going on with the SR articles for years, which is that they are nothing but a continuation of the SR civil wars into the virtual world of the internet. The situation is like that of the East Europe and Middle East articles, a mess. The East Europe ones even went to Arbcom in the Digwuren case. If the SR editors can't come together and make peace on wiki, that is where this SR mess is headed--is that what you want? Or would you rather help solve things amongst yourselves? Which reputation would you rather have the SR editors and articles have--disruptive and constantly infighting with articles in constant flux or editors who work together to make quality articles. The choice is up to the SR editors and the time is now. Non of the admins have any political agenda, we are only trying to help. As for Lahriu and Netmonger, they have agreed even while blocked and that should tell you something. They will get unblocked at some point, we may renegotiate the time for that though--sooner, rather than later. The SSP against you have cleared you, let it go at that. I fear we will never uncover all the socks in this case, so I say let that be water under the bridge and let's move ahead and not dwell on the past, otherwise we'll sink into its quicksand and never move forward. As for the COI case you mention, I think the decision was correct. I also think a similar case could be made against 95% of the SR editors, as very few have been neutral in the past. I ask you again to join this mediation effort. Best regards to you and all the SR editors. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You closed the accusation against me of being a sockpuppet

Concluding, correctly, that I was not one. An editor keeps reverting my edits on Depleted Uranium claiming that I am banned. Sorry for bothering you about this, but I am fairly new to the Wikipedia processes and I'm not sure where to ask for help. What recourse do I have? Thanks. Starkrm 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See warning notice on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Starkrm 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an active checuser, so dont butt in and I expect an apology when the RfCu is over. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Torturous Devastating Cudgel reverted my edits again on DU, without any comments to me or discussion. Starkrm 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Page is now protected to admins only since there are sock and rfcu cases ongoing. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And its protected to the sockpuupets version? How does that make any sense. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It was protected to the version in place at the time it was protected. It can all get sorted out when the sock and rfcu cases are over. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

208.11.172.34

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer T:C 19:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Help in finding a reference?

Hi there. I made some edits to Mitchell Paige, and noticed that there is a mention of a museum at 29 Palms that bears his name. I did a little searching to see if I could find a reference, but didn't find anything yet. If you could find something, that would be great. — ERcheck (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are fast! Actually, I don't think it is an ALMAR, but rather it is from the Leatherneck magazine archives. I've put a link to it on the page and described it as best I can. — ERcheck (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it says ALMAR at the top. But if you just scroll to the bottom of that posting box, the ALMAR ends. The Paige reference is below the ALMAR. — ERcheck (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Orlandofiges alleged sock

See User talk:Orlandofiges and the SSP archive. Let me know if he doesn't change his name or prove who he is in two days. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (Cut & pasted from my talk page for continuity.)

48 hours have passed; no action taken by the above user. FYI.--12 Noon 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
We're looking into it. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The email address I emailed was a university one, not a personal one, so chances are if it is him, he won't have had a chance to read it over the weekend. I'll send an email to the other email address used, pointing him to the one sitting in the university email account and asking him to reply to that. - Mark 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He got back to me and said that the account "OrlandoFiges" is not him. So you were right all along. :) Do you want to do the block? And I'll organise a rename. - Mark 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer you do it simply because you have a deeper understanding of the details of this case. Thanks for the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations

Hi, I noticed a pending case regarding me and another user here. I've added my comments to it. Basically I wanted to say that the case is completely without merit. This user has been warned about making frivolous sockpuppetry accusations. You will notice that I have had an extensive edit history on Wikipedia and that it is very different from B Nambiar's. We didn't make the "exact same edits" in the Nair article. Those were reverts actually. The article has now been protected. We're actually engaged in discussion right now to improve that article, and others. You will also notice that the editor who made the accusation has been asked numerous times to participate in the discussions but has not done so. Basically all I'm saying is that this user has made this accusation without any evidence whatsoever. He just said "I think these users are the same person" and then proceeded to file a case against us. --vi5in[talk] 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I need an admin!

Wolfeboro Pioneers is now under a 3RR war, can you do something quick, or get someone? Chris 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered this. See answer on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning given to the wrong person

You should withdraw your vandalism warning to Lggranada. What he/she did was the undoing of vandalism from the previous user, 69.235.171.244, but did not get all of it. Thank you. --Blanchardb 10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my error. Thanks for catching it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 43 22 October 2007 About the Signpost
Fundraiser opens, budget released Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos" News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Girl Scouts of the USA

You're just too fast for me ... --evrik (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalmunai massacre

Hi an Admin User:Blnguyen claims that this article is Unsourced, MOS violations and the like. also sourced POV in any case. At the T:DYK [[18]]. However, fails to claim what is unsourced and what MOS are violated and what the pov source is. You see, this admin is someone who I have had dispute before. Can you please take a look at the article and comment on what the problem is. I am going to ask this particular admin what the problem is. I am still looking for another opinion on this article. Watchdogb 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If this particular user is talking about UTHR when he says that this source is POV Please read the below

UTHR

Here are what other reliable sources claiming about UTHR

  • [19]
  • [20]. Here they are called "Leading righs body"
  • [21] Uthr reported abuses by LTTE]
  • [22] If anythin UTHR is a anti-LTTE source.
  • [23] More people using UTHR.

This is something another admin has found:

  • PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
  • BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
  • Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
  • International Herald Tribune: "an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"

Last, the two people who are running UTHR right now have won the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders for 2007. IF these are not enough to show that this citation is Notable and is IS NPOV I have no idea what is. Watchdogb 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift action on the above article and for making things clear in T:DYK. Watchdogb 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Guinness

Got a ref for that Guinness thing on Scouting? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the most recent WJ article, I'm sure we can dig one up. Chris 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/default.aspx seems limited, found some English Cub packs that hit oddity records, there has to be something in the minutes of the 21st WSJ, keeping looking. Chris 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Closer http://www.footprintfriends.com/Default.aspx.LocID-0bznew008.RefLocID-0bz005.Lang-EN.htm Chris 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not a ref, it's a homepage. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep,but I can't save the world, just my part. Does it affect Scouting? Put it on ANI if it's serious. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka resolution

Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and time Rlevse. Much appreciated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Guitarlegs the sockpuppeter....

Guitarlegs, the sockpuppet you blocked a week ago for vandalizing the Depeche Mode page, has just returned and has resumed his usual practices. I think a more permanent block is in order here. Thanks 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pls provide diffs. Is this vandalism or socking? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Boink*~

Fired off an email to you earlier, just letting you know :o) Ariel♥Gold 14:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hartal 1953

I notice that you tagged Hartal 1953 as part of a consensus re dispute resolution. No notice of the dispute appeared on the talk page for Hartal 1953. Please could you direct me to the discussion? I found no mention of the Hartel at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. In June of 2006 I tried to clean up the article and make it NPOV, but I did not have the data to clean up much of the "Events" and "Long-term effects" sections, so I tagged them, and so they have remained for sixteen months. I would recommend looking at The politics of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) (1973) by Robert N. Kearney; and The modern history of Ceylon (1966) by E. F. C. Ludowyk, but I do not have access to them. Politics in Sri Lanka, 1947-1973 (1974) by A Jeyaratnam Wilson also covers it, at least in passing, as shown in snippets from the Google book search. I am not sure that Hartal!... by Colvin R. De Silva of the Lanka Samasamaja Party, cited as a reference, is a neutral source. --Bejnar 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Click on the "Editing restrictions" on the article tag or "Final resolution" on the talk tag and you go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Sri_Lanka-LTTE_blocks_-_reviewed. It's covered as it's in a category named there. As long as your edits are sourced and NPOV, it should not be a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 44 29 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For keeping a good head on your shoulders so you can pull mine out of the nether reaches more times than I can count. (I run out of fingers and toes at 24) Chris 07:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TruthCrusader

Before you continue falling for the word of a troll, misinterpret the timing, and continue to insist on using false equivalency, consider the following:

1) I hadn't been editing Wikipedia in a month. What drew me back was tracing the source of someone leaving a comment on my blog, reading "fuck off, you wikipedia nazi". And hey, look where its IP address led to. Very helpful of TruthCrusader. I left a message telling him he'd been rumbled, and lo, another message shows up (though this time he thought to use an anonymizer first):

I know who you are....a[n] ... arrogant bitter angry fucktard whose alcoholic father raped a ... woman and had the misfortune of fathering YOU...piece of shit who uses the fact that he was taunted all his life ... to bring misery and bitterness to Wikipedia. You're the worst example of a wikipedia editor and a human being in general.
...you come across as a bitter 15 year old emo kid. You will never amount to anything except a lonely old english teacher (which means you are also probably a pedophile). The best thing for you to do would be to blow your fucking brains out.

Lemme know how that double-standard troll-enabling philosophy works out for you.

2)The stuff documented publicly isn't the worst thing that TruthCrusader seems to have done, but it shouldn't be dredged up unless absolutely necessary, since the energy-suck that's already taken place is bad enough, more drama is unhelpful, and there are privacy issues involved. He's blocked, and that should be the end of it.

3) And before you continue badgering Jpgordon, I should tell you that I have been advising not just Jpgordon, but two other admins, and they don't seem to have objected so far. If you want, I can ask them to contact you directly with their opinions -- or you can just stop assuming bad faith from a long-time admin and member of ArbCom, namely Jpgordon. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the one assuming bad faith, not me. I am only trying to find out what I need to know to make a correct decision. Since when is asking for input badgering? Your attitude here does not help your case. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello Rlevse. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--Gene Nygaard 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC on categories

I would like to ask you if you can call an RfC on categories. Category:Esterházy consists of Hungarian people who lived in the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries, even Britannica says they are Hungarian. See House of Esterházy where I brought three sources for the statement, all the articles about different members of the family say they are Hungarian. The category "Slovak noble houses" is added there by a Slovak user, because after the Treaty of Trianon a few of them lived in Czechoslovakia for a while like half a million ethnic Hungarians are living in Slovakia today as a minority. They were forced into Czechoslovak citizenship after World War I, does that make them a "Slovak noble house"? Squash Racket 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I found it interesting that User:Squash Racket ask you for RfC without notifying me, although I am involved in this content dispute. To address his misleading message, that category ("Slovak nobility") was not added by a Slovak user, but by a respected admin User:Olessi, who, as far as I know, has never claimed any Slovak identity. Members of the House of Esterházy have lived in the territory of Slovakia for centuries and some of them have been citizens of Slovakia (or/and Czechoslovakia). The word "Slovak" in the category "Slovak nobility" is usually not interpreted as "of Slovak ethnicity". "Slovak" is an adjective related to "Slovakia". Squash Racket knows it very well as he has never removed the category "Austrian nobility" on ethnocentric grounds. Squash Racket seems to believe that everyone living in the Kingdom of Hungary was ethnically Magyar and all the nations that broke from the kingdom after World War I have no history prior 1919. I find this belief too simplistic because the kingdom was multiethnic, Latin (not Hungarian) was the official language for most of its existence, and the noble families had predominantly the class or confessional consciousness, not the ethnic one. Central European noble houses were so mixed and multilingual that a strict application of modern exclusive ethnic categories does not usually make much sense. However, Squash Racket insists on removing any mentions of non-Magyar nations from the articles on history of the region and highlighting the alleged Magyar ethnicity whenever possible. After many clashes with him in the past, I am quite fed up with all this. Tankred 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not start an RfC, I was asking how to do it (I found no RfC for categories). The category was reverted by you multiple times, I don't know who added it originally, because I was not here. Members of the family lived in the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries. You talk about misleading messages? The word "Slovak noble house" means one thing, just like "Hungarian noble house". I don't know if Austrian noble houses should be removed, because some members of the family had German names, I will look into that also.
Not everyone in the Kingdom of Hungary was Magyar and I never said that (misleading messages?). Why does Britannica talk about them clearly as Hungarians if everything was so multiethnic then? Because Tankred is a better source than them? Before I forget it: noname The New York Times also talks about an ancient Hungarian family Esterházy. If you can pull up a source as credible as Britannica stating the House of Esterházy was a "Slovak noble house", category may remain. Squash Racket 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And about your nationalism accusations: you did that 10 minutes after you posted here[24]. Squash Racket 16:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can start an RFC, you don't need me. I really don't know much about this area of history, so I'm not sure if I'd be much use. If you start the RFC, I'll at some point comment if you remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nrcprm2026 Sockpuupet

The evidence linking User:Starkrm to User:Nrcprm2026/James Salsman will be forthcoming after the RfCu is complete, It was filed on 10/16 and I have no idea why it has taken so long for anyone to act on it. The accusation that this is some kind of wild goose chase or a fishing expedition is without merit, as the newly listed users on the RfCu have a editing history that matches his previous behavior.

