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.

I'm ready

Hi Rlevse, a couple of months ago you told me to let you know when I was ready for a nomination on RFA. I am ready for a nomination now Alexfusco⁵ 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Alex. Just before you do that, I'd like you to email me please. I have one or two things I'd like to ask you - Alison ^❤ 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm waiting for the email Alexfusco⁵ 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Misread sending email now Alexfusco⁵ 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the CU info, I can no longer support an RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I after more consideration am not ready yet Alexfusco⁵ 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink

I just deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink after an entry on WP:AN. Styrofoam1994 now is adamant that it was a real SSP case and not him playing around, like previously with said user. You have been involved in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nku pyrodragon and might know more about the matter. Could you please comment or recreate. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response on the AN page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed recall page

How does this look for a recall process User:MBisanz/Recall?, since it will be an RfA question. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mickylynch101

I believe you completely abused your powers in this case. I have been forced to create a new account to defend myself from these bogus charges. I have provided evidence on Markanthony101s page that disproves your accusations.

The way you held the discussion was an absolute joke. No-one commented on the evidence (They weren't given a chance to) and I wasn't given a chance to defend myself. Its a pity that admin powers cannot be overturned because you have simply gone power mad. And yes, of course this account is a sockpuppet account but I have absolutely no connection to Mickylynch. Please consider the evidence and allow me a chance to defend myself. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've learnt a lot about the admin hierarchy in my time here. Markanthony102 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

Did you see the changes I made? Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 15:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it might stand on its own now. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

village pump thread

See WP:VPM#Wrongly accused of sockpuppetry; consequent case was illegally handled and wrongfully executed. I think this may be a valid complaint, given the poor quality of, in particular, the timeline evidence that was provided at the SSP page. —Random832 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the unblock declines on both talk pages User_talk:Mickylynch101#Sockpuppetry_case and User_talk:Markanthony101#Sockpuppetry_case, his tone in his complaint above, and doing what he complained of back to me (Filing VP complaint before I can respond, I'm not overly inclined to help him. If someone else wants to go out on a limb and unblock him, it's on them. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FA thanks

Randy,

Thanks for the great news about my first FA. I heard it first from you, when checking my "new messages" — as it should be! Appreciate all the help, Jim. JGHowes ^talk - 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

^{$\color {Green}\oplus$} Congratulations also on earning the District Award of Merit. We are proud of you! Maybe Ed should design a Userbox for Scouting DAM's, Silver Beavers, etc. JGHowes ^talk - 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that some time back. For myself, I ended up adding a knot bar. See User:Gadget850/about at the bottom of the Scouting column. If there is enough interest, I will be glad to work on userboxes. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Person of the year

LOL, in 2006 the person was you, as in Wikipedia editor, YouTube video maker, Flickr photographer, blogger, and all kinds of other Webers 2.0. So you too are Person of the Year. Pretty cool, isn't it? :) Renata (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Archieving?

I'm still working on the case, and I believe the editors are long time sock of banned user(s). I can't narrow down the case, because the editors seem to have been wikipedians since 2005 and with various socks. I request you to not close the case. Among the suspected socks on the list, 5 accounts are busy making disruptive edits and the rest are either blocked infinitely or abandoned the accounts.

• Azukimonaka
• KoreanShoriSenyou
• Orchis29
• Amazonfire
• Opp2

However, I need the blocked user to be listed for proof. Thatcher said technical measure is not helping to confirm their possiblity of the sock. I'm collecting their behavioral patterns from old and recent activities. Among them, User:KoreanShoriSenyou should've banned early for the account name policy, which means Exclusive use for disposal of Chosenjin. Chosenjin itself is racial slur to South Korean the account name is like Nazi's conduct. If you think it is confusing, I wil clean up much. But f I make another file on them, mostly the case is just copy and paste.Please restore the case. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Focus each case on one puppetmaster, it's way to confusing to try to sort out such a case when the CU info is inconclusive. Just submit new ones when you're ready. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not proven as inconclusive, but "likely". They seem to use multiple ISP and long time abusers. I don't think their case can be confirmed through RFCU. That's why the check admin filed the case instead of me to list their behavioral patterns. And I feel frustration again with this matter and some sock who looks like obviously some of the suspected users on my RFCU file is wikistalkng me.[1] And a admin is too mild on him unlike Korean editors.[2][3] Can you just look through the collapsed boxes? I made "bold texts" to make the behavioral pattern conspicuous. Please reconsider it. --Appletrees (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What's this [4], users aren't socks of themeselves, they are the master or a sock of someone else. You did this a few times. Who's the master? As for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka, I was too hasty, I am blocking 43.244.133.167 for a month and Orchis29, Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou indef each, with KoreanShoriSenyou the master account. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to add evidences regarding the sock puppetry of User:Opp2 and the others to the file until you closed the case. They seem to have been long time users. I don't think "was being used in" is right usage in English. None of editors have been engaging in the Liancourt Rocks wrote that but only Opp2 and the suspected users did. I looked through the every achieved talk pages of the article, and the users who left their opinions with "was being written" are in turn, banned socks. I think I need to post another file on Opp2 and KoreanShoriSenyou. So are azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou indeed infinitely blocked? If so, I really thank you and have a time to look the boxes. This case is just like a labyrinth and the users are linked to each other. I'm making another file on Opp2's file again. --Appletrees (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All three of the named ones are indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. :-) --Appletrees (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thewiseeye3400

Yo, I all ready admitted to having more then one account look at the talk page. But I don't see the problem with having more then one account. Also if you look at my user:page I said I was done with wikipedia, but if I ever want to come back on I would just make a new account. Wikipedia = to many rules!

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hiya, I was wondering if you would be willing to consider lifting page protection? I think that it was definitely useful in breaking a nasty revert cycle, but I think we've got a handle on things now. If you check our recent poll, I think it's pretty clear that we have a consensus for the condensed version of the article, as a basis from which to move forward with further article improvement. There have been no new comments in a few days, so if you have time, could you please review the section, and let me know if you agree? Thanks, Elonka 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seems there is consensus. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turnaround! Would you like to formally close the poll? It might help stability, to get an official "seal" on things. --Elonka 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the one editor with WP:OWN issues, PHG (talk · contribs), is still determined to defy consensus and revert the article.[5] We've reverted him back, but it's looking like he's going to continue fighting this. He's also continuing to disrupt in other areas, such as an Original Research problem today at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (which we have since cleaned up). Though I see also now he's been blocked at Commons for copyright violations (sigh).

