User talk:Rlevse

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

Home	Talk	About me	Awards	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Notebook	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption. For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return.

William Hanna

Very good article, but you could you please explain what the colon and extra number that come after a reference mean? Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 15:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's very ready. Good luck! Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll end the PR and file FAC. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice (part III)

You may recall that you advised me some time back to seek mediation concerning this issue. Well, I followed your advice, but unfortunately it came to nothing because no mediator would take on the case. (The discussion here more or less sums up the story.) Worse than that, it led to increasing harrassment by User:Fnagaton and User:Greg_L, including two frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry here, biting a newcomer and here.(The evidence upon which the accusations are based seems to be along the lines of "the two editors share the same opinion; therefore they are sock puppets"). As a result of the harrassment I no longer enjoy editing here, and have therefore stopped doing so. [Fortunately there's more to life than WP :)]. However, I feel responsible for the second editor named in the SP case (the one accused of being my sockpuppet), who is now on the receiving end of the harrassment that was previously directed at me. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at what is going on here and put a stop to the silliness. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Thunderbird2's talk page sandbox it is clear that the user is using it to misrepresent other editors and therefore using it to harass other editors. That kind of harassment violates the rules regarding Wikistalking. Fnagaton 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is a well-founded basis for suspecting sock puppetry. There is no mistreatment of the other editor (assuming he is real) unless the administrator finds for sock puppetry in error and prescribes sanctions. Thunderbird2/Tom94022 can just be patient and let the process run its course. The administrators have access to check-user tools that regular editors just can’t avail themselves of. If I were unjustly accused of sock puppetry, I’d sit tight and watch without pounding on the keyboard whatsoever; the burden of proof is on the accuser. If our evidence is flimsy, there will be no finding of sock puppetry. I personally think the evidence—when considered as a whole—is compelling and convincing. We’ll see. I have long said on the page in question that I will apologize profusely if the check-user tool proves the two editors hail from completely different cities. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. I note that the link to the suspected sock puppet page that Thunderbird2 provided above, (duplicate here), was a historical link posted 01:24, 27 August 2008. What is notable about that link is that it was only the second version of the article and contained little in the way of substantive evidence of Thunderbid2’s sock puppetry. Sorta seems a bit self-serving of Thunderbird2. When I make permalinks, I always snare the latest version in the history; it’s the latest & greatest and I’m guaranteed that someone won’t come along and pull the rug out from under my link by archiving the page. Had Thunderbird2 been a little more (*ahem*)  ‘candid’, he would have provided this 21:18, 31 August 2008 link to the suspected sock puppet complaint page when he made his above 22:24, 31 August 2008 post. That version was then-current and was 36 entries newer than what he provided. Note the substantially more compelling amount of evidence for sock puppetry. And for reference, here is the latest & greatest. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Either RFCU or RFAR arbcom filing is needed here. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you help?

Hello. Could you rap Xasha a little? He seems to ignore the ban he received last month ([1], [2]). For your info, I've also just reminded him of the ban. Thank you. Ovidiu2all (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's messages like these that expose you as a sock.Xasha (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

About Momo's login-name usurpation

Hi Rlevse, Give me a few days to work it out. I'm preparing for a exam right now. Thanks for leaving me a message ! --Mochi77 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The same old problem again...

Xasha, remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xasha#Topic_ban

See this ... Xasha, I don't think you hurt the topic ban in this article (actually I think your changes were fine), but you modified some articles that are definately disputed concerning your topic ban: Moldovans (the article that brought this topic ban to you and me) and Moldovan-Romanian relations. I don't even dare to think about editing those articles in order to prevent a topic-ban hurt. --Olahus (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See above, take this to AE thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by socks of proven sock master User:Nyannrunning

I posted this twice on WP:AN/I and finally was told to take it to checkuser because they aren't familiar with the case. On your suggestion, I had sent a rather lengthy compilation of data about this person to both Thatcher and to Alison. I've not received a response on it from either. I know Thatcher was off for a bit. I also left a note for Alison to inquire as to whether she received it, but no response yet. In any case, I know you are aware of the details of this, so I'm going to post it for you.

