——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————
Home | Talk | About me | Awards | Articles | Contributions | Images | Notebook | Sandbox | Todo | Toolbox |
Sockpuppet
Good day, Rlevse. I was wondering if you could take a look on R7529Z (talk · contribs), Mccain4pres (talk · contribs), NutsForYou (talk · contribs), Adrastus1 (talk · contribs) (already blocked) 97.117.1.138 (talk · contribs), 24.197.159.68 (talk · contribs), and 24.2.75.206 (talk · contribs). Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unrelated Adrastus1 (talk · contribs), 24.197.159.68 (talk · contribs), 24.2.75.206 (talk · contribs)
- Confirmed Mccain4pres (talk · contribs) = R7529Z (talk · contribs) = NutsForYou (talk · contribs) = 97.117.1.138 (talk · contribs) = Arbysbeefmelt (talk · contribs) = StatingTheFacts (talk · contribs) = JP1123 (talk · contribs), indef'd except IP two weeks, Mccain4pres as master. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind also checking Mikevinpa (talk · contribs)? --Kanonkas : Talk 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Possible Adrastus1 (talk · contribs) = Mikevinpa (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Another "Hagger" move vandal
User:Tel'Quess (Contribs) is another one I spotted. Is that user blocked? I have already seen other things like this, such as moving pages to things like "H..A..G..G..E..R". -- IRP ☎ 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked way back in June. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is this user blocked indefinitely? -- IRP ☎ 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, see the block log. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please create User:Tel'Quess with {{Indefblock|historical}}. -- IRP ☎ 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can do that, but leave off the historical. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope it isn't possible for a non-admin to do it as the user page is currently fully protected, I guess to deny recognition. --Kanonkas : Talk 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can do that, but leave off the historical. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please create User:Tel'Quess with {{Indefblock|historical}}. -- IRP ☎ 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, see the block log. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is this user blocked indefinitely? -- IRP ☎ 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- then we won't do it at all. and don't indent my post, IRP. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
? J.delanoygabsadds 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Re:Friendly advice
Im sure you know why people use spas for scientology articles. That said, all of my contributions have been to improve the article, and "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article" is an inappropriately biased view of a minor non-content-related editorial dispute. I appreciate the advice though. Cheers, Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article", someone else did. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Im aware. I presumed that your concern i might be here to "stir up trouble" was based on that, so I wanted to make sure to let you know that the discussion of Project Chanology is not as bad as the comment implies. Sorry if that wasnt clear and happy editing. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Another request
Can you take a look at this? Someone just asked me to block someone who has no edits, and I'm not sure what to do. J.delanoygabsadds 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for bugging you all the time. If you would rather that I fill out formal requests, I can. J.delanoygabsadds 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"absolutely convinced" isn't enough for a CU, you need evidence, but I can say, as you can see, Lyle123 is a big puppetmaster. The person needs to supply evidence or you can block on behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I have replied to your latest post on my talk page. (2) -- IRP ☎ 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I did post another message on my talk page. -- IRP ☎ 19:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks
for the pleasant surprise! I'm sure I don't deserve the honor, but I'm terribly grateful nonetheless. Kind regards — Dan | talk 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please get in talk
You sent us your message,"I strongly encourage all editors on Japan-Korea articles to discuss issues calmly on talk pages not edit war. And stay civil and cease the personal attacks.". But some people didn't obey your advice. And Endless edition War is continuing. Please get in talk, and back the article when you warned us. These three articles,Empress Myeongseong,Korea under Japanese rule,Woo Jang-choon, need third person' help.--Bukubku (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a mediator. You guys need some form of dispute resolution. File for mediation is my suggestion. I protected the pages though. The Japan-Korea editors need to learn to cooperate instead of fighting all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please protect those articles and back those articles when you warned us. And be watching those articles Talk page.--Bukubku (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I already full protected them. But I'm not watching them. You guys all need to learn to get along and cooperate to make a better article. Work it out on your own or go to mediation. If any of the editors can't build an accurate, neutral, well-sourced article without fingerpointing, name-calling, etc, then they need to learn how real fast as I will block when needed. This goes for both Japan and Korea editors. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please protect those articles and back those articles when you warned us. And be watching those articles Talk page.--Bukubku (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfair
You ordered us, so I obey your order. I haven't edit and get in edition war after your order. But you protect president version. Thoses three articles vastly changed last edited person. It's unfair. --Bukubku (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- When an admin full-protects a page, he or she does not read the content beforehand. They just protect, without regard to anything. You should read m:The Wrong Version. J.delanoygabsadds 23:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely, You asked for help and protection and I protected it. I am not going to edit to suit one side's preference. My role is to stay neutral. Again, if the editors involved would learn to get along, you wouldn't have these problems. Take a look at the Scouting related articles, they almost never ever have edit wars or get protected. You should learn from their example. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
See Woo Jang-choon, last version is writen Japanese are Racist without source by Caspian Blue. I hope your protection is unintended, but this version remains 2 weeks. you should have responsibility.--Bukubku (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand, you just did your job, that's all. OK. The problem is unwished incident. Whenever possible, release the protection. See as reference[1][2][3].--Bukubku (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- It will be possible when all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I hope so, too. Did you read my references? "When all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing" , I think it is too difficult with no helping thrird person. Please release those protection. Now Written Japanese are Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The door to mediation is here: Wikipedia:Mediation, not my talk page. If you want this to work, you all need to put aside your personal agendas. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I hope so, too. Did you read my references? "When all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing" , I think it is too difficult with no helping thrird person. Please release those protection. Now Written Japanese are Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Committee request "all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation", it seems difficult, he delete even "{fact}". Please release your protections or get in talk. Japanese is not Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dude. Leave Rlevse alone. How many times, and in how many ways does he have to say the exact same thing? If you don't stop bugging him, if he doesn't block you, I will block you. J.delanoygabsadds 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Warrington
Thank you, and see my talk page.