It is my opinion that we've given him enough good-faith cautions (his talkpage is full of them), and that since he's continuing to edit-war in defiance of consensus, that he just needs to be blocked for disruption. He was already blocked once for 24 hours, but he never admitted fault. If it were up to me, I'd say that he just needs to be blocked and then kept blocked until he can at least acknowledge that he understands the problems that his behavior has been causing, and until he can promise to do better in the future. Of course, I'm an involved editor, and it's not my decision, but I can still make a recommendation. Or if you disagree, I think at least a longer block (48 hours), so that we can continue working on cleanup without disruption. Do you agree with my assessment? Or would you rather that I took this to ANI? --Elonka 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I might add my own two cents here... PHG's edits have been incredibly tendentious and disruptive. His warring and insertion of false information derived from original research is worse than simple vandalism because it discourages editors working in good faith from improving the article. People see a train-wreck of an article, where improvements are constantly reverted, and they walk away rather than get involved. It also places a huge burden on other editors to clean up the scores of articles to which he's added misinformation. His actions are all the more insidious because his content appears well-sourced, and so no one questions it. Many of have tried to talk to him, but he simply refuses to hear us or answer our concerns. This problem has dragged on since last summer, and there seems to be no end in sight. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I'm a bit confused by your re-protecting the article. Could you please let me know what you would like to see as conditions, to unprotecting it? Based on my view (and multiple other editors on the talkpage), the situation is pretty simple: We have a consensus to condense the article and then continue working on it from a condensed version. Then we have one editor, PHG, who has been in violation of WP:OWN for months, who refuses to acknowledge consensus, and who keeps reverting the article to his own preferred 200K version (which he continues to even further expand in his userspace).[6] PHG is also continuing to create POV forks and WP:COATRACK articles, into which he is continuing to put biased and highly questionable information. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. All of our attempts to get him to stop this voluntarily have been unsuccessful; he has continued to defy consensus for months now, whether it be an article RfC or wording of the intro sentence, or condensing the article, he refuses to concede any point, and instead, continues escalating. Several of his POV forks have been put through AfD,[7][8][9][10][11] but it is exhausting to keep chasing after him like this.

I saw that you asked at talk for diffs of two other editors participating in the poll, but I assure you that neither of those editors participated in the poll, and this should be easy enough to check by looking at the talkpage history since the poll was started on January 29,[12] and neither of them (Justin nor Matt57) has participated at all on the talkpage since well before that.

I am trying very hard to avoid an ArbCom case here, since I don't think a case would really do any purpose except to waste months of time, to confirm what is already pretty obvious: PHG is not working in a cooperative manner, PHG is defying talkpage consensus, PHG is ignoring all good-faith requests to modify his behavior, PHG is refusing to compromise on any point. If this were complex enough that it needed a judgment call, I could see taking it to ArbCom, but it's not complex: We have long lists of complaints at PHG's talkpage from a variety of editors,(Elonka)(Geogre)(Adam Bishop)[13](WJBscribe) (Ioeth)[14] (Aramgar) (Kafka Liz)[15](Srnec) (Eupator) (Shell Kinney)[16] (Luna Santin) (Jehochman) (Orderinchaos) (Durova) (Dihydrogen Monoxide)

He was blocked for 24 hours on EN,[17] but it did no good. We now have dozens of articles which need cleanup, and he is continuing to cause more problems on a near daily basis. He has ignored warnings from multiple admins. I was hoping that with the poll at the talkpage at least, we would have a clear way to move forward, but if the action each time that PHG reverts is simply to protect the article, without taking action on the cause of the disruption (PHG), we are never going to be able to break out of this cycle.  :/ So, could you please tell me what you'd like to see, what proof that you would need to settle things in your own mind, that all other good faith efforts to deal with PHG have been exhausted, and that the solution is not protecting the article from everyone, but simply protecting Wikipedia from PHG? --Elonka 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Case just accepted by arbcom, it's rather moot now so I unprotected the pages and made a stmt on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, PHG reverted the article again,[18] and is stating quite clearly that he does not acknowledge the consensus: [19] Per your talkpage comment, "next time I'll block whoever reverts an agreed-upon version,"[20] I am keeping you informed. Also, FYI, PHG's rhetoric seems to be increasing, since he is now referring to my archiving of a talkpage as "tampering with evidence", a "criminal offense."[21] --Elonka 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did say that, but then there was no arb case, now it's an arb case. This does need addressed, so I'll confer with Thatcher, the case clerk. I'm sure you can understand why. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Until and unless an injunction is enacted by the arbitrators, article disputes are typically handled by the ordinary means until a case closes. Rlevse is an admin and can take whatever action under "ordinary means" that he wants, subject to usual review at AN/I, etc. For example, edit warring may be actionable even without crossing the 3RR threshold, depending on the circumstances. Similarly any other editor can ask for help at AN/I, AN3 or RFPP. The fact that a case is open does not immunize editors during the process. Thatcher 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him 31 hours. See talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully submit Rlevse that this situation is a bit more complex imho. The two comments PHG had added to the poll, were from an earlier poll cycle, and if you check those editors talk pages, for example here, you can see they were intimidated into leaving the article. That's not a typical way to go about consensus-building, threatening everyone who disagrees until they leave, and then saying Hey we have consensus now!. So I would ask that you consider that qualification in any sanctions against PHG until ArbCom has a chance to speak. We don't want a situation where there's any perception that the bullies run the playground. I'm not saying they do, I'm saying it could be perceived as going that way.Wjhonson (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a proper thing to do, copy votes from a prior round. Besides it's not the main reason I blocked him, it's the revert warring and ignoring of the poll. This case will likely go on for a long time and we can't ignore whatever actions, by any party, go on in the meantime; to do so would encourage improper behavior. Arbcom is not a moratorium on standard remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. When everyone else has been intimidated to stay away, or feels they have been, you can win any poll. As you know, or should know the revert-warring is based on the false-positive polling, followed by a campaign to punish one side. That isn't a precedent we want to set around here, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/151.199.24.215

You said . . . not convinced they're socks . . .. Not trying to dispute your decision or anything, just very puzzled why you said that. The diffs I provided showed both IPs inserting the same bad poem (which has zero google hits) into the same article. How could that, in all liklihood, be anything but the same person? As I say, not trying to get anything changed, I just want to try to understand this so I can make a better report next time. SpinningSpark 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, you only provided one pair of diffs-not much to base socking on. Tell how they're socks and show the diffs. Keep the comments focused too. The less digging the reviewing admin has to do, the faster resposne you'll get. The better case you present, the more likely you'll get the finding you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I understand. I only provided one diff because it was good quality, that is, almost identical edit which could not be coincidence. Are you saying you would have preferred me to put in the maximum number of diffs I could find even if they are of variable quality? Would it help in those cases to sort the diffs by (my perceived) quality or do you just like to see them in timeline order? SpinningSpark 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One diff coule be coincidence or people who agree, 100 is overkill; you need enough to show collusion or beyond chance level. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink

