User talk:Rlevse

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

Home	Talk	About me	Awards	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Notebook	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption. For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return.

User:Alex Makedon

Hello Rlevse (and happy new year) - I wasn't around to comment on this sockpuppet case when you handled it and it's now a bit stale, but I'd appreciate it if you had a look at my comments at WT:SSP#How to deal with reports violating AGF and User talk:Alex Makedon#My comments. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but both the Alex accounts had issues--the new one did not have a "clean slate". I've seen others try to hide their histories (for one the Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge cases) and get accounts blocked, leaving one open. This is precisely what this looked like to me and deception is disruptive and hence blockable. If Alex convinces you he is sincere and agrees to both linking the user pages and 1 sec block log entries to link the logs, that's okay with me even though the problem with leaving both usable when they both have problematic histories is that it defeats the whole purpose of WP:SOCK, following this logic, they could have a multitude of socks that they could keep using. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and best wishes

Randy,

Many thanks for the Barnstar, for which I am deeply appreciative. It is truly a privilege to participate on the Scouting WikiProject and I am glad to be a small part of it. Best wishes to you in the New Year, Jim. JGHowes ^talk - 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thai translation for Veropedia

Hello, I can help on that. Can you tell me how do you pronounce "vero" ? --Manop - TH (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If the word "vero" pronounced as "arrow" with v, I might go for แวโรพีเดีย. However Thai people might read Veropedia as แวโรพีเดีย (vae-ro), เวโรพีเดีย (vey-ro) or วีโรพีเดีย (vee-ro) though. The translation starts here. -->

แวโรพีเดียคืออะไร ?

แวโรพีเดียคืออะไร? แวโรพีเดียคือสารานุกรมที่กลุ่มชาววิกิพีเดียร่วมกันสร้าง ซึ่งได้ทำการเลือกเนื้อหาที่ดีที่สุดจากวิกิพีเดียมาปัดฝุ่น ปรับแก้รูปแบบ และทำการเซฟเก็บไว้ไม่มีการแก้ไขเพิ่มเติม เพื่อทำให้เนื้อหามีความนิ่ง สมบูรณ์และน่าเชื่อถือจากทุกคนโดย คณาจารย์ และนักเรียน นำข้อมูลที่สมบูรณ์และเชื่อถือได้ไปใช้ได้ทันที

แวโรพีเดียเป็นโครงการที่แยกออกมาจากวิกิพีเดียหรือไม่? ไม่ถูกต้องซะทีเดียว เนื้อหาแวโรพีเดียตั้งอยู่บนฐานของเนื้อหาวิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งการปรับปรุงแวโรพีเดียนั้นคุณจำเป็นต้องร่วมแก้ไขวิกิพีเดียก่อน ซึ่งจะเห็นได้ว่าทางเราไม่ได้แข่งขันกับวิกิพีเดีย ความสำเร็จของเราจะขึ้นอยู่กับความสำเร็จของวิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งทางเราคิดว่าตัวเราเองเปรีบเสมือนเป็นชั้นแรกของความรู้เสรีที่ดึงข้อโดดเด่นของวิกิพีเดียออกมา

แล้วเว็บนี้เป็นเพียงแค่เว็บมิรเรอร์เว็บกระจกเงาของวิกิพีเดีย? แน่นอนว่าไม่ใช่! เนื้อหาทั้งหมดในแวโรพีเดียนั้นจำเป็นต้องผ่านเกณฑ์ที่เข้มงวด ซึ่งบทความทั้งหมดจะไม่มีป้ายเก็บกวาด ป้ายต้องการอ้างอิง การลิงก์ไปที่ลิงก์ไม่มีเนื้อหา หรือแม้แต่ภาพที่ใช้งานอย่างชอบธรรม โดยมากไปกว่านั้น ในแต่ละบทความจะมีการตรวจสอบโดยผู้เชี่ยวชาญและนักวิชาการในแต่ละสาขา และจะประทับตราบอกไว้ว่าผ่านการตรวจแล้ว พร้อมทั้งคำแนะนำในการปรับปรุงบทความ ซึ่งวิธีการนี้จะทำให้บทความน่าเชื่อถือยิ่งขึ้น