Warrington (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
SLR
Hi, A discussion probbaly needs your attention if possible.Taprobanus (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for review
Hello. I intended to appeal at Arbcom against the AA/AA2 restrictions imposed on me by you recently. I was recommended to try to reach a consent with you before that. Hereby I friendly ask you if you have a little time to review the restrictions. I would like to have an open discussion with you. Thank you for you attention. --Vacio (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- See m:The Wrong Version and apply it to the AA situation. What are your thoughts?
- No one, including you, has edited Talk:Artsakh since Oct 5 in an attempt to resolve this issue that got you under restrictions. I don't expect you to answer for others, but why haven't you tried?
- In User:Vacio/Appeal you state your version is the correct one but how is an outsider to know that? Cf item one. Note, it's not an admin's job to determine the "right" version. In this type of situation it's to stop edit wars, etc
- What about the Hewsen ref (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive28#User:Vacio)? Are you saying that's not a reliable source and he's not a scholar?
- What have you done since Oct 5 to resolve the long simmering disputes on AA articles?
- Your appeal letter seems to say you see nothing wrong with your actions on Artsakh yet you and User:Grandmasterka (who is still under voluntary restrictions I believe) were clearly edit warring over it. Yet your appeal seems to justify that by claiming your version was the "right" one (cf item 1 and I have no idea which one is "right"). Be advised, edit warring is never justified, that's why we have talk pages which should be used in lieu of edit warring. Using a talk page and being "right" (even if you are in fact right) does not justify edit warring and certainly not while the talk was going on.
- Why do you think: a) so many ethnic factions use wiki as a way to push their view of things, b) why is it so difficult for admins to deal with these situations, and c) what do you think can be done to resolve these issues more effectively and efficiently? To get an admin's view of this issue, throw yourself into something other than AA (The Troubles, Sri Lanka, Jews-Muslims, East Europe, etc etc etc) and try to solve it. Let me know how it went. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the time you splent for. I can't respond on all your questions, but only what I think is important here.
- I'm not sure my actions on the Artsakh article were completely harmonious with Wikipedia rules, but that was maybe because of my lack of experience and knowledge about what the rules require and how differences should be resolved. On the other hand I believe, if you compare the current version of Artsakh with the version before I started to edit it, you will agree that in the main the article looks much better: most of the statements are sourced, a lot of text which was irrelevant to this article or controversial is removed, there are more paragraphs, etc.
- Then, I don't deny Robert Hewsen is a reliable source (indeed a very prominent expert of the history of Armenia, I myself quoted him many times), but that's besides the point here; please take a look at these excerpts from my previous complaint on talk:Artsakh concerning the sentence "Hayk and Sisak are just eponyms and not real persons":
- ...Also your quote of Hewsen is absolute inappropriate here, did you actually read the text above? there is nothing said about Sisak at all! ...--Vacio (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[4]
- Grandmaster and Parishan, you surprise me! There is not a single word said about Sisak in this article ...--Vacio (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC) [5]
- ...I think it is hopeless anymore to say that there is nothing, not a single word said about Sisak ...--Vacio (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[6]
- ...Also your quote of Hewsen is absolute inappropriate here, did you actually read the text above? there is nothing said about Sisak at all! ...--Vacio (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[4]
- And this is what I really experience as a grievance: why nobody responded on this cautions? (Except of User:Grandmaster's note "And there's no justification for the removal of the quote from Hewsen".[7]) How fair was it from Grandmaster accusing me afterwards of "removing a quote from an authoritative western scholar", without having reacted on my threefold complaint before? This is the point I feel I am treated unjust and why requested for review.
- Finally, I also want to quote an excerpt from a reaction of a third-party user in this discussion:
- Grandmaster, You seem to be using some original research deductions, like "what language they must have spoke PROVES their ethnicity", to claim that certain ancestral people referenced in Armenian history books never even existed. Even if perhaps they never existed, the wording needs to attribute this POV to the sources explicitly arguing this in clear language, otherwise it is known as "POV pushing", ie, siding with sources of one particular POV, rather than treating them all "neutrally". [8]
- As you see, I was not the only one who complained against the above mentioned sentence. I agree that I had to be more patient, but on the other hand I hope you see why I feel I am treated unjust. I still hope we can come to an understanding on this, can we? --Vacio (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- If Grandmasterka wasn't already on voluntary restrictions, I'd have put him on it too but I felt it was unneeded since he was on voluntary restrictions. Have you or he been editing war since then? As for the other matters, please allow me time to think this over. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Probably he was and as far I can see he has not been editing war since then, nor I have been. I only one time was engaged in edit warring - in the article Mihranids again with Grandmaster. Please look olaso on this: I believe he was manipulating with a primary source: Movses Kalankatvaci, a 7th century Armenian historiographer wrote this:
With treachery in his hart, he [Mihran] invited the Eranshahiks, the ancient native Armenian (haykazean) family ... and at that feast of their own blood he beheaded sixty man.
Movses Kaghankatvatsi, History of Aghvank. Book II, chapter XVII.
