Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 20 January 2008 (→What am I to do: what the hell is that cryptic statement supposed to be?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 – ...

ArbCom case parties

I added Jayjg to the list of parties in this case but his name wasn't listed after it opened. Did I not follow the proper procedure for adding his name to the list of parties? Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 is well aware that I removed Jayjg's name from the list, since Jayjg doesn't seem to have edited these articles in over 6 months. Cla68 re-added the name after the case was accepted, and I reverted, since the top of the page says "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case." ChrisO readded Jayjg's name as well, and I reverted that also. I shouldn't be edit-warring though, and I'm going to stop now. Since you're a clerk, I figure you should decide what's appropriate, and I'll (of course) accept that, whatever it is. – Quadell 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are related articles that Jayjg has edited and debated on more recently. I just added a link to one on Quadell's talk page. Several others were calling for his inclusion. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he recently commented on a talkpage. He did not, however, exhibit any of the behavior under discussion in the case (ownership, reversion, etc.) – Quadell 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay is currently active on a number of I-P related articles. There are several editors listed as "involved" who have not been edit-warring; the problem under discussion, moreover, includes not only edit-warring but talk-page impasse brought about through filibuster, pettifoggery, strawman arguments, and other obstructionism. I think the arbcom case will be of very limited value and credibility if it doesn't include Jay, who has been an absolutely central figure in creating the editing culture supposedly under scrutiny.--G-Dett (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an incident only two weeks ago involving Jayjg accidentally posting a partisan canvassing message to WikiEN-l, exposing what is no doubt the tip of an iceberg on both sides - see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=183457247. Cla68 cited it in the AN/I discussion that led to this arbitration. I agree with his view that it's a significant issue and I'm detailing it in evidence for the ArbCom. It would certainly make sense to add Jayjg as a party since I'll be requesting that his conduct be reviewed. I'm happy to add myself as a party if necessary, though I've had no involvement with the vast majority of the disputed articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And that "dispute" had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine-related articles. – Quadell 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the ArbCom members can make up their own minds as to whether it's related or not based on the evidence presented. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, and removed Jayjg since I see no evidence that he's involved in the matters related to the case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the arbitration workshop page, the dispute is wider than just Israel-Palestine. The same editors are fighting each other on a variety of pages, principally relating to Israel-Palestine but also a number of pages relating to wider topics concerning Judaism and Islam - presumably because of the religious elements of the conflict. Kirill has already stated that (in his view at least) the arbitration isn't just narrowly confined to Israel-Palestine but "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", thus also covering Jewish and Muslim topics. At any rate, I'll present some evidence on this in the morning when I've had some sleep - we can decide then whether to re-add Jayjg. (As far as I'm concerned, since it concerns a relevant and non-frivolous issue, clearly he should be listed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw all this. I support Morven. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you both revisit this decision; please see my comment above.--G-Dett (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concerns here, but it is not up to me, you can appeal to the arbs or I can bring it up for you. I think part of the concern here is to limit the scope as this is an obviously huge contentious topic. It's even possible for more than one arb case to come out of the wide Israel-Palestine topic if the cases were limited in scope enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse is correct, once one of the sitting arbitrators steps in, it's out of Rlevse's hands. The other arbitrators I'm sure are monitoring the case page and observed Brown's actions, so if they don't step in, then Brown's current decision on the matter stands for the time being. Cla68 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 is correct, User:ChrisO has been advised of proper steps, see here. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Refiling

Wait a minute, did the arbitrators say that? Did they decide I should wait until February? If that's the case, why didn't they say so themselves? Or did you decide that? Everyking (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding of the request for clarification. It's archived on the case talk page. If I misunderstood, it was an honest mistake. If you wish, contact one of the arbs directly. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the arbs can't just state something plainly without having a clerk come in and make some iffy interpretation. Well, I will contact one of the arbs directly. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Paperwork question

