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.

Re: Talk redirs

Hi there. Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you – I was distracted.

So... I was browsin' the 'pedia recently and I came across User:Jpgordon's user page, which had an interesting quote on it from User:Tony Sidaway. It read, "Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering." It's a loose "translation" of Hillel's Golden Rule, and it struck me as the way that I (try) to contribute to this project. I do a lot of deletions, but with every one of them, my goal is to do no harm. Deleting talk page redirects that have no incoming links and have only one revision, in my opinion, does no harm. I apologize for any inconvenience my deletions may have caused you. I personally filtered the list to ensure that I didn't hit the Scouting project pages that you had restored previously. Seems I missed a template though. My apologies for that as well.

I hope you're enjoying the summer and that all is well. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an incorrect assumption. Redirects serve at least three purposes other than page renames and incoming wikilinks: Incoming links from outside of Wikipedia, users who type in XYZ in the search box on the left side of the screen and click "Go," and users who type in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ in their web browsers. Before deleting any redirect, you need to ask yourself if any of these three things are plausible. If they are even remotely plausible, and there isn't another good reason to delete that particular redirect, such as to create a disambig page or make way for a page move, then do no harm and discuss it before deleting it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) note: above discussion expanded on and continued on MZMbride's talk page davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, it's MZMcBride doing the deleting. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Err... whoops. I pointed him to my post here so I wouldn't have to regurgitate myself. davidwr: Please come to my talk page if you'd like to discuss this. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's straightened out now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your message

Hello Rlevse. No it really is meant to be take contact, I could change it to something like "talk" instead, if that sounds better. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand that, then it's better to update the signature. I hope you understand it now, does it look good now? --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Rlevse but I can't answer your coaching questions now because I'll be gone in around 1 week. Hope you understand. Hope you can help me with article writing too. Best regads, --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance and a second set of eyes

I've probably got myself into another debate here that isn't worth my time, but please review my edits and my discussions at Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft. I am quite knowledgeable on this region and I tried to update the wikilinks while clarifying the historical context. The user Jergen reverted the edits, made nonsense claims in the talk section, and stated that since the article is about a German scouting group, that the terms should be in German (!?!). My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that we update wikilinks and always maintain English usage. Anyway, I don't want an edit war, I hope we can have some simple discussions on the talk page. If I'm wrong about something I'm happy to hear it and be corrected (hopefully with logic :). I personally thought I did a good job at updating the links and also clarifying a bit why the certain terms are used and also that the province of Bolzano/Bozen is part of the southern area of the historical count of Tyrol. Alto Adige and especially South Tyrol are more recent colloquial terms. cheers, Icsunonove (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jergen is very pro-German language, it's caused issues before. I'll take a look. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, I think it is no problem to compromise if it makes him relax. I really tried my best to have the historical facts be correct and enrich the article. In fact, I tried to make all the cities listed (with updated wikilinks) but including both Italian and German names -- just in case anyone got bent out of shape. But, I disagree with him reverting my edits and just blowing them off with saying that this is a German group, so German should be used. I guess I don't see why someone needs to do that, the German language is doing just fine. :] He didn't even respond to the points I made in the discussion! LOL. Icsunonove (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

invitation

and thank you very much for the invitation as well! i need to update my main page on current projects.

I'm here!

If you on, can we talk, here? Thanks, Dusti^{complain/compliment} 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd)

Please follow up on this SSP. Note that you closed a previous SSP, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar, involving one of the users accused here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (3rd)

I copy this from my talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we block the sock to discourage this behavior. The sock has not been used since the case was raised, which strongly implies that there's not a real person who has been unjustly accused. David Justin should continue to edit under his own name. (I think it's unlikely that David Justin has forgotten how to sign in. You'll see here that he stopped editing under his own name on 27 April 2006 and resumed again on 6 March 2007 without a problem. A checkuser on the sock could be compared with the earlier Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin might yield some interesting results. Spiro Keats (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send this to User talk:Rlevse. He's the administrator I consult when I can't handle a situation on my own. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chadf b

As you took care of this before, User:LN SUX seems to be another sock. Two edits, and same MO (plus the account name tends to give it away). Aboutmovies (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged him and someone already blocked him for a username vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical questions

I have a couple of questions:

Aren't ArbCom votes straight majority? For example, if something passes 4 to 3 or 5 to 4, does that mean the thing passes? I note that it says "Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote" here, but would like your word on it.

