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.

SSP case

See outcome of the SSP case you submitted here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the prompt resolution of the SSP case. It is still my profound hope that our open matter regarding George Thomas Coker could be resolved peaceably with similar alacrity. Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. FYI, I spend LOTS of time on the SSP page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I learned something new today

If you oppose child pornography, you support slavery. [1] I'm glad we've created this encyclopedia with such wonderful information. --B (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my point was that opposing free culture because it allows people to promote thing you disagree with is promoting a lack of freedom. Think of the children! Should they all be raised in a world where information is proprietary and controlled or raised in a world where they and others are all free to express themselves? Freedom of speech is about the freedom to communicate and promote what we don't wish communicated and promoted or it is nothing - there is no need to protect speech everyone supports. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we made Wikipedia Review [2]. --B (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom is not an absolute right, it has limits. Check any number of US Supreme Court rulings. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page editing

Hi, Rlevse. Did you see Hrafn's Hrafn's comment at Talk:Politicization of science? --Iamunknown 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again.  :-) I meant to say this soon after my first comment above, but I wanted to apologise for commenting on the talk page and then coming here; in my opinion, it should have been the other way; i.e. let you know of Hrafn's comment first, wait for your comment and then add my own comment if was pertinent or necessary.

I guess it isn't a Wiki-Sin ;-), but my action does seem to me to be impolite. Thanks for being polite to me nonetheless.  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock

User:No, Gwen! looks awfully SOCKy with only 4 edits, 1 to vote against deletion and 1 to question the closing admin. Probably impossible to tell whose though with all the comments to the AFD page. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock, can you tell who the master is? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well they address Durova by name [3] so its obvious they know she is a person whose opinion is highly regarded. User:TlatoSMD is a possibility, but he's been around long enough to know better, as does User:Homologeo. This related edit summary seems fishy though [4]. User:Jack-A-Roe seems very involved, but I'm not sure which side he's on. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Hard to block without a master of able to show vote stacking. Keep an eye on it and let me know when you figure it out and we can block. Use SSP, AIV, whatever is appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit suspicious...she also knows what deletionism is by the looks of it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keilana - is there something blockable right now? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Pro-pedophile_chatboard_.2F_forum_resources_linked_from_Wikipedia seems to point to User:Jack-A-Roe as the owner, as only 3 users have editted that page in the last 2 weeks. But I wouldn't call it good enough to go to RFCU with. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, just a suspicious amount of wiki-experience. Knows how AFDs work, what deletionism is, signs comments, knows policy...it just doesn't seem right. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not right. He's a sock, watch him, he'll reveal his master or goof eventually. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:68.109.68.240

This user is making the same reverts that User:Atari400 (the sockpuppet of User:KirbyTime) made to Template: Countries of the Indosphere. He is making the same omissions and is not justifying anything in the talk pages after having been asked multiple time to join the debate, but has done nothing and in fact claims that i have not joined the discussion [5], though I am all over the talk page. He has been told by a user with rollback powers (Alexfusco5) that he has been making unconstructive edits that need to be justified. After Alexfusco5 made the comment and reverted his edit, he has been silent on the template and the template talk. He did has not edited the template again at this time in order to not break the 3RR. Based of his talk page, it appears that he has violated the WP:CIV, but I am unsure; if he has can you please give him a warning or some form of disciplinary action. Also, I would like to know, where or to whom should I report his behaviour? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also posted the above on Jehochman's user talk Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

question

Heyo, Where should I place this question? - [6] Thanks in advance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If your concern is clarifying what a ruling covers, in the Requests for Clairficaiton section of WP:RFAR. If you feel violations of the ruling have occurred and you are seeking enforcement, file at [{WP:AE]. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Rlevse, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, people are actually taking advantage of my cool-ass template without attribution! miranda 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Response on Miranda's and my talk pages if you're interested in the chain of events. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG, drama. XD miranda 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

block review

[7]

You edit conflicted out my decline :( - Revolving Bugbear 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Rlevse,

Thank you for your constructive criticism and input in making Alpha Kappa Alpha a featured article.

