Jump to content

User talk:Rlevse/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Awesome

Thanks! These user days you do, they are a very nice thing, and I can now say first-hand that it is great to be recognised in such a way :) rst20xx (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

socionics article

A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let him go to arbcom. If the case gets accepted it'd sort the behavior problems out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Whatever opinion you have of it, it is evidence, and it is a pretty crazy to be allowing the people in question to be deciding what is and is not good evidence without a much clearer definition of what is and is not acceptable (and no, diffs and wiki threads aren't the limits of the meaning of the English word "evidence"). As for your "Personal attack" diff ... no-one was called a communist, and being called such is not an insult anyway. Is it really so much to hope that someone like yourself will grasp a rather simple simile? Or that, failing to grasp it, they would refrain from commenting on it? Yes, the simile might have been a little demeaning to the overly-sensitive, but well within the scope of acceptable criticism. And also, you have no idea whether the arbs read the evidence. You have no way of knowing, and are just bs-ing me. Simply stating something doesn't make it true. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I know you disagree with the question, but thank you for answering it anyway. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I see singling out arbs only as a fundamental question of unequal treatment. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise if you feel that I implied you were a liar or unworthy of trust - that wasn't my intention. I've elaborated further (probably not very well) on my talk. Verbal chat 14:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now we can move forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you is all I can say. (and sorry about my spelling, I also didn't mean to imply you were a musical instrument) Verbal chat 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Verbal, I hope that you will look at it from our perspective. We were given this hot potato to handle and have been dealing with it for days. And the Committee as a whole has been doing a good job working through all the different aspects of the situation. It has been extremely time consuming (and remember we started dealing with several days ahead of the Community). And it was through our decision making that the truth came out to the whole Community. We are the good guys on the side of truth. So, when we get these type of questions, it is surprising because we think that we have shown through actions this year that we intend to keep raising the quality of the work that we do. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Flo, I understand and respect what you're saying. I hope you can see it from the perspective of the community. A series of incidents over the years has eroded trust in the ArbCom as an institution (not necessarily the current members). Last year's intake was elected to help fix that. I accept that the Law situation is time-consuming and not easy to handle, but it's surely reasonable to ask of the people handling it: "Were you involved?"
I think we need to move beyond the feeling that questions like that are personal insults of some kind. None of this is personal.One of the perennials problems we have is that everything gets personalized, everything boils down to friends or the opposite, which is why the Law situation arose in the first place. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
But we already have a process in place for us to recuse if we are involved. So, if an arbitrator had knowledge of the situation then there is the expectation that they would not act in their role as an arb in this case. There should be an assumption of good faith that arbitrators are following the rules. This questioning is unneeded and a side show in my opinion.
These poorly half though out actions can have bad consequences. Cas's resignation is one. Your statements about Cas are very troubling to me. You proposed that he resign based on a snap impression of the situation. Unfortunately, your impression was wrong and now we have lost a good arbitrator. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about my impression being wrong. He knew about the deception, he knew who was involved, and he knew that Lara was trying to get oversight. He did nothing to stop it, and didn't tell the Committee, even though he's a member of it. That's clearly untenable, Flo. I'm asking you this very earnestly: please stop defending people because you like them, and criticizing them when you don't. We all do this. It's what it is to be human. But it has caused horrible problems on this project, a lot of unfairness, and we need to try to stop it. I include myself in that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the comments expressed about Cas resigning, my opinion is the majority, right? Cas said he made an error. But most people do not think a zero tolerance for mistakes is desirable. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to argue that's the majority position now, Flo. Remember that a lot of people initially commented before a lot of the facts were known. I do agree with you that no one should lose a position because of a simple mistake, or even several mistakes. I just disagree that this can rightly be called a mistake, because the deception involved (not by Cas but by the main players) was gross and extensive. Not to feel a duty to act on that, or at least to tell the Committee, is just odd. I can't explain it. But whatever the cause (loyalty to friends, or not realizing the seriousness of it), it's not the kind of judgment that an Arb needs. No one is saying Cas is a bad person (on the contrary, he admitted what he'd done and resigned). All we are saying is what he did was incompatible with ArbCom membership. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your approach is extremely short sighted. Losing a competent, thoughtful, and ethical person that grew as person and arbitrator from this experience is a loss to the Community not a gain. A rush to judgment with hyperbole does not give good results. And I would appreciate it if you would stop saying my opinion of the situation is based on a friendship or liking Cas. Since he lives in a time zone that makes us active at different times, unfortunately I have not had much opportunity to work with him directly. My impression of him comes from the quality of the work that he has done as a volunteer. His professionalism as an arbitrator, and the general quality of his work on Wikipedia is very good. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think your approach is short-sighted too, but saying that doesn't help. The bottom line is that we are differently sighted. You are focusing on the work he did as an Arb. I am focusing on his failure to uphold policy for all equally. He has voted to desysop people for less than The undertow and his nominator did. Yet he withheld his knowledge of their deception from the editors who voted for them and from the Committee that had instigated the ban. I honestly can't see how anyone can defend that double standard. I can fully accept that he didn't intend to act like this, and simply didn't see how it was playing itself out, but the point about judgment remains. We want Arbs who do see these things. Having said that, I think it's unfair to discuss Cas's situation any further. I'd feel happier discussing this in general terms. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with both Slim and Flo in spirit, I think both of you also need to recall that you both have been part of actions by the wikipedia establishement (formally and informally) that have led to this general unease with wikipedia's governance structures, and should take into account that many of the community read everything both of you say as part of some kind of power struggle, not as trying to figure out what's best for the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

MSN

Hi! I'm a Wikipedia user and I want to talk with users of this wiki. If you can, please add me: mateuzinhow_@hotmail.com. Thank you :) Tosão (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi I got so tied up yesterday that I forgot to say thanks(!) for this: User_talk:Manning_Bartlett#Happy_Manning_Bartlett.27s_Day.21. Cheers Manning (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<AOL mode on> Me too! Thanks for mine also, made my day. <AOL mode off> Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Both well deserved good buddies. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous Bot from an admin

Hi there. Would you please be so kind and look into this bot from this admin? His bot erroneously included a BLP article of a nigerian award winning actress into a porn-list-log. As wikipedia is being used nowadays by the media as a source, such an inclusion into a porn-log list not only has the power to potentially damage the reputation of the subject of the BLP, but also violates against existing US and international laws. Lastly, the erroneous bot also included the article in question into other log-lists that have nothing whatsover to do with the subject of the BLP. Anybody, admin or no admin, who is unable to properly use a bot, should not play around with bots. Your admin assistance is needed here please. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is concerning, see User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Concern_about_your_NewArtBot — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Erroneous_Bot_from_an_Admin. I believe the list you are looking at is the very general list whereas the actual possible matches are at User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameSearchResult. I think a description on the tops of the pages would be the most helpful thing to do in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
That would still leave the question of whether this bot task is approved and the BLP concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the headsup. As I said, I was leaning towards the same call. Almost thinking raising it at BN just caused unneeded attention to be focused on a not-particularly-marginal RFA. -- Pakaran 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, with just a few !votes different it would have been close but this really was not close as it turned out, it was "close to being close". — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration question

I'm not familiar with arbitration at all. If there is a discussion going, and it is still kinda on the fence, does the committee make the final decision kind of thing? CTJF83 chat 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vaque. What type of discussion? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is that what arbitration does, make the final decision? CTJF83 chat 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
See WP:DR. That looks like content issue and is nowhere near arbcom level yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikinger and sleepers

I have enough this whole comedy as it is. Banned user Wikinger (talk · contribs · block log) (aka, CBMIBM) has now allegedly threatened to use sleeper accounts, especially as User:TAIntedCHInese is now blocked as a sockpuppet. User:Mengele and User:Piast are the two sleeper accounts in question. Please block them both indefinitely and mark them with {{blockedsock|Wikinger}}. Once blocked, remove the suspected tags on the talk pages and redirect any empty talk pages to the user page. Thank you. -- 92.0.218.179 (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Mengele should be blocked for his unacceptable username at least, see Josef Mengele. --//Microcell// 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Or a fan of agricultural machines: de:Mengele_Agrartechnik :-) --Egel Reaction? 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh's RfA

Hi, I have noticed that at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) you have listed Timmeh's RfA as being closed as 'unsuccessful'. In the descriptions above this term seems to suggest he acquired fewer support votes than oppose votes, something which did not happen. Is the close of his RfA therefore 'no consensus' (or something else) or are the descriptions above incorrect? Thanks for your time. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fewer supports than oppposes is fail, not unsuccessful. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks :) I've changed the criteria on the top of the above page, then. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the other pages I think it would be on, they all seem fine. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's talk page

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at Damiens.rf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I understand you may be busy, but I just wanted to say that I would really appreciate if you didn't ignore this message this time. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 01:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mandatory reporting"?

On WIkipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, I think you might have intended to use different section titles for the last two of the three bearing this title? John Carter (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i just fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk

What needs to be done with the article? I didn't really follow the FAC, but I'd like to see it featured eventually. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rhurfisch said he'd work on it but never did and then he and that other guy both objected because it have, in their mind, enough refs from the Jung book, ie, opposing because it didn't use their favorite book enough. I thought that was sort of a weak reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll take a look later. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Retribution, punishment, and punitive action

Please familiarize yourself with this essay: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with it. He socked six months of his 9-month block. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with using Wikispeak phrasing. He didn't sock. There was no simultaneous use of multiple accounts. He returned and evaded his block making loads of constructive edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It was socking, and block evasion. Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay? And you're very involved in this, you're hardly neutral since he's the one that unblocked you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious? Wow. Unbelievable. My wiki-fate rests in the hands of someone who thinks block evasion that caused no damage to the encyclopedia is comparable, even in the extreme, to murder. Maybe CoM isn't neutral, but at least he's grounded in reality. Lara 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Rlevse was saying they are comparable, or that socking is like murder. He was drawing an analogy. However I don't think the analogy is very useful in this case, as it's so over-exaggerated. I hope Rlevse will take another look at this and go with a very strong admonishment or "yellow card" in all three cases. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As he said, it was an extreme example - to show that good behaviour doesn't always completely mitigate bad behaviour, it is sometimes a question of degrees, and sometimes absolute. Verbal chat 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not a well-considered analogy. Lara 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Per Verbal, I intentional used an extreme example. My point is merely that good behavior does not always mitigate bad. Here, Lara violated the community and essentially sees nothing wrong with it, and that IS a serious problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"sees nothing wrong with it" is inaccurate, but I surely don't see it as warranting as much drama as it has, nor do I think this case compares to others. I thought there was general consistency in cases, but then I don't follow many, so I suppose that was more of an assumption. Regardless, the murder analogy was unnecessarily extreme and shows a lack of consideration for the parties. This isn't uncommon on Wikipedia. It happens in AFDs frequently for subjects who have committed some small-scale non-violent crime. While debating their notability, editors will compare them to a prolific serial killer, for example. It's just not an apt comparison and it skirts up on BLP. This case isn't a BLP issue, of course, but I still find your analogy to be inconsiderate. It's not a big deal so I'll drop it here. I just wanted to express my opinion on it. Lara 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

advice

Hey, could you take a quick look at this edit and this one, and the contribution history of user:Oyushminald or whateve his username is (it's a very short history of contribs)? It smells like a sockpuppet but I do not know that I have enough evidence for a checkuser. I'd appreciate your advice before I make (0r not make0 a request. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's enough for a CU. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind raising it with other checkusers and perhaps checking? Otherwise I will try it tomorroe, it is latte for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've asked another CU to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears that User:Jpgordon has addressed this. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

application

Hi, Rlevse. You advised me like this and Shell Kinney advised me like this in May. So I edited too difficult and too nationalitc articles for fulfill your demands as far as I could. And I obeyed Future Perfect at sunrise's order from 13:33, 21 January 2009. I handled many dispute without troubles. Please release the topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some nosing around. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Your edit count since June is rather low for you, so if you don't edit, it's easy to avoid controversy. Still investigating. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...looks like hauntingly familiar Bukubku tactics on World War II and Manchukuo:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, If you have any questions about my editions, please point out in concrete. I didn't edit worse. And you said to me few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles[7], so I had to write more and more outside articles which were difficulty and controversial.--Bukubku (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I talked more and more who had other point. See my edition.--Bukubku (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've commented on my own talk page. I'm afraid I'm not much inclined to support an unban either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXIII

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

At WP:UAA, a bot reported the username I will die, which was created earlier today. An admin left the comment, per WP:SUICIDE, that the username should be monitored in case the user edits. I believe this person should be checked right away. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a legit use of CU so I ran the check. There is very little to go on. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know if anything else comes up. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for recognition

I was very pleasantly surprised by your naming a day for me. Was there any special reason for this? Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just your long term outstanding work. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Role_account_and_username_issue. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC notice

I cited your comments, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#NERIC-Security. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

All Around Amazing Barnstar
For your arbitration work and just your overall dedication to improving all aspects of Wikipedia. I get a lot of inspiration from prolific editors such as yourself. :) œ™ 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, wow, many thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Worried

Rlevse, do you have any information about ArielGold? Is she OK? NancyHeise talk 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ck email. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I came across your project "Wikipedian of the Day" and thought it was a thoughtful project, and a good way to show thanks to those who edit Wikipedia. On the side note, Dog the Teddy Bear is awesome. And your Userpage is beautiful. RttamTNC 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you, and dog the teddy bear thanks you! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXIV

User:Roadcreature

Hi Rlevse, in re this renaming kerfuffle, the problem I see is that this is (presumably) the editor's real name. I can count on at least two sets of fingers now the cases of "why did you sign up using your real name then?" but nevertheless people do make errors when they first register accounts. We need to be sensitive to their retrospective concerns. We also need to leave the appropriate trail of bread crumbs, just not huge flashing banners. Hopefully the end solution will be subtle.

As far as the ArbCom notice on restricted user renames, good one on me, I must have been getting a suntan at the time. I'll support the admins who did the renaming, I think they were acting in good faith and if I was them I would be thinking "screw ArbCom, this is an actual person with a real name, I'm going to do what's right" or possibly not even aware of the ruling. In summary, I think the privacy of the editor's name should take precedence over the named editor's actions on-wiki. As I noted earlier of course, the account rename won't really change anything, the search engines will surmount all... Franamax (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: me day

Thanks! I've asked a question on my talk, in case you didn't see it. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Re: User:ChinaUpdater's repeated BLP violations

  • I can. Here [8].


I can and will provide a number of links whereby it will be clear that two editors (one with two names?) are trying

  • 2. have have deleted any and all reliably sourced information about Kimball Dean Richards, and redirect anyone looking for the famous movie company over to the company of which Richards is CEO, creaing the impression that his company is "successor in interest" to the classic film company, which will have the effect of driving up the price of stock in convicted felon Richards' company by misleading readers of Wikipedia, in exaclty the same manner as Richards did in his many years of fraud for which there are multiple convictions.ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChinaUpdater.27s_repeated_BLP_violations
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allied_Artists_International
links for my reference. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Death Threats, and Email requests

Re "Can you turn on your email, even if temporarily, so you can email me? It's very important. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)"',

  • I have received death threats, recorded by the LAPD, and in posession of the SFPD.
  • I reported them to Agent McClatchy at the United States Secrete Service, Division of Bank and Wire Fraud, as well as to Detective Level II Barragan in the same office, both of whom I met with in person.
  • Because of KDR's past "solicitation to commit murder", and other crimes to further his Allied Artists Records misrepresenations, I do not feel comfortable with giving my email, as I know from personal experience that there are problems with at least two admins related to something else entirely. ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you responding to a request of me to TheFeds as if you are TheFeds? And wasn't the person who made the legal threats indef'd? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


  • I will get a fake phone number and give it to you for an admin of sufficient stature to call.

I recommend that 'all pages edited in any way by WarriorBoy85 be blanked out for at least a week, until it can be determined what is going on. There is no harm to this , unless Wikipedia is being abused for commercial purposes, which it should not be, and especially not to commmit fraud by the same person AGAIN, who has already a criminal record a mile long, using Allied Artists, and related names.

