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.

“Dog” The Teddy Bear

Thank you

Many thanks to all who posted here, on AN, or emailed me this week. It meant a lot to me and was truly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see your user and talk pages back to normal, Rlevse. I hope things are going as well for you as possible. (Probably should have posted earlier, though I've been recovering from jetlag lately.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Dincher Day! It reminded of when I was a kid and I complained to my Dad that there wasn't and official "Kid's Day". He told me everyday is Kid's Day. I like Dog the Bear too. My wife has Miss Kitty which is also a Teddy Bear. Dincher (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Something Ain't Right

See User:Rossmartin90‎ pop-up on various television station talk pages asking the same question: "What station in [insert city] leads the news ratings?" This has gone on since 12:50pm EST today, 15 minutes after the account was created. Something seems fishy and this feels, to me, like trolling. I just posted this comment on the page, but as of yet have not received a reply. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tis strange, but it's not blockable. Have they done something blockable? May want to keep an eye on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet they haven't. Just seems trollish. When I commented, all edits stopped. So, I really don't know how to take it. I have his contribs open in another tab and am checking every few minutes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

After the last edit (and my comment) no posts were made and User:Deconstructhis has reverted the user's posts asking them not to use talk pages as a forum. This wasn't done at my request, they just did it. I will keep an eye out for further edits from the user, but I kinda doubt we will see any. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also added a welcome template and a specific uw template to their talk page to assist them in understanding how talk pages are supposed to work. This just seems to be a case of a straight forward serial misuse of quite a few talk pages as a forum by a new user; but I'll keep an eye as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Great plan. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Account Insanity

A while back you blocked User:216.155.153.104 they are now constantly wiping the page and posting that they should be unbanned because they did not do anything (but they did). Thought I would send this on to you since you were the initial banner. From first glance it looks to be someone unrelated to the vandal who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Drewerd (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Protected their talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope neither of you mind, I added User: to the link above, so it points to the correct place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What was up?

There was a notice saying "IN MEMORY" on your userspace yesterday. What was it about? Who were you mourning? -- 92.10.161.95 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_19#Reports_of_my_early_demise_are_greatly_exaggerated — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When you're back active ... no hurry ... really, no hurry

Someone wants your attention (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where should I raise this?

I need to raise an issue concerning MickMacNee (talk · contribs) and his conduct at AfD, but I'm not sure exactly where is the best place to do so.

The basic problem is that MMN continually badgers any editor who !votes "keep" at an AfD discussion where he has nominated the article for deletion. To give some examples, there is the Falls of Cruachan derailment and its subsequent DRV, and currently Agni Air Flight 101 and Filair plane crash. I'm not overly proud of my actions in the Falls of Cruachan derailment debates, but MMN sent my wikistress meter the highest it had ever been over that one and I deviated from my normal policy of concentrating on the issue instead of the editor.

What I am hoping to propose is a restriction on MMN preventing him from badgering editors who participate in AfD debates. The restriction would not prevent MMN from nominating articles for deletion, but restrict him to giving a rationale for deletion, and only being allowed to participate further in the debate if an editor asks him a direct question or requires a clarification of something. Imposing this restriction would allow other editors to contribute to the discussion without fear of intimidation. It would also prevent votes like Gabinho's "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" in the Agni Air debate. Although probably not a valid vote, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.

So, where do I go with this one? Please reply here and I will check back later. Mjroots (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Omission

Your proposal fails to acknowledge the 22 hours and large number of additional comments received between the two closures. The way you've presented it, a reader might get the wrong idea that it was an close-open-close-open sequence, which is not the case. It was close-open (we need more discussion)-discuss-discuss-discuss-discuss-close-open (we need yet more discussion)-discuss... I do not see the substantial difference between re-opening a discussion or starting a new discussion. What would have been wheel warring is if Lar had applied a sanction, I had removed it, Lar had applied it again, and so on.

I'd appreciate if you would add something about the 22 hour waiting period, and the large number of additional comments added to the thread during that time. The reader can then draw their own conclusion.