Best,

miranda 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock IP

While observing the everlasting editwar over genre on the Underoath page, I noticed that many of the edits that change the genre to Screamo are done by annon IPs. I would like to point out one IP in particular, not because of edit warring on the Underoath page, but because of it's history of vandalism in general. This IP is 63.3.16.2 [8]. In one of the edit summaries, this particular IP says "sorry i'm not on my profile". I think whoever is using this IP, probably has a real accout, and does their vandalism via this annon IP. In addition to this, there is a suspicion that this IP is used by the same user as the IP 63.3.16.1 [9]. This second IP has a similar history of vandalism. whether these IPs are connected I am unsure. but I'm pretty sure 63.3.16.2 is a Sock IP of someone. I would like to do something about it, but because I have been unable to find any user accounts that seem to be associated with this IP. Is this an appropriate situation for a use of CheckUser? If so, where do I go to request it? If not, what should I do as my next step? I've seen you have a history of dealing with sockpuppets, What do you think of this situation? Axcess (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this Green? lol Axcess (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

File a request for IP check at WP:RFCU to find the underlying main IPs and accounts. File at WP:AIV for block for vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TM reverts

I know. I realized after the last revert. Rracecarr (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AN3RR archiving

Hi, Rlevse. I saw that you archived AN3RR lately. Are you aware that it's set up to be archived by bot [10]? If you had a reason for archiving it, I understand, but thought I should let you know at least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but I don't like long listings of resolved cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There was kind of a rough consensus among the admins monitoring the board to leave them up for 72 hours, just so you know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning indefinitely banned users

Hello, Rlevse. I noticed that some banned users are able to get back online even with the same IP, such as User:Nku pyrodragon, who had already banned 3 times before on being a sockpuppet. But he still is able to make a new membership, even after blocking. He can also log in and edit his talk page and others' also. Can you give me an answer on my talk page? Styrofoam☭1994_talk 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the recent Israel-Palestine Arbcom. I've been feeling that a number of wiki-editors have been in breach of the Decorum principle. I've raised the issue here, but believe that it won't be seen there - where do I raise this issue so we can get a clearer explanation of how this is intended to be implemented? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:RFAR#Appeals_and_requests_for_clarification — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi. User:Bluegoblin7 is looking for an admin coach but I am a relatively new admin so I would prefer to co coach the user. Can we coach him together? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

His user page says he's left wiki for good, but he's still editing....??? He needs to make up his mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. He is still editing. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive emailed the user and he has confirmed that he is staying and has also removed the notice that he has left. Sorry if this seems a bit sudden but I just wanted to let you know that im not trying to force you in any way as this is entirely voluntary and I am aware of the amount of time admin coaching can take up. If you do accept, and I really don't mind if you don't, I will be willing to support you in any way possible as a co coach. Thanks very much. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 12:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks...

for dealing with that problem on ANI. Cheers. miranda 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the User User:styrofoam1994

While surfing wikipedia, I notcied that this user received a final warning to stop harassing the user:Nku_pyrodragon. However, he continued to harass users and he did not receive a block for his actions. Instead you gave him another last warning. He seems to be also harassing the user:rws_killer6--Wikieditor1989 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And you have two whole edits...hmmm. Provide proof not just accusations. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chimpywiki

Decline reason: "reason —unconvinced, make a pseudo article on your talk page does not convince me. this is also your third decline and you're only allowed two. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

That's what Addhoc told him to do. I can't tell whether he's actually serious about it, but he seems to be doing what Addhoc told him to. - Revolving Bugbear 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced for a second. If Addhoc wants to be so trusting, Addhoc can unblock him and have it on his shoulders. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. - Revolving Bugbear 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Styrofoam1994

I don't want to play the you said, they said game but...

you said then he said and then he said and then he said. I really don't care, he just popped up on my watchlist. Best regards! --omtay38 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I final warned him. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Merger Tags