I believe high up admins should take the information on the Kimball Dean Richards article, and write the article, then lock it down, except for what is approved on the talk page, where I have made more comments. ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I am an admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter, and arbitrator. It doesn't get any higher. And you didn't answer my question about why you're answering for TheFeds. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
1. What is the "question about why you're answering for TheFeds"? I went to the REAL Feds, and even called the Federal Prosecutor who prosecuted Kimball Dean Richards, whose phone number is in the INdictment and Sentencing links I proviced, and as I explain on the Admin board.
2. I will get a new phone and post the number and you can call if you like. Please read the links I gave, then I believe reading all my edits, and those of WarriorBoy85, will lead to blanking out all pages with his edits immediately, at least for a time, INSTEAD OF BLANKING OUT THE ARTICLE ON Kimball Dean Richards, which is all properly sourced. Thanks. ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked TheFeds a question on his talk page and you jumped in on it like you thought I was asking you. What is your zealous interest in this article and its people anyway? Just so you know, I do not think for a second you simply stumbled across it and took an interest. Also, you really need to tone down the Wall of Text rants, BLP violations (lucky you weren't blocked already), and WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from other place:

Using Wikipedia to Commmit Fraud, other Death Threats

I also called the number, which is in the links I put on the article page, for

  • Robert L. Brosio, United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States vs. Kimball Dean Richards, before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case CR 88-411 (A) –R,
  • about WarriorBoy85 and Wikipedia editors locking the phony company page of his in place, while people are purchasing shares in his company by being defrauded using the information on Wikipedia.
  • ALL WARRIORBOY85 EDITS IN ARTICLES SHOULD BE BLANKED OUT FOR TWO WEEKS., before anyone is hurt in these coroporate frauds, and associated crimes, using wikipedia articles on Non Notables as a means of defrauding. There can be no harm done in blaning out even the Allied Artists Pictures Corporation article, even though it is owned in part by a 93 year old, computer illiterate man, who has done nothing wrong, but the article is in fected with WarriorBoy85 edits promoting the company of Kimball Dean Richards.
  • I have already called, and reported in person, legal threats, "I warned you" threats, 'death threats, and other matters related to bank and wire fraud, and other frauds.
  • The attempt to use Wikipedia to commmit stock fraud by creating the illusion of one company being another, as outlined in my many edits.
  • I suggest that the VERY HIGHEST level of Wikipedia admins write these articles on these criminals, editors who are identity protected.
  • It would be very wrong if the public information of the convictions would be allowed to be kept off of Wikipedia, as this ommission would in itself be a form of aiding and abetting.
  • I provided links in many places to the New York State Corporations where anyone can see that Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is not linked to the '93 year old man I have written about on talk pages, nor in any way with Kimball Dean Richards or his Allied Artists, Allied Artists International, or any ohter of his criminal conspiracies to appear to be something that he and his companies are not. It is inexcusible that these NON NOTABLE articles should be locked in by Admins, which will only lead to more people being defrauded in stock purchases of this phony company, which is not Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, as can be seen by going to the links I have provided.ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit" Abce2|This isnot a test 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That's can, not should. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant it for this comment, "I suggest that the VERY HIGHEST level of Wikipedia admins write these articles on these criminals, editors who are identity protected." Abce2|This isnot a test 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, "The encyclopedia anyone should edit" just seems awkward. What would that even mean? Anyway, I don't really understand the OP's issue. Hopefully someone does. Equazcion (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules are not being followed, and the pages for these fraudulent, nonnotable companies, should eb blanked out before anyone else gets defrauded. Allied Artists Records is the company of a convicted felon, who has committed solicitation to murder, by his own admission in a plea agreement, as in th newspaper articles I provided. ChinaUpdater (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Happy me day?

Wow. I'm...amazed. Thanks - this is indeed an honor. Especially to stand in such company as I do... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Greetings

Hi there, I'm Ty Turner. I just found you out of random. Fancy welcoming me to Wikipedia with {{welcome}}? -- ISLANDERS27 07:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. -- ISLANDERS27 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A punishment for befitting of the crime

I hope that it is okay to message you as I am sure you are very busy. This topic ban makes no sense. This dispute is not about article content but is beyond that but is personal and is occuring on user talk pages, character assassinating people, playing games and in my case I admit getting distressed, losing my cool and personalising. Surely a more logical approach would be to pass a motion stating, any personalising of disputes, disruption of the editing environment or abuse of editors time will result in a block of up to one week, extended to a topic ban or a block of 3 months or something after several violations. I have from the outset practically begged the arbcom to pass motions to resolve disruptive behaviour, I still feel this is the right approach. To propose a topic ban when for the first time myself and scuro are making progress and when the recent dispute is not even about article content is throwing the baby out with the bath water and may not even be effective judging by some ongoing drama that I am not involved in. I could fully accept a motion which was to me likely to be effective and is aimed at addressing the actual violations. A topic ban seems like taking an anthill out with a shotgun. No disrespect intended, I hope you have a good day.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggested proposal should have included the addition of a voluntary topic ban turned into an enforced one if I violate it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry to see the user continuing in behavior that required a block, but I'm glad to see the civility policy enforced.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Rlevse, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here Talk:Catholic_Church#Vote_regarding_scholarly_POV.27s_on_Church_origins Thanks! NancyHeise talk 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not Catholic so I have no idea how valid those views are. Any view put forth would need reliable sources. This does not mean that we put up every possible theory. I could make some generic comment about this but I do not feel qualified to comment on the validity of various theories of Catholicism's origins. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

help with wikistalking on Commons

I know this is kind of outside your purview, but you are more familiar with Commons and with admin stuff than I am. Please take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jarekt . User:Jarekt is wikistalking me, and undid the last 17 of my edits, most of which are Scouting and unrelated to this user. This is retaliatory on this user's part, for a disagreement on whether naming is descriptive enough. I really want to take it to the admins there, but I don't know what the process is. Please suggest what I can do. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Post on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard on Commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a vandalism (not "only" but "often") account?

I see you've given Alex Ji LT-21 a 24-hour block for edit-warring. Several of this user's edits had to be undone because they were reverts to vandalism versions (he'd reverted the anti-vandalism reverts). These aren't the only sorts of reverts he's ever done — some of them were "righteous reverts" — but enough were to leave me wondering about the purpose of the account. I'm not an admin. Would you please look at that user's contrib history and see what you think? Thanks! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was 12 hours. If he starts again I'll indef him. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, he had to be reverted today for the same reason. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Final warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Simón Díaz

You reverted more than just fact tags and I dislike how you call it "bombing". Would you probably reprehend me if I accused the author of that article of "advertisement bombing" or some other pejorative term.

For the sake of all wikifying, pov-cleaning, weasel-word-cleaning and general clean-up I've made to that article, I undid your reversion. If you're really uncomfortable with the fact tags, tell me and I'll remove them (of course, together with the unsourced claims) without reverting all other work that I have done to the article (unless, of course, you also object to something else in my work in that article).

And since we're at it, I wish you had so much interest in talking to me, both in my talk page as in our e-mail exchanges, as you have in following my contributions. --Damiens.rf 12:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

That was a very pleasant surprise, the new messages bar usually causes cold sweats. Thanks, and happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser of 220.237.74.225‎

Hi, i am looking for someone to do a checkuser, but can only find a page with a list of names. Am i supposed to just ask directly? If so, it would be the least bureaucratic thing i have ever done here!

I strongly supect that IP User talk:220.237.74.225‎ is actually user:AKR619. The user is indef blocked for multiple reasons, and a previous checkuser showd him sock-puppeting as IP 210.49.251.226, before that was blocked for vandalism and socking. The new IP is alredy causing problems, disruptively editing the same disparate articles as AKR619. Eg WWE Hall of Fame and List of science fiction themes. He also refers to AKR619 in the third person. Is a checkuser needed before blocking? I also left notes with the last 2 blocking admins (User:Mark and User:Wizardman) and put a template on the IP talk page. Thanks for any attention you can give this - preemting the stress of giving him multiple warning until finally blocked again would make thinks much less stressful.YobMod 11:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(I decided not to fix my terrible grammar in the above. Anyone who thinks my article writing is sloppy can therefore see how bad it would be if i didn't preview multiple times!)

File a request at WP:SPI. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's an acronym i would never have guessed! I'll wait and see if there is more activity before filing. Thanks for the direction.YobMod 12:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXV

Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies

Please be aware of my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies. I would be greatly interested in any response that you have to offer (and please do not feel compelled to reply with haste). Yours, AGK 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for a decision - Socionics arbitration between rmcnew and tcaudillig

Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.

And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to talk to the drafting arb more so than me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties. Rmcnew, as Rlevse says, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. Rlevse, this talk page section was posted in the wrong place on the page, if you want to move it down. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Moved. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Rating of Gulf Stream Council article

I am the creator of the Gulf Stream Council article. I was wondering if you would leave some comments on why you rated the Gulf Stream Council article as a "Start-Class". Also if you can, I would like it if you gave me suggestions for making the article better.