- This is what Grandmaster wrote in the article referring to that source:
- "Mihran's great-grandson killed all the members of the previous Arsacid dynasty and became the ruler of the country.[1]"[9]
- This is what Grandmaster wrote in the article referring to that source:
- The Arsacids were of Persian origin and were absolute different from the Eranshahiks (or Aranshahiks), which is regarded as an Armenian house, by all historians I could find, including R. Hewsen. I almost literally quoted the above mentioned primary source in that excerpt[10], but he reverted the article again back[11] to the previous version and look how he treated me on this:
- And why do you delete a link to Arcasids, and who do you think these "Haykuzuni Arranshahs" were? Even the title of the dynasty is Persian, there were no other dynasty before Mihranids other than Arcasids. Grandmaster (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[12]
- OR is to claim that there was a "dynasty of Erranshahiks", you have no reliable sources to support that claim, yet you make your own interpretation of primary sources. This entire "Erranshahik" claim should be removed from this article, first, it is irrelevant to this topic, second, it is OR. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[13]
- There's no reason to believe that Arranshahs were anyone other than Arcasids. After all, Mihranids had to kill them to take over the country, and no other dynasty is registered between Arcasids and Mihranids. Both those dynasties were Iranian, it is a well documented fact. Therefore Vacio's edits that he tries to force into the article on Mihranids are clearly OR and POV. ...Grandmaster (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Denying that the Eranshahik dynasty ever existed, he also rejected the map, which I made specially for Wikipedia, and it was removed. Since then, I have had very strained relations with this user. Nevertheless, I really don't want that you impose restrictions on him, please don't do that! If you agree with me that he was acting improper on talk:Artsakh and talk:Mihranids, an admonition would be probably enough. Also, we already had reached consensus on some points in the article Artsakh (although very hardly) and I still believe we can work together... if only this AA/AA2 restrictions were lifted from me. I know, I losing my temper I have done many mistakes, but you will see that I am absolutely not wanting to reach any kind of information in Wikipedia by means of edit-warring. I'm just a lover of medieval Armenian historiographers and want to use the knowledge I have. --Vacio (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's what still concerns me Vacio, you won't talk about why you have made no attempt to settle the article in question, when Euptator (sp?) got me to rescind the first warning I gave you, you went right back to the same old ways, and you still see nothing wrong with your actions, you still seem to think that if you're right you can ignore the rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- No I don't say that, I was indeed wrong in the Mihranid article for edti-warring, though, frankly I was not aware of it initially. In the Artsakh article I think there is something different, Grandmaster neglected all the objections of me and User:Til Eulenspiegel, including the three warnings I have quoted above here, that Sisak, about whom Grandmaster wrote in this article, was not at all mentioned in there, this would be the same as if I would write in the article George Bush "Barak Obama is not a good politician". So I even thought:
- Grandmaster and Parishan... I think I have grounds to accuse you two for vandalizing this article.[14]
- Why do you think I should splend almost a month seaking for a review on this? If not that I take an umbrage at this, and believe me I am rather disappointed with my contribution in the EW now.
- I think the problem is not in the article itself that I should try to settle it, I think the problem is that user Grandmaster apparently did not read what was said by other users in the talkpage. Note, that most of my edits in Artsakh were joint with a post in the talkpage. In one of my last edits I even removed all the statements were no consensus was reached for, including things I myself had written earlier. I hoped that this points would be further discussed in the talkpage. But how I should try to settle the issue now, if this attempt to reach consensus itself was used to make a wrong accusation followed with restricitons? Don't you see the point that is frustrating me all this time? --Vacio (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that it is frustrating. I see this sort of thing all the time, both sides of an ethnic war is convinced they are right and that being right justifies their actions and that the other side is wrong. These ethnic wars will never end until this attitude changes and the users involved learn to put the past behind them and work together instead of being so focused on using wiki to get their version of history into place. In these situations, it is behavior that will get you in trouble, not so much whether your version of history is right or wrong. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree we should work together. But I am afraid we did not get a mutual understanding in the main. In the Mihranid article I indeed was engaged in edit-warring, and you have warned me rightly. But in the Artsakh article, after a month, it is unfortunately not clear for me what exactly was wrong in my behavior, I should try to avoid it next time. To Grandmaster, I was guilty for removing sourced text. If that's the point, I suppose this very day he will place the excerpt "Sisak is not a real person" back to the Artsakh article... Anyhow, thank you for your attention. --Vacio (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hanna Barbera dual TFA
(Responded on my talk page). Raul654 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
New user - please check
This relates to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teamxrsx. Please look at/keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Black Key, who has started making edits to Fusebox Funk with uncited comments that could be only added by someone with ties to the project. I am making some minor edits to their recent changes. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/66.177.185.11 making the same edits. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
These are unrelated to Teamxrsx, but it is likely that Black Key (talk · contribs) = 66.177.185.11 (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
ACA
I got it :) Daniel (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- GOOD because for some reason I always have trouble with ACA, have never figured out why ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- No I didn't, they were there, I just accidently cut them, haha, Pls rm case from ACA pls. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you input your thought to ANI report on me filed by Bukubku (talk · contribs) since you're also mentioned on the report? Well, I see same old harassing stuff on me again such as by Jazz81089 (indef.blocked), Opoona (indef.blocked). The user not only lied about my edits and my suggestion for him to open an discussion for Woo Jang-choon[15] but also also accuses me of using sockpuppetry, so I think checkuser's clarification would be also appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, and could you also look at my addition to the thread WP:ANI#Checkuser's attention needed and newbie User:Bukubku's harassment? I don't think that Bukubku (talk · contribs) is a newbie at all per his depth of Wiki knowledge and activities, and the report on me is very similar with reports filed by Pabopa (talk · contribs), or Opoona (talk · contribs), Jazz81089 (talk · contribs). --Caspian blue 01:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Order of the Arrow COI
Sorry to send you a template. I didn't realize it was a faux pas. So I'll just speak plainly: As an Order of the Arrow member who has pledged not to reveal "safeguarded" info about the OA, you should recuse yourself from the discussion on the inclusion of such content in the OA article. Thanks. --Spirit76 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- That does not prevent me from participating in a talk page disucussion. I already decided not to use my admin bits in this case, FYI. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure about "Slimvirgin's conduct" passing 5 to 3 with 1 abstention? I thought it was 11 active arbitrators, less one abstention gives 10 total, so required majority would be 6? I guess not. 87.254.91.148 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Abstentions reduce the required votes to pass. See PD page section on arbs and clerks implementation notes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they normally reduce the required votes in exactly the way I said above i.e. it's treated as though instead of 11 active arbitrators there are only 10 but a majority of 10 is still 6+. I'm sure you know your own business though so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the response. 87.254.91.148 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Now I see what you're talking about, the implementation notes were made before Sam changed his vote. I'll ask the arbs about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My Guestbook