Thank you for responding to the Request for Clarification on the DreamGuy 2 case. Since part of the request was on a subpage in my user space, at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report, what do you think is the best way to archive this? Options I've considered:

• I could copy it to the case's talkpage
• You could copy it to the case's talkpage
• We could move it to be a subpage of the ArbCom case
• We could add it somehow to the Evidence page, either as a subsection or subpage

Whichever way is chosen, I'd rather not keep the page indefinitely in my userspace, since it's no longer actively needed. If I had to choose one of the above options, I'd probably choose the first one (I could just copy it to the talkpage), but I did want to check first. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed, Elonka 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Either the first or last option. It's okay if you do it. Yes, I agree it's good to keep it with the case vice your subpage. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and copy it. BTW, despite DreamGuy being blocked, he's still protesting, and is using the anon to post in a somewhat aggressive manner at the anon's talkpage. I'm fuzzy on whether or not this is also considered a violation of the ArbCom restrictions, but will leave it to you to decide whether or not any further action needs to be taken. --Elonka 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so because of it's tone, but let's see what happens with this block. If and when you report it, make you put in how you know that IP is DreamGuy. — Rlevse • Talk •

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

I urgently need your advice on bringing evidence to the ArbCom. I believe the whole I-P conflict area is scarred by three features 1) illiterates who have hounded scholars out of the project. 2) straightforward cases of cheating and 3) intimidation by personal attacks launched on witnesses at various "disciplinaries".

Having suffered the very most damaging personal attacks myself at various disciplinaries (often/usually? falsely, almost invariably without evidence), it would appear that I cannot present evidence of serious mis-conduct at the requisite place, lest I be accused of criticising anyone. I invite your thoughts on this. PR 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence, you are welcome to put it on the evidence page. Remedies and such you propose go on the Workshop page. If you get harassed about it, let us know. Does this answer your question? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

I thought you might want to know that El_C has not been sitting idly by since the closing of the DreamGuy complaint. As its now clear he's planning a complaint of his own, you might wish to be forewarned. - Arcayne () 23:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

UNBLOCK

Thank you. I would like to help with military aircraft. I got frozen last time. Can you recommend someone to help me get started. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli (talk • contribs) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your intervention in the AL2TB/Artisol2345 SSP case

Greetings and salutations. Before getting into the "nitty-gritty" of this correspondence, I'd like to take a quick moment to thank you for your service, from one veteran to another. (I served during both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, believe it or not!) The rest of this is another story, for another time.

Earlier today, I noted that User:AL2TB had performed some very questionable edits, both under his user name and under an IP. Review of this latest data suggested that he was using what appears to be a DSL gateway IP in this latest round of shenanigans. (Please see the following items:)

1. AL2TB removes confirmed SOCKS template from his own user page
2. IP edit removes admin comments from another user's talk page Note the admin's assessment of another IP, belonging to the same subnet.

Now a quick question. Since it was pretty much confirmed that AL2TB is Artisol2345, shouldn't the template on the AL2TB user page reflect the confirmed, and not "suspected", as does the current one that's there? Honest question here, as I'm learning as many of the processes as I can along the way.

Noting these discrepancies, I immediately consulted a few different admins, as I was loathe to perform the reverts myself since I was the one that initiated the current SSP case, and didn't feel it was appropriate and might come across as harassment. Subsequently, it looks like all the user's puppets and master have been blocked. Now the "six-thousand dollar question", as it were; when (not if, this breed of "ricky ninja" seldom changes!) this user's block expires, and he comes back and continues making disruptive edits, what should I do if I notice it happening? I'm thinking that at this point, I might want to try dissociating myself from the issue, as I don't really care to wear the "cyber-bully" hat. (Too many other hats to wear IRL.) As you are decidedly an older editor, and also ex-military like myself, I felt that yours would be the best advice to pursue. Edit Centric (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. I would not ignore the case. These two are being dispruptive and wiki can't tolerate that as wiki would be way worse off. You have a knowledge of this case and that is very valuable. Report issues to the appropriate forum or to an admin you trust. Let me know if you have more questions. The tags are borderline in my opinion as to if they are confirmed or suspected. They are meats (diff people) for sure, maybe socks (same person). I don't know who the other socks are you're talking about. I'd say wait for the next reportable SSP case, then pile it all into one case and report to SSP or RFCU, listing all socks, blocked and not blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