Thank You,

--12george1 (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Assessment. For one thing it has very little prose, paragraphs are stubby, and the format of the refs is not acceptable. See Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) and you'll see one of our Scouting featured articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists Pictures Corporation

I found this whole saga perplexing and even amusing. I do have one loose end I'd like to clear up. Among the whole nest of fake "Allied Artists" articles, I thought Allied Artists Pictures Corporation was legit, although it seemed odd that it wasn't merged with Monogram Pictures.

Anyway, I had done some work on Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, adding a few refs, etc. Is there any way I can reclaim that so I can add it to the Monogram article? Rees11 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin can retrieve the deleted info for you. I have to do to work now so if someone else doesn't do it, post a reminder her in about 9-10 hours and tell me exactly what you're looking for. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No rush. I mostly just want the two book citations, everything between the curly braces in the "cite book" templates. Thanks! Rees11 (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
On your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And thanks for cleaning up this mess. Rees11 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uppsala_Mafia recreated

Icouce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recreated the page, leaving "ChinaUpdater" in an edit summary on the talk page. Just thought you should know about the recreation. I've already tagged the article for CSD. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 04:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I left this on the talk page ":I find it quite interesting that you, who claims not to be ChinaUpdater, can recreate this just as he had written it when you as a non admin don't have access to the deleted edits. How do you explain that?" He does have a point about the sources and info, but I REALLY want to know how he knew how to create it as ChinaUpdater had created it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 1. Where I got the data -
  • 1a. I saved the FederalLibrarian Wiki source code on the edits.
  • 1b. Many editors such as myself are saving source code of edits to pages on Wikipedia, in anticipation of mass deletion attempts by certain editors and admins.
  • 1c. Wikipedia stores edits in a publicly available place if you know where to look, even after deletion, and even if they are not saved.
  • 2. I and others are not MP or SP -
  • 2a. I am legitimately editing on Wikipedia as a private citizen and systems expert, not in the capacity of a government employee or otherwise, and during my own private time.
  • 2b. I am completely independent of ChinaUpdater and FederalLibrarian, with my own agenda to get the whole uncensored truth out there, and expose abuses on Wikipedia.
  • 2c. One Federal Library (or other publicly available internet network) has a single computer and internet address.
  • 2c (i) This does not mean that editors using it sequentially are the same person, nor that they are Mtpppts or Sckpppts of any single editor.
  • 2c (ii) I always assume editor and admin good faith… at first.
  • 2c (iii) Editors and Admins might have, understandably, erroneously argued WPSP and WPMP, because of a cursory investigation, and erroneously indefd multiple editors in the past on multiple occasions, then blocked the talk pages, so no one could respond, unless editors were in personal communication.
  • 2c (iv) I assume editors and admins are acting in good faith, but given the clear bad faith repeatedly demonstrated by [admin] and [85 FTC] and [85 disambig], and the context of editing articles about internationally reported organized crime rings using computers to act, this stretches an assumption of good faith to its limit.
  • 2d. Of course, with even their talk pages shut down, ChinaUpdater and others can not argue their own cases, and I do not know who all has been shut down.
  • 3. Wiki Abuse by Editors and Admins -
* 3a. It is clear to many, from “dis” - ambiguations like this [85 ] and this [gentleman], what is going on.
* 3b. It is clear what is really going on from edits such as this delink, in which a single letter was deleted from “Kimball”, to make “Kimbal”, or to break a valid link. [KDR name delinked].
  • 3b. Certain administrators and editors who are familiar with NRS, appear are using Wikipedia to advertise anyway, then cover up their activities when exposure is around the corner, like this [ admin deletion ], and this [ gentleman deletion], all out in very public view.
  • 4. I am an eye witness to ChinaUpdater’s email, computer, and two cell phones being hacked, and the hard drive wiped.
  • 4a. ChinaUpdater’s email was hacked during transmission of information on Wiki abuses and the Uppsala Mafia to senior investigators located at the US Office of the Secret Service, computer crimes and commercial crimes division.
  • 4b. Immediately following the transmission, ChinaUpdater’s computer hard drive was blanked.
  • 4c. In anticipation of further mass deletions, many persons, such as myself, saved the Wiki source code of the edits on Uppsala Mafia, following FederalLibrarian’s edits, anticipated because of the above, and other reasons I will not disclose.
  • 4d. My own email account was hacked in a manner identical to ChinaUpdaters. I have been contacted by the highest level of local government investigations regarding the ChinaUpdater transmission on Uppsala Mafia which followed the email hacking, and was immediately followed by ChinaUpdater’s computer hard drive data being lost.

here [9].

5a. One would certainly expect that when the Chairman of a Los Angeles para-“police commission” and “Chairman of the Board of Directors” of a para-“transit authority”, issuing “HOMELAND SECURITY” badges to cross Sheriff lines, in an international crime investigation, that other agencies are likely investigating to.
  • 5 b. One would expect investigations when reliably sourced information on convicted felons and international crime rings is deleted, such deletions would be looked at with scrutiny from without.
  • 5 c. Email correspondence between Wiki Editors requires court authority to monitor, (one would expect likely obtained, given the historic nature of the felony convictions, and overt “fraud by deletion” activities on Wikipedia that parallel the “schemes and practices” referred to in the now “deleted” pages on KDR.)
  • 6. Because of the “disambiguation” which is really an “amiguation”, and other deletions of reliably sourced information, and acrtivies spilling out of virtual space, MANY people are now monitoring certain Wikipedia edits, and the editors and administrators who make them, the pages on the associations, and saving the source code information on pages with information that is anticipated to be deleted by possibly colluding administrators and editors.
  • 7. For more, see “FTC Chat” here[ ] and here[ ], a clear NN and Advert and NRS situation, and also BurgerKingFinatic and his previous incarnation’s edits, and the overt advertisement by an associated Wikipedia administrator here [ ] .
  • 8 I will fill out the links above, after returning from the federal library of conviction records in another city and county, and getting certain sentencing and probation reports, this morning. Please do not blank the page until I can fully respond with more information.Writer's Cramp (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than perpetuating double posting and split threads, for those watching, this will be centered at Talk:Uppsala_Mafia. Comment there if you are interested. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you'll be a fine admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

restorative rights at Commons?

There are some images which have been removed from Commons but which we really can use at en:Wikipedia, properly tagged so they don't get deleted here-I will fix them and watch them. Do you have restorative rights or whatever they are called at Commons so we can get them at the en:Wikipedia? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin there but this begs the question, why were they deleted in the first place? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
They were deleted because whoever uploaded them put them on Commons instead of here. Commons is for free stuff, here we can do fair use stuff, again properly tagged. They weren't mine to begin with, I only upload at Commons things like the WOSM and WAGGGS maps... Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
These are the ones-you decide:
Downloaded and emailed to you. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BOO to you too, good pic. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My day

This was a lovely surprise. Thank you. --John (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher

{{editprotected}} Hey there again. As far as we're concerned, this user is more or less community-banned. Could you please copy-paste the following code onto his userpage and redirect his talk page? 

{{banned}}
;AN/I threads related to this user
*[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarherochristopher]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher.2C again]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Block needed: compromised.2Fshared account]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Guitarherochristopher]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#User talk:Guitarherochristopher]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Guitarherochristopher Yet again.]]

I've already added him to the WP:BANNED list. It would be appreciated. -- ISLANDERS27 07:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there been a formal ban discussion or is that just something you decided? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all, user page is semi-protected only.  Ilyushka88  talk  13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
He could be considered to be community banned per WP:BAN#Community_ban: "If a user has been indefinitely blocked and through community discussion it is determined that no administrator is willing to lift or reduce the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been community banned." However, in this case, it might be better to let sleeping dogs lie. If the account isn't editing and causing trouble, then the tag on his userpage matters little. AGK 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
As to community ban, true. As to the tag, I have to disagree. If a user is banned there's little reason not to tag the page. If the ban-ee is embarrassed by that, they should have thought of that before they misbehaved so bad as to get banned. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite correct; if a user has been community banned, then their userpage ought to be tagged. But my point was that if it is unclear whether the user has been community banned, then not tagging the page should not be a big deal (as practically, there is little difference between an indefinitely blocked and a banned account's ability to edit). AGK 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Fish4Trees

Hi Rlevse.

In this edit, Chzz states, "I notified ArbCom of this account [Fish4Trees], via email." Having just looked through all of your contributions over the past day surrounding Chzz and this incident, I see no mention of this notification from you anywhere.

Was the Arbitration Committee notified of such a testing account? (The natural questions following this one, if the answer turns out to be "yes" would be: when? why was the account blocked? why was no mention of this notification made on-wiki?)