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Post it at WP:RFCU then vice their talk page, then it can't be ignored. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Error

Thanks for the tip. I've changed it. I haven't seen Uninvited Company in a long time. I very much want the Wikback back again! bibliomaniac15 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about mentioning him, but I decided that since he wasn't an arb anymore it wasn't needed. bibliomaniac15 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna

I believe I've seen Dabomb87 around, but I don't recall having the pleasure of meeting him before. I'm glad you found a copyeditor for WH. I'm back in college, so it's a bit hectic right now. Regarding refs, I can't tell you where it says that in the MoS, but I know definitively that refs are supposed to be placed in numerical order. If you want an exact link, I guess you can ask Sandy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WxGopher is not responding

Should I just go in and redirect Training (meteorology) to my article? I don't want to start an edit war, but I'm not getting a response. User_talk:WxGopher#Storm_train_vs_Training_.28meteorology.29 -- IRP (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd say go merge your storm article into that one. You ask, he didn't respond, and if he's edited since you asked, it's on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is referred to mostly as a "storm train" and I've even stated in my article that it is also known as "training" -- IRP (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then merge whichever one into the other but both can't exist, they're too much duplicative. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll redirect Training (meteorology) into mine. And if a problem occurs with another user, I'll post a message for that user on his/her talk page. -- IRP (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't copy the exact text, I reworded it and distributed the information into the appropriate sections. -- IRP (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to WxGopher, a "storm train" and "training" are different because "training" could occur with just snow or rain showers. So I would say that "storm train" is a subcategory of "training (meteorology)". See User_talk:IRP -- IRP (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to merge storm into training. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I could put a classification section in, and redlinks for things like "shower train" or "snow shower train"...should I do that?

Even better, write paragraph on what they are, they probably don't warrant their own article. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited AGAIN and forgot to sign in!

The not signed in warning is not noticeable. They have already had the discussion on the village pump, but nothing has been done. Please do the same thing that was done last time, and give me advice on what could be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no control over the developers. You just have to get in the habit of signing in. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well hopefully the edit will go down the list to the point that hardly anybody will view. But isn't there a browser add-on for Firefox 3 that would automatically sign me into Wikipedia when I visit? Otherwise, who would have control over the developers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadasprincess (talk · contribs)

I'm fine if you want to review the block. I wasn't involved in a dispute with the user; I speedied their article, they made no other edits except to vandalise my user page (edits reverted by another user), and I applied a block that is not unusual for a vandal-only account. It's over to you now for a follow up if you like. Harro5 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The user page thing is what I was talking about. I don't view it as vandal only either. Though it is also true she's mainly been promoting herself. I think I'll shorten and leave some comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your help with the SSP backlog. Thank you! Enigma message 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Orphaning tactic

The images are going to need to be orphaned eventually anyway. Their use in these articles is simply not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about self-fulfilling reasoning and rule by a consensus of one. Since you refuse to discuss this and only listen to yourself, we'll end the charade of discussion at WT:SCOUT. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the consensus already exists over at WP:NFC. This is just the same as five people turning up on an AfD and saying 'I don't care that there are no sources, these guys are notable!'. That 'consensus' does not override the consensus at the various notability guidelines. I am more than happy to discuss this, explain my reasoning and work towards a compromise, if possible, but the NFCC are not criteria that are easily worked around or compromised. No one has actually provided much in the way of reasoning yet; most people just complain about my methods. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What does and doesn't meet NFCC is not so clear cut as you think, especially #8. Your view that your interpretation is the only one is not how one should work in this case. If it were, there would not be so many IFD debates. This "Their use in these articles is simply not acceptable." shows you are absolutely not willing to work towards a compromise nor seek consensus. And your tactic, as well as others who work images, of orphaning them so you can delete before discussing them is simply not right. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Their use in the articles as they are is unacceptable. If the articles change, then maybe the images will be acceptable. I am honestly not orphaning with the intention of having the images deleted, I just hate to see so many non-free images in an article. A lot of people are challenging my methods, and even my good faith, and so I am stepping away from the scouting articles to see if the scouting editors can deal with it- which seems to be the preferred solution of many. I doubt much will get done, but I would certainly be happy to be surprised. Which is the RfC that you mentioned? I really don't habituate RfCs, but this one sounds like it may be of interest to me. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Their use in the articles as they are is unacceptable." You added "as is". That's progress. We have few people who work images issues, but I'm not one. I work more on writing than imaging. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Navy boy