Hey there! Fancy signing my Guestbook? I'll give you cookies. ;) -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see this
Here, there is somebody who objects a Wikipedia entry about him, and when he tries to blank the page, it is reverted. Please take a look. -- IRP ☎ 21:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Report at WP:AN, that is not a specialty area of mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
An invite for you
- I should have been clear, but we are changing names for a move to Meta.Mitch32(UP) 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to come tonight? Its at 20:00 UTC - and I want some large amount of users.Mitch32(UP) 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
My rfa
Hi Rlevse, and thanks for closing my rfa. It is always an ordeal for me to go through an rfa, and I'm grateful that you closed it for me. I hope that I'll be more useful for the community now that I have the old tools again (looks as if nothing has changed since 2005).--Berig (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, am sure you'll be an asset to the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Boyce
I am in Cleveland working on the Obama campaign. I will try to get one when I return.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Umm.
[16]. I don't want to block without knowing who. J.delanoygabsadds 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is the clumsiest sockpuppeteer I've ever seen! I think that guy even beat me :P Sam Blab 13:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- See User:Suckpuppet's user page and that of his master (talk page). — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- big mistake on my part... --smadge1 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Comfort women
Can you look at the Comfort women and editors who have been disruptively blanking properly cited info and altering information without consensus nor discussion such as Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs), and Amazonfire (talk · contribs) did? The latter returns after his 8 months break and his block by Fut.Perf for the reason of harassing and stalking me.[17] Amazonfire was suspected as somebody's sock per his meatpuppeting to block evading users like Azukimonaka or others.[18] I think he manages his other accounts in light of his behaviors, and timing. Please take a look at the SPA. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I made some notes on this round. Amazonfire just put the big section back. So, it seems okay right now. Let me know if it flares up again. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Big section back with massive alteration after my point-out. I'm saying he is an obvious sleeper sock per his long term break.--Caspian blue 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of whom? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- He commented and did a same thing as Bukubku (talk · contribs) (see User talk:Amazonfire#November 2008), but Amazonjoke (talk · contribs), Northwest1202 (talk · contribs) Blue011011 (talk · contribs) could be potential ones. Amazonfire meatpuppeted Blue011011 back then.--Caspian blue 15:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of whom? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Big section back with massive alteration after my point-out. I'm saying he is an obvious sleeper sock per his long term break.--Caspian blue 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Bukubku hasn't edited Comfort women in ages, if ever-so how is he connected to Amazonfire?. Amazonjoke and Blue011011 haven't been used in so long they're stale. You need recent connecting stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, the behavioral pattern is very similar. After his falsification was pointed out by two editors, Bukubku deleted his sources with false contents on Empress Myeongseong[19] just like Amazonfire's putting back of Comfort women and their rationale are just same "I only reverted to Sennen goroshi's version". Blue011011 is a confirmed sock of Northwest1202.--Caspian blue 15:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, Annals of Joseon Dynasty is good source, but you didn't accept. so I deleted it. That's all.--Bukubku (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hut, you forged the content with the citation in which does not state any single of your claim. As I repeatedly said, Gojong Sillok is not the same as Annals of Joseon Dynasty. Do not lie again.--Caspian blue 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- And now I'm asking Korean reader Admin Deiz to mediate us.--Bukubku (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- You falsely said here and there that I rejected your meditation.--Caspian blue 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, Annals of Joseon Dynasty is good source, but you didn't accept. so I deleted it. That's all.--Bukubku (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, the behavioral pattern is very similar. After his falsification was pointed out by two editors, Bukubku deleted his sources with false contents on Empress Myeongseong[19] just like Amazonfire's putting back of Comfort women and their rationale are just same "I only reverted to Sennen goroshi's version". Blue011011 is a confirmed sock of Northwest1202.--Caspian blue 15:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Carry out your content disputes on MEDCAB, not my talk page. Only report solid socking/meating evidence here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Fly protection needed at Tutenkhamun
Tutenkhamun has been semi protected for awhile, because for some reason the article attracts vandals like flies. Recently the article was unprotected by a user who doesn't seem to be an admin.... does that make any sense, and is once again being vandalized at least once a day if not more often. The original blocking editor seems to be busy. Any chance of a little semi protect over there.(olive (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC))
- It wasn't unprotected, the 6-months ran out. I re-semi-protected it for 6 more months. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the compliment of " ERcheck's Day!" While I have had less time for contributing to Wikipedia in recent months than in the previous years, I continue to appreciate the educational contributions that Wikipedia offers. As much as Wikipedia is a place that holds information, it also provides an opportunity for its editors to learn more about so many subjects as they work to improve and update its articles. — ERcheck (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers checkuser
Thanks for the SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers checkuser. Bonus points for discovering the extra WP:OUTING sockpuppet that I didn't know about :-) Thirdbeach (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You've already returned to the SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers checkuser an extra time to check into another IP, but the semi-protect on eNom lifted last night and the vandal added three more IP "notches" on his/her gun. The checkuser isn't archived yet; I'm going to add the new IPs but am apologizing here in advance if that's not protocol. Corrections welcome. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rename
Didn't expect it to be that quick, am grateful for it. Anything else I need to do? TravellingCari 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Make sure all the pages move. Sometimes they get stuck. Change your signature. Change name on other wikis and reunify under SUL. On an account your size, the changes can take up to a day. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. Working on the sig right now. Right now I'm just archiving everything rapidly from my talk. The rest can move as it wants to. People are a bit too ... Weird really. Do you have oversight? I'm not sure if what I want to do is oversightable but in every revision of my user until the current one it had the roots of my name, which I guess is how the person found me. Can that be removed or is it impossible? Thanks StarMi 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have oversight, but I do have checkuser. See WP:Oversight for a list of people with that right. Yea, there are some weirdos out there. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I knew you had some extra flag, couldn't remember which. Thanks! StarM 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Lack of detail in my request