Don’t threaten me with a block unless you yourself have some kind of evidence that I am not acting in good faith. Salsman has used dozens of sockpuppets [25], [26] in the past to evade his arbcom decision and now his complete ban from Wikipedia. Its editors like Salsman that have caused many users to leave Wikipedia in total disgust, and I think you should be a bit more understanding of that fact, and the need to aggressively police users like Salsman. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(from closed RFCU) “ Confirmed Becongito = Squee23 = CME94 = Publicola = Lots of other accounts blocked socks. Other accounts unrelated. --Deskana (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)” — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, so we can expect Becongito, CME94, and Publicola to be indef-blocked very soon, right? I appreciate it. Thanks for your help in this matter. John J. Bulten 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I already did Squee23, forgot about the others, just did them. I'd say TDC owes Starkrm and I an apology, but I'm not holding my breath. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes me sad. The various socks of Nrcprm2026 have been extremely helpful and utterly nondisruptive on the Plug-In Hybrid entry. But, I am sure you have your reasons.Fbagatelleblack 01:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You just admitted a reason. If there nothing disruptive, why would he need multiple accounts on one article? Nrcprm2026 has multiple sock and cu cases onhand and dozens of known and suspected socks. You'd think he'd get the hint after awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The biggest reason is that User:Nrcprm2026 is BANNED user (see his user page), not merely blocked, any of his known socks have to be indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Links in headers

I saw the change you made in Scouting in Pennsylvania. Thta happens alot in the state pages. If you're going to remove those links, they should go into the article someplace. This speaks to a need for a standardized format for all the state articles for each council, district and camp is liusted, along with the links. --evrik (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sinh

This sockpuppeteer is trolling, deleting sock puppet templates and warnings, and breaking the 3rr rule. Steven Greiner 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First. I'm not a sockpuppeteer, Rlevse was wrong, but I accepted his decision.
Second. You have broke the 3rr rule, but I not. The second edit adds new information.
Third. You are a sockppupeteer 72.68.8.119/71.125.85.144 /Steven Greiner/Drjsveca/et cetera.
Fourth. You can't edit my user page, I can edit my user page.
Fifth. You are trolling and deleting 3rr templates and warnings.
Sixth. You are reverting established editors without discussing on the Tekken 6 talk page. Englishrose warned you in Tekken 6 history page (21:25, 1 November 2007) and you... undid his edition! --Sinh 02:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you broke 3rr. I made three reverts. You made more than three. It still counts as a revert if you delete the default edit summary. I am not a sock puppeteer. My IP is 75.125.48.82. That is a shared IP so I have my own account. You are the one trolling and deleting templates and warnings given my an admin. I did discuss on the talk page. You are the one causing a revert war by adding questionable content during a dispute. The only established editor in the discussion is King Zeal. Steven Greiner 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Last warning from me, this is for both sides and whatever sock puppetts may or may not exist. Learn to behave and work things out or I'll protect all the Tekken pages and block both of you. Drjsveca is definitely a sock of someone as legit new accounts don't make SSP reports right off the bat-sorry I didn't notice this before. I'm blockingDrjsveca. However, I still think Pedro is a sock too. Reverting editors who make legit entries with refs is a mistake, cease and desist. There is definitely fishy stuff going on here, stop it, all parties. Non admins should not be removing sock tags, whether it's your user page or not. Sinh violated 3RR, not Steven Greiner, it takes 4 edits to vio 3RR. BOth are warned on this now. Both need to use talk pages before making controversial edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Other IP, same person, it's evident on the history of my discussion and user pages. And Steven Greiner is not a new user, also it's evident. He wrote on the Tekken 6 talk page when Englishrose warned him, not before. And he can´t constantly edit the article against the consensus, it's vandalism. My reverts are consensuaded with others editors. He broke 3rr (3 by Steven Greiner + 1 by 72.68.8.199).--Sinh 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Drjsveca is 71.127.212.103 who created account just to make the SSP report because IPs can't make SSP reports. Sinh is adding controversal material into the article. My reverts are also consensuaded with other editors. I am not 72.68.8.199. My IP is 75.125.48.82. Just because more than one person is reverting your vandalism and trolling does not mean they are the same person. Debatable material should be removed and worked out on the talk page. It is better to have less content than bad content. The article is about an unreleased video game. More information is coming. Be pacient and stop telling other people to read the rules when you are the one who is breaking them. This is the second time Sinh has broken 3RR. Steven Greiner 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Tekken 6, which this seems to be mostly about, has been full protected. This will expire in 3 weeks. Info on future releases can be added to articles if it has a valid ref--this also seems core to this dispute. Everyone chill out and wait for the release. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What??

Think you crossed the wires. You blocked Netmoger saying that was his sock. Unblock him asap. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OOPS, SORRY, my goof. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OH a demand from a master. I am begining to like wikipedia. Anyway, Relevse, why is that you jumped on the guns to block an apparent sock and still like to have confirmed socks around ? Are we all loosing sense of reality ? What happened to not being a Hypocrite Watchdogb 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What or whom are you talking about? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL it's okay guys :-D now he's unblocked. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Watchdogb-Kelbaster was attacking both Lahiru and Netmonger and I was doing three things at once on wiki and made a simple goof, Lahiru merely pointed it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that netmonger should be unblocked but my concern is something else. Jumping on the guns to block an apparent sock when sock masters (I don't like naming users) run around free. Doesn't this particular unproved sock get same treatment (IE unblocked) like others ? So that we all do not violate WP:AGF being a hypocrite Watchdogb 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I do lots of SSP cases, and Kelbaster is a sock or meat, no doubt about it. If you're not going to tell me who you're talking about, I can't do anything about it. Also, there are so many socks on the Sri Lanka issues, we'll never find all of them. Email for privacy if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Ding you got mail Watchdogb 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Sorry to bother you here, but in your declined block request [27] of Auroranorth, you simply cited his long block history. Alot of his blocks were in his early days as a wikipedia user (early active days) since his last block, he has come back to wikipedia with a purpose and has made some good contribs. All I am asking is that maybe you see past his block history. I think the week ban was very much on the harsh side, i think 48 hours would be appropriate. Please note: I am not an A-grade troll or anything. Thanks for your time. Twenty Years 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (5th)

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the one week block placed by Jéské Couriano (e.g. [28]) was merely a provisional block in response to my request: [29]. That is, I thought that the one week block was merely to provide time for a consensus to be made on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (5th). This is a permanently banned user, after all, so I don't see how the one-week block is commensurate with this user's past history. Are you sure that you don't want to leave this case open prior to this case receiving any commentary? Myasuda 02:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas is indefinitely blocked,[30], the IP for a week. We can't block IPs indef. If there's more to this, ask Jéské to respond here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

re User:Mattisse complaint at ANI here

Hi. You placed a {{resolved}} tag with the comment "Editor indef blocked" on the above matter. I have reviewed the block logs and neither party, Mattisse or User:Cyborg Ninja, appears to be blocked (nor are they notified on their talkpages). Have you blocked either editor? If so, I would like to discuss the reasons - but I am more inclined to think that the template was intended for another matter. I have, in the meantime, removed the template. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yep, that was a goof, sorry and thanks for correcting it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Olga

Can you check my translation of polish article about Olga Drahonowska-Małkowska? Sorry for late translation, I will try to do it faster next time. Jpp.pl 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Her father was a trustee of what? He was a trustee of farm, which was property of polish baron.

2. Does finishing school "extramural" mean she studied at home or was tutored outside of school? She studied at home

3. In English, Polish and Scout/Scouter/Scouting are proper nouns and start with capital letters. ok

4. I notice you used British English, not American. No big deal -;) i don't see the diffrence yet :)

5. Was their son born in America? When did they arrive in USA and when did they go back to Europe? Her son was born in USA, she arrived in 1915 and go back in 1916

6. What country did she take the students to in WWII before she went to the UK? Probably to Romania, where most of polish goverment goes, but i will check in sources

7. Did she remarry after her husband died? no

Thanks for the prompt reply! PS, you forgot to log in, your IP is from Prague, Czech Republic.
  • British English--colour, organise, instalment,
  • American English--color, organize, installment
    • mostly it's spelling and slang variations that make them different. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Auroranorth

Hi Rlevse. Thanks for that. —Moondyne 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like his teen fan club is rallying, no surprise. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your decline on Auroranorth's block. Much appreciated. Apologies for commenting on your decline, you were merely doing your job. Thanks alot. Twenty Years 15:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment. Don't worry about the first one. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: AN

I've responded there, and apologize if my comment came off the wrong way. Cheers, east.718 at 20:12, 11/4/2007

Thanks, yes it did not appear as humor. Regards. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User Silverye is not a sockpuppet!

  • You left a note saying that this user was blocked as my sockpuppet. I have no idea who this user is or what their agenda is, but he/she is certainly no sockpuppet of mine. What possible evidence do you have? That the user agreed with me on a Talk page? This action of yours seems capricious and unfair.   Skopp   22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I said your likely sock, not was your sock. Even if it's not a sock, it's still an SPA. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Reversed myself based on evidence sent by Silvereye. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Gene

Sorry, I forgot to reply to your comment on my talk page. I am aware that Gene is already under a few bans. Most of my interventions to WP:ANI have to do with Gene and his occasional violations to those bans. It's exhausting. I wish that an effective, permanent remedy could be worked out. Any ideas? Best regards, Húsönd 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

yep, indef block him. Gene has had plenty of chances to reform, but hasn't, a la ignoring his move ban, repeated incivility, etc. He's on his last leg. I do not ever see him reforming, so any infractions from here on in and I'd most likely support an indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, and I would support an indef block as well. Gene causes more trouble than benefit, Wikipedia would fare well without him (would fare very well indeed as proven by his long wikibreak with its refreshing lack of diacritics conflicts). Húsönd 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish the previous solved diacritics issue from the current civility issue. As it is, as administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment on the latest here and here. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

My RFA
Hey Rlevse! I wanted to say thanks a ton for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I was really afraid that after the IRC thing, you'd oppose me. ;) Anyway, I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions! GlassCobra 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

B

It looks like B retired. )-: --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptions has begun again after a lull

See here and here. Thanks Taprobanus 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

Hi, could you please take another look at the thread you started on WP:ANI about your block of Beh-nam? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See response there. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for reconsidering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Vintagekits

Hi. I'm reading the continuing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock request review needed at User talk:Vintagekits and I notice that you have not given your rationale for unblocking Vintagekits. I wonder if you would mind doing so. (Your unblock reason ("per talk page request") does not really make it any clearer.) Thanks in advance. --John 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See comment just left there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your input

Hey Rleves , how u doing ? I would appreciate it a lot, if you could make a comment at the Srilanka talk page. Some people are insisting adding some stuff, which I think is not necessary. If we are to go by this, we need to add same thing for another 100+ countries!! I consider this as a blatant insult to my country ,and would like to know what you think of this.

And about the reconciliation project,As I have told you before I would only join after a full sock-puppet check on all the controversial users. I don't think its appropriate for me to talk and discuss things with people,who I consider socks.I am extremely sorry, but I can't honesty talk to those kind of people.Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page Sri Lanka. Thanks a lot for your input.Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did 2 edits at the Batticaloa article, one was a revert and other though I mistakenly wrote it as rv in the edit summary, I was merely adding the edit　restriction tag to the article. I thought I must inform you this, otherwise some people might misunderstand the situation and might think I have violated 1RR (when I didn't). Also I would appreciate it, if you take a look at the comments made by Bodhi-dana at the talk page. Some one is running a mock at the article removing references/sources like no tomorrow. Thank youIwazaki 会話。討論 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please do something regarding this vandalism? Even after your comments at the talk page, he hasn't stopped this.Thanks Iwazaki 会話。討論 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Call to attention

Just wanted to notify you about this [31]. Thanks. Sinhala freedom 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sri Lanka issue

Re: User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 4#Sri Lanka issue

Thank you for the invitation and please accept my apologies for the late reply. Of late, my editing time has been almost entirely consumed by various Africa-related articles, tasks involving WikiProject Africa, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (which has a substantial backlog that I'm working on). I see that the discussion on the AN/I subpage has already closed; still, I would like to help in any way I can so ... please briefly let me know how I can be of use. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For now, just keep an eye on the disputes and chime in when necessary. They are normally here or on the SLR project talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've watchlisted the SLR page and will keep an eye on the 20 or so SL-related articles on my watchlist. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That'd be a big help. Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Basic admin work. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA BeanoJosh2

Hello Rlevse, seen as you are the only admin to have voted in the request, I would like to flag your attention to the edits of BeanoJosh on his requests, which are unprecedented and alarming. It may have been a syntax problem with my computer, but has BeanoJosh removed all his oppose comments here? Rudget Contributions 20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. He's says on the RFA it was an accident, but he won't make it anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for continually protecting my user space. It's very much appreciated! --Oxymoron83 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf

The point is that "vandalism-only user" would be, for instance, someone who adds InfectedPenis.jpg to articles about math, or does a find-and-replace to convert every occurrence of the word "mammal" into the word "reptile" into articles on zoology. Snowolf may be a problem in many ways, opinionated and rude and uncompromising, but he is a genuine user. Just look at his list of pages that he's created himself.

You don't have to use the reasons in the pulldown menu; they're just suggestions. DS 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to wheel war, but I'm not sure you have a full grasp of the background here. I know that, my point is my picking vandal only vice vandalism by mistake does not warrant unblocking in this case. Yes, he is a user, but he has been warned and blocked multiple times and still does not get it. His disuption can not be allowed to unseat the community effort to make the Sri Lanka peace effort on wiki come undone. All the other Sri Lanka editors are at least trying to cooperate on the peace effort. If this effort fails, the Sri Lanka case will go to Arbcom, like Digwuren and the East Europe articles. This was all worked out in standard dispute resolution process, see the WP:SLR pages and the links in the tags at the top of many of the Sri Lanka articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that he deserved the block; my point is only that he should not have been blocked for that reason. I was going to reblock him for the duration, but then I realized that there were only 4 of the 72 hours left, so... meh. He was blocked for 68 hours, that should be enough. He's done enough to earn his punishment; don't punish him for things he didn't do. DS 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, even though we end up at the same defacto result. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Fed-up with User Beh-nam (means without name in Persian)

The user User:Beh-nam freqnetly removes photos from the article Malalai_Joya without having any reason for doing so. Please warn him/her. She/he has been blocked many times in the past for such destractive edits. Thanks. Sodaba 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Left msg on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
But he/she still continue to remove the images. سودابه 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodaba (talk • contribs)

You around?