No problem.--Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Never received notification

I never received notification of the case against me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Tenebrae. I'd like the case reopened in order to have a chance to respond. I think that would be the fair thing, obviously. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll go there now.

I'd like to ask your advise on Misplaced Pages policy and the proper forum in which to address something. As you can see by the January 12 posts at Talk:John Buscema, I again have to defend myself against yet another in a string of untruths posted by User:Skyelarke. It is not an isolated incident, but part of a long pattern. How can I ask for admin intervention to have this stop? You can see that I'm a serious, longterm member of the Comics Project, with many good and solid contributions, and I don't ask this frivolously or intemperately. I genuine need help and guidance regarding this individual. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Build your case, with good diffs, keep wording concise and focused. Show all pertinent diffs to show it's long term, show what he sais, show how it's untrue. Stay civil and calm. While both of you are currently banned from the article, not talk, the talk page could be added to the ban under the disruptive editing clause of your case remedies section. Post it at WP:AE as that clause is certainly related to your case. Make sure you inform concerned parties of the posting. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Does ArielGold have backup?

Hey Rlevse,

With Ariel out of commission, I have a need for someone with her magic touch of kindliness to deal with User:Merrymount. I think this is a kid, and one who is well-intentioned and isn't vandalizing, but her work on creating new horse breed articles and edits to the list of horse breeds is giving me hives and about two hours of cleanup work every time she hits wikipedia - just cleaning up the mess. I actually do not object that she is creating new articles, but she doesn't know what she is talking about, she isn't following wikipedia guidelines as well as she could, the articles are poorly sourced, possibly copyvios (I think she's copying word for word out of a book, but I'm not going to pony up $30 to find out), and there are so many of them being put up that I can't keep up with her. She needs to understand more about WP:Cite, she needs to understand that we need to wikify, and most of all, she needs to understand that wikipedia doesn't need 10 trillion orphaned stubs. I have made some comments on her talk page, and have seen results, but I just am starting to get snarky and irritable and need someone with Ariel's magic, soothing tone to review her contribs and offer her some constructive advice beyond what I can do (I get snarky and irritable too easily and hurt people's feelings, don't mean to, but it happens. I know my limitations). Anyway, if you know a backup to Ariel or could be of assistance yourself and drop in on her, HELP!!! Montanabw 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has Ariel's touch, she's unique. But try User:Keilana, she's similar to Ariel. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So tempted to say O RLY? right now.... Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tip

Thanks for the tip. I often think of myself as an NPOV-pusher. I'll try to say "pro-paranormal editors" or "anti-scientific editors" or "unduly weighted pseudsocientific editors" from now on if you think that will help. Maybe we should delete WP:POVPUSH. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Caleb

Sorry to keep posting on your talkpage about him, but he has (or rather an IP has) decided to plant SSP tags on my talkpage earlier today. As a result, a 5th SSP case has opened on him. It's obviously his IP I doubt its someone elses. All evidence at the linked page. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SG's Talk page

Sorry about that—bad idea? I had a look at her contribs list (hadn't seen her in my Watchlist for a while, should have thought the case was... murky) and noticed her request for protection; I wasn't aware you were on it. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Sandy. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of fully protecting talkpages, but if Sandy feels it's best, please go ahead and reinstate it. Again, I apologize for the "conflict" :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration

Might I ask what factors led to a review of DreamGuy's block length? Understanding blocking theory is sometimes a study in chaos theory (or at least it feels like it sometimes :) ) - Arcayne () 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply felt it was the right thing to do. It still ends up 72 hours. I read El C and LaraLove's comments and looked into the case more and shortened it. No one asked me to shorten it. It's that simple. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't thought that someone had asked. I guess I was interested in the factors that seemed different the more you looked at it. I don't have enough experience to know which factors are in play. Please forgive me if anything I said to you suggested that I thought there was something untoward in your reconsideration. - Arcayne () 01:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I simply changed my mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Like I said before, blocking seems hard to follow at times. - Arcayne () 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can be. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, Check out User:Pinaster and his comments on both his talk page and mine. Seems we have an edit war brewing over Andalusian horse. I'd like to stop it. I think the tone of the conversation says all that needs to be said. I also called on Dreadstar, not sure who is on right now. Have also requested move protection. Basically, there is a huge political fight inside the Andalusian horse world, and I think wikipedia needs to stay out of it. But i need bigger guns than me to deal with this individual's intense feelkings. Montanabw 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for reading through all my typos too. Montanabw 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Hi Randy,

Just wondering what your thoughts might be regarding getting an A-class assessment for E. Urner Goodman? Rgds, Jim JGHowes - 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Remind me if it's not looked at by me by Tues evening. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that necessary?

You recently created the page User:Toddst1 IS A WHORE & A FAGGOT tagging that account as a sockpuppet of User: Dan689. Dan689 has apparently perfrected the attack user approach. Can the page (or better yet, the entire account) be deleted? Thanks Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Accounts can not be deleted. Checkuser confirmed he's a sock of Dan689 and socks are tagged so everyone knows they're socks and puts them in the puppetmaster's sock category. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So the guy has a permanant attack page on me? That's not right. So the account exists, can the user page be deleted and salted? You are the second administrator to create the page, dutifully identifying the user as a sock. Can the user page be deleted and salted, yet the account still be disabled? There needs to be a solution for this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your concern. The problem is that AFAIK it is technically impossible to delete the acutal account. However, the page can be deleted, but I THINK that leaves the account in place. To get a more precise answer, contact User:Deskana, who has oversight and bureaucrat privileges. I could do part of what you're asking for, but he can do a more thorough job with his higher privileges. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When an account name is blatant harassment, the userpage and talkpage should be deleted as soon as possible. The account name may continue residing in some omnibus list somewhere, but at least at least one visible location of the attack is gotten out of the way. See also WP:DENY. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I left User:Deskana a note. I appreciate the help. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 'crats can forcibly rename a user, and this is the sort of situation that happens in. SamBC(talk) 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That talk was already deleted and admin-only protected (the new way of SALTing, version 3). I just deleted and admin-only protected the user page, with a summary about the ref to your name, which I didn't notice until you pointed it out. Sorry I missed it. Deskana may be able to do more than this, like oversight the pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. He/she's a creative so-and-so. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Z-SG case

Hi, I would like to put up more evidence in that case. Would you mind not closing it right away? SlimVirgin 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It already has a close vote, how long do you need? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the close vote? SlimVirgin 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AC/C/N#To_be_closed and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AFUSCO inquiry

While investigating ongoing problems at Wikiquote concerning a series of sockpuppets with names like AFUSCO, Alextheman, and Ilikepie, I noticed that you had participated in a query about the possibility that Wikipedian Alexfusco5 (talk · contribs) (formerly named "AFUSCO") was operating a sockpuppet with some suspicious activity relating to adminship. Wikiquote has had similar problems with its AFUSCO, but has blocked him (and his underlying IPs) repeatedly because periodic checkuser runs on new users with his editing patterns reveal the common origin. I don't have the time right now to fully investigate the Misplaced Pages situation, but I'm virtually certain that WP's AFUSCO/Alexfusco5 is WQ's AFUSCO. This makes me suspect that the reason Alexfusco5 is so busily doing (often too hasty) anti-vandalism work here is that he is trying to build credit toward standing for adminship. If I'm right about his intentions, this would probably not be good for Misplaced Pages.

