User talk:Rlevse

This user is a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.

This user is a Bureaucrat.

This user is a checkuser.

——————————————— 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.

Archives

Discussion Question

Hello I just recently had my user name changed via usurp, but I have a problem. When I click discussion on my account, it takes me to DragonZero (Usurp) instead of my own page. So can you tell me how to get past this?
Please post the reply on my page. P.S Make sure the discussion page is not DragonZero (Usurp)
Thanks for your time. DragonZero (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!DragonZero (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf

Hi. Thanks for your attention at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf. It's been tagged as inconclusive. But did the checkuser throw up any other matches with users involved in that poll in question? Or if I don't choose the right two users, is it just game over and the sock puppetry continues?--Jeff79 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find something on one of them but I'm out of time tonight, will work more later. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I am flabbergasted and truly humbled. It is beyond words. Thank you very much. Taprobanus (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Articles for deletion

Hello, Rlevse. On the 12th I made my first attempt at an Article for deletion nomination. It is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kascha Papillon. I followed the instructions in Template:AfD in 3 steps as well as I could, and I also took the additional step of notifying the creator of the article. But a bot later tagged the nomination as incomplete. I cannot see what the bot did to complete the nomination. Can you see what step I missed, so that I can make proper nominations in the future? Thank you in advance for your help. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why, but it's listed here now: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Actors_and_actresses#Kascha_Papillon — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't realize it should be listed here. Perhaps that was the problem. Thank you again. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Tom Sayles sock

Special:Contributions/Disliker of humanities. Even apart from his userpage, he shares a lot of mannerisms and stuff. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File an SSP and post here when you're done and I'll get on it. Give good evidence and diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?

Would this single purpose account be considered one, or the other? How can one check without bothering a checkuser? Must there be an assumption of good faith if the account was created for one reason only? Contribution: Honey And Thyme

Signed User:MichaelQSchmidt 19:23 14Oct08 (sig. added by Franamax (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay to archive?

Hi. I was going to archive the Puttyschool RFCU but noticed a call for a second look. Let me know if I should wait or archive away. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist it and ask Thatcher to look at it. Mention I asked him to. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be deleted or not?

Do you think my redirect February 17, 2009 (this link goes to discussion), should be deleted, or changed. I think it should be made like February 17, 2005. Please also post your opinion on the discussion. -- IRP ☎ 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serio is back

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serio1, which was a pretty easy case of sockpuppeting for those involved. The other user that wasn't included but keeps getting blocked is User:63.224.213.47, which is another. Not sure how to do a 2nd sockpuppetcase, but a quick look at the users blocks will make it clear that it probably isn't needed to see this is vandalism. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already blocked him today for 6 months. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote this, I decided to report it as vandalism not expecting much since there was the single new edit. Technically, it was a sockpuppet case but I really didn't want to report another sockpuppet case (I have one report there now that has been there for weeks...) So I documented the history in the vandal report and the admin at the switch put the block for being a sockpuppet, which is a little unusual. Then again, this whole Serio thing is pretty unusual. Thanks for getting back. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy violation

This looks to me like it is a violation of the username policy. -- IRP ☎ 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind helping, but you need to learn the noticeboards that I told you about. The user in question hasn't edited in 2 years. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Awesome Wikipedia" Day...

Seems only right while Phaedriel is resting. ;) Best, —Ceran ¿? 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. and yes it does. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, picking up where she left off seems a good move. Anthøny (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. I ran across ariels page just dropping in and saw the award. I got kind of excited because I thought phaedrial might be back but it was just your continuation. a GREAT idea. If you need nay help keeping it up or anything let me know. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't think I'd be getting one this quickly, there's many more qualified I bet. Thanks, made my day! :) Wizardman 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Just noticed the username block you set on this user (they're currently requesting unblocking); I don't disagree with the block at all, but wasn't sure if there's a pressing reason for the autoblock to be set -- it's preventing them from registering a more suitable account name, if not. Probably not a big deal, but any insight would be appreciated, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check, thanks for having a look. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoked

I'm stoked to be working with a fellow wiki zealot. Hopefully I can convince you to play in the Intellipedia sandbox. --Pair O' Dimes (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When my new job allows ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfarb: Sarah Palin wheel war