I've been watching this username that I almost reported to UAA, but noticed the bot had reported it, so I didn't. However, it was removed from the list with the reason "No contribs". I feel that regardless of the contrib history, this name is a violation of WP:U, and needs a block, and would like your esteemed opinion. [32] Ariel♥Gold 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

yea, but I have to leave in a few. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I know you don't want to do username stuff, lol, but nobody else I know seems to be around. It's okay if you can't look at it. Ariel♥Gold 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, Until noticed it too, and went ahead and blocked the name. Go to your hot date! ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
~*Bonk*~ You have email! Ariel♥Gold 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL Sorry I didn't know you were still working on the article, sorry for the edit conflict! Let me know when you're done, there are a lot of spacing issues in there, with words crammed against other words by accident, I'd be happy to fix them if you like. Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: IRC tonight: Later maybe, I'm talking to My Lord atm! Ariel♥Gold 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam

I don't know why Behnam (really Beh-nam) is saying he's never been blocked before, [33], see here. 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant indefinate block. The real question should be, how would user: Sodaba know that I was ever blocked? I highly suspect that this is another sockpuppet of user: NisarKand. I've known him and his socks for over a year now and I'm familiar with his editing paterns. However I cannot prove it at the moment. -- Behnam 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Also please take note: why would this user: Sodaba of all the admins come to you... the same admin that user: NisarKand's recent sockpuppet was dealing with in accusatations against me. That was user: Khan182, he was confirmed to be NisarKand's sockpuppet and banned. Is highly doubt this is all a coincedence. -- Behnam 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Malalai Joya

Why do you keep removing photos from this article? This would be disruptive behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I deleted that image is because it has a false licsense. Wikireporter cliams that is his image. But, he also claims that this image is his, which is from decades ago. This person could not have taken both of these photographs. user: NisarKand and his many sockpuppets used to upload images of these two figures and had a well known habit of putting false licenses. Either way, the image has a false license and should be removed. -- Behnam 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WOSM crisis

I started a subpage on this matter because there are at least five statements published on the web and three discussions going on. The Swedish discussion is the most interesting as the Swedish International Commissioner (WOSM) answers the questions. --jergen 08:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

HB

LOL! What a wonderful surprise...and just the right number of candles too...<eek!>. Thanks, man...that means a lot... Dreadstar † 10:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Hey Rlevse. Can you please comment on the following issue here. Thanks Watchdogb 07:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas

Hi Rlevse,

Looks like other admins took care of this case already. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BigAreolas

Suspected sockpuppets

BigAreolas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thanks for the reply, there's no meat or stock puppets, I can fend just fine for myself. Just because someone reads a blog and likes it doesn't make them a puppet. I dont have a 210.0.202.30 as a puppet either, run a whois check on it and see where it is - not even closely related. I'll talk to my friend and see if he's interested at all at continuing to be part of wiki, but I've seen worse usernames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that this one is okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


did anyone ask him to change his username? He is human and might actually be willing to do it, try contacting him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

hi

hi, please note my latest edits are not vandalism and i have citations to back my comments up. thanks. --[[79.72.17.43 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]]

RE: QFA

Gotcha, thanks buddy. :) By the way, how do you salt a page? GlassCobra 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblock

Thanks for the unblock, Rlevse. Let's see how long it lasts…24.19.33.82 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

Would you mind taking a look here: Image talk:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg and possibly bring a voice of reason and clarity? Thanks, MBK004 09:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, I hear and I agree with you, I've had this same argument with the FU people many times; and whether we like it or not, the way they are interpreting wiki policy is the way it is. Example, if you want an image of an Albanian Girl Scout and can't find one, you're expected to find the wiki category for Albanians on wiki, contact them, and ask them to get you one that's free. Wiki may well be devoid of FU images one day. This is the reality of things. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock Blocked?

Here, you said Hippiodude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked as a sock of White Tyson (talk · contribs). Thought I would let you know the user is still making incivil comments directed at me and others on months old conversations at Talk:Brock Lesnar here and (not months old, but still inappropriate comments) here. And if you look at his talk page he pretty much admits he is a sock puppet, and doesn't care, that is evident here. Thank you for your help. Bmg916Speak 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Rats, I closed the SSP case and tagged his page, but forgot to do the block. Sorry for the trouble, I just blocked Hippiodude. I am looking into the rest now. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It's okay, I understand, you're probably incredibly busy as I see you are very active at WP:SSP, as well as with other admin duties I'm sure. No worries, just thought I'd bring it to your attention, thanks again! Bmg916Speak 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I do a lot here. We need more admins at SSP too. Let me know if you have further problems. Hippiodude could be blocked on incivility alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Will definitely be in touch if there are any more obvious socks. I have a sickening feeling these are actually socks of the banned user Verdict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) but I would have a harder time proving that. I would help out at SSP most definitely if I were an administrator and a user actually just offered to nominate me, but if I ever do I'm at least going to wait another couple of months as unfortunately a few weeks or so ago I let myself get dragged into an edit war at Kristal Marshall over whether or not she was actually released from WWE, and so subsequently on World Wrestling Entertainment roster as well where I violated WP:3RR and I am extremely ashamed and embarrassed by these actions. However, shortly after being reported the page was locked and I came up with a compromise all sides agreed upon. But again, I am extremely ashamed and embarrassed by what I did, so standing for adminship at this time I just don't think is in the cards. Thanks again for your hard work and help. Bmg916Speak 16:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea, you got to resist those urges to edit war and be uncivil. The need for instant gratification can come back to bite you. Let me know if you go for RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I hear ya. Will definitely let you know if I go for RfA. For now though, time to go rake those damn leaves...Bmg916Speak 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I will definitely do that. Bmg916Speak 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite

Thanks for the invite, but, although I am a scout, I'm not sure I have the knowledge to help on your project, sorry! PhilB ~ T/C 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Auno3

Hi Rlevse, I'm pretty sure that's a sockpuppet, so I've indef blocked him and closed the case. I think the obsession with Cutts is pretty strong evidence.

Nice work on dealing with the SSP backlog--it's nice to see the page so empty! --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am angry

Yes, I am very angry at you. Why did you facilitate such obvious rogues? Why did you help their lying smear campaign against me? Are you cobbling up an 'Eichmann'-style defence?

WHAT ON EARTH CAME OVER YOU?

Rhinoracer 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Not a sock or a master

Please take a look at the discussion at Edmund the Martyr. EdChampion is a single purpose editor who has been blocked before for edit warring and not engaging in discussion. He knows a great deal about WP policy, yet edits nothing other then Edmund the Martyr. HE is certainly a sock puppet and while I have a pretty good idea who he belongs to - a banned user - I have never attempted to have him checked. He is an annoyance, but all consensus (5+ editors) is against him.

Whatsupwestcoast and I are both members of a Wikiproject, so there is some overlap in our edits, but he is Canadian and demonstrates it with knowledge that only a local could have. I am an American and have never been to Canada. My personal details are all on my user page, EdChampion googled me a few month back to get my cell number, and in my line of work all my info is the internet. I figured I may as well be out with it all. The article in question has gone RfC in an attempt to end this problem once and for all. Consensus is almost certainly going to go against EdChampion (even his name is POV) and he is getting desperate. Do as you will, but please take a moment and have all the facts before you start calling editors "meat puppets" - if that is the case, Angus McLellan, David Underdown, The Rambling Man, Edmund Patrick and others are all puppets, too. Consensus is 100% against the position insisted on by EdChampion and it is not because of article ownership or sock puppetry, it is because he is advancing a fringe opinion that merits no further mention in the article. Please see for yourself. Best. -- SECisek 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"could be meat puppets" was a generic statement. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, best -- SECisek 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, can't you just check our IPs? this is mine: 98.193.26.175 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I could if I also knew his and could prove they both belonged to you both. Ask for an RFCU too--that would do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It says: Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence"...Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask. What can I do? -- SECisek 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Provide info asked for on your talk page,put it on the SSP page, or I could ask for the RFCU but that usually takes several days to get a result. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not too worried about it if nobody else is. Thanks for the info, though. -- SECisek 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 45 5 November 2007 About the Signpost
Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 3, Issue 46 12 November 2007 About the Signpost
Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

If you voted in my RFA...

Thankspam

Thank you...

MaryPoppins878

Hello. You closed the sockpuppet case on MaryPoppins878 which is great! Thank you. Question though, it doesn't look like they are blocked or maybe there's just no message on their account yet? Not sure which, just wondered if the closing and your agreeing means they are going to truly be blocked as a sockpuppet of the permanently banned Grant Chuggle. Thank you for your assistance on the matter. Irish Lass 13:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked it, see [34], but just forgot the blocked parameter on the sock tag. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!! Have a good day! Irish Lass 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


User:JackyAustine socks

Thanks for taking care of Peter zhou (talk · contribs) earlier. If you get a chance, you might want to check out Train t (talk · contribs) - it looks like his first edit is picking up where Peter/Jacky left off. Thanks!  Folic_Acid | talk  16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to remind to check on this Train t, it does look suspicious. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rlevse - could you take a look at Faeprao (talk · contribs)? I'm quite sure it's another Jacky sock. Thanks very much!  Folic_Acid | talk  16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:WiccaWeb sockpuppetry

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. I would, however, like to bring an item for discussion, and that is the possibility that, despite their disparate locations, WiccaWeb and Proxy User (and the other IPs) are the same person. I believe this is possible because of the McChord AFB - Colorado Springs, CO Air Force connection. The language is just too similar, and both appeared about the same time. It's possible he's jumping servers in the Air Force network or goes from one location to the other on temporary duty (very common). FWIW. Again, thanks and have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to provide a good set of diffs so I don't have to go digging through their logs, I'll reopen. If so, let me know and I'll unarchive the case. It's possible they're different people with similar interests. What is there btwn the AFB in WA and CO other than they're AFBs? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there is no connection as Mmoyer might like you believe, I’m just a guy with an opinion and too much time on my hands. And, what does an Air Force facility in Colorado Springs have to do with anything (It's 70 miles SOUTH of Denver)? In fact there are several Air Force facilities a lot closer to Denver: Buckley AFB for one (Not to mention the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which has an Air Force component - Google is our friend.), but why would an AFB facility in Colorado and one in Washington State share a set of IP ranges? Of course they would not. "Jumping servers"? Good lord. Mmoyer has no clue what he's talking about. But it's irrelevant, this is a personal vendetta on Mmoyer's part, and should be dismissed as such. What any of this has to do with user WiccaWeb is anyone's guess, probably just Mmoyer thinking out of his tail pipe. Proxy User 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Information

OK, after an hour and a half of work, here are the diffs and quotes, broken down:

Language similarities (from talk pages):

WiccaWeb:

  • Please don't patronize me with this kind of crap. I've been around bikers most of my life. Mostly Jokers, but the Bandidos don't stray far from that tree, their own public record simply don't support your flowery view. [35]
  • Give it a break. No one would consider that a "personal attack". You're overreacting. And, some might consider YOUR comments on my page as intimidation. Are you trying to intimidate me because you disagree with my comments about the nature of the Bandidos? One might get that impression. I don't intimidate well, I find it an offensive and unbecoming quality all to prevalent here at Wikipedia by the "old timers". Please stop now. I'm sorry you disagree with me about the nature of the Bandidos, but me saying your comments where patronizing is not a "personal attack", it's a suggestion that you maybe need to look at your approach to talking to people. Please get a life and try to focus on worthwhile Wiki activities. [36]

131.30.121.23 (from McChord AFB):

  • It is IMPROPER to remove the Neutrality POV tag. Clearly there is an issue, and it's being glossed over by editors that have a bias of denying factual evidence of the nature of Bandidos MC in favor of a fictional description that ignores documental activities. Until it is PROPERLY addressed, the Neutrality POV tag stays. If it takes filing a formal complaint and bringing in an unbiased admin / editor to hash it out, than that’s the way it will be. [37]

Proxy User (account has only been used on [[[Bandidos]]-related issues [38]):

  • (re-attributing above edits by 131.30.121.23 to himself) It is IMPROPER to remove the Neutrality POV tag. Clearly there is an issue, and it's being glossed over by editors that have a bias of denying factual evidence of the nature of Bandidos MC in favor of a fictional description that ignores documented activities. Until it is PROPERLY addressed, the Neutrality POV tag stays. If it takes filing a formal complaint and bringing in an unbiased admin / editor to hash it out, than that’s the way it will be. [39]
  • As I predicted, you use meaningless centrifuge to restrict content of this article to your point of view (otherwise known as bias). In a week or so, I will add a section on Illegal Activities that will be well supported by proper references, and I will defend it and insure that it stays included. You say that "the statement that the article contains a "fictional depiction of the Bandidos" does not seem entirely true." which of course implies that it is in part true. [40]

Edits to Bandidos:

  1. WiccaWeb adds POV tag [41]
  2. 131.30.121.23 adds "an outlaw motorcycle club with a worldwide membership linked to organized crime including drugs and rostitution" (4 attempts) [42] [43] [44] [45]
  3. 75.172.38.233 adds "with ties to organized crime, drug dealing, and prostitution." [46]
  4. 75.172.38.233 re-adds POV tags (4 attempts, and then blocked) [47] [48] [49] [50]
  5. 131.30.121.23 re-adds POV tag using exact undo action as 38.233 [51]

Summary. WiccaWeb and Proxy User argue with the same style, both visually and grammatically. Proxy User's account is created only after I suggest that Wiccaweb was rude, with his "don't patronize me with that crap" comment. Proxy user attributes talk by 121.23 to himself by changing the signature line. 121.23 and 38.233 make almost identically worded edits, and then 121.23 attempts to add the same POV tag using the same undo action as that for which 38.233 was blocked. As for the geographical distance between the two IPs, any halfway clever tech can bounce off a couple of servers.

Additionally, WiccaWeb's only edit since 22 October (which was to erase a level 2 warning from his talk page [52]), was to respond to your closure of the sockpuppet case.

In short, there's no such thing as a coincidence.

Oh, BTW, I am female, not "some guy". Also, thanks for reconsidering! You poor admins go through so much. Mmoyer 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed: WiccaWeb's response to the sockpuppet case? "Don't think so..." [53] Here's the curious part: This from a user who practically went nuclear over my comment to him that he was less than polite!? [54] It seems more than a wee bit out of character. FWIW. Mmoyer 03:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've re-opened the case, can you please update your notices of closure on the various parties user pages? Cheers! Mmoyer 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gracias

Hey Rlevse, I just wanted to thank you for cutting User:Rorybowman a little slack and taking the time to explain things to him. He's a kind of a newbie to Wikipedia, but one very few users around who are interested in improving articles about our mutual home town. So thanks again, VanTucky Talk 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, me old mate!