I reopened this case, as I am pretty sure Durzatwink is a sockpuppet. I noticed that you banned his previous incarnation in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nku pyrodragon. Can you help me out here too? _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Truman

A little late perhaps, but congradulations on getting Truman featured. Great work. Basketballone10 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your support on 2 wikipedia commons articles

Hey, Is it possible to gain support on my request for 2 articles ? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Creation_of_2_documents_on_Wikipedia_Commons Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See talk of WP:Scout. We don't quite understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The shortcut is WT:SCOUT (I added that a week or so ago). --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Veropedia

Check out the screenshot for Veropedia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Distinguished Eagle Scouts

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Distinguished Eagle Scouts, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Distinguished Eagle Scouts is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Distinguished Eagle Scouts, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for helping us out. KC109 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	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) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Present for you

Here you go: Alvin Townley --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pearson

Pearson was a close friend of the pioneer of the Scouting movement Baden-Powell, and supportive of his efforts in setting up the movement and publishing its magazine The Scout. When Pearson's scheme for publishing in Braille was faltering due to lack of funds, on 2 May 1914 Baden-Powell publicly requested that "all Scouts perform a 'good turn' for The Scout magazine publisher Mr C Arthur Pearson, in order to raise money for his scheme of publishing literature in Braille for the blind." Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ding! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock IDing

So its obvious the SPA at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jossi_COI_diffs is a sock puppet of someone whose likely to have contributed to either this or another discussion involving Jossi. But since there are several people who have questioned/been critical of him, there is no direct connection. Obviously RFCU doesn't permit fishing, so how should it be investigated? MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a user "IDing", so I can't tell much other than the thread is extremely long. In cases where you can't tie an obvious sock to a master, there's not much you can do other than deal with the sock on other remedies and rules, such as 3RR, NPA, vandalism, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you response seemed weird, till I just re-read it. I meant Sock Identification, the user in question is User:COIN tosser. Its only one edit, but if its an established user, I'd be concerned about them using socks so easily. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ALready closed. If it's only one edit to his history, it's usually impossible to tie to a master without an RFCU (but sometimes can). If the edit is to a board of vote, I'd just make a post and note that such a first edit for a new user that is not a sock is very unusual. At SSP when I see vote stacking, I always post to the vote with a note for the closing admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

reply

I've made a reply here [22]. If you believe there are errors within it I would appreciate being noted about them privately (via email). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA Nom

Ok, I think I'm ready to go up, I've worked through everything at User:MBisanz/AC and can't thnk of any new areas I want to learn. And I've finished my most back-logged article work. Do you plan on writing a co-nom? Since I have 3 coaches who might write co-noms, should I accept as soon as 1 noms or wait for any others who plan on? MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I if I coach someone, I let them choose who to nom. I may get to this tonight, but for sure tomorrow, it's late here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I gratefully accept and will work through the Q answering and posting process now. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know! :), I was editting the page by section to avoid ECing with Keilana MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm almost done. I'm wordy, lol. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping my count up-to-date :) I'm trying to pretend its not going on and just doing my regular tasks, but it someone keeps finding its way into my recently visited pages list. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) No problem, and I understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How many is too many?

Hi Rlevse,

I have a question that perhaps you can answer, is there an upper limit on how many images should be put in an article's gallery section? I know that WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an "image repository", etc., but are there any specific guidelines? For example, one of the articles I maintain, Bermuda was today loaded up with two dozen images! JGHowes ^talk - 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too many. If you want it to be an FA, don't even make an gallery section. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, way too many for sure. I've asked the uploader nicely to cull the number, so we'll see if he responds favorably. I was hoping there might be a MOS guideline somewhere saying "no more than x images should be placed in a gallery" or some such. He's been a long-term contributor to Bermuda articles, so hopefully a word to the wise will suffice. JGHowes ^talk - 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ban of TlatoSMD at ANI

FYI - I posted a request for a review of your ban of TlatoSMD at AN/I. I personally agree with it, but I think it should get wider endorsement because of his fairly long history here and at de.wiki. (Is he banned there I wonder?) Avruchtalk 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets now at checkuser

Could you check this for me? I think you tagged as sockpuppets on the basis of the editing patterns, but if you could confirm that for the checkuser, that would be great. You could also check out the ANI thread if you wanted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Case is done now. It was fairly convoluted as these things go, but I think I got them all into legible groups - Alison ^❤ 09:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What convinced me here was the close interval edits of the same type on the wrong page, that's way past the coincidence level and well into the meat/sock zone. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Rlevse. You claim there is a "consensus" for the short 70k version, but since when is a 4 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "no" a consensus, especially when several users had already said that they preferred to start working from the original version? I don't think it stands as a consensus by any Wikipedia standard. In the absence of a clear consensus, the right thing is to work from the status quo article (=the 195k version).

You say that "you more than double the size to almost 200k in one edit": of course, this is the size of the original article! What we should do is start from the status quo article. I don't think that's a reason to block anybody. PHG (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse. FYI, PHG is continuing to create POV forks, delete sourced information,[23] and his rhetoric is increasing in the related talkpages into the realm of personal attacks. See miscellaneous comments at Talk:Samagar and Talk:Aïbeg and Serkis. It is my recommendation that he be blocked again so as to avoid further disruption. --Elonka 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As this is now in the voting phase, I'd suggest posting this on the evidence page and send it to the arbcom mailing list. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good sock?

This user User:Are0z0ne seems to know more than most new users, but they've only made 1 good contribution so far. Is this just a watch and hope for the best situation? MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I see nothing blockable nor to tell us who the master is. Could be an experience IP who finally decided to get an account. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets sort this out

We've both been waiting a long time. In fairness, I have been extremely low key about the whole affair when I have had a right to be much angrier. I would appreciate (But don't expect) an apology from you and the other offending administrator. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know the RFCU was filed. I think that's best and hope it has a solid answer one way or the other. If it shows I made a mistake, I'll apologize. I don't know why it's still not been processed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TimeDec10 1984.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) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about sockpuppetry

If Markanthony101 and Mickylynch101 were, in fact, both nominating articles created by SchuminWeb for deletion, why did no-one ever say this out loud? I feel like my time may have been wasted because no-one bothered to articulate the one allegation that this was all really based on. —Random832 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do here is wait for the RFCU to finish and hope it's solid one way or the other (ie, not "possible", "inconclusive", etc). This probably would have already been resolved if he wasn't so incivil and made so many personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case is now complete - Alison ^❤ 08:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First sock

Caught my first sock today at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner. To bad its unwiki to award pelts to users who catch socks. MBisanz ^talk 08:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you block this open proxy and sock account?