Just trying not to write the manual for him. I do take checkuser very seriously. Please contact me if you need more detail in the future—in that particular case, every single edit by the account was blatantly obvious. If I'm not sure, I wait. Darkspots (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- What's obvious to someone familiar with an editor is not necessarily so to another. In this case, at first I wondered, then I noticed all the prior cases and decided to check for sleepers and that's how I confirmed this guy. If you have info you don't want to post, you can also contact one of us privately. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I haven't run into a new checkuser in a while—congratulations, by the way—and everyone knows this guy really well by now. I've seen him change his behavior over time to get rid of obvious clues, and I know he's a regular reader of his checkuser case page. Why let him know what all his tells are? I guess that this ANI discussion provides pretty clear arguments on both sides of this question. Darkspots (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
IPcheck of Eremia
Thanks for looking into that; it temporarily slipped my mind that Checkuser results go stale. She has edited my talk page approx. 3 times in the last 2 months as an IP, without (I think) any other edits on each IP. If she re-appears again, I'll file a new one, including those IP's, and hopefully that would give you more to work with.
Anyway, sorry for the busywork, and thanks for taking a look. --barneca (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar!
MISTER ALCOHOL's Guestbook Barnstar | ||
For signing my guestbook, I, Alberto García, hereby present Rlevse with this award. Cheers! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
creating sockpuppet categories - a request
Thanks for your work on the sockpuppet categories. When you created these categories in the future, could you take the trouble to add a template such as {{Sockpuppet category}} instead of just putting "socks". Including this template will keep the category from cluttering up cleanup reports such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Best wishes, - Stepheng3 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK but it's interesting I've been doing this for almost 2 years and processed 700 sock cases and no one mentioned this before ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- When you do your job correctly and well, no one knows or cares, because everything that should happen does. (i.e. The internet works, you pay exactly how much it costs for your groceries, your hamburger is cooked enough and has the right condiments) People only notice when you do something wrong. J.delanoygabsadds 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Believe me, I know how you feel. I'll try to spend some time finding/notifying the sockpuppet category creators. Let me know if you can help or have suggestions where I should start. - Stepheng3 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
request
Since you are listed as a clerk, would you please look at this statement. Would you please consider changing or removing "Yes I put that hanging rope for Sukashvili, and yes I believe that the "censored" should be hanged for what he did this august." He is of course referring to Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia. Are wikipedians allowed to use talk pages for making such comments? Thanks, Ostap 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- At first glance it looks bad but the more I looked at it, I don't think so. The writer is saying he thinks "should" be hanged for the invasion of Ossetia, which the writer obviously perceives as a crime. He doesn't say he's actually going to kill him or anything like that, just that what the writer perceives as a crime deserves capital punishment. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Obvious sockpuppets
Nguyen214 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Nguyen229 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Special:ListUsers/Nguyen214 shows a lot of names, but I don't know which, if any, are socks. Can you take a look? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed Nguyen214 (talk · contribs) = Nguyen229 (talk · contribs), no others showing. But both are brand new, so I suspect more are out there. Note Nguyen is a very common Vietnamese name. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, looks like I should have dove in deeper. Thanks, Grsz11 →Review! 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, PrimeFan has made many useful contributions to mathematics and number articles. PrimeFan's sockpuppeteering is certainly very bad, and you're right to block him. Nevertheless, it seems to me that an indefinite block is rather harsh, especially since there haven't been any warnings (as far as I know). Would you please consider shortening his block? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have a question for the CU: I'm just curious about something because I had an adverse encounter with this guy. Is it possible that all of the 17 were not socks of prime fan? I mean, if the IP range was shared, some could be one guy, and the others could be a bunch of buddies/neighbors? They might still be abusively meatpuppeting themselves, which is no less a violation, but it seemed like, as far as the two of them I enountered (Slappywag42 and RobertHappleburg), they were supporting each other, but each had a very different and distinct writing style. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's theoretically possible but it this case the other CU and I think rather unlikely because of the technical and private evidence and contribs. The first two I can't go into, but as for the contribs, if you look at all 17 accts' contribs (not just one or two of them)--which is all public and on wiki info, you'll be able to figure one of the reasons this is a pretty solid case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have a question for the CU: I'm just curious about something because I had an adverse encounter with this guy. Is it possible that all of the 17 were not socks of prime fan? I mean, if the IP range was shared, some could be one guy, and the others could be a bunch of buddies/neighbors? They might still be abusively meatpuppeting themselves, which is no less a violation, but it seemed like, as far as the two of them I enountered (Slappywag42 and RobertHappleburg), they were supporting each other, but each had a very different and distinct writing style. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm almost certain that there's some kind of persistent violation going on across the 17 accounts; I just wasn't entirely sure what kind, because of the privileged information which you have and I don't. Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. Also, as a personal note based on that limited interaction with this guy, I think wikipedia is better off without his or her contributions - he, she, or it had a major-league bad attitude. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, I thought it over for a bit. I agree, he probably knew the policies against socking, and even if he didn't know, it is obvious that there is something wrong with it. Nevertheless, it's a first offense. It has to be balanced against the positive contributions of the user, which are many. That's not only my opinion; User:OwenX gave PrimeFan rollback. I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in these circumstances and I don't think it's supported by the blocking policy. I do seem to remember that there have been cases like this before, but I can't find them; the only one I could see is JoshuaZ where not all data is public (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests#February); it seems that in that case no block at all was applied. Please reconsider the indefinite nature of your block. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking. Blocking of the main account is perfectly allowed. I've processed about 700 sock/cu cases. If abusing 17 accounts isn't a major violation, what is? While the PrimeFan account (per se) hasn't contacted me, one of the other accounts has. We're still talking. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think it's not just the usage. Having 20 accounts but using them productively without harassing other users, following the five pillars, and committing civility violations, 3RR-evasion, or other sorts of "wheel-war-of-one" conduct, (however unlikely) would not in my very humble opinion, be a serious violation. Not that it ever happens that way - anyone who is willing to create that many accounts is almost always willing to violate those other policies and usually does.