Please see this.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that User:Rambutan as a name was shed by means of a username change - it's not an alternate account.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

My power flickered and my comp restarted. When I got back, everyone was gone, lol. Ariel♥Gold 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP

I added more evidence to the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Verzastyle case. Is this what you wanted, or was there something else? Please let me know! ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to update you on the case; the ip address that was connected in the case blanked the ssp page. lol. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A user you blocked for 1 month is active as an IP

You recently blocked User:Scipo for 1 week for edit warring. But the user has returned this evening editing unlogged as 205.206.117.219. IP edits mirror the 'edit war' changes made by Scipo. The IP has been tagged previously as being a Scipo 'anon haunt'. 156.34.219.206 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Submit a case at WP:SSP and provide good diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done one before so I asked a 'logged' user wiki-friend to create a sandbox page for me to play in.(see User:Scarian/Sandbox. I found another Scipo sockpuppet earlier and tagged the new accounts talk page. I will add this new username to the WP:SSP report when its filed showing all the similarities in the edits between Scipo... his home 205.X IP and this new account Arthur2001 (talk · contribs). I am busy at work so a formal SSP will not be done until later on this evening. Once a SSP has been started... and I find more socks(as I suspect there will be) can I just continue to add them into the current case? Or do I have to wait and file a new report after the first one has been dealt with. Thanks for all your assistance. Cheers and take care! -- 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As you requested. A case has been opened see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Scipo. -- 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Reconciliation barnstar

The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award
For your merits in bringing about the Sri Lanka dispute resolution, the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific award, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks. — Sebastian 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - sockpuppetry case

Thanks for closing the harrassing case. For the record, I live nowhere near Chatswood, which is on the opposite side of Sydney. OptusNet must be routing a lot of their traffic through there... Anyway, thanks again! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day

See User talk:Gadget850#Featured List of the Day Experiment. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage

It's gone to arbitration [55] but the arbitrators seem disinterested/unaware of [56]. Before I'm banned (potentially due to the actions of a sockpuppet) I'd like someone to make a ruling or make the arbitrators aware of it. A fair hearing is all I ask. -- Tezza1 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

They accepted the case (see the 4-0 vote). They'll get to it, arbitration is a slow process. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, they have ignored it without comment. I might be wrong, but I don't think they will even consider it now as if they do, and possibly find in the affirmative, they have banned me due to actions of a sock puppet or role account which instigated the arbitration proceedings. That will make the arbitrators look rather foolish.
Anyway, my thanks to you and the other investigator for taking the time to look into it. Tezza1 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On a very special day...

Happy Happy Birthday, dear R!
Happy Happy Birthday, dear R!

I hope your birthday was full of cake, presents, friends, family, and joy! May this year be better than all that have gone before it, and may you enjoy many, many more happy birthdays! ~*Big hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yeah Wikipedia time is ahead of mine, it is still the 16th here, and I only woke up a couple hours ago, lol. Ariel♥Gold 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Ariel. Lord Dread sent me a nice email too. It has indeed been a very fine day for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP

Thanks for the intervention. I wasn't sure if it was correct or not, but must have been true. Regards, Rudget zŋ 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Canadian Paul

Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger 2004-01-30.jpg

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.


Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:SSP case

Please have a look now. Thanks. --Lokantha (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Founders Intent left You a message

Mr R, how do I archive my watchlist page?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know of no way to archive your watchlist, I think it's totally dynamic. You can archive your talk page though. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!? PP

Considering that the edit war seems to have stopped over an hour ago (Martinphi and I are discussing and not reverting, which is highly unusual), might the PP on this article possibly be a bit counterproductive? --Philosophus T 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit war involved more than just you and Martinphi. If you can get an agreement from all the editors involved that the warring stops and all edits discussed before being implemented, I think I could agree to have the protection lifted. Right now, I don't see it. Dreadstar † 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi Rlevse,

I received a note from an indefinitely blocked user asking me to take a look at a block you performed on November 11th. I've seen the evidence, presented on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Paul_venter, and it looks pretty convincing, but is there evidence that this account was used abusively (such as reverting to a previous account's version)? I see user:196.2.106.242 reverted to the other accounts' versions, but did this account? It looks like it didn't edit in the same time frame as the other accounts (so no checkuser possible). If this current account is the one being used, is there harm in blocking the old account and allowing this one to edit? There appear to be some good edits on organisms. I won't undo the work of another admin; I am just asking for clarification on your opinion about this account. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean allow Physicist68 to edit and block Paul venter indef, I am okay with that, but I'm not sure those are the accounts you're asking about. Your requester seems to not know he can edit his talk page and ask for unblocks. I think either Rotational or Physicist68 should be indef blocked, but not both. Does this answer your question? Thanks for checking. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I should have been clearer. It seems likely to me that several of these are the same user, but the Rotational account looks to me like a possible attempt at a fresh start. At any rate, I'll wait for an explanation about what's going on from user:Rotational. Whichever accounts aren't being used can be blocked, but as long as there's no abuse from the Rotational account, I agree: not all accounts should be indeffed. The Physicist account is a throwaway account, and should be blocked if there is an unblocked account. Thanks for your comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
May I interject a word or two, here? I have Rotational's talk page on my watchlist and noticed the note there. If you need further convincing that Rotational is Raasgat, see the page history of Otto Wilhelm Thomé. Rotational only added an image to the article, but with few other edits other than Raasgat, it suggests they are the same user. I have found no evidence of Rotational reverting to a previous version of another account, but the style is the same. If you take the view that Rotational is Raasgat, Paul venter, and Roxithro, the conclusion is that this user prefers a style that is not in line with guidelines (WP:HEAD, for example) and becomes somewhat hostile when asked to adhere to guidelines (see User talk:Raasgat). When confronted, the user then jumps to a new account to continue adding content with the style preference. Mind, the user is still able to use User:Paul venter, as it is not indef blocked. The contributions are excellent otherwise. If this user is allowed a fresh start under either new name—and I would love for the good contributions to continue—then I would suggest reminding the user of current guidelines on style. If they refuse to comply even after further warning, another block may be necessary. My unsolicited two cents, anyway. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for interjecting, Rkitko (and I hope Rlevse won't mind me continuing the discussion on his talk page). It seems pretty clear so far from the evidence that this was an alternate account, but not exactly abusive sockpuppetry. MOS guidelines should be followed, but I'll never block a user for ignoring style guidelines: there's no policy that covers abuse of style guidelines. At this point, I don't even know what the user will say about the other accounts. I want to see it. (Apologies to Rlevse for cluttering up his talk page with this stuff). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the talk. I still feel as originally. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in the sock case, these alternate accounts appear to violate the "avoiding scrutiny" section of WP:SOCK. That, in my opinion at least, was the inherent abuse of the multiple accounts. It took a while after Raasgat stopped contributing for me to notice Rotational's contributions. A couple questions, then, since I'm not versed in blocking policies, to ease my mind, and to inform: 1) If Rotational is unblocked, will Paul venter be indef blocked? and 2) If Rotational continues to ignore MOS guidelines after unblocking, what, after sufficient warning or discussion, will happen? Thanks for taking the time to discuss my concerns. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Only one of them should remain open IMHO. As for continued MOS violations, after warning and discussion, that could fall under vandalism/disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. There's only need for one account, but the Paul Ventner account isn't even active. If it does become active, it would allow a Checkuser to be performed [...] Assuming good faith, I've unblocked the Rotational account for now. The user has a very good sense of Wiki markup, and if he can abide by WP:HEAD, there should be no problem, right?
Also, please note: I would love having a user like Rotational working in my area of the project. The editors we seem to get on WP:DINO, aside from a few regulars, are for the most part terrible: no citations, no MOS, and not even basic spelling... and those are the non-vandals. I don't want to drive a potentially good user off the project because of formatting concerns. I have the user's page watchlisted, and will be watching for disputes, but I don't really see how failure to abide by a guideline is vandalism. It is my hope, however, that Rotational will abide by WP:HEAD. I do want to thank both of you for your willingness to discuss the unblock (not all editors are that open-minded), and I do understand that you both have the best interest of the project at heart. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you blocked the "68" account too, so unless something new comes up, I think this is settled. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

I received an email from Kww on the block. I'd like to shorten the block as a sign of good faith, I don't think he'll continue edit warring at this point. Let me know if this is agreeable to you. Thanks. Dreadstar † 02:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I've unblocked. Dreadstar † 03:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 47 19 November 2007 About the Signpost
An interview with Florence Devouard Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals" News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Thank you. Rudget.talk 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Sorry for not going to SSP first, but this user has repeatedly created abusive socks to evade a block, and since it's pretty obvious, I figured I would come to you directly if this is okay. TA3M YM TA3 (talk · contribs) I feel is definitely a sock of Aladdin Zane (talk · contribs) whom you found as a sock of Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs). Make edits to similar articles (Spring Thomas, porn related articles) but the biggest give away is this users insistence over at the D-Generation-X article over whether certain people were members or not. I won't drag you into that argument (this user is the only one insisting his side of the case anyway), but this users exact insistence and his contribs to similar articles, as well as trying to avoid the pitfalls on his user page that gave him away under Aladdin Zane leave no doubt in my mind. Thanks. Bmg916Speak 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for having an inappropriate user name. Do you still think you could take a look so that account creation can be blocked if it is determined this is a sock puppet? Thank you. Bmg916Speak 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar

I wanted to make a couple comments about this case that you just closed. One of the major points you made was that the 76 IPs were from Herndon VA. I initially misinterpreted that as well at first. That is the main address that shows up in the whois check for the IP address, however, it is the corporate headquarters postal address. RoadRunner is a provider available in nearly every state. If you will please check the traceroute for these two IPs, you will see that they in fact trace to southern California: 76.81.22.92 vln902.vnnyca2-rtr1.socal.rr.com and 76.81.204.238 vln902.vnnyca2-rtr1.socal.rr.com. I'm confident that checking the IP used by the two registered names, Dooyar and Onittles, will yield similar or identical IP locations to the 76.81 IPs. The 164 IP is the library at UCLA and the 209 IP is at the LA County Library.

The similarity in the edit summaries, coupled with the specific articles being edited, many of which are relatively obscure and have few editors, is compelling evidence. Because the edits have reverted, added and argued the same material, sometimes exactly, I can hardly see how there's little proof of a sockpuppet violation. Onittles was not used until after Dooyar had been blocked twice for being rude, disruptive and incivil. While disruption and incivility are grounds for other action, isn't it part and parcel of the problems with sockpuppetry, especially when it is continued?

This editor has worked nearly daily prior to the last week. I simply don't agree with reasoning that blocking should be passed up because the editor hasn't posted in a few days. It is a holiday week, during which a large number of people are away. I think that it should be revisited in light of the real locations of the other IPs and the pattern of editing. Diffs can be provided, but evidence in the histories alone is fairly clear to me. Thanks for your time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This was not an easy call, though I know you differ. In all liklihood, one or both will start editing again. If they sock, vote stack, jointly disrupt, etc, please open another case and provide good diffs. It's far easier on the admins on any abuse report (SOCK, ANI, RFCU, etc) if the submitter provides good diffs. Just saying "see their contribs (or talk page, etc)" (which show in the template anyway) makes it harder and slows the process down. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks of LtWinters

Thanks for blocking those socks of LtWinters, but I believe another one has popped up: Thisissad54 (talk · contribs). He has replied to a question posed by another editor to LtWinters. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine

I suspect he started to put dirty messages now on my user page because he was blocked.Sambure (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that he's using open proxies. Luna Santin has protected the page for a while. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, Porky and IP already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

Hi, I see you've blocked then unblocked beh-nam recently, he is vandalising pages so why are you not doing anything to stop him? I request that he be blocked indef due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[57], [58] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[59], [60], [61]

He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [62] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [63], [64] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[65] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[66]

Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[67] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit‎ [68]) [69], [70], [71], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly.--Hurooz (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did I not do anything? Because admins don't have the time to watch every single edit and user on wki. That's why we have noticeboards and talk pages. Now that you brought this new evidence, I've blocked him for a week. Further disruption by him will result in an indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you very much, I know you guys are always pretty busy. Just watch and see what sorts of excuses he now makes but how can he defend himself for blatantly inserting that Nadir Shah was a child molestor and that Ahmad Shah Abdali was his sex slave? This is clearly a violation, and exposes to us what he is trying to do here. Again, thanks!--Hurooz (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: SSP

You've already concluded not to block the accounts, so I didn't give it as close a look as I normally would do. I can't say with certainty that sock puppetry is going on; the edits to articles unrelated to Bandidos have little in common. I think your decision to "wait and see" was the correct one. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks- reply

I asked HPJoker about those edits a few days ago (and I have the complete conversations in Archive 3 of my talk page). He has said many times he lives in a hotel and some of those edits were definitely not him (while others were). I asked him about that vandal edit here, his response here. He also told me a few days ago he was going on vacation and would deal with this when he got back, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.   jj137 (Talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I think it really is a tough situation we have here. It may be hard to make any final decisions until HPJoker gets back from his vacation, when we can ask him more about what's going on. I really have no idea why he deleted some of Socby19's edits to my user talk page (and some other pages, maybe, I'll have to check), but I know it really could get him blocked because it is considered vandalism.   jj137 (Talk) 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It all goes back to edit warring they had over the MLB 07: The Show article. Apparently HPJoker wanted to keep a "Bugs and Flaws" section of the article, and Socby19 wanted to get rid of it, and they've been arguing continuously since.   jj137 (Talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've been keeping an eye on the page and nobody's changed it in a few days. I suspect when HP gets back it could start up again, and I'll let you know.   jj137 (Talk) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Beh-nam

Hi. I am Behnam. I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

  • 1) [72]Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
  • 2)[73] This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
  • 3) [74]I explained that edit on the talk page here
  • 4) [75]Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
  • 5) [76] This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
  • 6)[77] The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
  • 7)[78] I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
  • 8) [79]I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation. -- ~~ Behnam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.19.171 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not explain things like the child molester and sex slave edits, another admin has already declined your unblock request, and a third admin has protected your page for template abuse. Plus a fourth commented on this case. It seems I am not alone here. Take the time to reflect. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
NONE of those admins got a chance to see these 8 edits explained! So am I getting banned for JUST ONCE unreferenced edit!? There are THOUSANDS of unreferenced edits! And this is actually true, if you allow me to I can get references for it. I was frustrated and did not explain myself properly because again you are being manipulated by the SAME user that manipulated you last time... and last time didn't you end up admitting you were wrong and apologized? Give another admin a chance to read the explanation of this edits. -- 64.229.19.171 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.223 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only blocked you two times, not three. Any admin can see and read anything you've done--so yes they had every chance to see everything. I did not protect your talk page, someone else did. See my above entry of 23:25 too. You are not totally innocent in this or you wouldn't have the long block log that you do have nor have gotten your talk page protected; you even got indef blocked once and there are several admins who agree with me. What evidence you have that Hurooz is a sock? The whole root of this problem is that too many people who edit the articles you are interested in simply can't learn to get along with each other. Think about it. Finally, both sides of this topic you and Hurooz are in please go find another admin from now on. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way, you were wrong before and you are wrong to block me again. This user: Hurooz is a new user, he happened to appear right after the last confirmed sockpuppet of NisarKand was blocked (user: Dilbar Jan). I don't even know him and I've never had any disputes with him so I'm not sure what dipsutes your talking about... again you haven't even investigated. If this user is new and I've never even had a dispute with him... how is he so familiar with me, my block log, and my edits... aren't those enough clues for you to be suspicious?