I'm very much hoping that we are not seeing a repeat of the Majorly / Matthew incident. I have this page watchlisted; please feel free to reply here. Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi MZM. What about the Majorly/Matthew incident exactly are you referring to? Yes he told arbcom of both the MaxiPod and Fish4Trees accounts. That was on 21 Oct, the day Fish4Trees started editing. I blocked it because I felt that best pending the rest of this matter being grsorted out, but YMMV. Why did I not confirm he notified arbcom--I simply forgot with all that was going on last night. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned there might be parallels to Majorly's RFA 3, in which he was (wrongly) accused of being Matthew, ruining the entire discussion. If ArbCom was properly notified about the testing account(s), I find that to be a particular relevant detail and I'm failing to see how they could be viewed as abusive multiple accounts (ref). I haven't had a chance to read today's revelations regarding this incident, but from what is emerging, it appears that some things were done in haste that may need to be re-evaluated. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
龗 was not reported to arbcom nor disclosed in question 5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Check the section header again, please. I'm only talking about "Fish4Trees" (and possibly "MaxiPod", though I can't find such a user on en.wiki). If the Arbitration Committee was notified of the Fish4Trees account, I find it difficult to believe that it was being used abusively. The overlap between "Chzz" and "Fish4Trees" appears to be quite minimal (the "Fish4Trees" account only has a handful of edits total) (ref). If Chzz abusively socked with certain accounts, that's a separate issue. If this was just a legitimate testing account used for the purposes of an experiment, it should not be blocked and painted with the same brush as other accounts. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
He told me he doesn't care about either test account so it is a moot point. He's taking a breather about to figure a way forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse, one more thing on this case if you don't mind. Is this an appropriate outcome of your investigation? Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that had been made. Given the very unique circumstances of this case, I've removed the sock tag and altered the stmt on his talk page. Note those posts were not made by me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that is best, and let me echo the thanks for the effort and fairness you've put into this. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chzz/Dragon

Hi Rlevse,

Just a note of thanks for handling a delicate situation with Chzz as well as possible. It's always tough to see a good contributor fall apart like that, and I think your cautious and deliberate investigation will go a long way toward giving Chzz the opportunity to return and build on the positive elements of his history here. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes, it was delicate and tough. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Rlevse! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 2, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expert 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
Why many thanks, very kind of you! — Rlevse • Talk • 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Dont mention it, you deserve it. Happy Rlevse Day!--Coldplay Expert 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher

Since there was no ban discussion, and there was no consensus for a ban, can you please remove that ban template?— Dædαlus Contribs 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Start a conversation with Islanders27 to just what this is all about. If someone else wants to remove it I don't care but I'm leaving as is. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dog speaks

Hi R! Is it okay to talk to yourself with your legit alt account? Dog The Teddy Bear (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure is, since it's a legit and openly posted legit alt account. Now I'll go make the first post on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
lol. J.delanoygabsadds 03:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

WikiCup Newsletter XXXVI

WikiCup Awards

The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
This WikiCup Award is presented to Rlevse for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.

Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already! iMatthew talk at 23:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review National Youth Leadership Training

Having migrated considerable content on the history of BSA Junior Leadership Training from White Stag Leadership Development Program to National Youth Leadership Training, I think the latter is defintely no longer a start class article, and may be ready for GA review. I'd appreciate any input you might have. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GHC Revisited

Daedalus and I have been talking about that user, so do you mind adding him to Category:Blocked historical users? -- ISLANDERS27 07:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Just noticed this. I've been a bit busy with class/work atm. Aaron Schulz 13:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Besa at DYK

We need a little more information on besa: see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Besa_(Albanian_culture). Ucucha 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

votes

Hi, I think you accidentally voted twice here. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

My Appeal - from HW007

Is this the form that I am supposed to be filling out, as per your recommendation? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Requests_for_enforcement If that's not the one, can please tell me which one I should fill out? Thank you. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You could use that and just state that you're filing appeal, not requesting enforcement. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding Scout patch images to article

I'd like to add some images to an article I'm readying for publication about Pico Blanco Scout Reservation. I'm unsure whether a Council's camp patch is copyright protected or eligible for use on WP under a non-free media rationale. There are two images I'm considering adding: the camp patch and the White Stag 50th Anniversary Patch. What license is appropriate? Would appreciate any guidance you can offer. Thanks. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the camp logo; see File:Horseshoe Scout Reservation logo.png for an example. The White Stag emblem needs content in the article. You can't use non-free images in userspace, so don't upload them until the article goes live. However, articles should start from the top down— we really need an article on Monterey Bay Area Council before we need an article on the camp.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Good advice from Gadget, thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, I don't have enough info for an article on MBAC, though portions of the Pico Blanco article could certainly be migrated there when one is written. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK Ban

I really think 77 minutes is too short to decide that support for a ban is unanimous.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And as you and I both supported, shouldn't someone else close the discussion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Unanimous support like that is pretty strong case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits block

As per Fozzie's suggestion, maybe you should let it sit for a day or so before closing? Admittedly, I really doubt it'll go any other way, but like he said "Let's do this by the book, and not give any loopholes for folks to claim a rush to judgment or settling of scores..." HalfShadow 02:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why waste more time than he's already wasted for so many users? Would you like to see the harassing emails he sent me before I closed it? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It can't hurt to leave it a least another day, I think. He's blocked for 48 hours as it is, so it's not like he'll be an issue before then. HalfShadow 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why waste more time? He's done that for years. Let's work on content rather than wasting time with counter productive users (note I didn't say editors)? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Knock yourself out, if you want to reclose it, go ahead. I'm just trying to make sure all the ducks are in a row. Be fair; I'm not the only one who thought you closed it a bit prematurely. HalfShadow 02:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Just my 2 pfennigs on this.. I don't expect any amount of discussion will change the base fact. Alison's defense of VK is the closest any non-partisan is going to give him. I'm just.. I've seen enough times when people in this area somehow wriggled through the slightest hole to come back. It's more about preemptively making sure that the next time this is brought up (and there ALWAYS is a next time), we can point to the discussion and say "Look.. we gave him a completely fair shake, there can be no charge that we were a mob or whatever. We made the decision in a fair, reasoned manner. What else can you say"? That's all. I'm not formally (or even informally) opposing the action you took, or the action HalfShadow took.. it's just my thoughts on the matter. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rlevse. I just got an email from VK here, requesting unprot of his talk page, "to be able to defend myself". Any thoughts? I'm not going to undo your admin action, but he's calmed down and just wants to talk through this - Alison ❤ 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better if you just passed on messages. After his "translation" of Domer's comment, I'm really not sure giving him any access would be a good idea at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Allie, you know I think the world of you, but.. considering he's sent angry emails to at least three administrators tonight, are you SURE that he's not editing under the influence? It wouldn't be the first time that he did so.. wouldn't it be best to at least give him 12-24 hours to cool off? I can't think of any way he can get back into anyone's good graces, but even that infinitesimal chance would be blown away if we unprotect his talk page and he blows up again... SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We all think the world of Allie, but VK is sending nasty emails, including to me even before I tried to close it, which is why I prot'd his page. He really needs to cool off. Yea, we can let the ANI run more but I agree his page should be prot'd for a bit longer. 12-24 hours is okay with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think, extra time or not, he's pretty much done here. The sheer number of chances he's had is ridiculous; I just thought we should leave the topic open longer to make this point as obvious as possible to him. I'm sorry; I didn't mean this to turn into a fight. HalfShadow 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. But thanks. FYI, I don't consider this a fight, just a minor disagreement...what disagreement ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Two things...1) FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been this, and 2) I have to sign off for tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
your behaviour is unacceptable. You are an arb, you should know better than to try and close a discussion before half the world has a chance to see it. Especially, when the editor concerned is European. When you behave like this, one cannot help but suspect your motives. Perhaps Europe should start reversing America's actions while they are asleep, you want to divide Wikipedia racially? you are going the correct way about it.  Giano  11:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know any of the backstory of this, but for GiacomoReturned to accuse Rlevse of racism is ignorant on so many levels. Rlevse is far from racist, having known and worked with him here for over four years. Further, Americans and Europeans are not racially distinct, the bulk of Americans of all races have some European heritage. Finally, it sounds like the user in question has had far too many chances as it is. I wish I could do something stronger in Rlevse's defense, but that may be feeding the troll above. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That is typical of the mentality of when all else fails, say the messenger is a Troll! Well done - banning a editor while all his compatriots are asleep is at best thoughtless at worst - well work it out for yourself.  Giano  12:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to throw my hat in with Giano here. Trying to open and close a discusion for a ban in an hour when the person in question is very likely to be asleep is simply not on. As for the unanimity of the vote frankly it just looks there may have been at least some degree of canvassing going on. It seems odd to me that so many people would vote so quickly and all be of a like mind... but yet when the discusion is reopened and people find the discussion in their own time the voting is far from unanimous. --LiamE (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, he wasn't asleep, he was awake and editing. When his talkpage got blocked, he started sending emails instead -- I got one of them shortly after supporting the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Sarek, but we aware already that he was banned from even his talk page to stop him defending himself, thus was the solitary voice of dissent against the multitude silenced.  Giano  13:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:

"To RLevse: The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.

Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.

You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.! From Vintagekits

Posted here by  Giano  12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He was sending emails before his page was prot'd. Anyone calling me racist is way out of line and YOU should be ashamed. I'm part Irish, part English, mostly mutt, and my wife is Thai. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No one has called you a racist and no is interested in your ethnic origins or those of your wife. I am judging you by your actions, as will others. Perhaps you should be in a less of a hurry in future and realise there is a quite a large chunk of world outside whatever part of America it is you inhabit - a large chunk which tells the time on a different clock - one without Micky Mouse hands. You are the one who added "This user is a citizen of the United States of America" no one else, perhaps you should set an example.  Giano  16:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes you did..."you want to divide Wikipedia racially". I have no such intent. My intent is to deal with a long term disruptive editor. Meanwhile, feel free to continue accusing me of all sorts of silly things, fine example you're setting. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I do hope you are able to judge speech in Arbcom evidence more wisely - and not distort things out of context. Anyway, Whether you wanted to or not, that appears to be a risk you were prepared to take with your ill-advised actions. I would try and redreess the mess you have cause rather than keep carping at me, if I were you.  Giano  16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Military brat

I have nominated Military brat, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military brat (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WOTD

Congratulations, Rlevse! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 13th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

December21st2012Freak 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, truly. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha

Of course the user is long gone, but... I saw you blocked him in May of 2009 for edit warring. May I please ask you, if you ever blocked the other person as well? I mean there should be at least two persons to make edit warring possible. I know user:Nableezy was a part of it, and he never got blocked for edit warring on May 21, 2009. I do not say Malcolm was all right, but I can understand how he felt. I believe admins should be more fair while doing one side blockings for edit warring that requires at least two persons to have a war. I believe,if no other person was blocked in May of 2009 it might be a good idea to say to Malcolm that you are sorry. It is never too late. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do recall this and I re looked at it. Malcolm edit warred with more than one person, which was the difference. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
On May 21 from 16:09 to 18:11 user:Nableezy made 3 reverts to :Judaization of Jerusalem, and reverted two users Malcolm Schosha and Chesdovi. For the same day Malcolm Schosha made only two reverts. user:Nableezy should have been blocked, but he/she was not. It looks to me that whoever screams more, as user:Nableezy usually does gets away way too easy. I still believe it will be a good idea to say to Malcolm that you are sorry because one sided block was not just. Malcolm is far from being an angel, but IMO he does deserve that "sorry" at least for getting blocked without user:Nableezy. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
And why are you bringing this up instead of him and why after all this time? And go back to May 20. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I only learned about his existence few days ago. I've never had any contact with him, at least I do not recall any, but I became interested why he's banned on English Wikipedia. So, I read his talk page and... here I am. So now you know why me and why now. As I said it is never too late to say "sorry", if it will make somebody feel just a litlle bit better. He said many angry words to the people, who did not deserve them, and yet I am not sure about the block you posted on him. If I were you, I would have emailed to him, and say I was sorry, and even put this sorry on his talk page. Nothing will change, he will not come back, but IMO your "sorry" will do good to you even more than it will do to him. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not the one that banned him, it's odd you stumble upon a 8 month old 55 hour block and seek this for a 3rd person, and I'm standing by the block. Thank you for trying to cleanse my soul but I'm already damned to hell. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing odd in me trying to do it. As I said I learned about him just a few days ago from his contributions on Commons that I did not really like BTW, yet he seemed as an interesting person, so I checked him out on English Wikipedia. The block you posted on him was the beginning of his ban... Who's talking about the hell :) I meant that IMO your sorry will make you feel better right now while you still around :) Anyway I said what I believe I should have said, and I am not going to take your time any longer. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Besa (Albanian culture)

Updated DYK query On November 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Besa (Albanian culture), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A-class contribs

Hello, Rlevse-

As you have significantly contributed to one or more A-class articles on Wikipedia, I thought you'd be interested to know that I've created {{User A-class-w}}. It differs from {{User A-class}}, in that the new template includes a parameter for multiple articles and its wording is similar to {{User Featured articles}} and {{User GAw}}. Enjoy!  JGHowes  talk 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neat work, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Scouting Portal DYK

Directions about adding relevant DYK articles to the Scouting Portal were a little unclear (referring to the "box" and not a queue), and I added a DYK for Pico Blanco Scout Reservation directly to the portal DYK box. I didn't realize there was a queue of sorts until afterward. Feel free to move it to the queue if appropriate. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You add a DYK candidate by clicking on the "candidates" link. I've moved yours there for next month. 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you around? Need a quick favor

Just answer if you're here ;) ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 23:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

HUGS back. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail... -MBK004 05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick question

Sorry to bother you, but User:Jessica Liao is claiming that ArbCom told her that if she did not sockpuppet and did good work on another Wiki for three months, she would be unblocked. From what I read in a previous statement, she was told that she would be able to appeal the block in another year. Would you mind clarifying that to her, or me, depending on who is correct? Thanks. Sodam Yat (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. She was told in May 2009 she could ask again for her ban to be reviewed after either (i) three months good behaviour editing on another wiki or (ii) six months total absence. If she wants this looked at, she needs to bring it up herself with ArbCom by email.  Roger Davies talk 12:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku again

Just as a heads-up, you might be interested in this renewed block/ban issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the notice. Commented there. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Procedure

I'm a little confused about sockpuppetry - the page, I was directed to was 'kept for historical reasons' and others seem a little complex, am I missing a step?, what procedure should be followed if one has suspicions of sockpuppetry ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPI — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Vilnius Castle Complex

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Vilnius Castle Complex/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad

I don't know how that happened. Must have accidentally clicked the rollback link while trying to open a different one. Sorry. I reverted myself of course.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Happy me day, eh! Thank you so much. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto that. :-) Always nice to feel appreciated... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing ban

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Warnings. If you remove Shell's ban, could you also remove my "mild warning" for responding to her comment? Thank you. I very much regret that Manning has left. Jehochman Talk 16:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. If there is some misunderstanding that has caused Manning to depart, could we please, please do something to remedy that? This is just a website. We need to be nicer to each other and avoid losing valuable volunteers over wikipolitical squabbles. Jehochman Talk 22:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of care and justice

You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts

  • the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.[10]
  • administrators were to watch for further instances.
  • harassment/ false accusations continued.
  • harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.[11][12]
  • harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals.[13] The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
  • In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.
  • even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
  • an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
  • this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
  • administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
  • they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
  • The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
  • Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
  • a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.


Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?


Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks and bans imposed by arbcom can only be appealed to arbcom. Email arbcom, attn WP:BASC, with your concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Rlevse,
Thank you for your suggestion.
The topic ban breaks with several wildly held principles of communal justice.
  • 1) that no one is above the law. If an administrator files a topic ban proposal, then they are accountable for any claims that they make within that proposal. The accused has a right to hear from those making accusations. They did not provide specific evidence, communicate directly in any fashion with the accused, or explain their reasoning when questioned.
  • 2) that those in charge of this sanction process are accountable that no ongoing harassment/abuse take place during the procedure which they have implemented. This would hold especially true if serious past abuse has been previously demonstrated.
  • 3) that those who initiate a procedure not also vote on that procedure.
  • 4) that the greater the sanction, the higher the burden of proof required. As mentioned previously, only one totally bogus diff was offered by an uninvolved administrator as specific evidence.
Wikipedia has set up topic bans in a very transparent manner. Any wikipedian can access such a sanction process. This topic ban amendment procedure was accessible to all. Yet the really important bits like evidence and vetted justification, were not at all visible to the community. Your suggestion of appealing to the arbcom mailing list will not solve these major problems. That process would also be opaque. The only solution for wikipedia is get rid of the topic ban until such a time when the participants have been given the a bare minimum amount of respect during the process, the case has actually been made, and then it has been voted upon. Consensus does not excuse indifference or mistreatment of any contributor.--scuro (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

ArbCom motion

[14] Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

 December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promate WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 

December21st2012Freak  Happy Thanksgiving! 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Happy PC78's Day!