- The real concern is when someone does a "good hand/bad hand." The good hand/bad hand pattern is especially proscribed, probably to reflect the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do it are people who show that they know the rules, and want to appear to be following them. In fact, I think it is a particulraly egregious violation of the sock puppet policies for several reasons. First, it's underhanded and deceptive. Second, unlike some newbie or whacko who just is not capable of following the rules, anyone who good hand/bad hands obviously does know the rules, and does know how to appear to be following them, otherwise there wouldn't be a good hand. That actually makes it worse.
- Here, we have a serious violation, not because of the sheer number of accounts, but because of the nature of what was done with the accounts - namely to vex other editors with some, while maintaing legitimacy with others -- a classic "good hand/bad hand" pattern, multiplied over 17 accounts. The CU would be well within administrative discretion to treat it as presumptively intentional, and unexcusable.
- That being said, I am willing to give productive editors a second chance. I had a recent case in whichh I reported a repeat offender to another CU, a very patient CU, and he ended up deciding to limit the offender to one account. The offender didn't get the message and continued to be, well, disruptive, and ended up getting permablocked -- but that was his decision. I am all for mercy - and certainly wouldn't complain if that's what you wanted to do. I can't speak for any other victim though. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the input from everyone here, but the private communication, is still ongoing. That person still needs to answer some questions. Until then, I cannot make a final decision. And obviously, I can not go into the private CU evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The evidence here is overwhelming that these are all the same person. I'm unblocking User:Del arte, which seems to be the real master, to time served with a warning not to sock again. I advise interested parties to watch the IP range and articles related to this case. I am also renaming Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PrimeFan to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Del arte and retagging the socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Rlevse! Thanks for the update. I have a related question: I seem to be having a disputed with a related user about whether PrimeFan's userpage should be blanked (except for the sock template). He's re-added Primefan's original userpage content three times, and I've blanked it twice. Is there an official policy on this? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Rlevse I think we have another. 141.217.173.37 made this edit. Also on my talk page you mentioned about watching the IP range, I'm not sure what it is, but should I? Grsz11 →Review! 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
And another..
[20] When you get a chance... J.delanoygabsadds 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated J.d.j.wales (talk · contribs) unrelated on tech ev
- Confirmed You Will Never Stop The Hollaback Girl (talk · contribs) = I Am The Hollaback Girl (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for being less specific, I was thinking I had asked you before, but I must have asked Alison last time...
- That person has been using multiple accounts, almost all including the phrase "hollaback girl" in some form, to vandalize Jimbo's userpage for quite a while. Someone (I can't remember for sure, but I think it was Alison) blocked his underlying IP range for something like a month. Regardless, apparently the block has expired, and I was wondering if you could re-block it. J.delanoygabsadds 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
(Mnbhchrti (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC))
Thank you so much!
Cookie!