What does my past block have to with this block? So are you telling me that I am being blocked for being blocked before!? This is ridicoulous. And I cannot find another admin, my talk page is blocked, so you will have to help me now since you blocked me in the first place without even looking at those edits. I have now explained them and you should be able to see that there was no reason to be blocked... so am I blocked for having a bad block log?

Now you're accusing me again of not looking at the edits, but I did and you accuse me of being wrong and you demand that I help you? Hardly the way to win someone over. And yes, you can find other admins, just like you found earlier today, like the ones on your talk page. No you're not blocked for having a bad block log, you're block for recent behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No I'm not accusing you... that is exactly what happened. This has happened TWO times already where you allowed yourself to be manipulated by a sockpuppet of a banned user... and now this the THIRD time! I was right both those times and you ended up realizing that. No you have not looked at the edits! Which recent behaviour!? Which one of these edits is bad behavior? I have explained ALL of them... so you know you tell me which one is bad behavior. And you expect me to beg and win you over now? This is the third time! Don't you think I'm frustrated now? And thanks to this frustration you caused my talk page has now been blocked! Just because you don't like that I'm frustrated with you... doesn't mean you can just ignore me. You are an Administrator and you have responsibilities. If you don't want to ADMIT your mistakes, then place everything I've written here on my talk page so I can see another Admin or possibly an Arbitration Committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.223 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I think you just need to calm down a little bit. If you're willing to do that, and discuss the situation in a cool, dispassionate fashion I'm sure we can find a solution which will limit disruption and get you back to editing. As a gesture of good faith, I'm going to unprotect your talk page (since it's obviously not doing any good). If you would, please refrain from request another unblock when I do — instead, if would be helpful if you explained what you feel the core of the problem with your block was — a number of people have pointed out that your edits were inflammatory, and unsourced; it may be common knowledge in Afghanistan or Iran that so-and-so is a pedophile, but for most English speaking people that's a serious allegation that requires a source. Anyways, let's talk about it cooly, but on your talk page. --Haemo (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: It's not going to help posting here anyways, since Rlevse is up late and is going to go to bed soon. If you want a resolution, it's best to work on it via your talk. --Haemo (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I had to interfere because my name is mentioned! I explained before there is nothing that be can said or done to justify the actions of Beh-nam. Calling national leaders of the world as child molestors clearly explains to everyone what this person has in his mind. There is no doubt that this Beh-nam is an ethnic Tajik who is also Persian nationalist (going by his contribution), and will do whatever his thoughts allow him to attack people of other ethnic groups such as Pashtuns, Turks or others. The reason is because there has always been major rivalry between Persians and other groups. His contributions are ALL RELATED TO ETHNIC WAR from the day he created account in 2006 until today. The other contributions he does is very very minor, just adding tags to articles or fixing a ling here and there, or changing image sizes etc so that to fool others to think he is editing many articles. I strongly recommend for Beh-nam to stay away from all Pashtun and Turkic articles, he's not even Pashtun or Turkic, he favors one group over the other, that's where the major trouble is. Why does this user always patrol those articles and reverts edits by others who may be more expert? Finally, the first thing Beh-nam always does is try to change the subject of his continues bad behavious by trying to make administrators focus more on User:NisarKand, who is banned but I can't see any reasons. It appears that that user was doing normal good edits and all of a sudden someone banned him. There is no unblock history on his talk page or any specific reason why he is banned.--Hurooz (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your unceasing efforts in addressing the caseload at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I, Akhilleus, award you the Working Man's Barnstar. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Why thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You're more than welcome. Btw, I looked at Wiccaweb and Verzastyle, and I think you made the right calls. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:HPJoker as a sock

Thanks for going through it. I figured it be a case of SSP since the IP was doing vandalism, and the registered user making constructive edits. I'd just like to clarify one thing said by Jj137. You can find it typed several times between my as well as HP's talkpage. Actually, now that I think of it, I did put it in the report. I was concerned about the 'bugs' section in August, and lost interest soon after. The 'bait' came earlier this week. It's kind of long, but I did make a fair argument against HPJoker here. If you happen to get around to reading it, I'd like to maybe get some feedback. Thanks again.Socby19 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes when he returns. Everyone should try to stay civil and work out things on talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help about Justiceinwiki socks. I pushing my luck now but can you please delete 1 category in article because it is without question false. Problem is that I do not know how to delete category:Political parties in Croatia in article Ustaše. Right category for article is former political parties in Croatia (if this category exist) because they have been croatian version of Nazi party and I do not see in Nazi party article category Political parties in Germany. --Rjecina 08:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That category is coming from the infobox template. You'd have to change the infobox or remove the template. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine SSP case

User:MickWest is not a sockpuppet of User:Herd of Swine. A sockpuppet is an alternate account used deceptively. User:MickWest is an old account, active from May 2005 to April 2006, with 1259 edits. User:Herd of Swine has been active from April 2006 to the present with 850 edits. User:MickWest did make ten minor edits to non-contentious pages over two months ago (updates to pages User:MickWest had edited years ago), but there has been NO overlap with User:Herd of Swine since a few minor changes to Morgellons 18 months ago.

Also note Special:Contributions/Austrogoth, seems to have been created simply to make this accusation against me.

There is no sockpuppetry here. User:MickWest is essentially inactive, an abandoned account. I would appreciate your guidance in how I might clear my name here. I know I've not been banned, but I have the rather discrediting sockpuppetry accusation on my talk page, and also on the User:MickWest talk page, which I feel should be removed as unjustified. Herd of Swine (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We are well aware Austrogoth was created just for the SSP case, but the checkuser could not determine of whom it was a sock. It's obviously not a brand new editor. MickWest edited several times in May and Sep 2007. The bulk of MickWest's edits end on April 8, 2006, just two days before Herd of Swine's first edits. Plus the checkuser tied them together and they edit similarly. If MickWest is an abandoned account, that part is a non-issue, essentially. I'm not privy to the checkuser details, but you could ask VoA what he's allowed to tell you. Do you have anything to support you're not also MickWest or are you admitting it's you but it's just abandonded? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
MickWest is my old account, sorry I was not clear with that. I abandoned it because it is my real name, and I wished to edit Wikipedia without using my real name for privacy reasons, as seems to be common practice. I regret resurrecting it in May and Sept 2007, but they were very minor updates to pages I'd edited previously. I would be happy if that account (and this edit) could be nuked, as privacy is still a concern for me.
I suspect Austrogoth is User:Nielsp, also User_talk:75.83.171.237 and Special:Contributions/71.130.56.247. For evidence see: [80] Herd of Swine (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Austrogoth indef last night for privacy violations. I just tagged him as a suspected, not confirmed, Nielsp sock. If you want I'll take the tag off MW's page since it's be mostly, not totally dormant. An account can't be deleted. About all I can think of is you put in a request at WP:CHU, explain the situation and see if the bureaucrats will do it. You could ask for a 3rd account with a new name, or renmae HoS so MW could then be renamed to HoS. I don't think it's possible to merge accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Since HoS was not banned, but MW was, could you just remove the tags from MW and HoS, leave MW alone, delete Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Herd_of_Swine and I'll carry on using HoS? I guess the privacy issue is somewhat moot, but I'd like to avoid the stigma of being lumped in with actual puppetteers like Nielsp. Herd of Swine (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a rather unique case and MW made few edits after HoS appeared, I've done that. I've left a note people can contact me if they have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your help. Herd of Swine (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ie909 redirects

Thanks for speedily taking care of this issue. I seem to be unable to move back his various redirects. (Actually, I'm rather confounded that he was able to redirect so many articles so easily!) Could you show me how I can fix this? Thank you, Ameriquedialectics 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Call up the article in question, and use whatlinkshere, and backstrace, change each redir. There's probably a better way, but this is all I know. Try User:ArielGold or the help desk too. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll probably leave it for those more technically-able than I am. Best, Ameriquedialectics 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BradSerious

I just found quite the discovery. BradSerious is a sockpuppet of another person, as identified by a long string of logs. See the userpage for more details. --EoL talk 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

GEEZ! Don't know if it's worth retagging all that or not. Great detectivework though. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
saw you did it. thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.156.63.16

Why did you block this user? He only recieved one warning. And his edits obviously aren't that bad, as one (of 2) haven't been reverted. I (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Beh-nam

Upon being unblocked today, 25 November 2007, one of Beh-nam's first edits was in the article Tajiks where in the edit summary Beh-nam said "restored [from] vandalism by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.202.115.142)" which he did. But in the process he removed the edits that I and LeeMulod333 had made. Fixing the vandalism should have been simply changing the pop1 figure in the info box from 209.202.115.142's 6,315,129 back to 8,610,279. Beh-nam is an experienced editor and knows the effect of grabbing an old version, and ignoring the intermediate edits. Since my edit was more than four hours previous to Beh-nam's, Beh-nam must have seen it in order to (1) identify the vandalism as belonging to 209.202.115.142, and (2) select an earlier version to restore. He chose his last version, 11:16, 23 November 2007 Beh-nam, even though LeeMulod333's version was before the vandalism. Something is not right, and mere inattention does not seem to be it. Beh-nam was warned in his restoration, "I think a good start would be a commitment to discuss contentious edits before you make them and get consensus, to refrain from edit warring, and to source statements which a general reader would not know as common knowledge." Beh-nam replied in part: "Well another suggestion I would have for myself is to be more patient. I have a tendency to loose my patience and edit quickly. I think that's the main thing that might get me into edit wars sometimes." --Bejnar (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar, that was an accident on my part. I only meant to fix the vandalism on the numbers there which you failed to catch. -- Behnam (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanna comment here that banned User:Tajik (buddy of Beh-nam) is using the User:Beh-nam ID now. Tajik is the one who types in better English and Beh-nam is not that good typer. Banned Tajik lives in Germany and Beh-nam in Toronto, Canada.--Hurooz (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Very funny that a user who's been banned dozens of times now (user: NisarKand) and keeps coming back with dozens of sockpuppets (such as user: Dilbar Jan, etc) is trying to get me banned with these accusations! LOL! You can go ahead and ask for my IP checked. We don't even live on the same continent. LOL! Speaking of checkuser, it's time for me to report this latest sockpuppet of yours. -- Behnam (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to a)learn to edit in harmony and b)stop making these accusations and/or file WP:RFCU cases if you truly feel the evidence is warranted. Otherwise, this'll go on forever and you'll both get blocked indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Malalai Joya

Just to let you know, I was right about those images on those articles. The Admins on Commons confirmed they had false licenses and removed them. They were probably uploaded by an account of user: Sodaba(user:NisarKand) there. -- Behnam (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:RodentofDeath

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RodentofDeath (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. -- edg ☺ ☭ 15:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of the peace process

Rlevse, please take a look [[81]] where Lahiru has violated the 1RR that he agreed to. He has actually done 3 revert (maybe 4) during a period of less than 24 hours). Likewise I have also violated the 1RR which I have also agreed upon. However, since Lahiru, initially banned and confirmed for sock, started his subsequent reverts before I have done so. Please hand out blocks accordingly (including to me) because it was said that Breaching the peace process will be dealt with firmly. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert the same content withing 24h. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Lahiru is correct, 3RR rules (1RR for us) are that it's rv of the same material the only vio here is watchdogb, who rv'd that ref twice. But since watchdogb reported him self I'll not block if you both leave the article alone for 24 hours. If you edit this article in that time after you both agree, I'll block that violator. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok I understand Watchdogb (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, both of you not edit that Allegations article for 24 hours from the time of this datetime stamp, by wiki time. Thanks Gents. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
However, with this newly found knowledge please watch out for more revert wars. Specially because Socks are running wild. Actually, I think there will be edit wars very soon. I sure won't participate in that. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Provable socks will get no mercy from me. If they appear, report to WP:SSP, which I patrol regularly. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Page protection is an option if it gets bad too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

You may be interested in this: User_talk:The_Big_X#Unblock_request. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've commented there. - jc37 06:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Hurooz