No, not me, I'm not brave enough and I get seasick... I'm away "rambling" round the world. I'm hoping that when I'm away I can still at least let you guys and girls know how and where I am, and remain semi-active. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Collective:Unconscious

Hello Rvlese, at your convenience can you explain why you "protected" my own talk page for 40 hours, please? Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (Also, please don't "ban," "block," or "protect" my page or otherwise use any other admin-only powers just for my asking, as you did about 40 hours ago for what, without discussion, you singularly decided was "unblock abuse," and which was thankfully lifted by admin Golbez, with similar admin-only-powers. My appeal to another admin for unblocking my own talk page was my only recourse as a mere "user" (which some in Wikipedia term an "editor," but which seems to be all all "users" without admin-only powers like yourself -- why call non-admins "editors" at all if they can be "banned," "blocked," and/or "protected" by any admin at that admin's discretion?). Please also realize that if you would "ban," "block," or "protect" me for asking to discuss this may reflect badly on the party who took that action. Thanks! --Justindavila (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) --cross-edit, sorry. --Justindavila (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Golbez says you admitted abusing unblock: "19:13, September 4, 2008 Golbez (Talk | contribs | block) unprotected User talk:Justindavila ‎ (user has promised to stop abusing unblock; slap him if he does it again)". — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you can't use that information, which occurred after you decided to issue this block, to justify why you made this decision to use your admin-only powers. Golbez's comment is "Per discussion on IRC, I've unprotected so long as he doesn't use unblock. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)" There is no mention of "abuse," I did not use unblock again, and you have not explained to me how you claim I abused this process. Rvlese, as an "admin" and as a "bureaucrat" with special powers, please clarify your thinking and justification of the use of your powers for me and other regular "users." Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(Previous conversation) -- Collective:Unconscious--

Hello, can you explain why you "protected" my own talk page for 40 hours, please? Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock abuse and you weren't listening to what several admins were telling you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the only way for a user to avoid a ban or block to "listen" to "what several admins were telling" that user? Can you explain your understanding of this particular situation (as long as my question does not lead to your banning or blocking my own talk page)?. Thank you --Justindavila (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests, you hit the limit and your conduct on your talk page was not indicating it was going to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you identify where you other other admins identified this numerical limit to me, or where this was identified in any other official unblock discussions, hopefully more definitive than "You're allowed 2, maybe 3 unblock requests," as you (perhaps arbitrarily? certainly at least 'unreferenced') commented? Also, can you point out how you came to the conclusion that my "talk page was not indicating it was going to stop," despite my efforts to work with you and other admins to resolve all identified issues? Looking forward to your response. Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason to be putting this here and copying to your talk page. As for pertinent comments on your talk page, see "Considering that this editor has several times refused to acknowledge any conflict of interest on his part, I find this doubtful. GlassCobra 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)" and "I notice that you ignored my question. I have to assume that was intentional, and that it indicates that you have not considered following the conflict of interest rules that you've been warned about so many times. Thanks; that information is useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)" as examples where other admins saw ongoing issues. As for unblock policy and protecting your talk page see Wikipedia:UNBLOCK#Appealing, especially the third paragraph. If you're looking for "2-3 unblock requests are allowed" clause, it's not there, but that's a long standing rule of thumb here on wiki, just ask around to verify that. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate you admitting there is no such clause (I looked), your condescending response that this policy is a "long standing rule of thumb" that you suggest I "ask around" (presumably to admins) "to verify" reflects poorly on you as an admin. There no such rule or published policy, and your unmeasured and uninformed use of your admin-only powers, without any discussion with both parties, really speaks for itself (c.f. Cabal, except admins have exclusive powers). Your specific actions are tantamount to abuse of your admin power, but then I'm just a lowly, blockable user, with no such powers. (Also, please don't block me again without appropriate, public discussions on the matter, even though you obviously can. Thanks.)--Justindavila (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The unblock template reads at the bottom, "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the unblock template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected." Admins are promoted because the community trusts their judgment. You were repeatedly told why you were blocked. Your refusal to grasp does not equal admin abuse, and your repeated claims of such are becoming disruptive. Read over our policies and guidelines. Try editing something other than this article. But continuing on the same worn path is going no where. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:enwiki CHU/SUL request

Hi, I'd still very much like to usurp Erwin. My home wiki username used to be Erwin85 and that is my username here.