แล้วอย่างนี้จะเป็นโครงการสำหรับนักวิชาการและผู้เชี่ยวชาญเหมือนกับ ซิติเซนเดียม? ไม่ใช่แน่นอน เนื้อหาของแวโรพีเดียจะถูกเขียนขึ้นโดยผู้สนับสนุนจากวิกิพีเดีย โดยนักวิชาการและผู้เชี่ยวชาญจะมีหน้าที่ในการตรวจสอบและยืนยันว่าถูกต้อง โดยผู้เชี่ยวชาญจะให้คำแนะนำเพื่อปรับปรุงในวิกิพีเดียต่อไป ถ้ามองในทางกลับกันแล้ว จะเหมือนเป็นการร่วมมือระหว่างแวโรพีเดียและวิกิพีเดีย

บทความในแวโรพีเดียสามารถปรับปรุงได้หรือไม่? แน่นอน ซึ่งการปรับปรุงในแวโรพีเดียนี้จะเริ่มต้นที่วิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งการปรับปรุงใหม่ในวิกิพีเดียจะถูกนำเข้ามามาในแวโรพีเดียอีกต่อหนึ่ง ซึ่งจะทำให้ทั้งสองโครงการได้รับเนื้อหาที่มีคุณภาพสูงขึ้นพร้อมกัน

แวโรพีเดียมีเนื้อหาทั้งหมดของวิกิพีเดียหรือไม่? ไม่ใช่ ในความเป็นจริงในระยะแรกของแวโรพีเดียจะมีเพียงส่วนน้อยเท่านั้น ซึ่งแวโรพีเดียเติบโตทุกวันโดยจะเริ่มมีเนื้อหาหลักที่จำเป็นในส่วนของสารานุกรมที่จะมีประโยชน์ต่อคณาจารย์และนักเรียน จุดมุ่งหมายของเราคือปรับปรุงคุณภาพของบทความมาก่อนปริมาณบทความ

ลิงก์สีเขียวและลิงก์สีน้ำเงินคืออะไร? ลิงก์สีเขียวในบทความแสดงถึงบทความที่มีในแวโรพีเดียและได้จัดการ "แวโรไฟ" เรียบร้อยแล้ว ซึ่งข้อความเหล่านั้นได้ถูกเก็บไว้ในฐานข้อมูลเรียบร้อย สำหรับลิงก์ที่ยังไม่มีในแวโรพีเดียจะแสดงเป็นลิงก์สีน้ำเงินซึ่งจะโยงไปเนื้อหาในวิกิพีเดียแทนที่ ซึ่งคุณสามารถกดแบ็กสเปซเพื่อจะกลับมาแวโรพีเดียได้

ใครเป็นผู้ร่วมจัดทำ? ผู้ร่วมจัดทำแวโรพีเดียเราได้เลือกจากชาววิกิพีเดียที่มีประสบการณ์การเขียนการแก้ไขในวิกิพีเดียจำนวนมาก ซึ่งเป็นที่รู้จักกันดีและมีชื่อเสียงในวิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งทางเราหวังว่าจะชักชวนชาววิกิพีเดียที่สนใจเพิ่มเติมเข้ามาช่วยพัฒนาโครงการ

ทำไมถึงไม่ให้มีภาพที่ใช้งานอย่างชอบธรรม? ประเด็นการใช้งานอย่างชอบธรรมในวิกิพีเดียมักจะเป็นปัญหาร้อนที่เกิดขึ้นบ่อย ซึ่งทางเราตัดสินใจที่จะเลี่ยงปัญหานั้น และมุ่งประเด็นไปที่เนื้อหาเสรีมาเป็นอย่างแรก โดยสนับสนุนให้ทุกคนเปลี่ยนกระแสนิยมการสงวนลิขสิทธิ์มาเป็นการเผยแพร่เสรีสู่สาธารณะ