Just to let you know, it is now confirmed by checkuser (see here) that he was a sockpuppet of user: NisarKand. Once again, I was right and you were unjustified in blocking me. In the future, please be more suspicious of user that appear out of no where and try to manipulate you in getting others banned. I just wanted to let you know about this so you can understand why I was so frustrated. -- Behnam (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not unjustified in blocking you this time, your behavior was inappropriate. That's a separate issue of who is a sock of whom. FYI, I'm not getting involved in any cases on this topic in the future. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 48 26 November 2007 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#2006 Mannar massacre

You may want to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#2006 Mannar massacre, which raises addresses both a content issue and a behavioural issue. I've commented on both, but my dispute resolution experience primarily involves article content, so I think you are more qualified than I (especially in light of your deeper involvement with the present SLR dispute resolution) to determine what type of action, if any, is required to address the behavioural issue. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Called it as I saw it. Please do the para merge. Thanks for you vote of confidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where this is comming from, but if you try to block me for this edit, I will take it to Arbcom. I'm tired of all this business. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a valid edit edit, neutral and sourced. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Snowolfd4, please take it to Arbcom, dont just threaten people just do!! Really after that we can all move on to developing an encylopedia.Taprobanus (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Snowolfd4, I don't see that Rlevse suggested that he might block you for this edit. The only relevant edit I could find is this suggestion to read a particular thread involving the inappropriate use of the term "vandalism" in edit summaries. I get the feeling that this is all a misunderstanding... – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is some one calling (indirectly) other editors murderers who want eastern tamils dead as soon as possible. Can some one throw such huge false allegation, and yet get away without any punishment?? I was once blocked for 72 hrs for calling a site, a racist site. And now we have someone saying some wikipedians want eastern tamils dead immediately!! And yet, no one even bother to warn him. I hope you would take a swift action on behalf of the wikipedian community.Thank you.Iwazaki 会話。討論 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see "dead" or "murder" anywhere in that article or its talk page. You can provide more specific diffs if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
murder is not directly worded there(thats why i said indirectly). But the word dead is obviously used.Excerpt from what he wrote, Tamils did not show up in Sri Lanka yesterday and going to die off tomorrow (although some Wikipedian would like to see that happen). Isn't he clearly saying, some wikipedian would like to see tamil dead as soon as possible ? If you take a look at the talk page,there is me and one bodhi dhana. He is saying we want tamils dead by tomorrow, and how is it possible without murdering them ? You may interpret it in a different way, but the fact that he has insulted some editors remains.Frankly, I don't know how he can call editors like this.Iwazaki 会話。討論 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people have been editing that article mostly only mass tagging it untill I picked up some RS sources and cleaned it up. I was frustated that people come to wikipedia seems sometimes only mass tag and absolutely contribute nothing to any articles. It meant most of the editors who edited that article except the guy who started and me. But I should'nt have writen what I wrote. Hence I apologize and strike those comments. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I do not what you are talking here, other than giving a lame excuse for your outburst.You may strike out them now, but fact remain, you have been highly uncivil in your outburst and insulting. If the process let you go unharm even after this, I don't think we can have any slight trust on this.
Rlveese, could you please make a comment regarding this ? Could you please tell us ,why you think this is not insulting and do not deserve any kind of punishment?? I told you before, I was blocked merely calling some one as a writer to racist web sites. Here we have a more serious and more insultive outbursts, which goes beyond any comparison and richly deserve some actions.Iwazaki 会話。討論 02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Iwazaki, I understand your concerns, but there are several differences between your case and Taprobanus':
  • First, Iwazaki's comments were directed at specific editors:

[82], [83]

  • Second, Iwazaki's comments were part of a series of failures of AGF and WP:CIVIL: See above, as well as: [84]
  • Third, Taprobanus has since stricken and apologised for the comment, whereas no apology or recognition of wrongdoing was evident in Iwazaki's discussion with Haemo.
  • Fourth, Iwazaki did not report the Taprobanus issue until about 2.5 weeks after it occurred.
  • Fifth, History of Eastern Tamils is not tagged with our peace effort tag, though maybe it should be. I tagged what was in the agreement. On the other hand, it is part of the overall SLR project. So this is a rather minor point, but I did want to note it.
    • Iwazaki, you probably won't agree with this, but I think that in this particular case, that this be considered settled. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

sock puppetry

Am trying to navigate my way around some of the charges against me - first time on Wikipedia. I've only gone to my article for edits under my own username - slmcouncil. I've been trying to go through the help sections to understand why I've been accused of sock puppetry. Slmcouncil (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See-Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/November_2007#User:Slmcouncil. Let me know if you have more questions. The edit's look like you and IP could be the same person in what would be a violation of WP:SOCK, but could also be simply forgetting to log in. FYI, the IP's removal of the tag is vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Rlevse, your swift and neutral comment on many of the heated SLR problems are very well appreciated and is the force that keeps SLC editors sane. I really thought that past couple of days was going to turn into a war zone again, however, it didn't. This, my friend, is what you have helped become of wikipedia - a peaceful place. Your effort in this peace process is very appreciated. Thanks for your hard work Watchdogb (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for taking the time to say so. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dewarw

I've posted the case at RFCU here, like you suggested. I think this is probably the best way forward. Personally, I now think the "school friend" theory is probably the right one, but in that instance I would expect Dewarw to know who it is. --RFBailey (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The check has now been done--can you take this further now? --RFBailey (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove

This isn't an unprotect request, but I want one of my comments copy-pasted onto Giove's page. The comment that I want pasted on is the on the last revision by me, at the bottom. Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, --Gp75motorsports 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here that comment is. It will appear as a new section.


You've got it all wrong.

All Alaisdair is saying is that you should try reading the guidelines. Again, it's not the most exciting stuff, but it sure helps. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1RR violation

Rlvese, could you please take a look at the following complain made at the SLR talk page. 1RRR violation by watchdog. Thanks Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

New Eagle Scout

No, I actually hadn't seen that. It's been open since October 16? Wow. Shrug. Well, there's not much I can do about it, is there? Next time we sup, I'll tell you what I really think.

Have you heard of Cleveland Sellers? [85] ? --evrik (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Only heard of Cleveland from the new article on him. What's "sup"? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be great if we could get a local volunteer to get a picture of the proceedings for us on Monday so we use it in the article. BTW, I'm logging off in a couple of minutes and probably won't be back the rest of the day. --evrik (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

editing errors

I didnt realize I was renaming the Arbcom decision. Apparently you renamed it whilst I was editing. Please pardon, and while I'll try to edit it correctly, if an error happens, it is an error. The posting is quite slow, and there is apparently some problem informatically. Thx. 85.5.180.9 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP advice

Thanks for taking a look at the SSP case and giving me some advice about it. I will open an RFCU now. I've never done one, so I was procrastinating. Thanks! Darkspots 12:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I created Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Piononno. But it hasn't shown up yet in the list of requests. Just want to make sure I did it correctly. Darkspots 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have to do this. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That's pretty obvious, now that you did it. Oh, I'm married, so I'll take a pass on the app. Cheers, Darkspots 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The app was just a pasting error ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Luis R. Furlán

See this talk page ? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article, whom I suspect COI is the same guy, but doesn't seem overly selfaggrandizing, listed this one on list of Scouts. I have no way to confirm one way or another, and am not married to the tag being on there. Chris 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
taking it away. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup to User:Piononno Socks

Hi, looks like my suspicions and your advice to act further on them were both justified: [86]. The only stale logged-in account was indef blocked anyway, User:Kaiser1877. So, thank you very much for your assistance. And is there anything else I need to do to follow up on this? I looked at the templates to place on user pages, etc, and it looks like they get put on by the blocking admin, so I left it alone. Let me know. Darkspots 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll wrap it up. Just let us know if you find more. 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

Hey dear, I wanted to let you know that Alison requested that I file a RFCU after I found a disturbing pattern, so I did, and no clerks were around to transclude it onto the page, but she was working on the case, so I went ahead and did that. I'm not stepping on any toes, I hope, and I did check with her to check it after I was done, so I did it right, lol. On an unrelated note, there is an entry for Daniel575, which for some reason will not link to the subpage, although I fixed the entry as the submitter did not put the time/date submitted info. I'm not sure if it has to do with the fact that the entry was submitted into a page that was previously closed, but it is something I'd be curious to know, once you get home if you have a chance to look at it, and see what is wrong. Ariel♥Gold 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The cases that had prior submissions don't click from the RFCU page for some reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 49 3 December 2007 About the Signpost
Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open 
Possible license migration sparks debate Featured articles director names deputy 
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay" 
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Roadcrusher

Hi! Good work on clerking :). Just a quick note on this case: apparently you archived it, but you forgot to add it to at WP:RFCU/CASE! Can you check the other cases you archived to see if you did it? That's very helpful when a username seems familiar, so you can look up other CU on him. -- lucasbfr talk 09:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to be very diligent and thorough; did not find others I missed. I goofed this one, sorry, thanks for fixing it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, we all screw up these once in a while. I've archived a case that was run 4 times without any archival, yesterday.
(Re: Archive) To be honest I haven't understood what you meant! Usually I try to move the cases to the completed/declined once the CU replied (if there is no further question). If there is nothing more to be done, I archive then 2-4 days later (depending on the amount of cases that are waiting for archival). The only time I archive immediately is when there are 2 runs against the same user, and that one is completed. That way there is only 1 case showing up in the list (I'm not sure it's a good idea though, but that's the lesser of 2 evils IMO).
Just a note, because I saw that you were sometimes commenting on the cases: Personally I try to avoid that (except the usual "reformatted", "user blocked", "diffs needed" stuff). The idea is to appear as neutral as possible, and let the CU handle the rest. I remember delisting bogus cases once or twice, but only where there is no information. I don't comment on the fact that the CU will run a check or not (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JaneGrey is bogus, but I listed it, for example). But since you're quite knowledgable in the WP:SSP area, I think you should comment when you have more information, but not as a clerk to avoid any confusion. -- lucasbfr talk 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
See [87]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ooow, ok. You should list all the suspects, in fact. I know this sounds weird, but we archive all cases regardless of the result, and we follow the same logic on cases with mixed results. Yeah I know your work on SSP, I was commenting on Jimbopheel in fact. But as I said, I'm cool with comments from knowledgeable people, IMO they shouldn't be "officially" {{clerknote}}ed templated. (And good call on stating that you blocked the socks, I usually don't block, because I got slapped once. But I'm going to do that again). -- lucasbfr talk 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Valboy1672

Valboy1672 good for them but what the has that got to do with meDiamonddannyboy (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You were named in the case, so I was just letting you know, just in case. That's all. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick question

I see you created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Azurbanipal but haven't populated it. It was found in uncategorized categories (the "orphanage") and I'll put a parent cat to it. Was this was inadvertant? You should consider populating it or deleting it. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just whacked it, it's empty as MoreGunsInSchools is the master, not him. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

First, I would like to thank you for your nice warnings and block you have given me. It really serves to help me put the flame in the right direction. Second, since people decided to provoke me a lot of articles are going to be created in the latter part of December. As is the case with all the articles I have created, I would kindly ask you to keep an eye out on the new articles. Again thanks and cheers :) Watchdogb (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Review of GAC Shaktism

Hi. I read about you in Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/List_of_reviewers#Philosophy_and_religion, interested in "everything". Would you please review WP:GAN Shaktism? The article is about the Goddess oriented sect in Hinduism. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First, foontnotes come after punctuation, not before, and there's a space after the fn, before the next word. Several of wrong, such as around FNs 28-30. The web footnotes need formatted, see cite web template Frederick Russell Burnham for samples. When done, let me know and I'll look deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy

You closed my SSP case where I was trying to root out the master of EdChampion due to the master being an open proxy. This is over my head. Does that mean it is impoosible that the abusive blocked account is connected to the other three disruptive accounts? -- SECisek (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article from IP editing, that should force him to use his account and we can see what he's up to. This is more edit dispute vice vandalism. You could also file at RFCU to see if the other IPs can get blocked or contact User:Wimt to see if the other IPs you listed are proxies too, he blocked the one you listed as the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not easy with Edmund the Martyr being semi-protected for 3 months. There haven't been all that many anonymous edits in recent weeks and EdChampion hasn't been especially active either. With all due respect, this all smells rather like "sleuthing". Probably best not to go down that route. If EdChampion disrupts the article again, then a user-conduct RfC would be in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What if I shorten the page protect? Are you amenable to that? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine. I'd prefer weeks to months, but I'll leave it to you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a month. Seems reasonable to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What Angus said is true. EdChampion is mostly just an obnixious pain on the talk page. I doubt even he really expects to ever see his proposed edit appear in the article at this point, he just wont give up. As for "sleuthing", there is no way that EdChampion belongs to an editor who made his first edit to Wikipedia last August and has exclusively edited Edmund the Martyr. The account belongs to a user with multiple accounts and given his attitude the last few months, he almost certainly has one or more blocked accounts. There is no reason not to connect the dots if we can. -- SECisek (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So who's the master account that Ed is supposed to be a sock of? — Rlevse • Talk • 04:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This diff is quite plausable: [[88]]

Obnoxious, vulgar, rude, and unneeded capitalization. It would also explain why my user page keeps getting vandalized by an IP that edits only hard rock and roll articles even though I have never once set foot into such territory. I still don't get why the master I proposed could not be connected to ol' Ed. Can you point me to a tutorial on open proxies, I want to read up them? Thank you for everything you do here. -- SECisek (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP you listed as the master, 85.189.170.202, has no edits to the Edmund article, which is what I thought this whole case is about. See Wikipedia:Open proxies for proxy info. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, that is what the puppets are for. -- SECisek (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Using that, anyone could be a sock of anyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has an account that only edits one article. It isn't like this guy is a model editor who has a POV disagreement with us. He may as well have chosen as his user name User:IattackEdmundtheMartyr. -- SECisek (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the Edmund the Martyr page has had very little (if any) IP vandalism so I don't know why it has been protected. Secisek's retaliatory motives become clear when you read [89]. To address some of his detractions: there is a dispute on the talk page that has yet to be resoved. Consensus doesn't mean majority, particularly given the tiny number of editors. At the time of Secisek's writing the RfC was still on going and certainly hasn't resulted in going against me, rather it complements what I had previously written. I could go on but it's complete nonsense and I'm bored. EdChampion (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Eagle Scouts