As far as relations between you and I, please look at this situation through my eyes and try to understand why I am so upset with you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I appreciate them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned you by name here: [1] Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I still don't get it. Why do you want to admonish me for one revert, made after substantial discussion? After Lar re-opened the second time I did not continue. We in fact had a discussion, which you cited, that ended cordially. This does not make sense at all, and I would like an answer. Are you trying to destroy collegiality on Wikipedia? What did I do to deserve this harsh treatment? I am extremely angry at you for what you are doing, and the best way to resolve this would be to discuss it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • When you calm down. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • My blood pressure is 115/75. Is that calm enough? Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Martintg's concerns

It wasn't the first time Jehochman reverted another admin. He reopened two cases [2][3] previously closed by Sandstein [4][5]. The whole thing subsequently became a total shambles, with AE sanctions applied then vacated. In the end Sandstein's original decision to close the AE reports without action was vindicated. --Martin (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • @JEH care to explain this? @Martin - is this in the CC case evidence somewhere? Are you saying this is a pattern? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ta. If I remember, these matters, June 2009 Eastern European disputes (not Climate Change), eventually did turn into a request for arbitration, and the matter was reviewed at some point, maybe not on that request, but a subsequent one. (Wikipedia:EEML where Martintg was identified as a disruptive editor, and my name appeared prominently in some of the email evidence. Maybe he's got an axe to grind here?) Do you think it is wise to tack all this on to the present case? It seems rather tangential. In any event, I am happy to explain anything I've ever done. For the moment, can you point out the policy that says we cannot reopen a discussion? The first diff cited by Martintg was followed by this statement by Sandstein where he seems agreeable and invites me to proceed. The next few diffs by Martintg are unclear. They don't seem to show me reverting a close. A few diffs later I politely asked Sandstein to modify his close. This all looks pretty routine and cooperative to me. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• No, it isn't in the CC evidence yet, but I can add it if you want. I came here to your talk page for another reason but felt compelled to comment here after seeing Jehochman accusing you of "trying to destroy collegiality on Wikipedia", a comment I thought was somewhat audacious given Jehochman's propensity of stepping on other admin's toes. Sandstein wasn't too happy about Jehochman's actions at the time, as I recall, as his judgement was being directly called into question (although Sandstein would probably deny it now for the sake of preserving "collegiality"). Jehochman's actions caused a hell of a lot of wiki-drama which in the end was totally pointless and a waste of time, as Sandstein original action was vindicated in the end. --Martin (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked Sandstein to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • For the record, Martintg was a member of the Eastern European mailing list which engaged in prohibited off-wiki collusion and disruption. Martintg was heavily sanctioned in the WP:EEML case. At the time of my intervention I suspected deep problems and called for further investigation. It took about six months, but the problem was eventually rooted out. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, Sandstein has already made a relevant statement: "previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions... is not an administrator action and an action that is not taken cannot by definition be undone" That does seem relevant to a situation where Sandstein declined to place a sanction and closed a thread, and I reopened the thread to discuss imposing a sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Reading the diff it is clear that Sandstein was unaware of a previous decline (asking what decline?) and imposed a block based upon a community sanction (rather than arbitration enforcement) independently of that decline. Arbcom imposed discretionary sanctions regime have specific provisions prohibiting the overturning of decisions administered in AE space. The bottom line was that your actions resulted in no net outcome beyond that already determined by Sandstein, just a lot of angst and pointless wiki-drama. --Martin (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
        • You and your mailing list colleagues carried out a massive disruption on Wikipedia, see WP:EEML, and now you want to blame me, an uninvolved administrator, who was attempting to control your disruption. That's rich. Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Look, I'm not blaming you for anything, and WP:EEML is irrelevent. I came here for another matter, saw you moaning to Rlevse that you only made "one revert", "are you trying to destroy collegiality on Wikipedia?" and "What did I do to deserve this harsh treatment?". I merely recounted my experience that it wasn't the first time. You should take your proposed admonishment like a man. Shrug. --Martin (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there something unmanly about standing up against an injustice? Editors close and unclose discussion threads all the time. This is normal practice on Wikipedia. Unless the venue has specific rules (e.g. Deletion, Arbitration) a thread ends when everybody has had their say. If Rlevse and ArbCom want AE to be different, they can say so and put a notice at the top of the page: "Don't undo an administrator's closure of a thread". I will gladly follow any guidance provided. Jehochman ^Talk 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to Martintg

Per WP:EEML, enacted 22 December 2009:

7) Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban. (emphasis added)

Coming here to carry on a vindetta against me regarding Eastern European dispute enforcement appears to be a violation of the above sanction. Martintg, I suggest you cease commenting. Rlevse is aware of the issue and will follow up, I am sure, and also deal appropriately with any potential violations of the arbitration ruling. Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "vindetta". Given that there Six degrees of separation between almost anything and so it would be no doubt possible to conjure up some kind of relationship to Eastern Europe and thus wiki-lawyer that any discussion about your behaviour is somehow a breach of WP:EEML. However my discussion above is related to the Climate Change case process and proposed decision in relation to your apparent behavioural pattern. Specifically it is about your interaction with Sandstein. The context of your interaction with Sandstein is irrelevant, it could have been related to Timbuktu, but the fact remains that you had previously behaved in a manner that was apparently repeated again in the CC case establishing a particular pattern. I've only provided a data point. Your response provides yet another datapoint. Rlevse is awaiting a third datapoint from Sandstein. I'm sure that Rlevse can competently evaluate these datapoints and draw his own conclusion. --Martin (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, your discussion above is not about CC. It is about EE arbitration enforcement matters of approximately 14 months ago. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