I hope it's ok to post here, rather than clog up the Clerks noticeboard. You asked where the abstentions were. Here on 2.1 and here on 3.1, Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer abstained. I wouldn't normally have bothered, since Remedies 2 and 3 had greater preference, but several arbs had indicated that they considered 2 and 2.1 to be cumulative, not exclusive - likewise with 3 and 3.1. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE on noticeboard. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot proposal - comments needed

I'm messaging you since you participated in a Village Pump discussion a while back on the subject. I've since put in a proposal for a bot to revert the addition of redlinks to a subset of list articles and/or list sections. The selection of such articles and the policy of operation of the bot is under discussion there. Your input would be welcome. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, but I'll let the bot experts work it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move revert please

Hi
Since you happen to be the first online admin I find: Could you just undo my page move from Woodpigeon (music group) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Woodpigeon (music group)? I was gonna put an A7 speedy tag on it, since it neither asserts notability nor is notable, when I saw that the user wanted to submit it to WP:AFC judging by the transculded template in the article. When I was finished with the move and already requested a G6 deletion request of the then-useless redirect I noticed that registered editors shouldn't submit anything to AFC in the first place. Sigh. I can't move it back myself now, so could you please mop up my mess and do that for me, so that I can properly request speedy deletion? I don't really want to leave the history at the new name. :)
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done, at least what I think you wanted me to do ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, perfect. :) Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as it turns out, the band has recieved pretty decent news coverage. Even better, but much ado about nothing I guess. Thanks again, Amalthea^Talk 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Email

Received, read, and replied. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb restictions - end of

Hi. I note that I'll be off the revert restrictions v soon (on 20th). Is there official notification of that on my talk page and/or on the arb case, or does nothing happen? John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does, as far as I can tell, run out 20 Oct. It simply expires, no one will post on your page about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I blooming hope it does run out then! But I'll give it an extra 24 hours or so if necessary. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

-- Wow a day declared just for me! Thank you very much for the appreciation. I am deeply honoured. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

My talk page was not transferred to User talk:Alcove when I usurped Alcove. Could you possibly help? Thanks - Alcove (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Rlevse • Talk •

Unnecessary

I do not need User:IRP/ArticleArchive/Shouting_match anymore. Can you please delete it? -- IRP ☎ 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot idea

I have an idea for a bot: AntiPageBlankBot. It would automatically patrol the recent changes list, and the millisecond that it sees "Blanked the page" (or just a blanked page with a different edit summary) within the article namespace, the edit would be reverted. It would also revert a similar thing, an edit that removes more than 70% of an article, with no edit summary (excluding an automatic edit summary), and the IP or username is not found on the talk page (meaning that the content removal was unexplained). This would mean that edits such as "(Replaced content with 'dhlvkjbxcgl.kbjnflkxh bjmlckvnblcnghkldfjlkgjxfkl;gjx this article sucks')", would be reverted. Do you have any idea of how I can establish this bot? I read that I was supposed to discuss it with other users before it was created. -- IRP ☎ 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAG — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect

Should IPA chart for English be deleted because it is a cross-namespace redirect, or should it stay as it is? -- IRP ☎ 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it doesn't matter that it's cross namespace. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed

On {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, the word because needs to be inserted between "indefinitely" and "it". -- IRP ☎ 21:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask someone to take care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, Rlevse: done. Anthøny (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. -- IRP ☎ 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it

Hi!

I read your explanation of "circular socking" and it makes sense to me. User:Brexx, the puppeteer, has always been on a dynamic IP that's usually difficult to block because many people seem to share the same IP. Because his IP is as dynamic as it is and because some of those accounts are stale, do you think it might make it easier for checkusers to perform requests related to this sockpuppeteer if I listed a more recent account as a main/sockpuppeteer account (ie, IJALB, VPNIP or SHOWCONFIG)? I'm just thinking that listing Girl Get it as a main account creates an extra step or two to for CUs and it would be pretty simple for me to start a new case with accounts that are newer and easier to track. Do you think this is a good idea or no? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but notate that the real master is Brexx via Girl Get it via whomever, so the continuity is not lost. The more recent the edits the better, as you now, they go stale after awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will most definitely notate this things. So is it acceptable to keep adding to the CU file named Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it listing SHOWCONFIG as a puppeteer or would you suggest that I start Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SHOWCONFIG?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep using GGI, making more files/pages just makes it harder to track. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser question - trying to avoid collateral damage