I'm sure this will be of interest: Category:Eagle Scouts has been undeleted per DR. — ERcheck (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good summary by closing admin. I'm sure it'll get CFD'd again though. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Eagle Scouts

This is just to inform the closer of the CfD and DRV on the Eagle Scout catgegories that per a discussion at ScoutingWikiProject, there is a unanimous decision to get rid of this category, so I've just removed it from the articles therein and deleted the category. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. - jc37 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik (2nd)

I've left a ridiculously long comment, as you requested via email. My conclusion is that Evrik should not be blocked, but I cannot clear him of suspicion either. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, amazingly detailed and perceptive work. Thanks for looking into it spending the time on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Depleted Uranium

Things haven't improved much since you unprotected the article back in November. I've tried by using the Dispute Resolution process and extensive talk page discussion to move things away from edit war mode. But the snail's pace of that approach doesn't seem to satisfy the passion of the edit warriors. Any help or advice you can lend would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on the talk page. Let me know what a big issues comes. I don't watch that page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Special protection to block the IP's would be preferable, as they are most likely another incarnation of Nrcprm2026. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

What happened to User:Neranei? She vanished? I don't get it. Did she quit or something? RuneWiki777 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She had to vanish under WP:RTV, but she's quite fine and safe. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star discussion

As you were instrumental in making the Medal of Honor article an FA, you might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the Silver Star talk page on the inherent notability of Silver Star recipients. — ERcheck (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 50 10 December 2007 About the Signpost
Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction 
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here" News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Episodes and characters

Hi. I see you're the new clerk for this case. Could you please see my comment here? Any comment you care to offer about how discussions on the workshop page connect to the Proposed decision page would be appreciated. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Please see also: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision#Workshop, anyone? and the edits I then went ahead and made to the Workshop page that brought-over stuff from the Proposed decision page. I believe I did everything correctly but welcome a double-check. If this sort of bold editing is not welcome/making work for you, just say so and I'll go easier. Best, Jack Merridew 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See response here — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just reading it. Hope no one minds this edit I made. --Jack Merridew 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That is the correct move, as he is not an arb nor clerk, he should not edit the proposed decisions, moving to talk was the correct action. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My concern was that technically *I* also made an edit to the page. I'm glad to see that the correctness matters and the technicality does not. I was in the middle of copying bits to the Workshop page when this happened - had the Proposed decision page open for editing. I was worried the whole while that I might goof and save the Workshop page into the Proposed decision page (I was copy-pasting to/from an external editor). Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honorary membership

I am pleased to announce you that you have been accepted as an honorary member of WP:SLR. — Sebastian 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another quick question

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gilabrand also created by you and also empty. Please review at your convenience. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yogi

Civility states: "...Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles —the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others..." Note that the comments I made were factual and in response to a single purpose, anon advocacy editor's POV assertion that Maharishi deserves "...great deal of respect for what he has done and is still doing 24/7 since 1955 - to bring the peace of the Himalayas to all mankind". MMY's claims and TM's belief (see Yogic_flying) in a "Maharishi Effect" producing peace and harmony in surrounding areas and attempts to produce a cadre of yogic flyers ("...Proponents of Yogic Flying claim that world peace and many other social and environmental benefits can be generated by having at least seven thousand yogic flyers around the world hopping at the same time...") has not produced increased world peace and harmony or yogic flight as was predicted. Maharishi is not widely recognized as a scientist, a physicist, or as a key leader in the world peace movement outside of his organization either, TM is his claim to fame, just as I stated. It is hardly a personal attack to note that Wikipedia offering MMY a great deal of respect for his merely alleged efforts to "bring the peace of the Himalayas to all mankind" represents undue weight for fringe claims and a very minority opinion and that the editing history creates a reasonable conclusion of COI.--Dseer (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Admin Coaching

Hey Rlevse, thanks for contacting me over the admin coaching request. Yes, I had two other accounts, both you mention, but they were me older accounts or in other words, I had Radio_orange (dont ask:)) but was then renamed to Onnaghar and then once again renamed to Rudget. I'll create that sub-page now, and I once again want to say thank you for "taking me onboard". Regards, — Rudget Contributions 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left the comments at the sub-page just now. Thanks once again. — Rudget Contributions 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm editing the subpage now, it'll take several minutes for this first round. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
On Q7, are you referring to general off-wiki conversations or ones specifically about a user inparticular? — Rudget Contributions 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Both, let's me thorough. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the email thing, it's just I am unwilling to disclose my specific age. — Rudget Contributions 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm going on a long wiki-break. I really need to get away, and I've done enough edits this month. Thank you once again, and I look forward to interacting with you further, by email or in early January. Regards, Rt. 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do. I apologise for any inconvenience. Rt. 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) - Ah what the hell. I'll carry on, in the name of Wiki-spirit. Hope we can get back to usual. And once again I apologise if this has caused lots of inconvenience. Best, Rt. 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does that seem to show the kind of balance required of a potential administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam

NisarKand was banned for a very good reason. He wrote several long racist rants to other users and admins. NisarKand also uploaded images with false licenses and also used fake referencing. Beh-nam on the other hand was banned for no good reason, he was falsely accused of proxy editing and banned for it but really it was just that user: Thatcher131 didn't like him because Beh-nam reported a friend of Thatcher131 for sockpuppetry which was confirmed. Considering this, Beh-nam shouldn't even be banned right now. And he has contacted ArbCom but his emails are ignored. What else can Beh-nam do?

Thanks

Thank you for your comment. Broadway14122 is not my sockpuppet but I do agree that there is no chance the user is new to Wikipedia Alexfusco5 17:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion problem

Sorry to bother you but since you are active can you delete this failed archive because it is not being categorized Alexfusco5 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, gone. Why did you turn down RFA? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I am too new I might accept a RFA sometime in February when I am more experienced user Alexfusco5 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when ready for nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Probably will be sometime in February Alexfusco5 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU clerking

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You do some totally awesome work over on WP:RFCU. It's thankless at times, always tiring and tedious but you do some super work over there and I really appreciate it! - Alison ❤ 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just appreciate to you for the fast and wonderful job at the RFCU. I didn't expect much from suspected sockpuppetry due to my past report on him at ANI. I don't know how to find the barn stars, so the pictures are kind of my present to you instead of stars. I believe you've got many of them already. :) Thank you again. --Appletrees (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. The guards are diligent just like you, and look cool in the costume, so I pick it. I hope you like it.
Peonies in Beomeosa, Busan, South Korea Guards at Gyeongbok Palace in Seoul

Thanks, and I do like the pictures. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi, I noticed that you are currently offering up your help as an Admin Coach[90]. I understand personally I am a long way off, both by edit count and experience, but I am wondering if you would be willing to give me some pointers and perhaps help me further my goal nearer an RfA. A lot of the things I contribute to could be done better with administrative tools and getting them would be a real boost to what I can do to further my work here. Thanks for your time, please respond on my talk page if possible. MattieTK 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much. I'm currently working on removing a lot of the AFC backlog though I will definitely consider and look into the other areas you have suggested. I'm also a spelling and vandalism 'nazi' as you have probably seen and am currently waiting for VandalProof approval. Again, thanks. MattieTK 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fleur-de-lis

Could you check/verify these edits at Fleur-de-lis? Gimmetrow 04:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rv'd to prior edit war version, semi-prot, it is also elaborated on in Fleur-de-lis in Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, there wasn't any edit war, and this didn't need protection, and especially not for a month. This was just a content check so I could determine whether the anon's content should be disentangled from POV and kept. Gimmetrow 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've unprot it and as far as content, I think the version I rv'd to is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Coker and Hearts and Minds

You removed a reliably sourced mention of Hearts and Minds in the George Thomas Coker article citing claims of WP:BLP issue. I find the removal a bit baffling and have offered this as a subject for discussion at Talk:George Thomas Coker. Your input justifying the removal of sourced content from an article is requested. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

Contact JetLover. It was his original report on WP:AIV. I just Put it on SSP's. Ps, someone added a diff. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 51 17 December 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication 
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee 
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam" 
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: Plants Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rejected RFAR's

Hi. Just curious - on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests page, are you only adding yours? Or are you keeping it up to date in general? I was going to stop maintaining it thinking that you were instead, but if you're only adding your own, I will continue. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do my own and the ones I notice others don't do, like Brad didn't archive two today, so I posted them there. I think it's important we do this, though I know many aren't done. Appreciate it if you and whoever help. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent sock puppet, suggested action?

Rlevse, you closed the report for a suspected sock at [91]. As you know, RFCU returned a finding that the editor was not related to Nrcprm2026, which was always known to be a speculative identification of the puppet master. However, there is blatant and arguably abusive sock puppetry from the account behavior; the alleged sock has not denied being a sock, only being Nrcprm2026. Your comment was that the sock puppetry was "possible." I'd say the evidence shows "probable," indeed, I am unable to find any other explanation for the account behavior (immediate engagement in AfD within minutes of registration, SSP -- voting system issues only --, almost no content edits, very many AfDs and deletion/redirects). Given my so far uncontradicted conclusion that the account in question is a sock, and that the behavior is inappropriate for a sock, how should I proceed to obtain a determination on the issue of WP:SOCK violation rather than being a sock of a specific banned editor? From examination of other SSP incidents, I'd expected some determination on this for the original report. Should I go to WP:ANI? I'm trying not to escalate this beyond necessity, going one step at a time. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since not Nrcprm, do you have any other probable sock masters? Will look at more tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)...I've contacted another admin and asked for input. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the SSP report and the CU reports pertinent to this case at the request of Rlevse. It seems difficult to me to have a sockpuppet without a puppeteer. The CU makes plain that Nrcprm2026 is not the same as Yellowbeard. So we are left with only suspicious editing patterns and no second account to compare it to. A first edit at AfD is not terribly unusual for a new account. An editor may have a second account so long as he is not disruptive with that account. The user could be an ip editor who decided to register or an established editor who decided to create and edit, for whatever reason, under a new name. He could, perhaps, be an editor who is a sock. We just cannot tell from the available information. It does not appear that Yellow has done anything worthy of serious warning or blocking. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, but he does not appear to be disruptive.
It is my judgment that Abd begin the dispute resolution process immediately. While he acted in good faith in filing what he thought was a SSP case, it was, at best, unclear and unactionable. Absent any further evidence to the contrary, I would leave the sock allegations alone and move to WP:DR. If I have overlooked anything concrete, please do not hesitate to ask again. -JodyB talk 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concurring with JodyB, the DR process seems best approach here if you wish to pursue it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have the impression that Abd started this RFCU in the hope that he could get private information about me. Abd always admitted that there are no reasons to believe that I was a sock puppet of Nrcprm2026. This time, Abd's attempt to get private information about me failed; but his attempt was a progress insofar as the admin fulfilled Abd's request without checking his arguments. (Already in March 2007, Fahrenheit451 tried to get private information about me [92]. But his request was simply ignored by the admin.) I predict that Abd will start a new RFCU in the hope that the next admin will be less cautious than the other two admins. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if a RFCU is run, the private info would not be revealed to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he knows that. He may not be Nrcprm2026 (or Nrcprm2026 has become more sophisticated), but this is an experienced editor, and the edit above one more piece of evidence for ensuing process. The SSP report was an obvious first step which would have made further process, involving more editors and administrators, moot, and the RFCU was filed at the explicit request of Rlevse; and, if Yellowbeard is paying any attention at all, he already knows all this. There is no emergency here, I'm taking this one step at a time. The next steps involve wider community involvement, and I certainly hope that all the evidence is examined carefully! I'm also certain that if I make mistakes, they will be pointed out to me, as they should be. In any case, thanks to Rlevse and Jody B for the time they have put into this, it is appreciated. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

put SERIO page back please

To Whom It May Concern: It has been brought to our attention at Serio Controla Records from one of our web developers here that you wish to delete our artist page of Serio. We at our company do not intend to mislead or vandalize your website which has been said that we have done nor is this a promotion. This page like many other rappers pages on your site was made in the guidelines of your policy. If you feel that the article was not please let us know what changes you want and we will make them. However to say that it is incorrect is false you have a rappers page on there Kid Frost or Frost(rapper) our artist recently did a song with Frost that will be released latter this year. Serio is very known yet very new we understand this here are just of few of the places you can find info about him on the web as a chance to help your investigation to prove who he is: If you have any questions you can respond to the e-mail or feel free to give me a call at 509-475-2561 you are free to call 24/7 if no one answers please leave a message and your call will be returned ASAP thank you and take a look at some of these links.