And second question:

How long does an ArbCom sanction last? Are they all only for one year or something, in such cases as a time limit is not specified?

It would help if you responded on my own talk page. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

May I send you a question by email then?

Wait a sec, I think I figured it out. Looked like something different than it was- they simply neglected to vote either yes or no, so a majority was not reached on a decision. Sorry to bother you. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Super World Champions

This one should be easy. Just block NintendoDSKing and close it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oingoboing69: it's basically stale, but for the sake of thoroughness you should block all the accounts and close that case too. As I wrote there, it's obvious. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

re User:Xasha / Arb logs

Thank you - I knew there was something I had forgotten. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

I contact you as the first person I recognized who has unblocked Vintagekits in the past. Perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with this user about fulfilling the terms of his block. It sure seems like he's been getting it on with User:84.67.217.88 (undoubtably someone's sockpuppet). On second thought, if it's a puppet, perhaps it ought to be blocked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Pls provide diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] (last diff self-reverted). These vaguely have to do with the Irish-British issues: Talk:Wayne_McCullough#Nationality. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I queried him on that nationality thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I'm not sure, but in case you haven't seen, could you have a look at this?. Thanks a lot. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD for Haseldine Talk Archive

If you have a min, would you mind closing the following case [4] - the last Admin requested to do so has now voted on the case, so can no longer action it. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed my vote, but when the edit saved you had already closed it. Anyway I agree that the deletion was reasonable. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking positive action here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on this IFD

Hi R, I wonder if you'd care to comment at WP:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 3#Image:Donald G Barnhouse.jpg, perchance? I'd be interested in your views on NFCC in this instance. Regards, JGHowes ^talk - 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that this is just a part of the cover as it only shows this person, not the whole cover. You may simply be able to change the FUR tag to a non-magazine cover one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, you're right. I cropped it from the full cover, so I suppose {{fairusein}} might be appropriate if it looks like the IFD will prevail. Or maybe the full magazine cover is preferable when a {{Non-free magazine cover}} license is being used. JGHowes ^talk - 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say FU it and just use the magazine as a source. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see

here. Moreschi's page is long, and I'm not sure how soon it'll be looked into. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreshci blocked Molopdopo 48 hours on June 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If I may discuss that Wikiquette Alert with you a bit - so, I know my recent complaints must be getting tiring, and exhausting people's patience is the last thing I want to do. I'm not seeking retribution against Moldopodo; all I'd like is a civil editing environment where some basic standards are adhered to. That means no personal attacks, a rule he has (in my view) clearly violated. I don't want to go to Arbitration Enforcement again; I don't want to seem like a serial litigator or someone out on a crusade. At the same time, I do want it impressed upon Moldopodo in no uncertain terms that his language is unacceptable. So what do you suggest would be a reasonable way forward, both to end the attacks and not have this escalate? Biruitorul ^Talk 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If he won't change, continues to be uncivil, etc, your choices are WP:AE or an RFC on user conduct. If you do nothing, he'll never change. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert W. Peterson (writer) DYK

Here's the nom: WP:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on June 4, but I'm not entirely happy with the hook; improvement is welcome. JGHowes ^talk - 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And that he was also a prolific writing of magazine articles for the Boy Scouts of America? Was Peterson black or white? PS, what do you think of the BSA article status? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A good suggestion, I've amended the hook. Peterson was white. His photo appears in the New York Times obituary, which is cited as a source in the article. I'm about to add some oft-delayed content to the BSA article and then it should be ready for FAC. JGHowes ^talk - 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

K.C. Nightingale SD

This is a hoax and someone tagged it CSD-A7, actually it's CSD-A3. I was going to put a uw-hoax warning on Kcn1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Talk page, but was waiting for the article to be deleted first. Would you delete, please? IP68.244.149.193 is undoubtedly a sock of his.JGHowes ^talk - 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gone. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: clerk tasks

Ah, I wasn't aware that simple act too was steeped in bureaucratic methods. Thanks for the note, anyway. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scout images