ถ้าพบข้อผิดพลาดในแวโรพีเดียละ? กรุณาแจ้งให้เรารู้โดยการส่งอีเมลมาและทางเราจะแก้ไขให้เร็วที่สุด ซึ่งรวมถึงเนื้อหารวมถึงภาพและสื่อที่ไม่อนุญาตให้ใช้งานอย่างเสรี

ทำไมแวโรพีเดียถึงมีโฆษณา? จุดมุ่งหมายของเราคือการรวบรวมเนื้อหาเสรีที่ดีที่สุดและเปิดให้ทุกคนสามารถใช้งานได้อย่างเสรีซึ่งวิธีนี้จำเป็นต้องใช้เงินจำนวนหนึ่ง ทางเราไม่มีเจตนาที่จะขอเงินบริจาคจากกลุ่มเป้าหมายเราซึ่งก็คือ อาจารย์และนักเรียน และเราเชื่อว่าการโฆษณาที่ไม่รบกวนผู้ใช้เป็นทางออกที่ดีที่สุด เงินทั้งหมดที่ได้จะใช้สำหรับปรับปรุงบทความและเก็บเนื้อหารวมถึงค่าดูแลที่จะทำให้มีการปรับปรุงโครงการให้เกิดประโยชน์สูงสุด

แวโรพีเดียมีเฉพาะในภาษาอังกฤษหรือไม่? แวโรพีเดียเริ่มต้นจากภาษาอังกฤษโดยกลุ่มคนจากวิกิพีเดียภาษาอังกฤษ ซึ่งเนื้อหาในภาษาอื่นจะมีเพิ่มเติมเข้ามาในภายหลัง

จะมีส่วนร่วมกับแวโรพีเดียได้อย่างไร? กรุณาส่งอีเมลมาหาเราและแนะนำตัวเอง เล่าเรื่องราวเกี่ยวกับตัวคุณและผลงานที่ได้ทำในด้านของความรู้เสรี อย่างไรก็ตามทางเราวางแผนขยายชุมชนอย่างช้า ๆ ซึ่งอาจจะมีสมาชิกใหม่เพียงหนึ่งหรือสองคนต่อวัน หวังว่าคุณอดทนรอการตอบรับจากทางเรา ในขณะเดียวกันคุณยังคงสามารถปรับปรุงวิกิพีเดียและแจ้งทางเราว่าคุณต้องการบทความไหนที่คุณคิดว่าควรจะรวมเข้าสู่แวโรพีเดีย

ร่วมแปลคำถามและข้อสงสัยในหน้านี้ในภาษาอื่น กรุณาติดต่อเราได้

แวโรพีเดียพัฒนาบนพื้นฐานของวิกิพีเดียสารานุกรมเสรี เนื้อหาทั้งหมดสามารถนำไปใช้ได้ภายใต้ สัญญาอนุญาตเอกสารเสรีของกนู

<- the translation ends here. --Manop - TH (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ไทย is "Thai language", that you can use in the drop box. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

Thanks for the notification, which was much appreciated. Since I have never dealt with an arbitration, I am unsure as to what I'm meant to do. Do I have to re-submit my statement? It may sound like a silly question, but thanks for your time. Also, am I classed as "an involved party"? I'm merely curious. Thanks once again. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

?