User:Bukubku's harrassment campaign
Could you leave your input on this continued harassment campaign by Bukubku (talk · contribs) at ANI again. The user has rejected my suggestion to open a discussion at Talk:Woo Jang-choon for his concern because he can't believe Koreans. All he left on the page is spreading his hoax report on me.[21] The user has been lying that I "object his suggestion to take it to meditation", and then has been accusing that I'm a liar and racist distorting sources to not only ANI, but also saying to many admins and editors without mentioning his faulty behaviors. (blanking, falsifications, lying etc) I think Bukubku's behaviors consitutei a serious personal /racist attack and harassment. The user obviously takes no interest to develop articles with discussions, but just wants to defame me continuously with his lying. After his bashing about me and his weird opinions on Woo Jang-choon were pointed out on WP:JA by several editors, he just has been busy for forum shopping again just like what indef.blocked sockpuppeters did such as Princesunta (talk · contribs), Jazz81089 (talk · contribs), Opoona (talk · contribs). He even distorts my comments at the ANI. His intention looks like he wants to report me as many as he can, so my reputation is tainted. I'm fed up with dealing with this SPA's extremely dishonesty and incivility, so please take a look at it. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Expand template
Can you add my {{EmptySection}} template to the see also on the Expand template? I think it should be added because I have always found {{Expand}} on empty sections. The reason why I'm asking you to do it is because it is protected to where only administrators can edit it. -- IRP ☎ 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
[butting in] The green documentation section is not protected; edit as needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Template change
Should I discuss before making any changes to Template:Editlink? -- IRP ☎ 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only if you think it may be controversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think any other editors will have a problem if I make the brackets round? -- IRP ☎ 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
___________________|
|
Should I test, and if it is different, revert it? -- IRP ☎ 01:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You could. If it affects articles, user pages, talk pages, etc, I'd revert it immediately. I prefer [] myself. () makes it look like a minor afterthought. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you may want to move your icons in the corner of your userpages because they overlap with "Support Wikipedia". -- IRP ☎ 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
User disruptively using socks (again)
Hello Rlevse. I'm just notifying you of wp:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 -- I've updated it after those last scrums by the user. As you know, it was already clear to him/her to not engage/continue disruptive editing, especially not by use of socks, so it's pretty much out of my control. He's logged on as 189.31.111.17 just today. As hard as it is for me to say, I wouldn't have liked to take part in this one bit, but the truth is simply that those edits seem like they are in direct confontration similarly to the ones before. From my understanding, he's certainly wikistalking my edits; otherwise, he would not have been doing much within my sight. Of course, I'm limited to doing anything in response other than to revert those edits, and I would rather not spend my time doing that. ~ Troy (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey
How can i change my name to rogerchocodiles? Pedrovip (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip
We need edit protection please, one guy whom you once blocked uis now using diiferent acounst and anon accounst to just keep reverting without discussing. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rlevse, this user 'Taprobanus' is stubbornly reverting without concensus. The contents that he wishes to maintain have nothing to do with the article whatsoever! - Power Curve Surge —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks for your response. I've talked it out but this user refuses to accept the terms; the contents have nothing to do with the article. The user is very biased and insists on having it his way, in spite of Wiki POV rules. - Power Curve Surge —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
Problem with vandal
Hi, I hope you're the one who could help (picked your page out of "done" renames):
I'm quite enerved about one vandal who on the very first days when SUL was open to everyone, on may 27 and 28, managed to create accounts under my at-that-time nick WeHaWoe and to vandalise in more than 30 Wikipedias, starting in anWP and "running" through the alphabet. This was obvioulsy possible due to some bug in SUL. Can you please arrange a CU or address this request to a person who can?
I constantly use the same ip for more than one year, so, hopefully I could prove that way that it was impossibly me. Although I meanwhile changed all my account names I really created myself and which I plan to use fürther, their history still will point to the account name used by the vandal -- besides: My rename on en WP is pending for a while.
My at-that-time real WeHaWoe accounts were COM, deWP, enWP, dewikisource and meta. Besides I had created arWP, which was a silly idea and where I'd rather want my account to be removed, if possible. See http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=WeHaWoe&blocks=true&lang= Thanks. --Wolfgang (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad the guy caused you this problem. I am a crat (so I can do renames) and a checkuser (so I can do CUs) but those rights are specific to one wiki. Only stewards can rename and CU across wikis. SUL shows your en wiki account is clearly the SUL owner. So the first thing you need to do is, on en wiki, go to your preferences tab and unify your account. Then unify all the other wiki accounts you control under that SUL global account. Then go to crats on each wiki you want to unfify, explain what happened (just copy what you wrote here pretty much), and get those accounts usurped. You may need to get a steward involved at some point. This link will give you crat listings on each wiki, just change "en" to whatever. Then check their userpage to see what languages they speak, most speak English. If a wiki has no crats, ask a steward, such as Rdsmith4. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, when trying to unify WeHaWoe from enWP (which I tried this morning), I see (of cpurse) the list of all those vandalised accounts, from an--zh, where I never will contribute. I therefore did not unify, but would like to be renamed first to user:W., then ASAP unify my accounts from COM where I'm "at home", and later, by+by, start chasing the vandal (if appropriate at all -- is it BTW possible to have such kind of accounts deleted and blocked for re-creating ever?).
- Do you see any objections on that idea? Thanks, --213.47.146.118 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- W is taken on many wikis, including enwiki. Pick something with no SUL problems. To check a name, when you run your own SUL, just change your name to the name you're considering. And log in and tell me with your current name. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, no: Wdot is only taken on wikis where I took it: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=W.&lang= --Wolfgang (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, "user:W" did some 106 edits on enWP, and most of them around 2006. I'd say it was a kid which meanwhile focusses on viWP. http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=W&lang= --Wolfgang (talk) 14:35, 7 November 200Is there some "international" list, or would I have to check eachone, hoping I'd get a reply? See, e.g., some itWP admin threatening me for vandalism for having added text to my vandal's it-user page: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussioni_utente:WeHaWoe&action=history --Wolfgang (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- W is taken on many wikis, including enwiki. Pick something with no SUL problems. To check a name, when you run your own SUL, just change your name to the name you're considering. And log in and tell me with your current name. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- One last note: I'll activate SUL anyways under "user:W." within ca. 48hrs. I however learned, a few months ago, that it would be a problem to add some differently named account to an already existing SUL. That's why I tried to be renamed here BEFORE activating SUL. In case, this can not be done, I'd just inactivate WeHaWoe/en, and in the future do the few edits I might do as an ip or however. So, my final question is, will it be manageable to remame WeHaWoe/en within ca. 48hrs? Thanks, --213.47.146.118 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Was told, meanwhile, that former bug of adding accounts to existing SUL has been resolved for a while. Might have been able to create SUL [?] -- cu tomorrow. Best, Wolfgang --213.47.146.118 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- One last note: I'll activate SUL anyways under "user:W." within ca. 48hrs. I however learned, a few months ago, that it would be a problem to add some differently named account to an already existing SUL. That's why I tried to be renamed here BEFORE activating SUL. In case, this can not be done, I'd just inactivate WeHaWoe/en, and in the future do the few edits I might do as an ip or however. So, my final question is, will it be manageable to remame WeHaWoe/en within ca. 48hrs? Thanks, --213.47.146.118 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've renamed "WeHaWoe" to "W." Vandals can be blocked; in your case if it's recent vandalism, it is possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I really_DO feel very much more "at home" here, by now.