Check out just a few places where he is at on the web there are more too…Such as Napster Itunes ect..


http://www.myspace.com/serio323

http://www.myspace.com/serio12

http://www.myspace.com/serio5

http://cdbaby.com/cd/seriomusic

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SERIOofficialsite

http://www.groupietunes.com/artists/serio

http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/1499330

http://www.greatindie.com/ipnmusic/store/list.php?item_number=837101154482

http://musicishere.com/artists/SERIO/Nightmares_Turned_Into_Reality

http://www.bitmunk.com/view/media/6549334

http://payplay.fm/seriomusic

http://chondo.net/cnd/viewAlbums.do?albumId=20170 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.23.74 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone has already blocked him for 31 hours. Let me know if the problems continue after that. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That is an old block for deleting tags and such, it has expired. He left you and I the letters the moment that block expired, which led to me to leaving the open letter to him after the old block. Not sure a block would be appropriate right now as he has only left two letters to you and I, but I have faith he will provide a reason shortly. Pharmboy (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yea, it expired two days ago. I've now hard blocked 72hrs for socking and disruption. Let me know if you see more thereafter. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
On my user page I list the known Serio accounts, including the two IPs, Special:Contributions/63.224.213.47 and Special:Contributions/67.185.23.74‎ (left an open letter to Serio there), plus the puppetmaster Special:Contributions/Serio1 (blocked) and his second, Special:Contributions/Serio2 (blocked) Pharmboy (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

your note to NYBrad

Hi, my watchlist just showed my that you seem to have inadvertently posted to his user page instead of his talk page... --Jack Merridew 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

oops, thanks, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Could you look at something for me? See WP:ANI#I'm being harassed by my old account — the latter posts — and consider protecting Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali. This has also been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to no effect. --Jack Merridew 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just saw your ani post. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but now my talk page is being vandalized [93]. Could you semi protect it and my user page for 24 hours? --Jack Merridew 11:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already did. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Did you mean to close the discussion on AfD on Natalee Holloway? Your note indicated that you did, but it seems to remain open. Thanks and happy holidays.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No I did not mean to close it, just notate the socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbclerking

Can you close the Physchim62 case today if Anthony doesn't get to it? It's a couple of days overdue to close and I have limited wikitime at the moment. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like AGK is doing it now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

Hey Rlevse. I know I've not had time to answer all the questions, but I've now received two co-nomination offers in the past 5 days. What should I do? Accept? or Carry on with the admin coaching? I hope you don't see this as a shift of decision, but seen as you're an admin and have been here longer than me, you may have a better idea of what to do. Regards, Rt. 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if you an RFA now, you'll be piled on for it being too early. I suggest finishing the questions and we work on those issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. If they want to, Ioeth and Phoenix-wiki can co-nom later. Thanks once again. Best, Rt. 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ulterior motives

The ulterior motives of various fringe-promoters are clear and have been documented in said arbcomm case. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, is this an indication that you are singling me out for some reason? How did you come upon this supposed "violation" in the first place and why did you decide that you were going to get into arbcomm enforcement when you admit that you haven't done it before? Do you have something against me? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a new arbcom clerk helper, as evidenced by this thread on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Still, it doesn't explain why you singled me out. Are you patrolling my edits? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, any administrator (unless directly involved in the dispute himself or herself) has jurisdiction to enforce arbitration decisions, on his or her own initiative if necessary. There is no direct relation between the enforcement function and the clerking function, although it often happens that the same admins tend to handle both because they are the ones with their eyes on the arbitration pages and who are aware of the decisions as they come down. If an issue arises concerning an enforcement ruling, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement will often be the best venue for gathering additional comments (although often there is usually a shortage of admins putting in time watching that board). Hope this is helpful to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the arbcom ruling on Martin was different than yours, SA. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that, why did you address this to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My AN/I

I would appreciate your input on what became an AN/I against me: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Levine2112. If you have any comments for me, please feel free to leave me a note on my talk page or comment directly on the AN/I if you have general thoughts. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Was I involved in anyway? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of. That's why I am seeking your third-party input. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering

Thank you very much for your direction on my talk page.
:-D
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue box change

Hello Rlevse, could I ask you to do your AWB trick jut one more time and replace the blue box with {{WP:SLR/bluebox}}? Or, if that's too much of an effort, could you explain to me how you did it? Thanks! — Sebastian 23:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have AWB, download it WP:AWB, start it. Load the articles you want to alter into it (by category is fastest), use the find/replace tool to change what you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never used it before, so excuse me if some of what I'm asking sounds stupid. But how do I make sure that I get all the articles on which you put the box? Do you have a list of the categories you used, and would that cover all of them? — Sebastian 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the list from the peace resolution decision, where it says include "these articles, these cats (make sure ot get the sub cats), etc". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I can take it from there! I just installed AWB, and it seems pretty straightforward. — Sebastian 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Anoshirawan

Sorry but this is very long, can you please see recent edits of User:Anoshirawan, he is a proven vandal, removing page protection (that admins placed) plus images from Afghan American article over and over. [94] Why are his destructive actions ignored? It was already concluded not to change the word "Afghan" to "Afghanistani" in July 2007 (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 27#Afghan people) but Anoshirawan keeps on changing the name to fake "Afghanistani" as well as removing clean images from the article. [95] Why are there images allowed at Italian Americans, Greek Americans, Iranian Americans, African Americans, and many others but he wants to only remove the imiages from Afghan American article. It's probably that administrators are afraid to block anoshirawan or probably they are supporting him to vandalis pages. Anoshirawan already has a long block log [96], shows that his character is not of a good editor, he should behave, he was also warned of his actions many times but he removed many of those warning from his talk page.

Next, on Ahmad Shah Durrani article, I've placed 4 major sources (including the CIA factbook and encyclopedia Britannica) as reference that Ahmad Shah Durrani is known as the founder or first Emir of modern Afghanistan. [97], [98], [99], [100] (also see List of leaders of Afghanistan) This is very well known fact in Afghanistan as well as in all parts of the world. Anoshirawan claims that he was not all of that but a ruler of Khorasan, which is a province in Iran. This is like someone trying to say that George Washington was not the first President or founder of the United States but that he was a ruler of Washington or something like that. Anoshirawan is self POV pusher, not a nuetral editor like most of us. The things he claims don't make any sense to anyone that's why everyone is reverting his vandalism so that makes him upset. He also has a bad habit of removing images from the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, If you can also fully protect the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, that will help Anoshirawan go find another hobby instead of coming here vandalising pages. I believe Anoshirawan should be banned from editing, not a single of his edit is constructive, they are all vandalisms.Afghansuperior (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys are in an SSP case. Comment there if you wish. Report vandalism to WP:AIV. I'll warn him on rm of the protection tag. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RodneyPocceschi.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RodneyPocceschi.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Y Done - R, feel free to modify it if you would like. Ariel♥Gold 17:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ariel! I think that was the first image I ever uploaded, over two years ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me, sir or madam

I used to know a user. She was a good friend of mine. Her name was Neranei. When, I wanted to talk to her, I noticed her user page, talk page, and contributions were all gone. I saw your name on the page history and I wanted to ask you if you knew what happened to her--Angel David (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

She is still around but used her WP:RTV. She is fine and doing well. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, from me too!!! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 ?

What's happened? Rt. 11:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks once again for doing this. It's really giving some more knowledge about the workings, and I'm sure it will help me further my contributions. I'm sorry if I've not been the greatest coachee (i.e. failed wikibreaks, infrequent editing to the AC page etc.) but I just want to say thank you. Hope you had a great christmas. Regards, Rt. 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I've completed all the questions, if not give me a shout. Best, Rt. 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Rt. 14:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

....happy holidays

Hey Rlevse, just letting you know, the sig the xmas card you've been handing around doesn't link to you ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 12:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect :-) Have a great day Rlevse, I wish you and your family the best. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy holidays to you too! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and happy holidays to you as well! Kirill 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays! Daniel 07:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

Hi, regarding Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/121.45.39.83, as I said under "Comments" you have to check the deleted edits to see what the request-filer was talking about. However, I do think you were right to say "not much to do here" as it seems far more likely to be just an anon with a dynamic IP address than a case of abusive sockpuppetry. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I missed the deleted contribs, thanks. I gave both IPs a short block for of 48 hours for vandalism, it may not do much good, but then it might. As they are dynamic, I can't justify much more. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Kardashev Scale, and concern from a new user

hi, so I read an old wikipedia article on the Kardashev Scale some of the old material was very interesting so I decided to read a little about it. When I came back, as a new user, I wanted to cite some source material that I read and found the material reverted. User:Michaelbusch reverted most of the material, and I spent some time reading and looking at what was reverted and I think I understand why. The reverted material was speculative, uncited in areas, and really bordering on psuedoscience. Despite that I feel the content has value, especially since I can now cite where the hypothetical futures content comes from. See Michaelbusch's(talk) page.

So the reason I'm contacting you... well I'm try to do this right, and apologize if I'm handling it incorrectly, please let me know if I am. What I did, was I looked at more of the history revisions, and left a message on User:Michaelbusch's talk page, and while on his user page read some of his other contributions and more about him.

He's very interested in factual and confirmable information, which I think is great. But I also think the entire wikipedia project is a work in progress.... especially concerning some of the fringe articles like the Kardashev scale. I think it's important that interest in fringe articles and wikipedia be encouraged. Bottom line... it's easy to delete... it's hard to add and contribute content, and it can be extra hard to do it correctly especially concerning articles like the Kardashev Scale. Personally, I rather have something slapped with a 'needs citations' or 'speculative' sticker than be deleted outright.

When I realized he'd already received a warning from you concerning his interactions with others, I became concerned that I would be blown over as a new user and that my wish to reinstate material would be ignored.... I do not want to be ignored, and I don't want to be blown over... I realize you must be busy, but if I could insert a third perspective into whatever changes, or compromises are going to be made on the Kardashev Scale I figured, I should do it now.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I wish to apologize for my over-use of the words especially and concern(ing).

Hi. I can't talk as to the specifics of the articles he edits as there are lots and there is a lot of controversey around them. I do from time to time check on the civility as both sides are very passionate about their cause. The best thing is to remain civil at all times and discuss issues on article talk pages and/or user talk pages. Hope this helps. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
So you think I should just bring up the reverts on the discussion page? I mean I'm still learning protocols and rules, he reverted like 5 things and wikipedia talks about limiting yourself to 3. As I said, I left a message on his talk page, how long do you think I should wait for an answer? I hesitate bringing the reverts up in the discussion page as it might reflect poorly on either myself or User:Michaelbusch but I do want the reinstatement of material to be strongly considered by the community editing the page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If he reverts more than 3 times in 24 hours, you can report to WP:AN3. It's best to discuss first, it shows you tried to resolve the situtation. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
k, I guess I'll give it a couple days and then bring it up on the discussion page if I don't hear back from Michael... thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By agreement, both User:Michaelbusch and myself have agreed to move the discussion of reinstatment to the Talk:Kardashev scale discussion page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit long winded, but if you have a chance to review for POV and civility I'd appreciate it.Talk:Kardashev scale --Sparkygravity (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A bit long winded? That's an understatement. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52 26 December 2007 About the Signpost
Wales appoints six arbitrators Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible 
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Plants 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite

First of all, are you monitoring my contributions? If no, how the hell did you come across this edit? I have never seen you contribute at Talk:Homeopathy and a quick check of your contributions shows that you have never done so.

Secondly, can you cite, chapter and verse, what part of Wikipedia's civility guideline you are referring to with your comment about "incivil language"? While you're doing this, note that Wikipedia is not censored.

Thirdly, this is the second time you have popped over to my talkpage to make a nusiance of yourself. I have asked you before if you have anything against me and you evaded the quesiton. You are an administrator which means that you have the power to administer blocks when you deem necessary. I suggest that you take this as fair warning that I consider your attempts to offer "guidance" as tendentious and borderline harassment since the threat of blocking has been leveled by you before. I will not hesitate to bring this to the attention of others.

In short, I think you need to find another "project" with which to occupy your time.

Peace,

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. I'm writing in recognition that you are the administrator who placed a block on Republicon (talk · contribs). I note that the Repubicon, (or someone claiming to be Republicon) has added a post[101][102][103] at Talk:Rachel Marsden by using 208.77.91.8 (talk · contribs), an IP address with a fairly troubled history. I'm not at all certain whether I should be reporting this directly to you, or whether some other venue, such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, is more appropriate. Thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking as a block-evading sock, admits it and similar edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. If I could bother you with one question: seeing as the post in question was made by evading a block, is it a matter of policy that it be deleted? I only ask because I am considering a response, but fear that Republicon's post will be removed. Thank you, again. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You can handle the edit as any other edit, leave, modify, rm, whatever. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sock Puppet

I have added some further evidence [104]. Thank You. --neonwhite user page talk 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

hi, this is signof the times, i am not a "sockpuppet" of drdelos nor is he of mine. we both have interest in the same pages being taken care of properly, as opposed to NeonWhite who is bullying all of the pages for some bizarre reason as opposed to a million of the other pages he could be overseeing, he chooses to pick on 3 of them. DrDelos and I happen to care for the same pages, we are both moderators on the same board, and the bands that we are watching the pages for, have asked us to try and keep the vandals that keep changing them (ie NeonWhite) away. So we are both working for the same people, the people that that the pages are about, if that makes any sense, and are not sock puppets of each other, hence why we are the same team. Hope that explains it. sincerely, signofthetimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignOfTheTimes (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo, what it is...

I got an email from one Alexander Makedon requesting he be unblocked. He's got two accounts; an old one with an unfortunately history that he decided to drop for the newer account, which has now been blocked indef for sockpuppetry. However, the old account has no edits since the creation of the new account. He said that you emailed him saying he would be unblocked shortly. I'm thinking that was, perhaps, the 48 hour block on the old account. Anyway, I don't see the sockpuppetry, but I could be missing something. I have to go to work soon, but maybe look it over? Thanks. Lara❤Love 20:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks- Cardamon notified SA before I was finished tweaking things around. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kirbytime

I looked it over, and I think Atari400 is a sock puppet and should be blocked. I hope this is not just "groupthink." The evidence is strong enough because both editors show a pattern of incivility and edit-warring on specific topics. I also accounted for the fact that Kirbytime has used socks before, and didn't seem likely to disappear and never return. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Repeal 16-17

It is an activist username, representing he wants to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments [105].   jj137 ♠ 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'll decline it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi (talk · contribs)

FYI, a user you blocked is requesting unblock, please see User talk:Martinphi. Based on my reading of the arbcom case, he appears to be technically correct in his interpretation, although if he has been sufficiently disruptive to justify a block, he should be blocked regardless of the arbcom ruling. The arbcom enforcement page is too convoluted for me to follow - was there some disruption there? You may want to go a tad lower on both of them anyway - 72 hours is high for a first block for violating arbcom restrictions. --B (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted but it's also well within the ruling and this case has a particularly long and disruptive history, on both sides. Please read the arbcom enforcement page if you haven't already here: — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, Randy I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Last time around, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for you suggestion (lead(II) nitrate is hardly made in factories, hence the scant info. It is only small-scale.) It's twenty minutes to midnight here: All the best wishes for 2008! Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).