Sorry for bothering you (again! :)), but can I ask whether you'll be doing the initial nomination when the RFA comes? It's just, if you're not, I'll know who to pick to do the co-nominations then. Best regards, Rt. 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it if you want, I'd decided to leave it up to you. I'd suggest at most 2 co-noms. Crazy as it seems, some object when there are a lot of co-noms. Still shooting for the 7th? Remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Yeah. 2 it is. Rt. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it then. Remind me on the 6th. You are you thinking of for co noms? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking Ioeth and Ryan Postlethwaite, they're probably the most underrated out of all my offerers (if thats a word) and they do excellent work, right across the namespaces. The others, Phoenix-wiki, OhanaUnited and Dihydrogen Monoxide, all have either prior workloads here on the wiki or off or are engaged in other matters, but I appreciate their opinion nevertheless. I'm still reeling from the fact that so many editors have actually offered me adminship. :) Rt. 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know you probably won't be ready but I could I transclude the RFA later tonight? It's that somethings come up and I won't realistically be able to edit that much for the next week or two. So I need to do it now whilst I can. Apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Best regards, Rt. 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See email. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost WikiProject Report

Hey Rlevse! This week, I'm writing the Signpost WikiProject Report on WikiProject Scouting, which I noticed you coordinate. So, I am going to ask you a few questions concerning the project :)

1. What is the best way for users unfamiliar with Scouting topics or new to Wikipedia to get involved in the project?

   A: To sign up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Members#Active and participate actively in articles and talk pages associated with the project.

2. Are there any ongoing discussions pertaining to project issues or articles in the project's scope?

   A: See WP:SCOUT but nothing really major right now, but we are planning an effort to get some articles to FA during Jan-Feb.

3. What are the departments of the project?

   A: We have task forces for Girl Guide and Girl Scout and Philmont Scout Ranch. We also have people coordinating our areas in  :

   Lead coordinator: Rlevse
   Article improvement: Wimvandorst
   Project mediation: Bduke
   Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting Task Force: Kingbird
   Philmont Scout Ranch Task Force: Johntex
   Image tagging: B 

1. What are some of the project's most recent achievements?

   A: In Nov 2007 I became an approved uploader for Veropedia and have uploaded our better articles. Our better articles are shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article showcase. Also see WP:SCOUT--which lists our admins, major tasks, etc, we have a "todo" page too.

2. How can project members be recognized for outstanding contributions?

   A: We have awards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Recognitions, I just awarded two barnstars today.

Thanks! Happy editing, ( arky ) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for selecting us. When will this appear in the SignPost. If you need more info, just let me know. Did I provide what you need? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This will appear in the Signpost ~17:00 on Wednesday. Thanks for all the help! Cheers, and happy editing, ( arky ) 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph ARB

Why was the case name changed? I think this is quite unfortunate. No one suggested it. Marskell (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was felt the core was Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia, though others were involved. Case names are chosen by the arbs/clerks. It will not affect the outcome, I assure you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I should hope not. It's unfortunate nonetheless. None of the arbs and none of the initial statements suggested a rename. Marskell (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats from Pgagnon999

This is where Pgagnon999 started with a threat to report someone to their system admisinstrator.

With regard to Middletown, Connecticut, your removal of the Neutrality tag constitutes conflict of interest as your IP address is a state website. If you would like to dispute the tag, please open a discussion on the talk page for the article. Otehrwise, you'll end up on the Wiki list of organizations/ agencies that self edit--a pretty embarassing place to be. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where he was engaged in further activity to intimidate a poster: Also interesting is a history of edits from user at the Connecticut gov. (Middletown gov?) state IP address and a seemingly related Wesleyan Univeristy IP. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This vicious and underhanded behavior is threatening and abusive.

He does not engage in civil behavior, he deletes QUOTED material and then posts garbage from lame sites that support his narrow and partisan beliefs. ---That's nasty behavior. And astonishing to me that you support him in it.

He's pushing point of view, he's violated neutrality, he's deleted referenced material, he's certainly does not assume good faith. I mean, he's out there attacking people and all but terrorizing them. And that's the guy you've put your support behind. Great.