I saw you earlier working around with the "new" {{Non-free Scout logo}} that is replacing {{|Non-free Scoutlogo}}. Its a thing to make all Non-free image tags machine readable by transclusion, and you don't need to waste valuable editing time running through AWB with them, MBisanzBot, will in a couple days, we running through all the changes at User:MBisanz/BotR per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 3 and doing all the name changes. Figured I'd save you a couple thousand clicks at AWB. MBisanz ^talk 08:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OH, ok, I don't mind actually, but I'll let you do it--most of them anyway;-). Let me know when it's done. I figured out why the change was made. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

jergen

You'll have to figure out what that dude is up to. He went back and even renamed links from Bolzano (Bozen) to Bozen (Bolzano). o_O Icsunonove (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of your points, but it'll probably take steps in WP:DR to settle this. The question is, are you willing to go through those steps? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets give it one more shot to see if he can just discuss things amongst fellow editors in a relaxed environment. I tried to ask him on the talk page what specific info he feels might be missing. However, if all he wants to do is revert wikilink corrections and pursue the use of the German language on English Wikipedia -- well, I guess we have to ask someone to intervene then (and yes, I will help support that). Or we go to German Wikipedia, start and edit war, and fix their spelling of Californien! just kidding. later, Icsunonove (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Back after a few days, and I see the discussion is raging in all new directions. :-) At this point I think it is beyond anything what is on scouting pages, and should almost be taken offline (e-mail, phone, telegraph?). LOL! I don't think it is necessary to go to WP:DR though, it just seems a bit frivolous now... At least the Lakers won. :) Icsunonove (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand Icsunonove's problem. All place names in Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft follow now the rules on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (with the possible exception of Merano/Meran, but there seems to be no definitive rule for this town) - and now he wants them to follow his own inofficial rules. He removes content randomly and without explanation from the article - even if it is non-disputed [5], does not understand the usage of infoboxes [6] ("headquarter" instead of the correct variable "headquarters"), inserts a category that should not be used [7], ...

Nearly every edit by Icsunonove is questionable, mainly because he does not explain them, does not follow the rules and manuals of style or shows poor knowledge of wiki-syntax. --jergen (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You both explain your edits but don't agree. I hope you can work this out. To me, this looks like another "what language do we use" dispute that I've seen so often in central and east Europe, like the German-Polish debates, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking our project mediator to step in. User:Bduke. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is a good idea. Can just have him decide what to do. I just think we should use English and also be factually correct with statements. If they want to move the Italian scout org to Italian, then sure, change the links. But I personally feel trying to use English on en.wikipedia really helps our readers, but that is just me. :) I indeed have seen a very strong push by German-speaking editors to cement their language as the way to call places they are familiar with. Seems a bit boring, but, whatever. :) talk to you later, Icsunonove (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
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) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom log reversion

Just letting you know that someone partially reverted another editor's notation to the log for the Palestine-Israel case [8]. Perhaps the reversion was proper, but just letting you know about it in case it wasn't. Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that and have been watching since earlier today. It has gotten worse and now has ANI, so I'll follow that. Right now I'd say that since hasn't edited the article it self since prior to the arb case, it appears Kelly is wrong here. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I think for once we can say that it has actually been protected in the wrong version. The AN/I consensus is clear that SlimVirgin shouldn't have been added to the notification log, and that Kelly was in the wrong, yet now SlimVirgin is on the list - it's a small black mark on the editor, and suggests she's been undertaking disruptive editing on the page, which is obviously false. I'd appreciate it if you could remove the name, until someone comes up with one diff that shows SV disruptively editing a Palestine-Israeli article. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the wrong version is in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, Rlevse, for your thoughtful nomination statement in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to also !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to dignity

Considering this in the view ofthis, shouldn't you block yourself?Xasha (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'd rather give him an award. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot that moral sense and "law is equal for everybody" don't work on Wikipedia.Xasha (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, could we hear a motivation? Or admin responsibility doesn't work here either?Xasha (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did was warn you pursuant to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive22#User:Xasha. Someone else blocked you, not me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you didn't, but you noted the block in the log with a personal motivation, not consistent with that given by the blocker. A motivation that goes against what you were preaching to me earlier. Xasha (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I changed that entry just now to say incivility which is what LHvu wrote, so it matches now. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Xasha (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Can you please take a look at this incident. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done by MBisanz. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert W. Peterson (writer)

Hi Rlevse, this article made DYK yesterday. In case you missed it on the Main Page, here is the final version as it appeared there. JGHowes ^talk - 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

darn, I missed it. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Software

Hello Rlevse. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and == WikiProject Software Centralized Announcement System == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page: == [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Software|WikiProject Software]] Invite == {{subst:Software invite|~~~~}} Thanks, ~~~~

RealtyOnlineAdvertising

Only because there are no edits yet. If there aren't any within a few hours, move it to the holding pen; if he never edits, let it eventually be deleted as inactive. For the sake of good faith (we've had a couple recently that look promotional but aren't editing that way).