As you may know that I've been dealing with a lot of Japanese socks. Some of them began using open proxy and impersonating me.-_-;; [24][25][26][27]

• South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 124.87.134.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

61.19.242.44 (talk · contribs) is blocked after I reported at RFCO, and 202.177.195.115 (talk · contribs) is also confirmed as an open proxy, but not blocked yet. This Applletree (talk · contribs) is obviously a sock of somebody trying to smack on me as using the similar name to mine. Please block these disruptive socks. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Appletrees slanders Japan, a lot of users dislike him. For instance, he tried to apply racist's tag to a famous philosopher Fukuzawa Yukichi in Japan. [28] Moreover, he made the category of "Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan" and "Category:Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan". He only shouted, "You are SOCKS" though a lot of users advised to his attitude. --124.87.134.96 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to sources, he is viewed as such. If you want reliable sources, please wait for me to bring it. There are so many information on the views of the Japanese educator. And you use massive sockpuppetry and then even open proxy? Hmm.. you must stop your disruption now. You're either User:Azukimonaka group or User:Koreakorea1 group --Appletrees (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Referred to an admin more familiar with proxy stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I asked an open proxy clerk about the related matter. But as you see, the impersonators are beyond their duty, and you've watched their habits a little, so I needed your help. --Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

124.87.134.96 does not appear to be an open proxy. Appletrees has been very upset and is shopping for blocks and casting a wide net for sock puppets. They need to calm down and work step by step. The reaction only serves to feed any trolls who may be present. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say 124.87.134.96 is an open proxy but mentioned the two addresses. That's why I listed the address with South Korea article. The ip was confirmed as Azukimonaka, so I included it in RFCU and SSP files. However, ip address tends to be dynamic, so it has not blocked. I don't know how they manage to change IP address, but it is not dynamic address. Rleves blocked the User:Azukimonaka group, so I wanted him to look at his contributions and time record. What good solution do you recommend me to do in this situation? They just blanked or added without discussion and make mockeries of me, and I put up with these disruption? Your saying sounds just like that. You may look at this poll. Two sockpuppets (not reported by me) and parade of meatpuppets and new users with too obvious socks.

Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21

This is not mere content disputes as you think.--Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not owe you an apology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Markanthony101 See my latest post. It is probably the same UNI IP adress, that is the only logical reason I can think of. I was banned so wasn't allowed to respond in my old account. MA103 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIAV as sockpuppet of blocked user. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tks, someone blocked him. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He returned again. IP reported to AIAV. And no apology, yet... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:White House radio broadcast 1937.jpg

R,

I've rescanned the original source photo and uploaded it as Image:White House radio broadcast 1937 (v2).jpg. Let me know what you think — your monitor is probably a higher solution than my 800x600! Is this better than Image:White House radio broadcast 1937.jpg now at Commons? If you think so, I'll go ahead and replace that one at Commons with this v2 JGHowes ^talk - 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has a lower resolution and file size yet parts of it look sharper. Go ahead and transfer to Commmons. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.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) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
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) 09:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a problem

Remember this: User_talk:Jaakobou#Warning ?

I request your opinion/guidance on how I am supposed to continue content based discussions following this diff, which violates Arbcom Final decisions.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's way out of line on his part, very uncivil. I'm blocking for 48 hours. What you need to do is stay calm, follow NPOV, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Prior agreement

I have a prior agrement with SA that I am permitted to edit his comments. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would respect the agreement SA and I have made, publically, regarding my editing of his comments at my discression. It has substantially improved his civility to have a model of what he should be doing. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can edit his comments. But it won't really matter. He is responsible for the edits and comments he makes, no matter how much ex post facto editing you do to them. Dlabtot (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly, Dlabtot, is your goal here? Do you want to get SA to stop editing entirely? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My goal is exactly the same as what I assume to be your goal: a quality encyclopedia. Sorry, but your insinuations don't upset me. Happy editing! Dlabtot (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re Mantanmoreland ArbCom

I recently took part in the Giano arbcom. It was very messy. I suggest that you agree with the arbs that you will deal severely with any untoward behaviour (with due allowance, but not too much), make sure everyone is notified, and stamp on the first example of bad behaviour. This one may need a firm hand! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ps. It is tally - no "e".

you're probably correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have checked; it is most assuredly t a l l y... :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LHvU. The potential for namecalling and other poor behavior is very high. I hope you have some free time to devote to this....;) and good luck. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Same subject...based on his comments here [29] I believe Morven should be recused from this case. What's the procedure for formally requesting it? Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment about that on the case page. Ask Morven first, then you can always contact another arb or send it to the arb mailing list. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Workshop

Since when do we split up proposals by user? —Random832 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, about 4-6 weeks ago, the template was changed. As I recall, it was a proposal by the arbs, discussed on the clerk noticeboard, and adopted. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

email

Did my email make sense? Ronnotel (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Since I believe that the edits I have made (with the exception of a few which I have adjusted for as people have notified me about) are making wikipedia better, if the worst crime I have committed is doing so many edits that I fill up watchlists I can live with that. I don't mean to sound like a jerk and I am not upset about your comments, I appreciate the positive tone in which your comments where presented, however many of the comments that I have received where in regards to "better uses of my time" so, since its my time to waste I have chosen to ignore them. I will admit that I have made some mistakes in using AWB by incorrectly changing some things, and I have corrected them. If there is a specific complaint you are referring to I would apreciate enlightenment.--Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you where trying to help and I am puzzled by your last comment. Is there a specific edit you are referring too? Your tone would indicate that there was a specfic edit, or type of edit in mind?--Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I was not referring to a specific edit. Just happened to notice the chatter on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will try and be more careful. If you do notice my edits tearing something up just let me know and I will fix it. Just for info I am doing all the petty edits now. Next I am going to start adding the harder stuff like infoboxes and person data. When I start doing this I admit I will definately need to preview each page before hitting save. Let me know if you have any other suggestions for edits. I have mostly been concentrating on US Military biographies but I have pretty much hit every one between the current day and the American Civil War. I realize this may seem strange rather than making sure 1 page is updated before moving on but I think I can cover more ground this way much faster.--Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Komodo Lover