Arb Z-SG open

See my diffs, there were a couple of minor errors in your case open. You didn;t include the arbs votes to accept in the preliminary decision section, and evidence of prior dispute resolution is used by the arbs to decide whether to hear a case but it does not become part of the case once opened. (Unless someone wants to put it on the evidence page--but it does not go on the main page). Otherwise a successful start. Thatcher 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DogCare E back.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DogCare E back.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DogCare E front.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DogCare E front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ForageCrops G back.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ForageCrops G back.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ForageCrops G front.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ForageCrops G front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate pic

Thanks for thinking of moving the Lead(II) nitrate picture to Commons: good idea. I saw that it has a different name there. Is that temporary, part of the moval procedure, or should we re-link to the new picturename in the article? Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

There was an image on COmmons with the same name already, but of a lower resolution, so I had to give the better image a new name. The article should pick up the new name automatically. I'm an admin on Commons too, so unless someone beats me to it, I'll look into this tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for the Scouting barnstar. I also say thanks that you informed me about the article in The Wikipedia Signpost.Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you certainly deserve one. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sturmtrupp-Pfadfinder

From the to-do list: I created the article (mostly translation of the German article): User:Phips/workshop/Sturmtrupp-Pfadfinder, take I look. Should I move it? Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to main space when you feel it's ready, doesn't have to be perfect. looks okay to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to main space. Thanks for your words-Phips (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ongoing incivility

Normally when I see edits like this I would report them to WP:WQA, but in this case, the user is already under an active block for uncivil behavior. What is the correct course of action in this case? Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there has been a violation and a user is under arbcom restrictions, report it to arbcom enforcement. There is a link at the top of WP:RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is related too Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#help_sought. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the future will see some improvement. cheers. Dlabtot (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, on both sides of the issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello Rlevse, I was wondering if I could become your "clerk apprentice" for the Arbitration Committee. If you have too many clerks or whatever, please decline, but I'd like to learn more about and help with the Arbitration Committee, and you're an excellent clerk. Thanks. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Post at WP:AC/C. They just "Hired" 2 of 4 requests, so it is kind of full right now, but you should let them know you're interested. It's up to the arb committee by the way, not the clerks, on who becomes clerks. But if and when you do become a clerk helper, I'd be glad too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Didn't know that, thanks! I've got way too much time on my hands, so I'll offer some of it to the ArbCom. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Carlisle Trost

For this USN CNO/DESA recipient: I see you have already edited this one. However, it might need a Scouting portal link. It does need some expansion/cleanup. I've added a few references, but it could use some more attention. — ERcheck (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

HollywoodFan1

HollywoodFan1 responded to your request for explanation of their actions, by stating “I don't need to explain anything, because I am not MetaphorEnt.“[1]. I think this reinforces the need for block of MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1. No further action occurred in regards to the report and it was archived. As you are an administrator, could you block the accounts or do I need to file another incident report? BlueAzure (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

File and SSP with the IP and MetaphorEnt listed, mention the ANI thread, link to its archived location. Link to the RFCU that shows they're the same. Let me know when you're done. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I filed the case at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MetaphorEnt, I think that I included everything that you requested. BlueAzure (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to recuse, but I've asked an admin I trust to look at it. I think this best given I have prior involvement. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A query

Hello Rlevse, I noticed that you actively involved in WP:SSP and you have a lot of experience there. I had filled a case, however there are no further developments. Could you please suggest that I should do next, fill a WP:RCU? Your advise would be much appreciated. M.K. (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please file the WP:RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a response. Could you please suggest which code situation should I use in this particular case on RFCU, because I am a bit lost about it. Thanks in advance, M.K. (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's another thing not totally clear from your SSP case, where is the vio of WP:SOCK? If vandalism, try RFCU code C, if vote stacking code D. If nothing quite seems to fit, use G. If you can't justify the CU, they'll reject it, so provide good diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rejected cases?

Hey there.