Wow, I dunno what to say! Cheers, it's always nice to be appreciated. :) PC78 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Coffee break!

Since Fedex won't deliver...

I know how you've been craving a taste of the Great White North, but for some reason Fedex, UPS and Canada Post have decided that Americans should not know of this special pleasure. And people think Wikipedia is bureaucratic! Coffee and doughnuts are on me when you're in the neighbourhood. Risker (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Poutine123.jpg
The savory option

I'd offer the traditional poutine should your trip North bring you to the east side.  :-) — Coren (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you both! Now send me a plane ticket so I can get the real thing! — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
We have Tim Hortons here in New England, too. Jehochman Talk 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Does not count if it's not in Canada. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, there are more pictures of food on this talk page..... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question Regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

I found an ArbCom request here for a policy consensus and I am unable to find one. May I trouble you to tell me where it is?<br. />--NBahn (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the community ever did that. Arbcom can only recommend, not force, the community carry out such a task. Ask User:Roger Davies, he may know of one. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy of a quick reply.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions, a proposal that did not win consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

WikiProject Vancouver
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdwtalk 06:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Koshare Indian Dancers

What hook would you use? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, hope I did it right, thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am told by the DYK people that "There are bare URL references that need to be expanded into full citations." I have no idea what that means, help? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:WP Scouting Elections

I am only adding User:Gadget850. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ah, okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Confused, but I think appreciative

Hello there. I'm not sure exactly what this is about, but it seems positive to say the least. It looks like I should be grateful. many thanks! ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Vile slurs against you

Hello. In case if you have not seen this unrepentant incivility directed at you, I thought you should be aware. Despite multiple warnings, he is just going on and on. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no need to give him a shovel, he's digging his own hole quite well. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It pretty much looks that way. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Bali's post block behavior is atrocious, no doubt, but try to see things from his side. You're warning wasn't appropriate, though it was well intentioned. He and Jack were joking around, you warned him while not grasping the nature of their discussion, he reacted very negatively, and one of your close associates comes and blocks him. It's not a great situation, and poking him with a civility reminder certainly isn't going to calm him down. AniMate 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
And I'm just supposed to sit here and take his continual slurs and personal attacks, right — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
When someone is acting like a spoiled child, I find ignoring them to be the best action. His post block behavior hasn't earned my sympathy, but honestly his behavior and statements say more about him than they do about you. Ignore him. AniMate 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree on that. I've said what I have to say. Bali is digging his own hole on his own. Given his stated intent to continue this way and his atrocious behavior post block, I'm surprised his block hasn't been extended. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You know editors are given rather wide latitude to decry the injustice of their blocks and the evil intentions of the blocking admin on their talk pages during blocks. If he starts a campaign of harassment or slurs against you or anyone else, I'll happily support another block. AniMate 03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
There is latitude and there is ridiculous. This is ridiculous.10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is ridiculous. His block has expired, and if he resumes attacking he'll get blocked for longer that 48 hours. I'll be around on and off today, and will keep an eye on his contributions. AniMate 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. He should have been extended rather than being indulged. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't feel comfortable extending the block. I've had dealings with Bali ultimate in the past, not all of them pleasant. I don't think I was the admin to extend his block. I can see you're upset, and rightfully so. Why didn't you bring this up at an appropriate forum before the block expired? I'm only one administrator, and I'm not the administrator in charge of all Bali ultimate related blocks and unblocks. I get the feeling that somehow you blame me for all of this, when all I did was try to calm things down. AniMate 19:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You jumped into on your own and I see you as defending his right to continue to and even worsen the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Giving you jumped in on your own, you were the logical one to deal with. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) I suppose I should have made it clear I wasn't wearing my administrator's cap when I commented here, and I'm starting to get the feeling that this is conversation is about as pointless as talking to Bali ultimate. He's determined to assign the worst possible motives to you and those who dealt with his block, and he's doing so in an unbelievable uncivil way. You seem as intent to assign terrible motives to my involvement here, but at least you're being civil about it. I guess I shouldn't have said anything, and am sorry that I did. I stuck my nose into something I wasn't involved in, and got burnt. Lesson learned. Now, I've found a slew of stubs of historic buildings in upstate New York that need expanding and sourcing. I'm really enjoying working on them, and at this point think article building is a better use of my time. In case I haven't made it clear, I am sorry. AniMate 22:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been talking to him. He's gone for now. I in no way endorse his going off on Rlevse and the clerks, but this is an example of where a little thing spiraled out of control when it didn't have to. I know more about what's set him off and it amounts to the same toxic environment concern that others share. He really is the sort of person we want editing this project. We need to address his overall concerns for the good of the project; nothing specific to this incident; rather, the environment that leads to such events. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He created his own toxic environment. Even you don't endorse the way he went off on us. If he's going to go off like that, no we don't want him, he only makes the environment worse. The way we fix the toxic environment is by dealing the disruptors, trolls, incivil, and abusive editors firmly and quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ya, he did and it was pointy and rude as hell. I told him he was lucky that the block wasn't extended and the talk page protected. I've had a lot of talk with him. He cares, a lot, about the core project goals; much that you would approve of. He's frustrated by all sort of disruption such as you cite *not* being dealt with. I want him to come back but without the lip. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
A quick note. If there is anything I hate on Wikipedia, it's drama. I try to avoid it like the plague and when I involve myself in it, it's usually to try to lessen it. I tried to do that here, and it didn't work. I got involved because I saw someone trying to inflame a volatile situation by posting here, and thought I could cool things off. A large part of my inaction was a belief that, as one of our arbitrators, you had likely developed a shield against this kind of obnoxious criticism. I should have lengthened the block, didn't, and I apologize. There's a lot of noise here from all of the drama and grudges, and I try to turn the volume down. Sometimes that isn't the right approach. This was one of those times, and I'm sorry. AniMate 06:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up too bad. Arbs do tend to have thicker than average skins but we also have to put up with above average BS. There is also a quickly growing desire in the community to stop indulging bad behavior and to be quicker and firmer in dealing with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently in bed with the flu, thankfully not H1N1 according to the doctor (it rocks having one for a next door neighbor). I just noticed your nice addition to my talk page. Thanks, it made me smile on what otherwise is going to be a relatively shitty day. AniMate 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Happy Singularity42's Day!

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at Singularity42's talk page.
Message added Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed addition at EEML PD

I've proposed an addition to the discussion/voting restriction in order to permit the use of GAC, FAC, and other such processes, as well as dispute resolution, where the editors is already directly involved. It seemed sensible. Check it out and let me know if you're OK with it. Vassyana (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Koshare Indian Dancers DYK

See my talk and the DYK page--it's been resolved now. Ucucha 13:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite the Contrary...

...and a very wrong definition of censorship. Censorship refers to the removal of controversial material (such as pornographic or morally offensive material). My removal of material is all based on wikipedia policy. A JROTC and their officers is not notable. A 4x100 meter relay team that wins state, is not notable. A Technology Academy is notable, calling it remarkable violates the POV requirements of this project. Calling Percy Harvin a star, also violates said POV requirements. A bomb threat might be notable, if it received significant media attention on a level passing basic local news. As is, you've twice now reinserted contentious material without any valid policy reason. How about trying to refute my specific policy based reasons, rather than just blindly defending your school. Removing content again, as I actually have a legitimate basis to object to the content. You appear to have no legitimate basis. 02:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.250.133 (talk)

OpenStreetMap mapping party

Since you have expressed interest in coming to the DC meetup on January 9, and (I think?) are coming from out of town, I wanted to let you know that the OpenStreetMap group in DC is organizing a mapping party event the next day on January 10. We will be mapping the National Mall and East/West Potomac Park areas (e.g. Jefferson Memorial). I'm not sure if you already have booked arrangements to come to DC? If not or your schedule is flexible and are interested, then I hope you can join us on Sunday too. --Aude (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I used to live up there and have seen most sights, plus I'm visiting people I know there on Sunday. But thanks for thinking of me. And yes, I have a hotel already. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Me Day

Thank you! -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My Day (2)

Hi Rlevse. Thank you for awarding my own day! Thanks so much. This thank you is long overdue but I've been so busy that I couldn't find time to log in. Thank you again I really appreciate it :)--Truco 503 17:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look and see if the copyright issue with White Stag Leadership Development Program has been resolved satisfactorily, or to the point that the copyvio block can be removed? Thanks! -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a processed and approved OTRS ticket. It doesn't get much better. I am an OTRS volunteer and I looked up the ticket. Shell had already processed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Semitransgenic sockpuppetry case

Hi, I saw your notes requesting contact, I was wondering what was going on as to me the user has clearly been using multiple accounts against policy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He needs to answer a private arbcom matter, which I referred to in my post. I'm giving him a few days to answer. If he doesn't I'll proceed without his response. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I would like to see some closure in the near future. Looks clear cut to me, the user Measles was editing daily until he realized the game was up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see why this can not be dealt with, santa claus is on his way and even he will not have a good excuse , I was wondering if there are any other socks related? Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There are very significant real life issues that need to be dealt with. If the shoe were on your foot instead, I'm sure you'd expect the same courtesy. You'll just have to trust me on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just doing a bit of cage rattling, of course I agree possible significant real life issues are worthy of care. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, what going on? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Check the user pages. Both accounts are indef'd and the SPI deleted. I can not go into the very private concerns as to why. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Right thanks I can see it now, I was wondering, would a checkuser expose any other accounts, and if so did it? Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No others. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Case closed.Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Whatever happened to Phaedriel?