I'm writing now because it looks like at least two opportunities to check this established user against potential sockpuppets have passed without raising enough suspicions to encourage a thorough investigation. (The first was the creation of Wikipedian "Ilikepie2" shortly before Wikiquote's spate of "Ilikepie" attacks. This looks to me like a vandal sleeper account. It also came shortly before "AFUSCO" was created.) Now, I don't like to accuse people who are making solid contributions to Wikimedia, and maybe I'm getting overly suspicious because of my recent experiences with cleverer sockpuppeters than Wikiquote's AFUSCO has so far proven to be. But since I can't take the time for a proper WP investigation (and can't be thorough, either, as I am neither an admin nor a CU here), I at least wanted to give you a heads-up about the Wikiquote situation and its parallels to Misplaced Pages activity. If you'd like to consider this, please read the recent q:WQ:AN#A Username chenge request declined. If you wish to pursue this, I can provide more (non-CU) information and links to Wikiquote activites with which to compare any discoveries here. (If appropriate, and subject to m:CheckUser policy restrictions, I could also share the CU data with the investigating Misplaced Pages CU.) Let me know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking a CU here about this, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, Sorry to bother you, but I see that you have already blocked several sockpupets of Beh-nam. Being a persistent kind of troll, he seems to have created a new account: Dupree3. For evidence, you can check his contribs, and compare with those of Padmanii, BamyanMan, two other socks of his. I could report the case, but it does'nt seem very useful, as it's obviously the same person. Could you block this account? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pls either give me a good set of diffs showing this or file an RFCU, he's probably got another whole set of socks out. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here are some diffs:

• same as by another sockpuppet.
• and same as
• similar to (insertion of inapropriate link to Demography of Afghanistan article)
• Also, much edit warring and contention on the Ghilzai article( ) where other sockpuppets have been active: , though in all fairness, his contradictor, User:Historian born 1975, is probably a sock as well.

Dupree3 has also been making some suspicious edits ( , ) that are decidedly racialist, if not racist in tone. Clearly a disruptive sock. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is Beh-nam and Historian born 1975 is NisarKand again. Nothing new here and very convincing case you present. I'm taking care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also hazard a guess that User:AbbasPeretz is another new sock (started editing two days ago) based on these almost identical edits and the fact that he/she started editing the same day Dupree3 stopped. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Following his edits to Template:History of Afghanistan and Template:Afghan elections which are virtually identical to those of Dupree3 ( and respectively) I have blocked him for being a sock. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Move request

Please move my statement in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles to Talk; I didn't get it in early enough to be a party. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

mistake

Your recent edit , accidentally changed my testimony. Nagle's edit did not include the list you moved along with his comment.

Since my arbcom Evidence linked to the text you recently moved, the change created quite a disturbance. (No offense)

Since I (also) have no desire of doing anything stupid and getting blocked for a month, I'd appreciate it if you fix it or at least allow me to resubmit the material... please.

With respect, Jaakobou 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. These statements , , , show how many of the involved parties added names, same as I have.

It was unintenional of course. Sorry. Please fix yourself, I think is better, just put in the summary something like "adjusting link due to material moved to talk page". — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

done. Jaakobou 11:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SalemHSseal2006.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:SalemHSseal2006.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra coaching

Where should we start? Regards, Rudget. 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