Not sure I quite understand your message about archiving rejected cases: was this general guidance or did I mess something up when I archived BlueAzure? Because I had archived it [2]. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah. And I can't even used the "It was alphabetical" excuse because that doesn't fit either. BTW, Daniel is hunting for a clerk on IRC. — Coren ^(talk) 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Horsing around

Hmm...this newness, source and interpretation for this criteria does seem a bit mysterious, and the thirteen new tags look a tad bit pointy eared to me. Dreadstar † 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your defense of a saner pointof view. I am too close to the article to be objective, but it seemed like overkill to me as well. Please keep up the good work! Montanabw^(talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat ^chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PJHaseldine

Hi, you recently assisted in a sock puppet and COI case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PJHaseldine (sock puppets blocked indef and user blocked 1 week for COI). This user has now posted extracts and linked to an external discussion on wikipedia review.com on an article talk page: diff. He assumes bad faith by accussing myself and other editors of "concerted attacks" and "attempts to censor wikipedia" (also the heading of this new talk page section) and even labled us "pro-apartheid". I didn't respond to it, save for posting a warning to his talk page, but this copied external discussion and link is worrying (searching internet for my name and suggesting I'm an apartheid era military officer etc.). I don't know if this can be removed or how to proceed... it's an article's talk discussion page afterall. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. — Deon Steyn (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave a warning, let me know if he does it again. There is a big debate about sites like WR and what can be posted here. However, links and pastes from ED can be removed on sight. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! — Deon Steyn (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(repeat of my post on article talk page...)
Instead of following your advice, PJHaseldine has now pasted the same passage and external link on the talk pages of his three banned sock puppet accounts. [3], [4], [5]. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See that article talk page and his talk page. Keep me informed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, there is a typo in the diff for your last post here: User talk:PJHaseldine#Final warning (remove very last duplicate 8 in url) so that it is diff — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some fresh concerns about potential socket puppetry:

• Special:Contributions/86.147.248.140
• Special:Contributions/217.42.217.219

(Experienced editor, defense of same articles; both IP addresses are also from the same ISP as before)

I hope I'm wrong - how do you suggest I approach this? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While they probably are socks, I don't see the disruption or WP:SOCK vio from just those edits. Keep an eye on the whole group. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The RFA

She has asked not to have her name posted on wiki so I won't do it ... but she didn't even use RTV. She just had a regular rename just like I did. She has one account, not two accounts. There are a few (under 10) admins that have abandoned their old account and come back under a new name and had that new name sysopped, but that's not what happened here. If you look at her earliest contributions, you see her old signature. This RFA process is so silly it's beyond words - there are plenty of admins who have been renamed and to suggest that we should go through RFA again is just an open invitation for trolling. --B (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All very true. I know who she is and I knew her before the rename and helped cover her tracks. It was a rush job, an "emergency" rename, so we missed a few things I'm sure. Yes, the RFA is one of the stupiest things I've seen on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

laugh out loud

I wish... :) Rudget. 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking company/group names

Wikipedia:Username_policy#Company/group_names has said this for a while: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on circumstances may be seen as a problem."

You seem to be back to username blocking, and blocking users simply for having a company or group name. What are the circumstances, in your opinion, that make them blockable? (I would only block if they are using that name to make promotional edits.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that they actually make edits--I just checked again; you and 1=2 just had a revert exchange over this. You must be talking about the two today, which match web addresess and that makes it a promotional name, gee "if my username matches my website I'll get more traffic". The username policy gets edited a lot, it would help if it were stable. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Total Envy

I'm so jealous of your Aug 07 BSA beer award! Forget all the stars, that award is a real award for good work. When your buddy hands you that cold one, you know what I mean.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

130

Yep, that's one up again. Congrats. I think you can easily throw in those remaining 8k edits needed to come in the top 100, right? ;-) Gladly I'm just over 11k edits (not yet Kate's count), so I'm out of the danger zone to fall 'higher' than #2000. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