Hi Rlevse - I'm looking at doing a fairly long block (3 to 6 months) of a block evading IP, 89.216.235.26 (talk · contribs) who is known to us with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun. It looks to me as if all the contribs for the IP are from a single editor; however, before blocking the IP for that long, I just want to make sure I wouldn't be causing any collateral damage. Could you please review and let me know? My email is enabled if you prefer to keep the results quiet. Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK but it'll be several hours before I can get to this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rush. I have the IP soft-blocked for 72 hours, but given the extensive history of socking would be inclined to hardblock it if there is little likelihood of collateral damage. Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results of CU case. Sending email too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rlevse. I've now hardblocked the IP for six months. Risker (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Please delete User:IRP/TemplatesForCreation/EmptySection. When deleting, please say for the reason "User requested deletion within own userspace". -- IRP ☎ 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Looks like you got to this one first. I'll let you finish off the paperwork. WJBscribe (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just emailed you to finish paperwork, but okay. Second time we did that! ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Fund

Hi, Your edit to the Clarion Fund article[1] moved content before references that did not support the content. Why? I undid it. -- davidz (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs normally go after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Wolf Award copyvio

Hello! This morning, I tagged an article you created in 2006—Bronze Wolf Award—as a copyright violation. All of the text is lifted verbatim from this site, and that site has a visible copyright notice. Normally I'd just pop on to a user's talk page and drop in the {{Nothanks-web}} template and be done with it, but clearly you're no newcomer. So, I figured it was best to avoid the template approach and give you a heads-up that I'd tagged the page as a violation. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long time ago and I haven't edited it in over a year. I look at this soon and try to improve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the source is licensed under the CCPL [2], but that's probably not compatible with the GFDL, right? Amalthea^Talk 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that myself after seeing the CCPL. My guess would be no, considering the non-commercial aspects, but IANAL. Just wanted to give the article's creator some notice about the tag. :) Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[3] —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My stalkers - thank you

Thanks so much for the time and effort you expended on my little problem - very, very much appreciated. The result was unexpected but in hindsight not surprising - I had initially suspected a sockmaster from that part of the globe but the references to Hans and similar interventions from Manchester based IPs sent me off down the wrong track. Anyway, they've been tracked down now and hopefully the blocks will send the right message. Thanks once again, Nancy ^talk 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.D Lawes (talk · contribs) is the real master. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.D Lawes

Per this edit, are you confirming that all of the socks are M.D Lawes? Even the ones with Hans897 in the name? If so, I'll retag them all as confirmed M.D Lawes. Is Hans897 (talk · contribs) him/herself an M.D Lawes sock? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See note there. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Please delete User:IRP/ArticleArchive/Storm_train. When deleting, please say for the reason "User requested deletion within own userspace". -- IRP ☎ 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay MacDonald

Hi, forgive me for appearing daft, but I had no idea a vandalism account could be usurped. Don't Usurps need to have an account first? Secondly, could you confirm you need to ask if they want to use their real name 'every' time the user requests an account? This is the first one I've come across I believe. Any replies would be appreciated \ / (⁂) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a vandalism account can be usurped. My wife usurped a vandal and blocked account. A prior account is not needed, an IP or SUL owner of a name can usurp a name on en wiki without having a prior en wiki account. It's not required you ask if they want to use their real name, just a good practice to follow. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing My Account

I'd like to voluntarily close my account because I'm tired of fighting with overly pushy editors and I have a mild addiction to Wikipedia. How do I do this? LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to close an account. You can simply stop editing though. You can also place the {{Retired}} template on your user page. I'm sorry you're having a bad wiki day. I have them too. Just take a break and come back to happy editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would an editor with an oversight privilege level be able to close accounts? -- IRP ☎ 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they could delete the page so people can't retrieve it, but there's no reason to do that if there has been no privacy violations and it'd probably be a GFDL issue too in that case. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information -- IRP ☎ 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Dave1185 (talk · contribs) is under a slow-motion attack by a sockfarm that is spilling sexually provocative images all over his userpage and talk page.