• Current username: Erwin85 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Target username: Erwin (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) (sul:Erwin)

There are indeed still a couple of conflicts left. I can usurp Erwin@kowiki in December and have to wait for further policy for the dewiki and zhwiki ones. In any case thanks for allowing me to usurp Erwin@enwiki! --Erwin85 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Erwin (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you perhaps move User:Erwin85 and User_talk:Erwin85 to keep the histories? Thanks, --Erwin(85) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a paste of the current version, but ok, I'll try. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I really appreciate your help. --Erwin(85) 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption/Account Creator

Hi there, saw your name on the recent changes and thought I would have a look around your page. Looking through you seem to be very experienced. I was wondering if you would adopt me? Also I wanted to enquire about the account creator flag. I wanted to know how to know if you think that I would be able to have it or not? I have seen alot of wikipedia although I may not have alot of edits I have participated in AFD's and also welcome new users from the user creation log using the welcome templates. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time anymore to do adoption or admin coaching, but you do seem well on your way to being a fine editor. See WP:ADOPT to find someone. Try User:ArielGold and say I sent you. As for account creator, I've not worked that area and know little about it. For that, ask User:Prodego and look at WP:PERM. As a crat, I can give people several flags though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have added a request at the WP:PERM for the account creator and await the result. I have also left a message on User:Prodego talkpage about the possibility of adoption. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Pornthip

OK, thanks for telling me. I wasn't sure about that one.   jj137 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Remontoire/Conwan

Hi. I got a message from you on my talkpage about my usurp request for a SUL. I answered the question, but now my request is erased from the request-page. Does that mean it was denied or approved, or a third thing..? Thanks in advance.. --Conwan (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I looked through the history of the request-page and found that my request was granted. Thanks! --Remontoire (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Google and Palin

I have replied. Cheers, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

John Buscema

For full disclosure and so that the relevant clerk/admins are aware: User:Scott Free, the erstwhile User:Skyelarke — who like me is currently banned from editing the John Buscema article, though not the talk page — removed from the talk page a large amount of relevant discussion involving himself, by unilaterally and without discussion moving it into an archive.

I reverted this. Neither he nor I should be removing pertinent discussion related to our editing and our ban. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How old was this discussion? Give me diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

2¢... ish...

The span of Scott Free's four edits is here covering a 20 minute span on the Sept 7.

All the material removed seems to be pre-July, however... When he archived he left the lat post to "Reliable source" orphaned on the talk page - no header, and no context. Also, at least one of the threads was split when he did the cut and paste archive. Keep in mind that this is just a surface look.

And I do tend to agree: Either of the two should be posting a 3rd party, either on the talk page or a user talk page, to perform maintenance work on the article talk.

- J Greb (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

J Greb summarized Scott Free's edits well. Even had Scott Free archived everything perfectly, I don't believe a banned party should be moving or removing Talk page material. There is no urgency that would preclude waiting for after the ban, and even then, either of the post-pan parties could simply ask an admin to perform the archiving, and thus avoid even the appearance of selective erasure. In this particular case, I believe Scott Free's actions fit a longstanding pattern of behavior contrary to the spirit of the ArbCom. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. Blocked for 31 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quary on Neutrality(?) policy

As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN. however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republic of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used.... If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue. As unimportand as it might seam to you: 1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy 2) it is malinforming and incorrect 3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute 4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN thank you very much for your attention 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Killthebaddies

There hadn't been (and still aren't) any edits yet. It might be a good-faith new user who simply isn't aware of the username policy (we get a lot of those) and could be persuaded to change it once they start editing (or before); it might be a vandal aging the account. Its cartoonish nature suggests the former to me, but we don't know and we have to assume good faith.

My hunch is that this user will probably never edit, and the UAA will be moved to the holding pen and then off it and eventually the page will be deleted as inactive. That seems to happen a lot, without any action on our part. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be preemptively blocked and the name changed. I disagree with the idea of waiting for edits, it's still a name vio whether he understands the name policy or not or has edited. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)