HarHar, yep, I'm a certified wikiholic. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

i had a chance to rename my username thanks to BLACKKITE but before i could change it User:Rlevse blocked me, saying all i did was put 187 in it, it was already in it thats my original name User:Lil' kim187, i hadn't changed my username at all, thats what i needed to change was the Lil' kim187, so i want to know why User:Rlevse blocked before i could change it. User_talk:Lil' kim187

Oh yes, you did add "is back" not "187", which was already there. As for the block, as I said on your talk page, you have to pick the new name, make the request on your talk page, have an admin say "yes, that's an okay name", he'll unblock you, then you do nothing but make the name request until the new name is made. That is why. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked you to allow username change. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Thanks for the mutual warning. Its fair, and I didn't plan to revert, in any case; was waiting for another editor to help make consensus on the dispute clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Voceditenore

Hi, I've left a response to your comment on the Nrswanson sockpuppetry case my talk page. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TDC

Just came across a request for unblock here. In the past (as I understand), ArbCom's topic-specific restrictions have been on article pages only, and editors so restricted were allowed to edit talk pages (unless this privelege was explicitly denied). Am I missing in either the ArbCom ruling here? Or am I misunderstanding the situation? (Either of which is more than possible). Because it does not look to me like TDC violated the ArbCom ruling. Pastordavid (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true now. I asked the head arb clerk and two arbs and talk pages are included unless they are exempted. On top of that look at the wording of the restriction, it's very broad, I pasted it on TDC's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

Ahh, If you are seeing this, somebody unblocked me or just my school IPs are blocked. Tell me which one please --ジェイ ✉／✍ 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what IP your school is using, but it doesn't appear to be you. Hope this helps, Rudget. 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cowboycaleb1

Thanks for closing the SSP case on him. There's another IP, look at 209.247.5.60's contributions. Might need a block for a month or so. It also might be worth extended the other IP blocks to do with this case to a month. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pls file an SSP case with rationale and good diffs. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

award

I Cas Liber, hereby award Rlevse the Flaming Joel-wiki for raising our collective consciousness for work on a Featured Article highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Regarding this, is he not still under his restrictions of only being allowed to edit at the related Arbcom case? He was told his original block was lifted so that he could participate in his related Arbcom case but not to edit anywhere else and doing so would result in him being blocked again. You blocked him again. Does your block now dissolve his original unblock stipulations? -- ALLSTARecho 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion here--Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard. Please post there if you have input. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just found that after the fact. Sorry. -- ALLSTARecho 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

No problem. I wasn't intending to revert Giovanni next time in any case and would have reported him. I appreciate it that you were clear in your warning, though I fear Giovanni didn't take it fully to heart given his recent 24 hour block. John Smith's (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

Thanky for taking the time to deal with the situation below - FYI -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#To_ban_or_not_to_ban

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rutgers

The category includes people who attended and never graduated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case parties