KL has returned though seemingly only for a hit and run attack as the IP address used has been blocked for 24 hours and so far hasn't reappeared in his usual haunts using another account. I was considering a RFCU for the address but it's obviously him so passed on it but do keep your eyes open as I think he's just prepping before returning and running at full-bore again. Just as an aside, why isn't there a subpage for KL at WP:LTA yet? There's the list that's maintained in User:DietLimeCola's userspace and it's puzzled me since I first knew of KL as to why there isn't one given the high frequency of vandalism over time. Don't need to answer, just interested. --treelo _talk 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Keep me informed. Ask DLC about the page and why not at LTA, I never mess with LTA. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon some further digging about, turns out he's been using another account since mid December seemingly to taunt a user he knows gets annoyed by him. Anyway, there's probably a few other sleeper accounts sitting around I'm aware of and will keep you updated on developments. --treelo _talk 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Further update for you, he's back somewhat unimaginatively as User:Godzillastar2 and will need action soon. --treelo _talk 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Best pic I've seen

I want to thank you personally for being my coach and helping me to develop the skills necessary to serve the community. Feel free to ever ask for my help. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you, and no problem. Ask me for help too. — Rlevse • Talk • 05:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

re:mantanmoreland rfar

no problem. I don't expect to have anything more to add (good, bad, appropriate, or not) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian Scouts and Guides in Carinthia

I translated the material I found about Slovenian Scouts and Guides in Carinthia. Can you please take a look at User:Phips/workshop/ Should it become part of Scouting in Slovenia or an own article?-Phips (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is all you can find, make it part of Scouting in Slovenia, but if you can beef it up, make it a separate article with a summary paragraph in Scouting in Slovenia, with a main link to the separate article. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Memphis Belle

Apparently there is some controversy about the first aircraft to complete 25 missions. Some say that another B-17 called "Hell's Angels" (yes, the MC gang was named for it) was the first, but they did not have a documentary (some say because of the name) and did not return to the states for a bond tour. The National Museum of the United States Air Force says about the Memphis Belle: "In May 1943 it became the first U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber to complete 25 missions over Europe and return to the United States" [30] (my bolding). This does not clear up the issue completely. If you look at the edit history of the article in question you will see that there was a small edit war about it recently, and I put "one of the..." to defuse the situation. --rogerd (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard that before. I'll leave it to you guys to sort out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland evidence page

Re this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Sauce_for_goose.2C_sauce_for_gander:_where.27s_Weiss.27s_wife_on_WP.3F

• The above thread will stay closed and I hope we don't see any more similar threads. There is no need to hypothesize about RL off wiki interaction. Absent a specific request from an arb to provide such input, contact myself or an arb if you truly feel a need to bring this material up-you could also email it to the arb email list. User:Jayvdb will be making a workshop proposal on this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me? We already have similar threads. Why are Jimbo and Cool Hand Luke and G-Dett all allowed to hypothesize about Weiss' off-wiki interactions (using his name), and I'm not? There's not a bit of evidence presented by ANY of them on this case, which isn't explained better by what I suggest. You can't tell two people who live together and agree with each other and care for each other, from an editor and a sock. That's ridiculous! In fact, if you read G-Dett's allusions to the Earp Vendetta Ride page (one which I actually created, BTW), you'll see he missed something obvious. Earp was a gentile who married a Jew. Anyway, I think you owe me an apology for calling my ideas "silly" in public, while the rest of this hypothesizing, which is even sillier, is allowed. I'm waiting. SBHarris 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not call anything silly, see the edit history, that was someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, and it's not because i wish to expose myself to ridicule, but SBHarriss has apoint. The stub will not be added to, that can be enforced. For fairness, it is very very short, why not un-hat it? Ignore, if i am out of line, Newbyguesses - Talk 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:SenatorHarryTruman71-4135.jpg

I believe that it would be best to delete this picture as soon as possible, because it does not actually depict Truman, and can only cause further confusion. I discuss this more thoroughly on the Commons talk page, with links to other pictures of Truman and the unknown subject of this picture, from the same event. -- Dominus (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

German photos, law...

Please check out http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=101635 . A photograph exists of Baldur von Schirach together with Futara Yoshinori as spectators at fight games of the Hitlerjugend in Bremen, taken August 15, 1937. It says something really small at the side. You're really good at this stuff-can you help get an image that is _not_ marked on? Thanks Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Link doesn't work. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it says "Database fix in progress" Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Silver Star edit

That silver star edit as made before you told me about the error. I have gone back and started going through all of the recipients of the Silver and Bronze star but it takes a while to go through 1800 articles.--Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SSP archiving

We have a bot, yet you still manually archive. Please refrain from doing this. Thank you. — E ^talk 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot doesn't work all too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

William Hillcourt

Hello Rlevse. Re Hillcourt, I can only offer a few suggestions/questions.

• More sentence variety and/or longer sentences would be beneficial in paragraphs like "While Hillcourt studied pharmacy in Copenhagen..." and "Hillcourt was recognized for his service..." (three "He"s in a row).
• When did he change his name?
• Give more prominence earlier in the article (lead?) to his having authored three editions in 12.6 million copies of the Handbook. And more detail on his work in this area, if available. For someone not familiar with scouting, this seems like his most "understandable" achievement.
• Recast sentence to not start with a number: "12,610,000 copies...".
• Mention a year for the main photo.
• Clarify "Indian dance". Presumably native American?
• also known as "Scoutmaster to the World"—not explained further.
• Writing B-P's biography is interesting. More detail available?
• Take the opportunity to describe links like "Scoutcraft". Can't hurt, it's not a long article.

–Outriggr § 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, finding answers to the others. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done now, unless I can find a specfic name date. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbcom clerk.

Rlevse, I believe as clerk for the current arbcom. case, i can ask your assistance. I wish to present evidence to the arbcom., to be uploaded to the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. I have prepared my best draft at [31]. Would you advise me if it is order to upload this as my evidence, or if there are any adjustments that are necessary, before it is suitable for uploading. I am unsure as to any deadline for submissions. I believe I have the right to provide evidence, a course which is not necessarily to my liking, and bearing in mind that I am a relatively inexperienced User, I ask for some forbearance if my application veers to the unlearned.Newbyguesses - Talk 12:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can present evidence in an arb case. For your draft, make MM's own statements standout, like put them in italics or something. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you check this sock?

I got to know that why I have been chased by so many Japanese people since December. They made two treads at 2channel, Japanese bulletin board famous for anti-Korean sentiment.

Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21.

http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1198939173/  :translation tool for not Japanese speaker

It is filled with personal attacks and racial slurs against only me such as Chosenjin, hwabyeong patient, psycho, institutionalized mentally deranged person, irrational person, stupid, .etc. I translated some of the Japanese thread at Talk:Sea of Japan. I'm so exhausted of all these dramas, so didn't consider to report it at ANI or Arbicom, but the meatpuppet and sockpuppet of Azukimonaka/KoreanShoriSenyou/Orchis29 are haunting around me and pushing POV much. I talked to admin, LordAmeth who can read Japanese, and advised me to post it at ANI. see this User_talk:LordAmeth#Need_a_guideline

Before reporting the incident at ANI, I want you to look at this people.