The most obvious ones include

DavyJonesHuangDi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

RestoreTheking (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vietyqouc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Viet woman love negro men (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Huang IV 4 fourth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Viet woman love megro men (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Can you look and see if there are any more socks in the drawer and possibly nuke the underlying IP(s)? Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DavyJonesHuangDi and Huang IV 4 fourth were both from 4 Oct, but Huang a tad earlier. No obvious master found, so use one of them for the master for now. No other accounts found. Confirmed these 6 are all the same user. Block and tag as appropriate. Blocked one IP for a week. Keep eye out for more vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tagged and bagged. Thanks! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, found on one of their pages, so I fixed all the tags. Same guy. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Should I merge VORTEX and VORTEX2 into VORTEX projects? -- IRP ☎ 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? -- IRP ☎ 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now delete initial page

Please delete User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/VORTEX projects under U1. -- IRP ☎ 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Appreciate both you and J.delanoy assistance on my user pages, that sneaky little rascal is really starting to get on my nerve. For laughs, I shall quote my wife saying this: "What's with this constant harassment by someone so fixated (wth!?) on you? I think you got a new secret admirer!". But it's the weekend again, so we shall all have our last laugh, eh? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll do the CU in a few minutes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, I think we're pretty sure that s/he has nowhere to run, eh? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USURP

Thanks so much for the usurp. When I go to my talk page, it redirects somewhere else. Is it possible you could look at it? Thanks. ^Law_talk 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Rlevse! ^Law_talk 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUL renames

I've declined Footmark to Trace because according the SUL checker, the SUL Trace from fr.wiki has a better claim over the en.wiki username than Footmark does. For Iona to Jonah.ru, something's amiss. I've asked a question, since I'm a little clueless as to what they want done. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP Question

Is my solution here good enough to wrap things up for this case? If so, how long should I wait before closing the case? I know the user has been disruptive, but based on his comments in the case I'd like to give him a chance to shape up now that I've talked to him (I'll be watching to see how he responds). If he keeps causing trouble, we can bring him back to SSP or another appropriate noticeboard. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is vote stacking and disruption, egregious violations of WP:SOCK and the puppetmaster's block log has many entries. My standard action in such a case (and it's pretty normal re other admins) is to block the socks indef and tag their user pages and block the puppetmaster however long I see fit, anywhere from a week to indef. Having said that, the socks here had been around awhile and my checkuser radar went off for that and other reasons. ~~Results in the CU case.~~ Releaseable CU results recorded in the SSP case link. I have to block the master indef too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you meant "results at the SSP case," Rlevse? I just spent 5 minutes hunting for the case, before realising you'd posted the results at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/A State Of Trance. :) AGK 12:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yea, DOH on me!! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...Rlevse, is there any way we could give the master account a second chance? He promised me here that he would stop editing as his alt-accounts. I told him I would try to get him lenience if he did that. And it's pretty simple to see whether he keeps his promise. Is there a satisfying alternative to indef-blocking him? I was going to work with him on his other behavioral issues. The way I see it, he could be a good contributor, but he might come back with more socks if we indef him, especially after (in his eyes) he was offered mercy and received none after agreeing to my terms. I'm sorry to bother you, but may I please have a chance to try to work with him? Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unblock him, listing you as mentor and his promise to stick to one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More clever way to archive

Please see my talk page. I did it by creating a link to an old revision rather than creating a new directory. If everyone did it, it would save a noticeable amount of disk space on the server, and it can only be edited by administrators. This way, you do not have to beg other users not to edit your archive. -- IRP ☎ 15:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Sock Puppetery Accusation Against Me

You may remember I wrote to you yesterday about closing my account because of annoying editors. Here's why.