Hi Rlevse I removed th Merger tags on Blue Heron Lodge and Tidewater Council because the votes were saying to Keep them seperate and i got a comment on Blue Heron Lodge that said the merger was declined and the Merge strip needed to be taken off of this page and Tidewater Council. I was told to remove the tags by Wikipedia. I did not remove them because i wanted too. Thank you. Kenny (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no talk about this particular merge on either talk place. Where did this discussion take place? — Rlevse • Talk • 04:02, 28 January 2008

Before I got rid of the Merger button the bottom of the disscution said the merge was discontinued so when i saw that that means the merger dissuction needed to be taken off.Thank you.Kenny (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean "The merge request has been removed in that it was erroneously placed in the first place. Sorry for the confusion. KC9CQJ 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)" ? Thata's from almost 2 years ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

I believed it to be an honest mistake, caught in a block web. Thanks for freeing me. Have a good evening Travellingcari (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant by "mistake" -- that I got caught in the blocked IP by accident, not that the Admin made a mistake. Have a good day Travellingcari (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Puppet master now editing as IP?

Hi, I notice you were the closing admin in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sports Nuggets so I thought I'd come to you. It looks like the same editor is now editing through public library computers: [11] and [12]

It also appears Sports Nuggets is the same editor as another puppet master account: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman. How does one go about reporting weird cases like this? --Mosmof (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

File another SSP with Ron as the master, with diffs showing how Sports N is connected to him. SInce they're public IPs, they can't get blocked long though, but it would help sort out the real master. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you caught a little Ron liebman mini-sock farm. He managed to change articles enough to evade his regular followers (like me). See this deleted edit along with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ron liebman for a comprehensive list of his socks. Looks pretty obvious that the Sports Nuggets ones are the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Rlevse, did you get my e-mail? John Smith's (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

?. Post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I recently remembered your warning to Giovanni and myself not to revert each other, or you would issue a block. After you made the warning, Giovanni reverted a change I had made earlier on the Republic of China Navy article at 23:53, 17th January 2008. I also think this is a case of wikistalking, as he has never shown a real interest on that page or any other modern military pages. He reverted me for a rather dubious reason and then never commented again on the talk page/edited again on the page.

Just thought you should know, as I guess you missed it. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Has he threatened you, edit warred, etc? On rv doesn't make an edit war. Anything blockable? If it violates an arbcom restriction, you can report to WP:AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought your warning was a universal one that we shouldn't revert each other anywhere. Never mind, then. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD question

It seems that as Wikipedia's grown, we've relaxed our restrictions on what goes on in the userspace to allow more userboxes, mini-projects, etc. Would something like this User:TlatoSMD#Great_Wikipedians which probably wouldn't have survived 2 or 3 years ago, survive today? MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question, but I never mess with mfd. I'll ask someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there MBisanz. These days we're very relaxed about what we can have on userpages. As long as it's not directly causing damage to the encyclopedia, or advertising off-wiki events, companies or people then we're fairly relaxed. With respect to User:TlatoSMD#Great Wikipedians, the user is simply showing gratitude to his fellow Wikipedians, which does little damage. It would have been very much different however if he'd have done the opposite and used his userpage to offend others. Hope that helps explain, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks for the info. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Names

User:Bdasgupta@gmail.com said he realised the problems that could happen by having that username. I suggested he either rename the account or create a new one. He did the latter, so it should be ok now. Spellcast (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See proposal

Please see proposal here: Talk:George_Thomas_Coker#Proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps pistols at dawn at 20 yards? I will certainly consider the proposal, but I am concerned that the proposal in and of itself implies that this is an issue solely between the two of us and not an issue that needs to be addressed on a larger basis. Before we could meaningfully involve others, I think it's important that we have some statement of what the issues are from the various perspectives. Hopefully, it might be possible to address some of these issues without some form of arbitration and the ones remaining might seem more soluble. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You said "I will certainly consider the proposal". How how much time do you feel you need to respond? This issue has been thoroughly discussed for over a month. The point of the proposal is not to rehash old ground, but to have uninvolved admins look at it with fresh eyes. Please respond on the Coker talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Hey, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldnoach should be Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldnoah. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No violation