I added Jayjg to the list of parties in this case but his name wasn't listed after it opened. Did I not follow the proper procedure for adding his name to the list of parties? Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 is well aware that I removed Jayjg's name from the list, since Jayjg doesn't seem to have edited these articles in over 6 months. Cla68 re-added the name after the case was accepted, and I reverted, since the top of the page says "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case." ChrisO readded Jayjg's name as well, and I reverted that also. I shouldn't be edit-warring though, and I'm going to stop now. Since you're a clerk, I figure you should decide what's appropriate, and I'll (of course) accept that, whatever it is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are related articles that Jayjg has edited and debated on more recently. I just added a link to one on Quadell's talk page. Several others were calling for his inclusion. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he recently commented on a talkpage. He did not, however, exhibit any of the behavior under discussion in the case (ownership, reversion, etc.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay is currently active on a number of I-P related articles. There are several editors listed as "involved" who have not been edit-warring; the problem under discussion, moreover, includes not only edit-warring but talk-page impasse brought about through filibuster, pettifoggery, strawman arguments, and other obstructionism. I think the arbcom case will be of very limited value and credibility if it doesn't include Jay, who has been an absolutely central figure in creating the editing culture supposedly under scrutiny.--G-Dett (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an incident only two weeks ago involving Jayjg accidentally posting a partisan canvassing message to WikiEN-l, exposing what is no doubt the tip of an iceberg on both sides - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=183457247. Cla68 cited it in the AN/I discussion that led to this arbitration. I agree with his view that it's a significant issue and I'm detailing it in evidence for the ArbCom. It would certainly make sense to add Jayjg as a party since I'll be requesting that his conduct be reviewed. I'm happy to add myself as a party if necessary, though I've had no involvement with the vast majority of the disputed articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And that "dispute" had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine-related articles. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the ArbCom members can make up their own minds as to whether it's related or not based on the evidence presented. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, and removed Jayjg since I see no evidence that he's involved in the matters related to the case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the arbitration workshop page, the dispute is wider than just Israel-Palestine. The same editors are fighting each other on a variety of pages, principally relating to Israel-Palestine but also a number of pages relating to wider topics concerning Judaism and Islam - presumably because of the religious elements of the conflict. Kirill has already stated that (in his view at least) the arbitration isn't just narrowly confined to Israel-Palestine but "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", thus also covering Jewish and Muslim topics. At any rate, I'll present some evidence on this in the morning when I've had some sleep - we can decide then whether to re-add Jayjg. (As far as I'm concerned, since it concerns a relevant and non-frivolous issue, clearly he should be listed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw all this. I support Morven. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you both revisit this decision; please see my comment above.--G-Dett (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concerns here, but it is not up to me, you can appeal to the arbs or I can bring it up for you. I think part of the concern here is to limit the scope as this is an obviously huge contentious topic. It's even possible for more than one arb case to come out of the wide Israel-Palestine topic if the cases were limited in scope enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse is correct, once one of the sitting arbitrators steps in, it's out of Rlevse's hands. The other arbitrators I'm sure are monitoring the case page and observed Brown's actions, so if they don't step in, then Brown's current decision on the matter stands for the time being. Cla68 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 is correct, User:ChrisO has been advised of proper steps, see here. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Refiling

Wait a minute, did the arbitrators say that? Did they decide I should wait until February? If that's the case, why didn't they say so themselves? Or did you decide that? Everyking (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding of the request for clarification. It's archived on the case talk page. If I misunderstood, it was an honest mistake. If you wish, contact one of the arbs directly. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the arbs can't just state something plainly without having a clerk come in and make some iffy interpretation. Well, I will contact one of the arbs directly. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Paperwork question

Thank you for responding to the Request for Clarification on the DreamGuy 2 case. Since part of the request was on a subpage in my user space, at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report, what do you think is the best way to archive this? Options I've considered:

• I could copy it to the case's talkpage
• You could copy it to the case's talkpage
• We could move it to be a subpage of the ArbCom case
• We could add it somehow to the Evidence page, either as a subsection or subpage

Whichever way is chosen, I'd rather not keep the page indefinitely in my userspace, since it's no longer actively needed. If I had to choose one of the above options, I'd probably choose the first one (I could just copy it to the talkpage), but I did want to check first. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed, Elonka 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

I urgently need your advice on bringing evidence to the ArbCom. I believe the whole I-P conflict area is scarred by three features 1) illiterates who have hounded scholars out of the project. 2) straightforward cases of cheating and 3) intimidation by personal attacks launched on witnesses at various "disciplinaries".

Having suffered the very most damaging personal attacks myself at various disciplinaries (often/usually? falsely, almost invariably without evidence), it would appear that I cannot present evidence of serious mis-conduct at the requisite place, lest I be accused of criticising anyone. I invite your thoughts on this. PR^talk 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)