User:Aervanath has filed a sock puppet accusation against me on behalf of user:Mountolive. The sock puppets he/she accuses me of using are user:Bluee Mountain and user:Warrington. I find this strange because had anybody bothered to check the IP addresses of the accounts in question he/she would readily see I'm not guilty. Why hasn't anybody done that? Also, The report seems to be filed on Mountolive's talk page. This seems very odd to me. So, I have two questions: How do I encourage somebody to check the IP addresses? And where do I post my official response? LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Accused Me of Sock Puppetry

But you are socking with other accounts, even today, and you know exactly what I've talking about, on the same articles too, would you care to explain that? Note, Luis is correct that the accounts in the SSP are unrelated to him, but, there are those other ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (How come your signature appears differently on this post?) -- IRP ☎ 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, just does sometimes, I wonder too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Response to sock puppetry accusation

When you refer to "those other ones" I assume you mean Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. Those are two openly declared, alternate accounts I've been using for several months now. I added an alternate account notification to Pasta4470 on May 27 at 10:57 UTC [4] and then one to Thin Man on June 23 at 08:46 UTC [5]. By the way here's the wikipedia policy that allows users to have alternate accounts in case you're not aware of it (though you should be).[6]

Therefore, not only are you wrong about me having sock puppets but you're also wrong about the date of my recent changes. Have a look the contribs for all three accounts for yesterday. You'll notice I've made changes to no articles nor have I left messages on any talk pages. The most recent change I made was the day before yesterday with my Thin Man account before putting the "Retired" tag on all three of my accounts. However, after I left a message for you two days ago about closing my accounts, I tried to put a hash codes on my accounts thinking that that was the way to close them. However, I deleted the hash code templates once you pointed out to me that the "Retired" tag was the best I could do. Perhaps this is the flurry of activity you're referring to. But all of that was legitimate and, as I said, occurred two days ago, not yesterday.

Moving on to another issue: Mountolive is determined to discuss civility. Therefore, I will as well. My first confrontation with Mountolive occurred earlier this month after he insisted on reverting my edits rather aggressively. To his shock, I reported for him for violating the 3RR. Here was the administrator's finding:

...no vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation...[7] Apparently, since this time, Mountolive has considered me persona non grata.

Regarding my behavior: It's true that I wrote one angry message to Mountolive both on his talk page and on the Paella talk page but I promptly apologized for my tone in both places. [8] [9]

Not long after that, a few of the editors of the Paella article started arguing over several issues at once. Seeing this, I decided to initiate a dispute resolution. After spending considerable time looking through Wikipedia policy I discovered the way to start was by initiating a wp:RfC which I did here.[10]. I then encouraged Mountolive to participate. [11] He responded by accusing me of sock puppetry, as you can see. He then made a change to the Paella article and promptly insulted me on the article's talk page [12] (something for wich he has never apologized). I chose not to react for the sake of not starting another argument. However user:Warrington angrily defended me (as I warned Mountolive that he/she might). I then thanked Warrington. Apparently, my warning and Warrington's reaction convinced Mountolive that Warrington was my sock puppet. However, we all know he was wrong about that now because you checked the IP addresses.

So, I have apologized to Mountolive, encouraged him to participate in an RfC and I bit my tongue when he insulted me. Are those the actions of an uncivil man? The answer is obviously no.

In summary here are the issues of the case, each of which I have refuted:

1) Mountolive accused my of sock puppetry. However, you found that accusation to be baseless after checking the IP addresses of the accounts in question.

2) You accused me of sock puppetry with my two openly declared, alternate accounts. However this defies the definition of both a sock puppet and an openly declared, alternate account. Also I showed you that I declared them months before this dispute arose.

3) Strangely, you also said I was socking yesterday. However my contribs show I made no changes yesterday to any article or talk page.

I think I've proven my case.

However, there is one more issue I'd like to bring up. I put in great effort in expanding and improving the Paella article. Here's what it looked like before I began editing it.[13]. Here's what it looks like today (Paella). This is largely due to my effort with smaller contributions from Bluee and Warrington. Thanks to us, it now includes a lengthy history section, two basic recipes, three more images (two of them contributed by Warrington) and many citations. The only person on Wikipedia who has thanked me for all this work is Warrington. However, other editors involved have done nothing but criticize me. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this has happened. I've received tremendous criticism from other editors as well after editing other articles. This reminds me of the expression no good deed goes unpunished.