I'll tell you what. Since administrators are not able to enforce Misplaced Pages policies and standards, but only to berate people actually trying to uphold these standards, I will ask the Project coordinator to move that article to Rumanian Misplaced Pages since the article requires the English speaker to have their keyboard either remapped to Rumanian, or access the article through an accepted English redirect. Since the 'Eastern European' lobby seems to have been upheld, I will also rename all the articles dealing with campaigns in France, Belgium and Germany to those language current standards, and include redirects. After all, what's good for the Eastern goose, is probably good for the Western gander, right? However I have not abandoned hope that logic will eventually prevail--mrg3105mrg3105 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass renaming would really not be a good idea. In Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, Arbcom determined that a major impediment to cooperative editing was repeated instances of incivility by editors working in this area, and they enacted a general restriction that editors who were uncivil, failed to assume good faith, or made personal attacks could be briefly blocked. Your behavior falls into this category and effective immediately, the civility restriction applies to you and further similar comments may result in a block. This is not a statement on content, but on behavior. If you believe there is a content problem such as with the article title, you need to pursue the normal forms of dispute resolution. Involve other editors through an RFC, or try mediation. Don't edit war, don't make disruptive page moves to make a point, and don't be uncivil. Thatcher 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

He didn't actually restore his page - that was done by another editor wanting to extend his best wishes. As for the "Tired", that was added by an I.P., which claimed to have heard from him that he was tired. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - it was restored by JzG in order to keep the history publicly available. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Balance

In response to Martinphi's "Antelan: Want to write from the mainstream? Then let's set the numbers of people who liked the movie against the numbers who disliked it. You don't want mainstream. You want scientific mainstream, and WP is not SPOV. But if you want to go with that concept, let's see if we can even fit a criticism into the lead, maybe a short sentence, to go with the short paragraph of criticism way down the page.

Let me ad to that: Usually, "mainstream" around here means a tiny cohort of skeptics. ..."

I wrote: How about this - I'll speak for myself, and you can misrepresent my views in your head instead of in writing. Antelan 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that I was taken aback that you would warn me to remain civil, while letting Martinphi's initiating You don't want mainstream, to go without comment. If you actually believe that my comment was uncivil but his was not, I would appreciate an explanation, because I sincerely don't see it that way. Antelan 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, one last try at this. In your comments on the other talk page, it's clear that you see something in my comment which you found to be remarkably inappropriate. I would appreciate an explanation of what it is that you're thinking (on my talkpage or here). My reason for asking you is so that, with your helpful feedback, I can better comply with guidelines. If my incivility was obvious to me, I wouldn't ask you here; I'm not trying to make you waste your time. If you do take the time to share your thoughts with me here or on my talk page, my promise to you is that I won't try to argue or rebut. I would just appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Antelan 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, to me "I'll speak for myself, and you can misrepresent my views in your head instead of in writing." seemed like you were trying to tell him to stifle and not participate in wiki. If that is incorrect I apologize now. If that is correct, then it was indeed incivil. I try to head off the RatSkep/Paranormal feuds early. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I'll be more careful with my phrasing in the future. No need to apologize - stepping in has proven helpful in the past and, I suspect, will prove to be so in the future, too. Thank you for your help. Antelan 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it concerns the same editor, I'd like your input on my evaluation of his editing behavior. What frustrated me is that I felt that he was trying to ascribe views to me that were really not mine /. It seems that similar behavior continues: , . Earlier he made a vague meatpuppet recruitment claim, and I asked twice for clarification over the course of the last 5 days but he has not responded. Something just doesn't sit right with me about this pattern, but I realize that I'm fresh off of a confrontation with this user so I wanted outside eyes to take a look. Am I purely overreacting? Antelan 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you're overreacting on the idea he's trying to ascribe views to you. Looks to like more Ratskep/Paranormal debate stuff. On the meat claim, I think he was talking about ScienceApologist, who did try to recruit aid, but when confronted (I think this was on the WP:AE and it's now archived), he said he'd been told to ask for admin help when he was frustrated, but to me that looked more like canvassing. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest feedback. I'll just take some time off from interacting with him (assuming that his RfArb doesn't get accepted); that should clear the air over time. Regards, Antelan 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad we worked this out. I'm not surprised an arb case was filed again, there'll be another too, but this one is premature. I am pretty sure it'll get turned down. The basic problem here is both sides view their own side as the truth and won't allow room for the other. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion please

here. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment creates mistaken impression of ArbCom clerk intent.