Maybe I'd address you on "how-to_have_vandals_blocked", soon, but for a first try I'll ask that question on de-user pages (which are by far easier to communicate, by me ;) Best, --Wolfgang (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a disruptive throwaway account that was used for only one edit. See user contributions for proof. -- IRP ☎ 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- He links a name in a article to a public web page about that person. How is that disruption? But agree it is probably a throwaway account and the acct name bothers me. And that edit was over 3 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
A page to see
Please see this. -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Odd. I courtesy blanked the page, semi protected it, and asked an oversighter to perm delete the intervening edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the page to the last revision by the userpage owner. -- IRP ☎ 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, no. Not only may it be a joke account (orange hair? poss but not likely), user should not put private info on their pages, esp women and children. See note I left on his page. Lots of weirdos out there and this only encourages them. Now if the actual user puts it back, okay, but then it's on him, not us. Smart move here is leave it alone-blanked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Block
I think you may have forgotten to unblock the new account; I'm having to tell you will my old account.--Brittish incompetance (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- fixed. BI should now be blocked and JPB should be unblocked now. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Notice
I figured that I should tell you that there is a registered user that is disguised as an IP. Please see this link. I know that because IPs cannot create new pages, besides the fact that this user is introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look. -- IRP ☎ 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- If he keeps it up report it to WP:ANI. I deleted the template and its talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it against the policy for a registered user to be disguised as an IP address? -- IRP ☎ 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- If he's simply forgetting to log in, no. If he's using it to vote stack or avoid WP:3RR, yes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- But no, it is really a registered account with a name that makes it look like an IP. It appears as an "IP" creating pages, but it is an actual registered account disguised as an IP address that creates pages. That's how I figured out that it is a registered user. Is that a violation of the policy? -- IRP ☎ 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, it is, because it is deceptive to other editors. -- IRP ☎ 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure, post at WP:AN and ask. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, it is. Similar to User:!. An administrator declined that user's unblock request and said "Inappropriate username". -- IRP ☎ 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure, post at WP:AN and ask. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Scout image
[22] Where did you find this is under copyright? Please post to WT:SCOUT — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that BSA rank insignia is under a free license. Old uploads of mine were deleted for being unfree. -- Cat chi? 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's Canadian, not BSA. So you're going on assumption here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I am. I see no detailed description on the image description talk page. Unless proven otherwise all images are copyrighted. A link or an OTRS template would be more than sufficient. I am not doubting what you are saying but evidence supporting it shouldn't be too hard to find I think. -- Cat chi? 21:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't upload that, I agree the burden is on the uploader, but your post implied you found actual evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- My post implies there is a lack of evidence that the image is free, hence "all rights reserved" unless the evidence contrary to it is provided. I can technically tag it for "deletion in 7 days" as a copyvio, but I am nicer than that. I am going to notify uploaders in bulk once I am done processing a number of freely licensed images. -- Cat chi? 21:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't upload that, I agree the burden is on the uploader, but your post implied you found actual evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I am. I see no detailed description on the image description talk page. Unless proven otherwise all images are copyrighted. A link or an OTRS template would be more than sufficient. I am not doubting what you are saying but evidence supporting it shouldn't be too hard to find I think. -- Cat chi? 21:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's Canadian, not BSA. So you're going on assumption here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Would I have a right to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)? -- IRP ☎ 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Admins can close XFDs/SSP/etc and experienced user that admins who work that area trust can close noncontroversial XFDs. This close looks potentially controversial so I'd say not close it. If you want to know if you can close XFDs that aren't controversial, ask the admins that regularly work in that area. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Test those new tools!
So I've discovered that there are a number of indef IP blocks "per checkuser" and was wondering if you'd like to test your new buttons on them to see if the blocks can be reduced to some finite period of time. The list is at User:Nixeagle/Sandbox/6. Thanks in advance. MBisanz talk 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Upcoming ArbCom elections
Hi,
I'm rather unhappy about the sorry list of candidates at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements. Would you consider running? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm filing right now, working on the questions page now. Thanks for thinking of me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Recorded debates and discussions
Candidates and the community,
Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email
There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.
The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.
It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.
01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
WikiVoices
- Could you indicate which scheduled show youd be able to attend from the list here. There are a wide range of times available so hopefully one will suit you. Seddσn talk Editor Review 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding a username block
Heya, on the block of Retard078crab (talk · contribs), he is asking for unblock. I agree that the name is unacceptable, but he did seem to make a good edit,[23] and he is amenable to changing his name.[24] Would it be alright with you if I unblocked? --Elonka 21:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
'_rtnjkk() (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Ichompyourshadow (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are obviously socks of each other. Can you see if there are more? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- and 234n5 & (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Basically look at the history of Fraps. J.delanoygabsadds 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unrelated to the others Ozbeepa (talk · contribs) and Ichompyourshadow (talk · contribs)
- Confirmed '_rtnjkk() (talk · contribs) = Account created to post on Reference Desk (talk · contribs) = 44444444 t (talk · contribs) = FFF 4JFKSMSK (talk · contribs) = Joh4j Aysh % erm (talk · contribs) = Oiwerjth area (talk · contribs)