Thanks for the offer, but I'll get around to doing it myself soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Treasury Tag

Hi Rlevse. Back in November you placed Rambutan / Porcupine / Treasury Tag on a probation strictly limiting him to one account. He's asked on WP:AN if he can create a second account to edit from public computers (link). My initial opinion is that would be okay, providing his userpage clearly identifies the second account, and the second account is clearly linked to the main, but as you imposed the probation, I thought your view would be appreciated. Neıl 龱 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Previously blocked sock-farmer

Hi, you may want to look at this. So far the individual doesn't seem to have blotted their copybook - but then this request. I thought I'd give you a heads up, as a previously involved admin. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This user has dozens of socks, for the current one, check his deleted contribs, he's gone Mischievous again, given that and his history, I'm blocking. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion of 60.42.252.111

Hi, Rlevse, I have a difficult time dealing with an evasive sock. 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs) was blocked for his 5RR violation on Comfort women the day before yesterday and 11RR violation on the same article today. However, the anon appears as another dynamic IP 222.150.193.35 (talk · contribs). His massive deletion without consensus does not understand many people except the anon him/herself.

• WP:AN3#User:60.42.252.205 reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)
• WP:AN3#User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: 24 hours for reported user and reporting IP)
• WP:AN3#User:60.42.252.111 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours - please see report above)

Can you block the sock ip and extend the block duration? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get someone to range block, I'm not good at this field. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked range 60.42.252.0/24 anon-only for 31 hours, this could affect up to 256 users. Dreadstar † 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you also take a look at Documentingabuse (talk · contribs)? He filed WP:SSP[9] on me and others because more than 4 people are against his disruption. We're accused of doing meatpuppetry, and I'm the meatpuppeter because I filed one of his abusive 11RR violation. :D --17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him indef and had already blocked the IP his user page redirs to, 207.112.75.189, as earlier today he made a death threat on the footnotes RFAR page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I stuck my nose in this one too and removed the redirect to the IP address and protected the user pages forr Documentingabuse. If this was incorrect, then please revert away! Dreadstar † 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Note-Kirill and I think these three I blocked are Davkal socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for clearing up all mess caused by the sockuppeter. I hereby award this barnstar for your outstanding work. With you, Wikipedia has been improved. ^_^ Caspian blue (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for check up

Rlevse, I believe you have done a mistake with me. I am user:Marygiove. Please can you do a check up of my IP and that of user:Brunodam and user:Giovanni Giove? You'll see that we are living in different areas, and hopefully all this mess will be solved. It seems to me that a group of Croatian is doing everything they can to ban we Italians with roots in Dalmatia and Istria. Look what they are doing to user:Luigi 28, who is continuously harrassed with the acusation of being user:PIO. If Luigi will "explode" and write something wrong against some admins, he will do the end of Giovanni Giove, Pio and others who have been banned: this is the tactic of these Croatian guys. And even in this case a simple check up will show that Pio and Luigi live in different areas of Italy and cannot be the same person. Help me please (I know you are very busy, and I will not bother you anymore). Thanks anyway. Maria Gioveanna S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.106 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is me again. I forgot to tell you that I use to post from a public library and/or from Apple store in the greater Miami area where I live. There are others who post with the computers of the same public library and apple store, so if you wish I can give you my full name with my address and phone. Thanks again for your patience and understanding. Marygiove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.106 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a CU. I can not check all those accounts that way. Since Marygiove is blocked (by Moreschi, not me), and you're still editing, you're obviously on a different IP now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you the same. You are very kind answering my question. I hope some admin will help and look at my case (that is similar to the one with the accusation against user:luigi 28 here: [10], done by the same fanatic Croats ). Anyway, I have just written to user:Brunodam for the CU. Marygiove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.151.45 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits again

Another direct violation of conditions: [11] (#8). I am not simply going by the letter of the rule - I am ignoring another violation if only by letter - however, he has actually reinserted himself into the dispute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More detail. He violated just what and how. This is an edit to a talk page. I assume this has to do with "The Troubles" case. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you can see the conditions of his unblock on his userpage, which states he can't edit Wikipedia in any way dealing with the Troubles, including talk pages. You can read the current conversation, and see it was clearly VK inserting himself into a content dispute. From the diff, you can see the Troubles are explicitly mentioned. what you do with this information is your judgment call, I guess: I don't want to be the bad guy out there. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	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) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Blueshirts