The current state of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Statement by Nagle gives the impression that your threat to block 128.122.253.196 (talk · contribs) ("Any future reverts of a sitting arb will result in a one month block") was addressed to me. It would be appreciated if you would edit your remarks to make it clear that such was not the case. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why people think that, but I'll dispel any confusion. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I've been a a coachee of User:Academic Challenger for some months now. But it seems that he is going on a long-term wiki-break and I'd like to continue on the coaching track. Would you be willing to take me on as a student? Mbisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) MBisanz 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you don't hear from me by Sat morning, remind me. How did you choose me? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Once I saw Academic Challenger was going on a long-term break, I started making my way down the list of admin coaches, seeing who I recognized. I asked Mr. Z-man who was busy with real life stuff and Martinp23 who is appears is now on long-term break. So I continued down the list to your name (which I recognized), saw you were active, and that your student Rudget had just passed RfA and decided to ask you. MBisanz 22:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done at User:MBisanz/AC as requested. MBisanz 06:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP cases added MBisanz 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Scout work

The reason I haven't brought it up is primarily because I haven't contributed as much content as I have on the two projects mentioned. I'd love to contribute content to all of the projects I am member of, but I have better access to sources for what I have done so far, and limited time to put those sources to good use. For the record, I am a member of four projects (SHIPS, MILHIST, Scouting, Houston), and I've taken a more active role at Ships and Milhist because the majority of my contributions to date have been within the scope of those two. I decided to mention just those two because the majority of my activity is at those two. I have limited time to compose encyclopedic content (which takes some time, my recent expansion on USS Texas (BB-35) which still isn't done, has already amassed more than 48 hours working through content, sourcing, and the actual editing and wiki-markup) in-between all the assignments I have to do for the various classes I've taken and am currently enrolled in. As I've said, I like to contribute content, but when you have limited sources, funds to acquire those sources, and time, your hands are somewhat tied. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Palestine/Israeli articles

You left a note about that being closed on my talk page, as well as a litany of rules, but I still have NO CLUE why I was named, and now that i'm suddenly subject to a fat stack of no-nos, and no explanation why, i'm kind of pissed. Can you either clarify WHY i'm now a part of this mess, or refer me to someone who can? NO one but the one editor mentioned me at all when he named me to the case, I asked then repeatedly why I was named, and there's no finding of fact that he just cast a wide net and fucked over a lot of other people. Who do I go to? ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the remedies in this case. You were a named party (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Involved_parties that is why the notice was put on your page. Named parties always get a talk page notice upon closing. You have been a named party since the beginning of the case. The remedies in this case apply to all editors, not just the named parties; so whether or not you are a named party has no bearing on the application of the remedies. None of the remedies applied to any one user or group of users, they apply to all editors. Hope this helps. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I look like I'm guilty of something, but no one can tell me what. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you were guilty of something, the arbs would have told you in private or more likely put it in the remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles "Uninvolved administrators" enforcement

Rlevse, should the "Uninvolved administrators" enforcement of the Palestine-Israel articles decision have passed as "8 to 2" rather than "8 to 0"? --Iamunknown 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed it. Thanks for catching it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem.  :-) --Iamunknown 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Any other questions

Good luck with CU, I'll certainly ask for your opinion on any queries I may have. Once again, thank you for the admin coaching, I wouldn't have been able to pass without it. Regards, Rudget. 13:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us your opinion?