211.131.78.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs) are emerging again and look like obvious sock of Azukimonaka per the same interest and writing style, especially "erroneous". I believe these editors are also socks of him, and are proved as sock to each other at RFCU but they were not infinitely blocked. They abusively used the accounts though. You can also check it again from the collapsed boxes of my past SSP on Azukimonaka.

• the erroneous information

They write poor wording in English and the literary word, erroneous is not commonly used and is likely for non-English speakers to see it in advanced test preparation books like GRE, GMAT.

[32] by 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs)

[33](As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) by ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs)

[34] He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs)

I can't file another RFCU files right now because my two files are not finished and you advised me not to use it much. But I couldn't help plead this again to you. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With the dynamic IPs used, it's hard to prove a lot. I think it'd be easiest if you focused on the personal attacks, racial slurs, and harrassament. Provide such diffs for each user and state of whom you think they're a sock. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2008-02-16T01:24:06 by 211.131.78.108

2008-02-16T05:22:11 by 211.131.78.108

2008-02-16T05:41:02 by 211.131.78.108

2008-02-16T22:23:08 by 211.131.78.108

2008-02-18T06:54:11 apanese imperial household is not being written in House of Yi though a Korean king married a Japanese princess. Similarly, this information is unnecessary.by 2008FromKawasaki

• • That should have gone to AIV or 3RR, it's stale now. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, being written in is one of cliche that Azukimonaka used a lot, so you can confirm it from the collapsed boxes of Azukimonaka SSP fileWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azukimonaka.

And see the Koreans in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The personal attacks are written in the Japanese thread, and some of them said they intentionally made edit warring with me to tease me. --Appletrees (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Diffs, give me diffs, and who's User:Zainichi Koreans? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think the new user, Coraroidman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems like a sock of Azukimonaka per their same interest and writings. Azukimonaka loved to edit cuisine related article or insert images. He claims he or her is a Vietnamese in Vietnam and made some edit on Vietnamese articles and then directly went to vote for his /her support for Sea of Japan. After that he keep inserting POV article regardless of my suggestion to use Talk page.

South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008-02-13T23:57:22 by Coraroidman

2008-02-15T09:38:00 by Coraroidman

2008-02-16T20:48:09 by Coraroidman

2008-02-17T04:09:55 by Coraroidman

2008-02-17T18:38:31 by Coraroidman

2008-02-18T04:04:32 by Coraroidman

2008-02-18T06:27:03 by 2008FromKawasaki

2008-02-18T06:36:23 by 2008FromKawasaki

[35] by 2008FromKawasaki

At RFCU case, Zainichi Koreans is unrelated to 2008FromKawasaki, but given the fact that I had been stalked by User:Amazonfire for quite some time, I think Zainichi Koreans is amazonfire. And some of their contributions were erased because of several violation of rules. --Appletrees (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I copy and paste the diffs of Azukimonaka's being written in cliche from the SSP file.

was being writtten

Kamosuke = Azukimonaka = KorenaShoriSenyou = Orchis29 = ShinjukuXYZ = NekoNekoTeacher = Necmate = 43.244.133.167 I believe these people are the same editor per the following reasons. If you see it, you will notice the users' interests are all similar and same pattern of writing such as using passive sentences rather than active sentences such as concealed or denied. They like using "insistence" and "ground" or "groundless" rather claim, assertion or than citation, source, or evidence, etc. I'm not good at writing in English but they all make the same errors in tense such as "was being hated by" etc. The below are distinctive examples for the claim that they're all the same person. 2008-01-06T14:06:43 Grave of the Fireflies‎ (Because Japan behaves like the war victim as for "日 전쟁 피해자 묘사 '반딧불의 묘' 올해 개봉 취소" A, South Korea is being written that screening was stopped.) by Orchis29 2007-12-29T22:22:26Kaidan The printer was being instructed also by Christianities. by Orchis29 2007-12-15T13:55:59 Japan "Sumo" is not being written, "Japanese wrestling" by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-10-02T08:31:05 Chongryon‎ (The Japanese was often murdered by the riot by Confederation of Koreans Living in Japan. As a result, Confederation of Koreans Living in Japan is being hated by Japan now.) by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-10-02T08:08:52 2006 North Korean nuclear test‎ (Japan executes the economic sanction to North Korea, and is being continued now due to this event.) by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-10-04T10:28:43 Neo Gomanism Manifesto Special - On War‎ (The content that criticizes China to this book is not being written. Please write the content of the book in Talkpage because it is asking. (Perhaps, you are describing it not well-grounded. )) by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-11-13T09:57:00 Eugenics Showa Japan is a section that Flying-Tyger personally added on October 20, 2007 is being Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan by Azukimonaka 2007-09-20T10:02:59 Juicy girl‎ (Japan is not being written in the source.) by Azukimonaka 2007-07-07T05:09:21 Kombu‎ (→Reference - rv: It is not being written Chinese ingredients.) by Azukimonaka 2007-06-23T22:40:43 Blade of the Phantom Master‎ (→External links - This comic is not a grammar of Manhwa. This comic is being written by the grammar of Manga.) by Azukimonaka As for Kamosuke, he and HaradaSanosuke are the banned socks on August 2006 and are‎ Softbank odn ISP users = 211.131.78.52[36]. Their (actually one person) writing style remarkably resemble that of Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou, Orchis29. I haven't looked through Kamasuke's contribution history, but he also made the same errors in writing past tense. ("was being written by someone") Kamosuke created his account at 2005-11-19T08:01:02.[37] According to the remain block log, He had been a long-time abusive troll and I strongly believe he has transformed as new edior with countless sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke Kamosuke (talk · contribs)'s edit summaries * [ 2006-07-06T16:43:54‎] Japan‎ (→Classical era - Baekje is still being discussed. see Talk) 2006-06-30T05:35:20‎ Japan‎ (→Classical era - Baekje is being discussed. And, it doesn't agree. This topic is not urgent. Please do Talk.) 2006-06-24T02:21:15‎ Japan-Korea relations‎ (Appleby. Please stop the data of sales and the audience rating being deleted. Moreover, please stop deleting the activity of the Japanese culture.) 2006-06-19T11:05:55‎ Japan‎ (→Pre-history - http://cache.britannica.com/eb/article-8481 Shinto - Korea is not being written.) 2006-06-18T01:46:49‎ Japan‎ (rv: Tortfeasor. Reason - Korean POV. He changed China to Korea. The explanation of the source is being written in Talk.) 2006-06-01T09:21:47‎ Japan‎ (Dogcow, Yes. In South Korea, there is an unique culture. (EX hungle)　However, the culture is not being imported by Japan.) 2006-05-01T01:06:31‎ Kofun period‎ (To Korean. Korean doesn't stop the history record(Samguk Sagi Book of Sui Book of Song) being deleted. Koreans never write the deletion reason.Korean should stop the history revisim) 2006-04-15T14:02:00‎ Yamato period‎ (The same content is being repeatedly written. Therefore, the overlapping part is united to Torai-jin (渡来人).　) 2006-02-09T04:16:02‎ Korea‎ (→Joseon - Rejection: citations　is not being offered. There is no history in talk.) 2006-02-07T10:16:47‎ Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes‎ (→Korea - International Military Tribunal for the Far East Korean's war crime person's (B&C class war crime person) introduction is being prepared. Please stand by) 2005-11-28T07:14:55‎ Korea‎ (→Japanese occupation - Please stop the article being quietly replaced. The discussion is welcomed.) 43.244.133.167 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) This apparent sock ip doesn't seem to be a dynamic address. I think this should be blocked infinitely as well. 2008-01-09T08:42:10 Japanese cruiser Tsushima‎ (It shows a Korean peninsula of the name of a place. If the country is shown, it will be written South Korea.) 2007-10-04T09:30:37 Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File - Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007‎ (rv Please write Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan being written in this book in Talkpage.) 2007-04-09T08:37:28 Yakiniku‎ (rv: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2036.htm <- This is information not being written in this source. "What goes under the name yakiniku in Japan will most of ...") ShinjukuXYZ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) NekoNekoTeacher (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Although ShinjukuXYZ was proven as a sock of NekoNekoTeacher, they were not infinitely blocked. They seem abusively used the accounts though. I think this account should be infinitely blocked along with another sock accounts. 2007-03-18T09:41:17 Yakiniku‎ (As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) 2007-02-21T06:29:59 Emperor of Japan‎ (→History - The source is being written Korean peninsula.) 2007-02-21T06:13:10 Soga clan‎ (The Soga clan is an aristocrat with the emperor leaving home body. Please look at the genealogy of the Soga clan being written in the source.) 2007-02-21T06:05:12 Kofun period‎ (rv:Tressco Version is a version that the Socks user in Korean pressed. A lot of problems of this version are being written in Talkpage. Please edit it after answering all.) 2007-01-01T02:44:11 Emperor Ingyō‎ ("According to contemporary historians....," This episode is not being written in NihonShoki and Kojiki. Moreover, there is no historian who does this insistence.) 2006-12-07T10:34:37 Toyotomi Hideyoshi‎ (rv: The topic is being discussed. Please look at TalkPage.) Necmate (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 2007-03-22T08:27:07 Mike Honda‎ (→Comfort women - [38] "50,000 to 300,000" is not being written in this source.) 2007-03-09T08:52:13 Comfort women‎ (Is this being written in the source? "the majority of the women were recruited by force or deception.")