Hi. Would you agree to an unblock of Blueshirts (talk · contribs) for the reasons enunciated at the bottom of his or her talk page?  Sandstein  07:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done` — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very bad form to reverse a block without attempting to communicate with the blocking admin. Also, edit warring is not the appropriate way to deal with a sockpuppet, unless they are vandalising. Using sockpuppets to engage in an edit war is not vandalism, it is sockpuppetry. Please consider discussing with the blocking admin before you next unblock somebody. TigerShark (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask me about it before you blocked him? I'm the one who handled the SSP case and blocked the socks. Fighting a combined sock attack is not the same as edit warring. If I felt there was justification to block Blueshirts, I'd have done it then. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, edit warring is not the way to deal with sockpuppetry. If socks are being used to avoid 3RR then they can be blocked of course, and if their edits are simple vandalism they can be reverted multiple times, but that does not mean that another user can violate 3RR when warring against socks. You need to consult an admin when you are undoing an administrative action. I did not undo any actions you performed, you undid one of mine. Please consult in future. TigerShark (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not blocking him was a decision which you overturned. I had already looked at this. You need to look over the exceptions to edit warring. Not to mention two separate people asked me to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't reverse an action you didn't take. Even if I had actually reverted an action, that is no justification for you to do so. The only justification that you have given for choosing not to contact me is that I made a decision that didn't agree with a previous decision you had made. If you can justify not discussing the unblocking with me, please do so. As for looking over the exceptions, perhaps you could do so and indicate exactly which one you think applies. So that is two requests, firstly justify reversing my action without discussing with me and, secondly, tell me exactly the exception(s) you used to justify the reverts. TigerShark (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Same statement as at TigerShark's talk page)I think there is some misunderstanding regarding Blueshirt's unblock between administrators. Rlevse took a look at the sockpuppeter's block evasion and bogus SSP report per my request. I of course came to you first, because you blocked the two at the first place but you were inactive for a while, so I went to Rlevse because he was active at that time. I guess Sandstein who asked Rlevse to consider unblocking Blueshirts seemed to think of Rlevse being the blocking admin. I hope everything would be settled down.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be partly to blame; I mistakenly thought Rlevse was the blocking admin. That's why I contacted him with the above message instead of TigerShark. Sorry.  Sandstein  15:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice

May I ask your advice on how to deal with a conflict? An editor has placed this message on my talk page, complaining about some recent edits of mine, threatening "disciplinary action" and inviting me to discuss the edits at WT:MOSNUM. I consider none of my edits to have been disruptive and am happy to justify them to any editor asking civilly for such a justification, but I am concerned that MOSNUM may not be the right venue to do so. The atmosphere there is bitter, to the extent that reasonable editors tend to stay away to avoid the conflict, with the consequence that the page is now dominated by just three like-minded editors. (MOSNUM used to be a kind of Bohemian cross-roads where you could encounter anyone, with any opinion.) And two recent attempts to start up constructive discussion on precisely the disputed issued were not permitted to continue, despite there being an obvious need for it. The first attempt was by one of the alienated editors, who made a brief appearance to make his proposal and, perceiving the atmosphere had not changed, did not pursue it. The second proposal, by a newcomer, resulted eventually in this hasty retreat. The alienation of such editors gives the false impression of consensus on the page.

The animosity I have seen on MOSNUM in the past months is something I have not encountered before on Wikipedia and I don’t know how to deal with it. (The background to the soured atmosphere is documented here.) Here are some examples of recent discussions [12][13][14]. You can get a feel for ongoing problems on the page itself by reading the aftermath to a major change to the guideline.

