Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 29 August 2010

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

Archives

15 Nov 2005 – 28 Feb 2006  · 01 Mar 2006 – 30 Jun 2006  · 01 Jul 2006 – 30 Sep 2006  · 01 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006  · 01 Jan 2007 – 31 Mar 2007  · 01 Apr 2007 – 30 Jun 2007  · 01 Jul 2007 – 30 Sep 2007  · 01 Oct 2007 – 31 Dec 2007  · 01 Jan 2008 – 31 Mar 2008  · 01 Apr 2008 – 30 Jun 2008  · 01 Jul 2008 – 30 Sep 2008  · 01 Oct 2008 – 31 Dec 2008  · 01 Jan 2009 – 31 Mar 2009  · 01 Apr 2009 – 30 Jun 2009  · 01 Jul 2009 – 30 Sep 2009  · 01 Oct 2009 – 31 Dec 2009  · 01 Jan 2010 – 31 Mar 2010  · 01 Apr 2010 – 30 Jun 2010  · 01 Jul 2010 – 30 Sep 2010  ·

“Dog” The Teddy Bear

Thank you

Many thanks to all who posted here, on AN, or emailed me this week. It meant a lot to me and was truly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see your user and talk pages back to normal, Rlevse. I hope things are going as well for you as possible. (Probably should have posted earlier, though I've been recovering from jetlag lately.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Dincher Day! It reminded of when I was a kid and I complained to my Dad that there wasn't and official "Kid's Day". He told me everyday is Kid's Day. I like Dog the Bear too. My wife has Miss Kitty which is also a Teddy Bear. Dincher (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Something Ain't Right

See User:Rossmartin90‎ pop-up on various television station talk pages asking the same question: "What station in leads the news ratings?" This has gone on since 12:50pm EST today, 15 minutes after the account was created. Something seems fishy and this feels, to me, like trolling. I just posted this comment on the page, but as of yet have not received a reply. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tis strange, but it's not blockable. Have they done something blockable? May want to keep an eye on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet they haven't. Just seems trollish. When I commented, all edits stopped. So, I really don't know how to take it. I have his contribs open in another tab and am checking every few minutes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

After the last edit (and my comment) no posts were made and User:Deconstructhis has reverted the user's posts asking them not to use talk pages as a forum. This wasn't done at my request, they just did it. I will keep an eye out for further edits from the user, but I kinda doubt we will see any. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also added a welcome template and a specific uw template to their talk page to assist them in understanding how talk pages are supposed to work. This just seems to be a case of a straight forward serial misuse of quite a few talk pages as a forum by a new user; but I'll keep an eye as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Great plan. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Account Insanity

A while back you blocked User:216.155.153.104 they are now constantly wiping the page and posting that they should be unbanned because they did not do anything (but they did). Thought I would send this on to you since you were the initial banner. From first glance it looks to be someone unrelated to the vandal who is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages. Drewerd (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Protected their talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope neither of you mind, I added User: to the link above, so it points to the correct place.— Dædαlus 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What was up?

There was a notice saying "IN MEMORY" on your userspace yesterday. What was it about? Who were you mourning? -- 92.10.161.95 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_19#Reports_of_my_early_demise_are_greatly_exaggerated — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When you're back active ... no hurry ... really, no hurry

Someone wants your attention (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where should I raise this?

I need to raise an issue concerning MickMacNee (talk · contribs) and his conduct at AfD, but I'm not sure exactly where is the best place to do so.

The basic problem is that MMN continually badgers any editor who !votes "keep" at an AfD discussion where he has nominated the article for deletion. To give some examples, there is the Falls of Cruachan derailment and its subsequent DRV, and currently Agni Air Flight 101 and Filair plane crash. I'm not overly proud of my actions in the Falls of Cruachan derailment debates, but MMN sent my wikistress meter the highest it had ever been over that one and I deviated from my normal policy of concentrating on the issue instead of the editor.

What I am hoping to propose is a restriction on MMN preventing him from badgering editors who participate in AfD debates. The restriction would not prevent MMN from nominating articles for deletion, but restrict him to giving a rationale for deletion, and only being allowed to participate further in the debate if an editor asks him a direct question or requires a clarification of something. Imposing this restriction would allow other editors to contribute to the discussion without fear of intimidation. It would also prevent votes like Gabinho's "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" in the Agni Air debate. Although probably not a valid vote, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.

So, where do I go with this one? Please reply here and I will check back later. Mjroots (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Omission

Your proposal fails to acknowledge the 22 hours and large number of additional comments received between the two closures. The way you've presented it, a reader might get the wrong idea that it was an close-open-close-open sequence, which is not the case. It was close-open (we need more discussion)-discuss-discuss-discuss-discuss-close-open (we need yet more discussion)-discuss... I do not see the substantial difference between re-opening a discussion or starting a new discussion. What would have been wheel warring is if Lar had applied a sanction, I had removed it, Lar had applied it again, and so on.

I'd appreciate if you would add something about the 22 hour waiting period, and the large number of additional comments added to the thread during that time. The reader can then draw their own conclusion.