--Appletrees (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks in those diffs; what you have is protracted content disputes on various articles, like the Liancourt Rocks case. You should try the dispute resolution process I think, start with mediation on the articles and editor behavior, then arbcom if need be. If you have socking, file SSP, but be concise and to the point, with good diffs. You tend to be too wordy. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs are not holding personal attacks against me, but the people of the Japanese board did to their bulletin board. I presented you the same writing style of Azukimonaka and them. I've tried to talk to them, so that's why I just added fact tags or suggested to provide sources except blatant blanking without good reason. But they just added very controversial without discussion. I'm fed up with this tendentious edit warring. I want to make it compact but if so, I have to make more SSP or RFCU files. --Appletrees (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher removal

What are you removing someone else's evidence for? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove someone else's evidence? I thought I removed evidence from my section only. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible SSP?

Do User:152.91.9.144 and User:CygnetSaIad's edit histories look similar enough to warrant an RFCU? I'm seeing that the IP was hit with an "accidental" autoblock applied to Cygnet. And for an IP, he has a tendancy to turn up right in the middle of heated debates. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be. Give it a shot. Cygnet's edits are at the edge of stale range (2.5 - 3 months). — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom -evidence

What is the procedure for submitting further evidence, if available? Just add to my section, don't think I am over the ord or DIFF!! limit yet.

Is there a deadline for submission?Newbyguesses - Talk 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just add more to your section. They let the case run for at least 7 days, usually, before going to voting. The sooner you add it, the better. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WIKZILLA

Thanks for your prompt action in the sockpuppetry case. You will be interested to know that shortly after Downtrip’s block several IP addresses and one account identifying themselves as Wikizilla’s appeared and attempted to deface my talckpage. [39] thereby confirming the suspicions of Downtrip’s association with Wikizilla. The edits themselves were reverted by other editors however, if you see nothing against it would it be possible to semiprotect my user page for a while to save others trouble.Freepsbane (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology from a minor editor

At Yes, I do apologize for mis-identifying the clerk in this very thread, and can only blame it on my dyslexia computersaurus!. [40].Newbyguesses - Talk 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehud's numbers

The 14th was Morven who is listed as away but he started voting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RFCU+, what next?

That questionable IP and the almost stale-user were confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CygnetSaIad that he are User:CygnetSaIad operating from an anon. IP. What is the proper response here? Warning, block, AN, etc? MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. The possibility of the IP now being another named account due to the IP changing makes a decision harder. It seems (do you agree) the nature of the IP's edits changed after Salad was blocked, but was this because of the block or because the IP was reallocated? Hmm. Maybe contact the other named account and see what he says. The most non obvious CU case I've seen, as far as what to do with the CU results. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea I'll contact him. But I can't help but think that Alison would've never returned a positive if there was any hint that 2 registered users based from different originating IPs might be on the current one. And this post to her talk page User_talk:Alison#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FCygnetSaIad with the abbrev. "CS" does seem more linked to Cygnet. Since there isn't any vandalism in progress, there is no need to jump the gun and for me to do something stupid. I'll get back to you on this one. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WHOIS tracks the IP back to http://cybertrust.com/ which looks like a proxy/anonymizer operator. I've filed a request Open Proxies to have it checked. This could explain why there is the double hit, but what is the policy on admins using open proxies? MBisanz ^talk 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no proxy expert, but I think the open proxies and anonymizers are to be blocked. If you user IRC, you could ask in the admin channel (which you're now eligible for). I think User:Ryan Postlethwaite knows about them too. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it ended up being a corporate exit node, not an open proxy, which explains many things. On an unrelated note, is there any policy covering a user who leaves under uncontroversial circumstances and returns under a new identity? I'm 95% sure I've just run across a case of that, but wouldn't want to violate WP:OUTING unless there is a good reason. MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sending you an email since there is a related concern. I followed the IRC arbcom, so I'm acquinted with its functions and purpose. I'll probably eventually join, but I'm waiting for Arbcom's ruling on the admin channel. I'm a firm believer that all actions should at least be justified on-wiki, and this nebulous status as to IRC (posting of logs, ownership, etc), has scared me off for the time being. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

article help

Hi. could you please keep an eye on Talk:Israeli settlement? The article is currently edit-protected. This is part of the topical area of Israeli-Palestinian articles, covered by a previous ArbCom case. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages getting long