How should I respond to the post on my talk page? Should I ignore it? Should I go back into the lion’s den and challenge it? I feel that both paths would lead to conflict. Regardless of the merits of the arguments, is it appropriate for an editor to threaten me with "disciplinary action"? I’m sorry to burden you with this, but I don’t know what to do. Please help. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Another MOSNUM debate. Since this is a recurring problem, I suggest you start an RFC at WP:RFC or seek mediation. Ask all parties to participate, yes and post what you decide on your talk page. This will hopefully solve the issue and show you're trying to solve this in a constructive manner. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RFC here. Is that a good place to respond to the accusations? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and if anyone involved isn't aware of it, drop a note on their talk page. If RFC is not fruitful, I'd say go to mediation next. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your offer at FAC

Thanks for support and the offer to change the images in Indigenous people of the Everglades region to Commons. I would appreciate it very much. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whew

I knew there was an explanation for that : ). I would never oppose for not using a script. That might be a new one in the future though, who knows. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I misread that a bit. Nothing surprises me at RFA. Users come up with some lame reasons for their !votes. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, hey some people think my opposes can be lame. Others do not. It's a crap shoot and not everyone is going to see eye to eye. Probably one of the fundamental reasons why RfA has such a thick shadow looming over it. Ah well. With regards to my last RfA. You mentioned my first..are you aware that I had a third two months ago? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah no, I'll go look at No. 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

hehe, I had a third (nominated by Pedro) here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, I do not plan on running again, at least, not any time soon. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Davkal Blueshirts

Rlevse,

I can assure you I am not nor have I edited ever from Davkal.

You noted some redirection to an IP address 207.112.75.189, that is in Canada, I am in Japan (although not Japanese). Can you provide a link please?

• Can you please provide me with checkuser to substantiate that?

If you go back to the first revision, here; [15] you will see the reversion was to IP address 222.150.193.35 which is in the same dynamic IP block this IP provides.

I am not on a static DSL line, I am giving a new dynamic address IP each time I dial up which is why I had to register a user account.

Rlevse, although I stand by and substantiate the edits to the Comfort Women article, I am also doing this to document and exhibit the weakness in the current editorial system and how they are regularly exploited, and allowed to be exploited, even on topics of considerable geopolitical sensitivity.

Putting side by side the two revisions of the article it is impossible to say the identical revision that the Pro-Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese is balanced, well-developed, better written or according to policy. If there is a failing, it is that the developed version is too sophisticated for the other contributors. To make clear, if I have a POV on the matter, it is somewhere between Profs. Chunghee Soh and John Lie's, both Americanized Koreans. That is the more than victims of nationalism, the women were victims to patriarchal materialism and the unresolved issue of male sexual violence in armed conflict internationally.

The revision that the editors are all returning is essentially atrocity pornography laced with nationalist interest and fit mainly for voyeuristic public consumption. it removes both the feminist POV and the seminal involvement of the Korean Feminist movement in bring it to light. This I see as my most important contribution to the topic.

01:24, 15 June 2008 18:09, 14 June 2008

And, frankly, before you say it. I know

a) what a waste of time pursuing various suggested alternative dispute channels and b) how this is used by aggressive proponents to obstruct and defray other editors.

If this reads to you like the logic of some Canadian making death threats and you are willing to make unsubstantiated judgements on the basis of such as assessment, then I think the WIkipedia needs to rethink its MO.

• I am not denying, nor have I removed any facts from the article.

See comments on discussion page --222.150.190.12 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --222.150.190.12 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to me another anon 213.230.203.86 (talk · contribs) at the WP:RFCU looks like an OP, so the final analysis by an admins does not come out yet, but according to User:ClueBot_IV/WPOPreports/213.230.203.86, the 80 port is open.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Post that on the CU page and Lucasbfr's talk page. Open proxy's are not allowed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But the CU case was closed, and the final analysis on the possible OP does not come out yet (although the bot result seems that the anon is likely an open proxy). The anon's way of thinking as to Wiki rules is very unique, so I wish he or she just accept the CU result and does not come back to Wikipedia.-_- --Caspian blue (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

checkuser

I put in for an extended checkuser against myself, here [16] to clarify matters regarding your public accusations re Davkal and, ridiculously, death threats.

I am playing this with an open hand. Frankly, what is going on the other side is entirely transparent.

You may be due me an apology. Thank you --222.150.190.12 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices

Yes, the WP:TSQUAD is working on it at the moment. If you have any suggestions for it, I'm sure everyone would appreciate them. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