You were so very helpful on Harry S. Truman that I'm inclined to ask for your help once again. We're obviously not there yet, but I think the work of the past six months or so justifies considering The Beatles (album) for FA status. I don't want to nominate it without getting your feedback first, though. When you get the chance, would you mind taking a look and giving me some pointers on what blanks we should fill in? Many thanks, BYT (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not summarize the body, it's more of a list of notable things. Example, it says nothing about the songs. Some paras do not have refs. Ref fmt needs lots of work. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, my footnotes leave a lot to be desired. <grin> I will work on the refs, and incorporate your other notes. Thanks for the help.BYT (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:3000ad

Hasn't the ArbComm ruling under whose auspices you've blocked this user long since expired? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but...While the six month period is up, this account name is still blockable for all the username reasons stated...I've added that to the case page to clarify. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

R

Thank you so much for the email, m'dear R, I've truly missed you, and everyone, and will return to IRC soon I promise! Thank you so much for your notes and emails while I was out, I hope you know how much they meant to me. Ariel♥Gold 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LadyAriel! I do hope you fully recover fast. We all miss you so much. Thanks so much for this note. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rudget

I am confused by his user page... if his mother/father had just received a phone call from the hospital to inform them that they've been involved in a car crash... do you honestly they would wait around to write a message on Misplaced Pages? He was only editing an hour before... I think it's incredibly strange... Scarian 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I decided to AGF. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

It appears that User:Jaakobou is determined to battle on against consensus on BLP (4 against him) and UNDUE (8 against him) at the article Saeb Erekat.

More than that, I'm convinced he's setting out to present an extreme fringe view of the incident he wishes to include in this bio (independent of the consensus that it almost certainly doesn't belong there anyway). He appears to have just 3 references to defend his position (all of them in headlines only, they're not backed in the body of the text), against 100s of RSes that dispute his position. Most convincingly, all the blogs who support his position are speechless with rage that the RSes have never agreed to their version.

Since Jaakobout is fresh out of an ArbCom over his tendentious editing (and other very serious accusations), it seems incredible he'd plough onwards and attempt to apply his ownership to this article (along with dozens of others). I'm not sure the best way to stop him - do you have any suggestions? PR 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel it's a violation of the ruling, report it to WP:AE, be calm and provide good diffs. Be concise and to the point, not wordy. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

You'll receive an e-mail shortly. Rudget. 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Canterberry

I noticed you had had dealings with Canterberry previously, so I thought I'd drop a quick note to you: I was archiving my talk page today and I found a section where Canterberry and I had exchanged views. Included was an analysis I did of a month of his edits on en. I've no idea whether it would be useful to see, but I've preserved it at User talk:Ssbohio/Canterberry. I had no idea what all he was up to when we spoke. He just seemed like the garden-variety guardian of his nest. --SSBohio 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with that either. I don't even remember him. Since he hasn't edited since 11 Dec, just let me know if he reappears under any name and violates something. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you block this sock ip 219.66.45.131 ?

I come across here because you're active now. I made a RFCU file on odn Japanese ip address users and 219.66.40.104 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) vandalized the page. For the consequence, the ip address user has been banned for 2 weeks (it happened just few hours ago), but similar ip user with the same internet host 219.66.45.131 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) appeared at the page and then vandalizing it again!

Please go to see and block the sock ip. Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him two weeks. Go back to your RFCU case and ask for range blocks if the socks are confirmed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I made two RFCU files on the odn sock because one of my cases has been on hold for 2 weeks. I have more than 200 ip ranges of the odn Japanese user(s). If my cases would be delayed further, the sock wouldn't cease his disruption. --Appletrees (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What am I to do

I made a good faith comment on SA page, and he deleted it with an edit summary of rv POV pushing. There will be a ten-thousand word criticism as the lead by the time I'm finished with WTBDWK. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! I don't even know what WTBDWK means. Please look at Slrubstein's wonderful suggestions. These are the suggestions I have been making on the Bleep talk page. Slrubstein just capsulized them beautifully. I simply agreed with him and in response, SA deleted them and banned me from his talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That abbrev is the article on What the Bleep Do We Know? Believe me, the arbs and arb clerks are working on this right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a threat? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)