I still hope that you will respond to my three emails. Thanks in advance. Racepacket (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Post what you have to say here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Resending emails. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says User:Runreston is not User:Racepacket, but it also says it's probably someone else that I will keep an eye on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It really doesn't take much effort to use a different computer to edit a similar set of articles and pass a checkuser. Someone like User:Racepacket who's been caught redhanded before would certainly know what to do to avoid that trap. User:Runreston's edit history, a near perfect overlap of Racepacket's, provides far more conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry than would the checkuser. Call me cynical, but my guess is that Racepacket/Runreston was hoping I would have gone straight for a checkuser, which would have come clean and whould have given him the go-ahead to continue his abuse of Dane Rauschenberg and other related articles. Unfortunately, experience tells me that I can expect the same pattern of articles to be attacked in the next several days by a member of the extended Racepacket family. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Y'know, you're absolutely right. I re-ran the check just now and used a different geolocation mechanism. Turns out (without revealing too much), that they are in different states but in very close proximity to each other. Enough that a change of ISP can take that into account, especially given that their useragents are identical. I'm calling this  Likely - sorry about all the confusion - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• All I can tell you is that it was not me, just in case you don't want to discourage/bannish an editor under mistaken circumstances. The Wikipedia exploits of Dane Rauschenberg are a matter of weekly discussion when runners gather for our training runs, but I don't know know the identity of RunReston, Pats2001, or Bella de Ball. I can tell you that the Director of the Washington Birthday Marathon lives in Reston. I am very sure that Fiddy2, 69.143.1.252, 68.55.224.168, Revertedlesbo, Arric, Danerunsalot, and Runnerguy are all Rauschenberg. Since Rauchenberg has relocated to Utah for his new job, which involves extensive travel, his IP addresses will change. Racepacket (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• My prophesy skills (powered by much unfortunate experience with User:Racepacket and his sockpuppets, and infused with a tremendous sense of cynicism) only seem to be achieving even greater accuracy. My prediction of Racepacket using a brand new sockpuppet, but attempting to take greater precautions to avoid a checkuser: Confirmed. That further abuse of the Dane Rauschenberg article would be forthcoming, accounting for five of User:Runreston's six edits since his return: Confirmed. The initial excuse proffered by User:Racepacket, that he had created his sockpuppet User:Xcstar because of concerns that Rauschenberg would come to Racepacket's home and beat him up is so utterly laughable, that it's a miracle that anyone would ever have accepted it as justification for hundreds of abusive and defamatory edits regarding Dane Rauschenberg. User:Runreston appeared immediately after User:Xcstar was outed, and dove right into the same set of articles that were targets of Racepacket/Xcstar. After a false turn, it now appears that evidence is likely that Racepacket and Runreston are indeed one and the same. Racepacket/Runreston's latest effort to make the article more "encylopedia [sic]" include the claim that "Rauschenberg started testing his ability to gain free publicity by obtaining a Washington Post article and photograph covering his efforts to use craigslist to obtain a blind date for a 2004 New Years Eve party." among other unsupported allegations that Rauschenberg had improperly obtained funding to cover entry fees. Racepacket/Runreston also makes the bizarre accusation on Talk:Dane Rauschenberg that "Rauschenberg was very vague as to his criteria for selecting the races to enter. Among his criteria was whether his running friends were going to be there. I have left this issue out of the article." I have no idea what has triggered this intense and despicable hatred User:Racepacket has for Rauschenberg, especially in light of the reasonable bio on the http://www.racepacket.com web site (see here). If I were Rauschenberg. it would seem that an order of protection would be appropriate. I just question why we here at Wikipedia should be in the role of furthering this shameless abuse. It's well past time that we permanently blocked both User:Runreston and User:Racepacket once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You should file this at SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I did already. The last time it cam back "confirmed" that User:Runreston and User:Racepacket were the same. An initial checkuser was iffy, but a further check came back "likely". Now User:Racepacket is back editing one and only one article, the same article that was the monomaniacal obsession of User:Xcstar, his previous sockpuppet. How much more evidence do we need? Why do we impose unrealistic burdens on good faith editors, while giving malicious vandals like User:Runreston / User:Racepacket the persistent benefit of the doubt? Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is no hatred involved here, and I am not making the edits that User:Alansohn is discussing. The fact that the people who are editing a particular set of articles, months apart, are located in the same geographical area, does not make it "likely" that they are the same person. At the breakfast following the Feb. 3 Sunday run, Rauschenberg including his Wikipedia article came up again, but I did not detect malice or racor, just amusement. There is no grand conspiracy here against User:Alansohn or User:Fiddy2. Nor is there any violation of policy. User:Racepacket (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My Statement Regarding the Ehud Lesar Arbcom Case