George Thomas Coker

It seems as if you're trying to turn the article into a hagiography, with blatant disregard for NPOV, removing properly sourced material without any good reason, as seen here and here. Why would this be? -Oreo Priest ^talk 07:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oreo, the Arbcom just examined this in nauseating detail at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes and didn't see any problems. MBisanz ^talk 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• While "nauseating" is remarkably accurate, Arbcom made no determination whatsoever on the validity of Rlevse's actions regarding the Coker article. Somehow, Arbcom decided that it had no interest in addressing the issues of Rlevse's actions (or tagteam editing, etc.) but somehow used it anyway as a justification to address the whole BLP issue. Any attempt to use the Arbcom case as a justification for the use of the magic letters "BLP" to justify keeping sourced material out of the Coker article is baseless. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited that article in almost two months. Back in Jan I made a mediation offer which no response was received to nor was a counter offer to settle it made by the other parties. I do not have blatant disregard for NPOV, but there are other policies in play here. Just because parties do agree on an issue like this does not mean they have "blatant disregard". You may want to keep in mind that there are several sources that show Hearts & Minds is a very biased film. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OP...did you look at the whole case, article and talk, arb case in question before you posted to my talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't, I don't usually check talk pages unless directed there. Having looked at that and the ArbCom decision, it changes little. You did remove properly sourced material without any good reason (we can leave the quote out of the reference if you want), and you do have a conflict of interest, as you claim Coker himself has asked you to remove it from the article. The added material, or some trivial variation on it, is well sourced and not in violation of BLP, and as I have explained to MBisanz, it certainly is not of undue weight. Please explain. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, the onus is on you to show that Hearts & Minds is biased, and even if it is, the fact is he was shown saying that. I do not believe it was taken out of context, and even if it was, the fact is that he said it, and it has shown up in a number of publications as such. It still merits inclusion. -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the long term problems with BLP is it tries to mesh conflicting policies and any look at the BLP board will show vast differences in interpretation. Properly sourced does not merit auto inclusion when it comes to BLP, but I see no reason to belabor that which has been gone over multiple times. The onus is on you, not me. The arguments on both sides have been made already, what is needed is resolution. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You claimed that "In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases." If you don't mind could you point out that policy to me? Thanks, -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall where I said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In your initial explanation to me of why you removed my first mention of the film (this diff) you stated that "Yes, I personally know Coker and he's asked that no reference be made to the movie. This was by a phone call to me. In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases." That was my eye-opening introduction to the whole WP:COI issue and your determination to keep any reference to the film out of the article using BLP as a justification. This still seems to be a rather slim reed to hang a groundshaking policy change on. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:BLP said then and still says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:". There are several arb cases on this topic, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the bare reference to Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds fail the "error clause" or the "unfair clause"? Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd really be interested to know why we are still at Rlevse's talk page discussing this. He hasn't edited the page recently, his behavior was placed before Arbcom and they found nothing to criticize in it, and they actually criticized the person who was on the opposing side of the edits for policy violations. What gives? MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was Rlevse who created the BLP issue and pushed it before Arbcom, despite his conflict of interest both in the article and in the Arbcom process itself. Rlevse could not be any more involved in the issue and has repeatedly inserted himself into the topic, despite the clear pattern of questionable actions. Arbcom studiously ignored the actual article, neither praising nor criticizing Rlevse's actions at George Thomas Coker. It is in extremely bad taste and bad faith to use Arbcom's results on entirely unrelated issues to excuse Rlevse's actions. Does anyone have any actual policy leg to stand on, or will the defense solely rely on ad hominem attacks. What gives with your involvement in this article? Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A last salute

Rlevse, I believe you are one of the few honest and impartial admin in wikipedia. I wish to salute you now that I understand that I will never get my justice in wikipedia. All the mess around the ban of every italian who opposes the ring of croats is astonishing. The croats do all they want and never get punished, not even for a simple 3RR, while admins like Moreschi and others attack quickly only the italian side. What a delusion is wikipedia to me. Did you see how fast came the admin Moreschi to satisfy the requests of Direktor and Alasdairgreen27? Unbelievable (and he never punishes the croats, very strange indeed). To me his uncivil "Cheerio" to the poor Luigi 28 means the end of wikipedia. With these partialized admin there its no future -soon or later- for the enciclopedia! BTW, I am sure the slavs created the strange user (Ciolone) from Venice needed to ban Luigi 28 in a few days, this is a typical Tito-era trick! user:Ciolone has served only to the croats, but admin Moreschi is the only who cannot -or doesn't want- understand this reality. Now the slavs, thanks to Ciolone/Moreschi can do whatever they want with dalmatian and istrian related articles on wikipedia:bingo and cheerio! What a delusion from this encyclopedia. I too will stay away from Wikipedia from now on. Again, what a delusion from this encyclopedia that has no future with these rings of fanatic nationalists and not impartial admins. A totally disgusted Marygiove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliement. Sorry things didn't work out for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)