As far as relations between you and I, please look at this situation through my eyes and try to understand why I am so upset with you. Jehochman 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I appreciate them. Jehochman 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned you by name here: Jehochman 03:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I still don't get it. Why do you want to admonish me for one revert, made after substantial discussion? After Lar re-opened the second time I did not continue. We in fact had a discussion, which you cited, that ended cordially. This does not make sense at all, and I would like an answer. Are you trying to destroy collegiality on Misplaced Pages? What did I do to deserve this harsh treatment? I am extremely angry at you for what you are doing, and the best way to resolve this would be to discuss it. Jehochman 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • When you calm down. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • My blood pressure is 115/75. Is that calm enough? Jehochman 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Martintg's concerns

It wasn't the first time Jehochman reverted another admin. He reopened two cases previously closed by Sandstein . The whole thing subsequently became a total shambles, with AE sanctions applied then vacated. In the end Sandstein's original decision to close the AE reports without action was vindicated. --Martin (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • @JEH care to explain this? @Martin - is this in the CC case evidence somewhere? Are you saying this is a pattern? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ta. If I remember, these matters, June 2009 Eastern European disputes (not Climate Change), eventually did turn into a request for arbitration, and the matter was reviewed at some point, maybe not on that request, but a subsequent one. (Misplaced Pages:EEML where Martintg was identified as a disruptive editor, and my name appeared prominently in some of the email evidence. Maybe he's got an axe to grind here?) Do you think it is wise to tack all this on to the present case? It seems rather tangential. In any event, I am happy to explain anything I've ever done. For the moment, can you point out the policy that says we cannot reopen a discussion? The first diff cited by Martintg was followed by this statement by Sandstein where he seems agreeable and invites me to proceed. The next few diffs by Martintg are unclear. They don't seem to show me reverting a close. A few diffs later I politely asked Sandstein to modify his close. This all looks pretty routine and cooperative to me. Jehochman 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• No, it isn't in the CC evidence yet, but I can add it if you want. I came here to your talk page for another reason but felt compelled to comment here after seeing Jehochman accusing you of "trying to destroy collegiality on Misplaced Pages", a comment I thought was somewhat audacious given Jehochman's propensity of stepping on other admin's toes. Sandstein wasn't too happy about Jehochman's actions at the time, as I recall, as his judgement was being directly called into question (although Sandstein would probably deny it now for the sake of preserving "collegiality"). Jehochman's actions caused a hell of a lot of wiki-drama which in the end was totally pointless and a waste of time, as Sandstein original action was vindicated in the end. --Martin (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked Sandstein to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • For the record, Martintg was a member of the Eastern European mailing list which engaged in prohibited off-wiki collusion and disruption. Martintg was heavily sanctioned in the WP:EEML case. At the time of my intervention I suspected deep problems and called for further investigation. It took about six months, but the problem was eventually rooted out. Jehochman 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, Sandstein has already made a relevant statement: "previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions... is not an administrator action and an action that is not taken cannot by definition be undone" That does seem relevant to a situation where Sandstein declined to place a sanction and closed a thread, and I reopened the thread to discuss imposing a sanction. Jehochman 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Reading the diff it is clear that Sandstein was unaware of a previous decline (asking what decline?) and imposed a block based upon a community sanction (rather than arbitration enforcement) independently of that decline. Arbcom imposed discretionary sanctions regime have specific provisions prohibiting the overturning of decisions administered in AE space. The bottom line was that your actions resulted in no net outcome beyond that already determined by Sandstein, just a lot of angst and pointless wiki-drama. --Martin (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
        • You and your mailing list colleagues carried out a massive disruption on Misplaced Pages, see WP:EEML, and now you want to blame me, an uninvolved administrator, who was attempting to control your disruption. That's rich. Jehochman 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to Martintg

Per WP:EEML, enacted 22 December 2009:

7) Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban. (emphasis added)

Coming here to carry on a vindetta against me regarding Eastern European dispute enforcement appears to be a violation of the above sanction. Martintg, I suggest you cease commenting. Rlevse is aware of the issue and will follow up, I am sure, and also deal appropriately with any potential violations of the arbitration ruling. Jehochman 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Henriette on her own power

I've responded to your query at my nomination's entry. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William G. Higgs

On 29 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William G. Higgs, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

question on vandalism

Hi Rlevse - I have a question on these types of edits, where Muslim IP/registered editors insert "peace be upon him", "PBUH" and "SWT" after the names of Muhammad and Allah. What is the best way to revert those edits? Obviously it is wrong and violates WP:NPOV, but somehow it doesn't feel appropriate to use Huggle and call it outright vandalism (unless the user decides to start a revert war). Does dealing with this separately (i.e. trying to explain to the user the problem with his edits) also make it wrong to continue to revert his edits myself, as it might be construed as participating in an edit war myself? I could really use your advice on how best to handle these type of problems. Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

definitely explain to them first. If it's a big problem, start a thread on article talk page too. Page protection is one option. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: FA