Hi. I noticed that you siad that she hasnt edited in ages. Even though I never met her on this project I am left wondering...what happened to her? She seemed to be one of the most respected and well liked editors and all of the sudden, come Sep 28 2007 she's gone.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

She's one of the most beloved Wikipedians ever. ED put up a really disgusting page on her, things negatively affected her real life, then a bad real life thing happened to her. Out of respect for her privacy I can't go into it in more details. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I wont ask for any more details myself. She seemed like a great person to work with. Why to people have to be mean? It justs drived other editors away. Sigh oh well...Oh I hope you are able to tell me this. Who is ED? s/he doesnt seem like a good person.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I miss her; she made a difference. Very rarely in life, there is a person so warm-hearted, so good, that that person can offset the damage done by a hundred trouble-makers; she was one such. I've always hoped she'd return. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki would indeed be a nicer place if there weren't so many mean jerks out there. See their article, Encyclopedia Dramatica; ED is short for this totally disgusting site. Out of respect for Phae I won't link to their sickening page on her. I can tell you last I knew Phae was alive and okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Well at anyrate I hope that she has continued her work under another account. Too bad she left before I joined. I feel life I have missed a big part of things now. Its good to know that at least she is still alive. I was begining to think that she might have even died and no one knew!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

How to Approach Problem Editor?

I have come across an editor who may need some guidance from an Administrator etc. He/she does a good job of patrolling the poker/gambling articles for spam etc. but has (in my opinion) gotten carried away and is dominating and controlling articles in a way that is counterproductive. He/she reverts sourced text placed in the article by other editors on a regular basis without discussion.[15] [16] For example, he/she has made 12 reverts over the last 3 days. [17] He makes substantive changes to other editors contributions and places an "m" for minor edit in the edit summary box, seemingly to 'hide' what he is doing.[18] [19] [20]When approached on his User Discussion Page about these issues, he is defensive and deletes these discussions from his User Page after a few days to "clean-up obsolete" entries. [21][22] I think he/she is basically a good editor but just lacking guidance from an authority figure. Can you help him or me with this situation?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Report it to WP:ANI. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chin up, stiff upper lip

I know first hand how incredibly frustrating it is when the some of our most establish editors enforce a double standard and enable disruptive behavior. It really is disruptive to our project and drives off good editors. Please don't let it get you down, it sucks but there is not much to be done about it until one the day the community truly has its patience exhausted. I admit it does seem to be taking longer than it normally does. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Until more admins and arbcom grow bigger balls nothing will happen. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of admins have had the "balls" to hold Giano to the expectations of the community and the policies the community has made. The problem is with those admins who actively enable the poor behavior by reversing any block regardless of the circumstances. Our blocking policy is clear that unblocks should not be done without consent of the blocking admin or consensus from the community. Frankly I would like to see our administrative policies more rigidly enforced, people tend to ignore them when the know they are right(tm). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly the few who have the balls are undone by those without them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Higordouglas → Higor Douglas

Higordouglas → Higor Douglas

1) you've already created the new account, 2) your old one only has 6 edits, so just start using the new account. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Sorry to see this

I've always thought you one of the most reasonable (and kind) people around here, with your tools or not. I hope that whatever caused this (I suspect I do know) will go away and you will return. Best, ceranthor 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You will be missed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a vague suspicion I might know what caused this as well. If I'm right, I very sincerely hope that, come a few weeks or maybe longer, when certain things blow over, you will return. Best of luck in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and your proposal

[23]

Care to restore? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable

Do you really think this is acceptable behavior for anyone? I think not. I would really expect better from you. Tex (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you warned Giano for all his antics, uh no, because Special Giano Rules are still in effect. He has repeatedly insulted people and even made false statements. Where were you then? — Dog The Teddy Bear • Bully! • 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on record as sharing the concern of many editors about Giano's conduct. Still, Tex is correct insofar as it is entirely inappropriate to react to disruption in kind, especially if one is an arbitrator. This will accomplish nothing and only inflame tempers further. Best regards,  Sandstein  21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh so we have to be saints while Giano can be like he his with nothing ever happening to him because every time sometimes tries, some wimp admin comes along and undoes it. Gee, I think that's called a DOUBLE STANDARD, correction - TRIPLE STANDARD because most editors wouldn't get away with his conduct--which only make him worse. Wiki is doomed to failure because it doesn't have the balls to fix problems like this. — Dog The Teddy Bear • Bully! • 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
That's quite true, and I've experienced it myself (so I understand your frustration), but I don't think that Wikipedia is doomed to failure just because of the poor manners of one editor. While I do not know what ought to be done, I am reasonably certain that it does not include taking the troll bait and responding in kind.  Sandstein  22:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is not doomed because of one person's behavior, it is doomed because the community can't or won't deal effectively with that behavior; it's a symptom of many things, such as the overall Vested Contributor and ethnic warrior problems. Firm, swift action of a permanent nature will work in these cases and since there are so many wimp admins out there, it'll probably have to come from arbcom, but seeing the current voting at The Annual Giano RFAR that is ongoing, arbcom is too afraid of him too. — Dog The Teddy Bear • Bully! • 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good you've done

User:Rlevse has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Rlevse's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
and for everything you have done to make the project a better place for its editors and a better source of information for its readers. Enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Rlevse!

Peace,
John Carter (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Seconded. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
He already has one for his own system! heh iMatthew talk at 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Take care and may you find the calm to recharge. --Erp (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I have contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject community rehabilitation about keeping the Wikipedian of the Day going in your absence. I sincerely hope that we have enough people and interest to do so. I will at least do what I can to ensure that they be awarded when I can. I very much look forward to seeing your returned involvement when you see fit. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Joopercoopers

I felt forced to report some silliness to ANI. It's vaguely related to you. [24] Hans Adler 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved. Hans Adler 14:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas!


December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  350° 57' 44" NET   23:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.


In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.


Best, Risker (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you

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

Talkback

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hopefully this has concluded amicably, the ball is in his court... -MBK004 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedians

Hey Rlevse. I'm sorry if I'm doing this incorrectly, but how do you go about nominating a Wikipedian for an Awesome Wikipedian day? I'd like to nominate Cirt (talk · contribs) and SuperFlash101 (talk · contribs), and can give you my reasons if need be, but if there's a proper nomination process, let me know and I'll follow it. Thanks, and keep up the awesome work! — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You let me know by email or talk page, so you've already done it. It's that simple. I'll add them to my list of future recipients. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

User:magicjava

Re: User:Magicjava - I recommend unblocking. Yes, it's extremely unusual for an editor to come to a DRV for their first edit - but this was a highly atypical DRV in terms of its public visibility. There's every reason to think that magicjava is the owner of this blog,[25] which goes back to at least August and which was discussing the DRV [26] several days before that account was created. And now has something else to discuss(!) [27] (further linking this account with that blog). Rd232 talk 17:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The emails he linked to tied in lots of personal info. How do we know he won't do it again if he was so eager to do it twice on his first edits? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You could ask him to agree not to do it again as a condition of unblocking. (Obviously, not knowing what the info was, I've no idea how necessary that is, but if it was worth oversighting, I suppose it must be.) Your explanation started with "socking", and I see why you would think that, but I don't think this was correct. Rd232 talk 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you did ask already. Had a long interruption in drafting that comment. Rd232 talk 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
He's unblocked. See his talk page. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_16&oldid=1259566445"