Hi Rlevse, is there any reason my statement wasn't copied over? The arbitrators haven't yet rejected or accepted my proposal so I believe it should be copied over, if anything just for the record. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I noticed it's on the talk page. Out of curiosity, what is the distinguishing factor between putting on the main page vs. talk? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties go on case page, uninvolved on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you have a look into this?

Talk:8th Georgetown South, Page was speedily deleted. --Egel _Reaction? 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking copyright rules, but I think this doesn't matter articles have to meet GFDL rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe he means that the talk page did not get deleted. I've seen this before. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The page looks to have been speedy deleted as a copy vio. If the owner of the copyright can be contacted, and agrees to release the material under the GFDL, then we can use the material, but he must specifically state that it is released under the GFDL. Permissions should really be done through OTRS, so we can have an official copy of the email granting us permission. Unless we can be truly sure the document meets the GFDL, it should stay deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think I just made a big mistake, but I'm not sure.....

I'm the guy who's been working on Kardashev scale, well me, User:Ben_Standeven, User:Beland... anyway I did something today I'm not sure I was supposed to do, I restored a page back to it's previous version after several edits had been made, I'm not sure, but I know there's a privilege called rollback, that I don't have. But I'm not sure this counts... but I'd like for you to look into it.

My problem is with User:Michaelbusch he has a tendancy to remove large sections of the article without talking about why on the talk page... Today he made 7 removals, without talking about any one of them... once... starting with this one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=188005483&oldid=187946840

he removed 6 large sections on Dec 27 starting with this one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=180336134&oldid=180173404

I've already talked to you about this once before, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive8#Kardashev_Scale.2C_and_concern_from_a_new_user but his abbreviated reasons of removal and limited discussion on the Talk:Kardashev_scale page erks me. I don't really know what to do about it. Can you help?--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested to User:Michaelbusch that he voluntarily restore the page to the previous condition, until the issue can be resolved. I previously did not revert his actions of the 27th of Dec. hoping that we could work it out on the discussion page. However if he choses to ignore me this time, I was wondering if you would do me a favor and restore it yourself in 3 days time, until the issue can be resolved. Let me know, and do you think this is a fair compromise, I'm suggesting?--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fair, I almost protected the article. Let me know of major events. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch and User:LouScheffer may know each other from their time at Caltech.... if they do I really couldn't call it sockpuppetry. But two people working together because of their work or personal relationship could present a POV that isn't a neutral POV. This could end up harming the article by biasing opinion.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Tube_bar

Thanks for your attention to the matter. Regarding your continued concern over connection to the anonymous IP 4.153.59.194, it should be noted that the same IP registered at AtariAge the same day to do the usual harassment and trolling. The user (Stonic) has a history of going from various IP's to register there, on ebay, and through various email accounts to harass that group of individuals (atariage, Curt Vendel of Atarimuseum, and Matt Reichart of atariprotos.com), and nfortunately he spilled it over to Wikipedia. The owner of AtariAge was going to share the logs for that IP, if that would have helped things, but it appears unnecessary now. However, I just wanted to make you aware of that because you mentioned not being totally convinced. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	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) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI at BN

Since you were his coach, this might interest you Wikipedia:BN#Readdition_of_administrator_flag. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tube bar spam

I've identified a few more accounts per your request on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Blacklist.3F. Reviewing the remaining links, there appears to be many good faith additions, but the statement posted on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tube bar ("If links to DP on other pages are ok, then we'll just do that ;)"[13]) raises a corncern. There is a discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.digitpress.com_repeated_spam_on_Wikipedia, hopefully we can get more input. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

More wikistalking from Giovanni

Dear Rlevse, Giovanni continues to wikistalk me. I left a message on a user's page about something he wrote, and Giovanni decided to reply in his name. I asked Giovanni nicely on his talk page not to follow me around if I was asking one person a question. He then removed it without comment and left yet another comment on the other user's talk page.