I've been asked to comment here. From what I can tell after a look at the AE history (I don't really remember any more what was going on then), Jehochman unclosed two AE threads that I closed as no action after no other admin had commented on them for some time. This struck me as ... unconventional and maybe not exactly helpful, given that at the same time Jehochman had at the same time also made a request for arbitration in the same matter. I asked him to undo that closure, but in reply Jehochman unclosed another thread closed by me. I then said, fine, go ahead and do something if unlike me you think some action should be taken. As far as I remember (no time to check now), Jehochman then did not take any action, and drama-filled discussion continued for a while, but I remember that I found his comment that "The reason I am still a sysop is that I do not take actions that I know other administrators object to" to be a bit at odds with his actions in that matter. On the whole, I do not think that his actions were either very collegial or helpful, but I don't know whether that has any relevance to the matter now before the Committee.  Sandstein  06:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors may disagree in good faith. When they do, they should discuss matters. Rather than starting a new thread, it may make sense to resume one that has been closed very recently. In the instant case, there was a big problem with EE editing, with several concurrent threads going at WP:AE, some closed and some open. I wanted to try to resolve matters. This did not succeed on the first try, but eventually we had the EEML case where these matters were subject to review, and disruptive, off-wiki collusion was exposed. In general I don't make a habit of reopening threads but I may make an exception once in a while. Do you think that is unreasonable? Jehochman ^Talk 10:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Refocus discussion

We have had enough tangential discussions. Let's get to the meat of the matter. Rlevse, would you please answer the following questions about your behavior:

1. You, a sitting arbitrator, proposed a sanction against me that is not supported by the person who posted the evidence.[6] As a minor player in the CC dispute, I had not been following the case closely and was completely unaware of that evidence and had not given my side of the story. Nevertheless, you jumped to a conclusion without getting any input from me. Is that correct? I believe you skipped an important step.
2. The "evidence" you cited includes exactly one revert made by me, and you believe the one revert, made after at least 17 hours of intervening discussion and dozens of comments in an attempt to form consensus, constitutes edit warring. I believe that in the entire history of ArbCom, nobody has ever been sanctioned for edit warring based upon a single incident constituting a single diff. Am I wrong?
3. After making your proposal, you did not notify me so that I could respond. I only found out about your proposal by lucky chance. I was out camping last week and with slightly different timing could easily have missed the entire thing and never had any chance to comment before voting started. Is it your normal practice to talk about people without informing them? You didn't notify User:2over0 either. Only later when Carcharoth noticed what was going on, a clerk contacted 2over0 by email.

In the past I've admired your work. Do you understand now why I am so disappointed in you? I don't expect a fair hearing at this stage. My reply is buried in the talk page where I'll be lucky if any of the other arbitrators even notice it.

Not to be all negative, may I suggest the following ideas:

• Don't sanction admins who volunteer for very hard jobs and then make a few mistakes. Sanctioning admins will only discourage their further participation. As unhappy as I am about my own situation, I am much more unhappy about the proposal against 2over0.
• Do point out mistakes and tell people how they could do better. User talk pages are a good venue.
• Rather than naming and blaming Lar, make a general proposal that all admins are advised to periodically rotate out of hot disputes to avoid personalizing conflicts. Lar's difficulties could have been avoided if he had walked away and been replaced by somebody else.

Our goal is to fix problems, not to alienate volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Henriette on her own power

I've responded to your query at my nomination's entry. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William G. Higgs

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

question on vandalism

Hi Rlevse - I have a question on these types of edits, where Muslim IP/registered editors insert "peace be upon him", "PBUH" and "SWT" after the names of Muhammad and Allah. What is the best way to revert those edits? Obviously it is wrong and violates WP:NPOV, but somehow it doesn't feel appropriate to use Huggle and call it outright vandalism (unless the user decides to start a revert war). Does dealing with this separately (i.e. trying to explain to the user the problem with his edits) also make it wrong to continue to revert his edits myself, as it might be construed as participating in an edit war myself? I could really use your advice on how best to handle these type of problems. Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

definitely explain to them first. If it's a big problem, start a thread on article talk page too. Page protection is one option. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: FA

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

Note

Hi Rlevse, thanks for leaving such a great note. Happy editing! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

mail

if you don't have it now, you will soon. Dlohcierekim —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 30 August 2010.