Note to clerk: re Mantanmoreland arbcom case, I am experiencing continuing computer difficultes, and now that in particular the /Workshop page has got so long, it may become impossible for me to post further evidence, or reply to queries.

If that is so, and you wish to contact me, please do so at Newbyguesses. I should also mention, that this proceeding is taking a gruelling toll on me, and does not even seem to have completed the preliminary phases.

It may become necessary for me to take a break from these proceedings. I hope it is obvious that my comments are all sincerely meant. It may be that i would benefit from a Wikibreak—Newbyguesses - Talk 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's not much I can do about the long pages, it is a rather involved case. I'm sure you mean well. Arb cases are grueling by their nature. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Arbcom's precedent is, but the whole reason Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta was created was that user couldn't edit pages longer than 32K (old computer I think), so a subpage was created that he could post to. Maybe Newbyguesses comments could be linked to where he wants them posted and moved over? MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou , MBisanz, for your suggestion. I am still able to get on-line, and post to these pages, at the moment, although my access is intermittent, and it is quite slow to make a post there. I may avail myself of such an arrangement, if necessary. For now, I must say that I am quite happy with the assistance that the clerk is courteously providing to me. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you puter is that old, you really should get a newer one if possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, see [[User Talk:Newbyguesses#Computer problems|]],

UPDATE NBG can log on from various public terminals (at extortionate rates), donations gratefully accepted for a new lap-top, or secondhand cheep unit. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots Of OOOO Laughs~

PS:When I am on-line, I am opening a zillion windows, all on the arbcom., I thoroughly recomment it as a great way to become confused beyond all belief! Newbyguesses - Talk 20:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request (RE:Mantanmoreland and BLP)

I strongly object to User:Crum375 editing other people's evidence section under the guise of "Removing BLP violations", on the evidence page, unilaterally, without asking the other side to refactor first, and in full knowledge of how controversial his action would be. [41] and [42] could you please review the information provided, and then if found to be a BLP violation, go through everyone else's submissions on the ArbCom case (such as a banned user being called a blackmailer, without evidential backup), and remove them as well. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

working on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbs as a group are going to decide what to do about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for throwing you into the deep end. SirFozzie (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, comes with the clerking job. See ev talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly object to User:Crum375 editing other people's evidence section under the guise of "Removing BLP violations", and note the many objections to this action by Crum375 on the talk page(s). I apologise if any of my posts were needlessly inflammatory, I do not think I was the most extreme, or that my comments there were unjustified. Thanks for your efforts, Rlevse, the clerk's job isn't easy. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, on a case like this it is not easy. Thanks for the apology. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KL and Claymort

Currently we have the issue with KL but also with another vandal called Greg Jungwirth aka Claymort who DLC has figured might be Komodo Lover seeing as both talk to their previous identities as other people and pretend to be several people at once. I've asked him to file a RFCU on their most recently active accounts even though one comes from Rhode Island and the other from Atlanta so probably won't reveal anything. Besides that, there's a pending SSP case for Greg's sockpuppets and as they've became increasingly aggressive towards me since I filed the case so if you can could you go check it over? Thanks. treelo _talk 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So, no help on this then? I'll ask another admin if they'll help if you can't so I don't waste yours or my time. --treelo _talk 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I prob won't get to this til tomorrow. If you want to ask someone else, up to you. Feel free to remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow is fine, just needed a word from you on this. treelo _talk 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I delete a page I created?

I want to delete User:Sparkygravity/Socks because just in case I make more userboxes I created User:Sparkygravity/userboxes/socks. So now I have an extraneous page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it for you, only admins can delete pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

BSA Article

Because you seemed to be picking on gothangel when she had a valid point here, you seem to want to remove the word Boys and men and male from every artcile and every passage on that article which I presonally don't agree with with. I cant understand how you can have so much mention of women and girls in a male-dominant article. It does not make logical sense. You have now threeatened me, which I find appalling. --Steven Hipkins (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page. Plus, we're only dealing with the lead here, not the whole article, get your facts straight. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

note to clerk re BLP?

There is quite a schemozzle, it seems, about whether these BLP? or external links are allowed in evidence, or even if RL names in evidence, are allowed. Whatever is the ruling, I am content, but I wish to draw to your attention to a number of similar entries to these possibleBLP? that occur in the Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert.

If all are these links and mentions are allowed, fine, then they should all be restored in every instance where they were wrongly removed by Crum375, but if no links or names are allowed, then i think they must be removed from ALL sections of evidence, and that would include mine, and GWH's. thankyou, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (note to self - Post to /evidence#newbygwhen next online)

Passions

I didn't do that. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes you did afd tag Passions, [43] — Rlevse • Talk • 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone hacked into my site. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are free to comment...

...but given that you up and left Wikipedia in a huff the last time you got into a dispute with me, I would appreciate it if you did not continue down this road of hounding me. Your last comment on WP:AE was particularly unbecoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not file the AE case nor did I do anything to cause it, you did that. You should realize that. My last statement was mere fact. Now as for Raul654 unblocking you...Since he has a history with you to the point of having to recuse himself from an arbcom when he was a sitting arb--wouldn't that make him involved and biased? Or is it okay since he unblocked you vice blocked you? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In this response there are all a lot of red herrings and changing of the subject. If I'm making you uncomfortable, just stop getting involved in disputes where I show up. We aren't talking about you filing the case, nor are we talking about you doing anything to cause that, nor are we talking about User:Raul654. Your last statement is not "mere fact": it's clearly an attempt to muddy the waters and without providing any evidence looks a lot like attempting to be punitive (something you have a history of doing with respect to me). You seem to be continuing to stake out a very confrontational territory. I'm warning you to be careful in how you proceed because there is history you are very much aware of, and it's not pretty. Do not think that because you are an administrator that means that you have the right to behave with impunity. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)