Can you please ask him to stop doing this? If I leave a message on an article talk page he is working on, he can comment. But if I ask a question that only one person can answer he shouldn't be following me around. He has complained that I followed him on to an article recently at the Admin's incident board and that I was seeking conflict. Yet he is doing exactly what he accuses me of. The one piece of advice he was given on the Admin board was to leave me alone - he appears to have ignored that and wants to provoke a situation. As he has ignored my polite requests, can you please deal with the situation? John Smith's (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill and quit trying to get the other party in trouble. Either ignore each other or engage constructively. I'm sick of watching this disupte rampage all over the 'pedia. You're both better than that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is like the pot calling the kettle black for JohnSmith to accuse me of Wikistalking! JohnSmiths continues to violate assuming good faith here because in fact, I regularly visit that users talk page--I did not follow JohnSmiths here as he accuses me. That editor is a regular user on the main page I edit, and he has done good work--and we share similar interests. Therefore I like to follow up on issues and visit his talk page in order to see what is going on. My recent comment on the issue JohnSmiths has started on his talk page was about the issue, but was my comment directed at that user-- not at JohnSmith's. After JohnSmiths complained that he didn't want me to answer him, I didn't. So, for him to twist this into me wikistalking him is a petty attempt to just sling more mud. I respectfully suggest he grow up.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, when you delete requests from myself on your talk page not to follow me on to other user's talk pages and don't reply to me but then involve yourself in my discussion with another person for a second time, how can I assume good faith on your part?

As for trying to claim your post was directed at someone else, how on earth could this be anything but a message for me?

You do not visit Sky's talk page regularly because there was not a single message from you on this talk page, either the active page or the archives he has listed, before you wikistalked me. John Smith's (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You might like to argue with me about things, but I find it rather boring. Also don't twist what I said. I said after you complained that I responded to you instead of the editor you kept provoking in argument, I didn't respond to you further. I responded to him about it. It was only after that, that you continued to engage me in the subject. So if you don't want me to respond, don't talk to me either! As far as that users page, as I said, I regularly visit it. I know you don't want to assume good faith, as you rarely ever do, but this is not a luxury--its policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How am I supposed to get you to stop stalking me if I can't ask you to stop doing so? Would you prefer me to just report you automatically? I try to show some good faith by hoping you will listen to reason so things are resolved without getting an admin involved. But whenever I do entreat you on your talk page, you delete the comment on carry on. The only time we interact over your stalking behaviour is when I talk to an admin. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be talking about yourself, because I have not done any of those things. Its you who has wikistalking me to the main article I edit and engaged in repeated bickering, personal attacks and violations of good faith. When you do things, its you who are doing them--not anyone else. I can only assume you are engaged in some type of psychological projection when you assign to me these actions of your own.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of you carry out your fingerpointing and debates somewhere else. I only want hard facts here on my talk page. I'm also posting on both talk pages strongly advising you both to leave each other alone. If I come across more issues with either of you, I won't hesitate to block. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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.[14] And a admin is too mild on him unlike Korean editors.[15][16] 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 [17], 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.[18] 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).[19] 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,[20][21][22][23][24] 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,[25] 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)[26](WJBscribe) (Ioeth)[27] (Aramgar) (Kafka Liz)[28](Srnec) (Eupator) (Shell Kinney)[29] (Luna Santin) (Jehochman) (Orderinchaos) (Durova) (Dihydrogen Monoxide)

He was blocked for 24 hours on EN,[30] 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,[31] and is stating quite clearly that he does not acknowledge the consensus: [32] Per your talkpage comment, "next time I'll block whoever reverts an agreed-upon version,"[33] 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."[34] --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 [35]. 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)

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)