These conflicts led me to place the "Retired" tags on my accounts. I see no point in editing if it only leads to arguments and criticism. For that reason I will not be editing any other articles. However, if you block me then you will have clearly over stepped your authority as an administrator because I don't see how I've violated any Wikipedia policies. So if you block me, you can be certain I will appeal the decision to a higher Wikipedia authority purely for reasons of principle. LuisGomez111 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

retired?

Hi Rlevse. Thank you very much for your attention to this case, which has brought quite an unexpected (to me, that is) result. It did smell like socks in the end, didnt it?...

On the face of an editor (LuisGomez111) who is capable of editting under three different acknowledged accounts some 400 out of the last 500 edits of any given article (in this case, paella, see history ticker [14]) an editor who has the dazzling chutzpah to deny this very same record [15] regardless of how self-evident it is, who posted this [16] but then kept editting at ease right after under two different accounts all the same (business as usual for this user), and, last but not least, an editor who apparently seems to take as personal any changes done to anything "he has written"...well, call me skeptical, but I very much doubt of any real retiring intention whatsoever. Or, if these accounts are retired, I certainly expect others to replace them. I mention this as a comment addressed to the community which should be taking a decission (by now I realise already we are discussing in the wrong places, let it be my own or your talk page, I guess a more proper playground for this should be created somewhere).

Also, as seen in your report, I definitely think that the meatpuppet concern is certainly present (I still fail to see why such an angry reaction coming from other users to what was a minor edit after all).

All in all, I still think he is gaming the system, willingly or less so. And that it should be stopped.

If you want a light-hearted comment regarding this, anecdotal evidence of his true intentions could be shown at the very same user name of one of his admitted socks "The Thin Man Who Never Leaves" :D

As for myself, I am certainly leaving for a leisure trip tonight and I dont think I'll be able to check wikipedia until next friday. By then I'll try to catch up. In the meantime, if this debate is centralized elsewhere, you have my permission (and I will actually thank you) if you copy this post wherever it takes.

For the time being, just have a good remainder of the weekend and, again, thanks for your work with this. Mountolive _{le déluge} 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ColourWolf sockpuppets

Two of them, YellowRibbonRedemption and GrassrootsStalk, has not been blocked. Can you block him? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eichikiyama

Hi, Rlevse, could you take a look at Eichikiyama (talk · contribs)'s SSP case? And although I include Bukubku (talk · contribs) for meatpuppeting and disruptive/suspicious behaviors, I'm not sure whether I have to prepare for a separate file. Thanks in advance. --Caspian blue 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give them "warning for their lack of civility"? They are not only blatantly meatpuppeting but also falsely call me "vandal" with propaganda. They don't ever use "talk page" but just blindly reverting to delete my "properly cited info" and then insert fringe theory or "primary sources written during Japanese occupation period" which has been regarded "unreliable and distorted sources" by scholars. If they keep doing so, I think AN/I would be a right place since RFCU or SSP on dynamic ISP are not warranted.--Caspian blue 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ja — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in Talkpage. Thank you for guidance. [17]--Eichikiyama (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, thank you your message. I strongly approve of your calm proposal. and Please keep in mind this[18]

Caspian, you insult me in this other users page. How dare you! Answer me When I call you "vandal", I call you Caspian. I only call your assertive edition "vandalizm" You and Sennen deleted sourced article do not lay the blame at another my door. I detest your insult in concealment --Bukubku (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bukubku, this sort of rhetoric will get you blocked next time. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you read my message. I become more careful. I'm sorry--Bukubku (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blocked way back in June. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this user blocked indefinitely? -- IRP ☎ 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the block log. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please create User:Tel'Quess with {{Indefblock|historical}}. -- IRP ☎ 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that, but leave off the historical. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

then we won't do it at all. and don't indent my post, IRP. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't indent it. You could've said please to be more polite to other editors. -- IRP ☎ 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been dealing with socks, vandals, etc all day doing checkuser checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. -- IRP ☎ 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Petermaxlawrence (2nd)

? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, sorry, fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't say "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article", someone else did. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bugging you all the time. If you would rather that I fill out formal requests, I can. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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]