Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 20 December 2007

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 – ...

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar

I wanted to make a couple comments about this case that you just closed. One of the major points you made was that the 76 IPs were from Herndon VA. I initially misinterpreted that as well at first. That is the main address that shows up in the whois check for the IP address, however, it is the corporate headquarters postal address. RoadRunner is a provider available in nearly every state. If you will please check the traceroute for these two IPs, you will see that they in fact trace to southern California: 76.81.22.92 vln902.vnnyca2-rtr1.socal.rr.com and 76.81.204.238 vln902.vnnyca2-rtr1.socal.rr.com. I'm confident that checking the IP used by the two registered names, Dooyar and Onittles, will yield similar or identical IP locations to the 76.81 IPs. The 164 IP is the library at UCLA and the 209 IP is at the LA County Library.

The similarity in the edit summaries, coupled with the specific articles being edited, many of which are relatively obscure and have few editors, is compelling evidence. Because the edits have reverted, added and argued the same material, sometimes exactly, I can hardly see how there's little proof of a sockpuppet violation. Onittles was not used until after Dooyar had been blocked twice for being rude, disruptive and incivil. While disruption and incivility are grounds for other action, isn't it part and parcel of the problems with sockpuppetry, especially when it is continued?

This editor has worked nearly daily prior to the last week. I simply don't agree with reasoning that blocking should be passed up because the editor hasn't posted in a few days. It is a holiday week, during which a large number of people are away. I think that it should be revisited in light of the real locations of the other IPs and the pattern of editing. Diffs can be provided, but evidence in the histories alone is fairly clear to me. Thanks for your time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This was not an easy call, though I know you differ. In all liklihood, one or both will start editing again. If they sock, vote stack, jointly disrupt, etc, please open another case and provide good diffs. It's far easier on the admins on any abuse report (SOCK, ANI, RFCU, etc) if the submitter provides good diffs. Just saying "see their contribs (or talk page, etc)" (which show in the template anyway) makes it harder and slows the process down. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks of LtWinters

Thanks for blocking those socks of LtWinters, but I believe another one has popped up: Thisissad54 (talk · contribs). He has replied to a question posed by another editor to LtWinters. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine

I suspect he started to put dirty messages now on my user page because he was blocked.Sambure (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that he's using open proxies. Luna Santin has protected the page for a while. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Porky and IP already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

Hi, I see you've blocked then unblocked beh-nam recently, he is vandalising pages so why are you not doing anything to stop him? I request that he be blocked indef due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc., He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time., ,

He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. , If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk. He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.

Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything. Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit‎ ) , , , and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly.--Hurooz (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did I not do anything? Because admins don't have the time to watch every single edit and user on wki. That's why we have noticeboards and talk pages. Now that you brought this new evidence, I've blocked him for a week. Further disruption by him will result in an indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I thank you very much, I know you guys are always pretty busy. Just watch and see what sorts of excuses he now makes but how can he defend himself for blatantly inserting that Nadir Shah was a child molestor and that Ahmad Shah Abdali was his sex slave? This is clearly a violation, and exposes to us what he is trying to do here. Again, thanks!--Hurooz (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: SSP

You've already concluded not to block the accounts, so I didn't give it as close a look as I normally would do. I can't say with certainty that sock puppetry is going on; the edits to articles unrelated to Bandidos have little in common. I think your decision to "wait and see" was the correct one. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks- reply

I asked HPJoker about those edits a few days ago (and I have the complete conversations in Archive 3 of my talk page). He has said many times he lives in a hotel and some of those edits were definitely not him (while others were). I asked him about that vandal edit here, his response here. He also told me a few days ago he was going on vacation and would deal with this when he got back, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.   jj137 (Talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I think it really is a tough situation we have here. It may be hard to make any final decisions until HPJoker gets back from his vacation, when we can ask him more about what's going on. I really have no idea why he deleted some of Socby19's edits to my user talk page (and some other pages, maybe, I'll have to check), but I know it really could get him blocked because it is considered vandalism.   jj137 (Talk) 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It all goes back to edit warring they had over the MLB 07: The Show article. Apparently HPJoker wanted to keep a "Bugs and Flaws" section of the article, and Socby19 wanted to get rid of it, and they've been arguing continuously since.   jj137 (Talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've been keeping an eye on the page and nobody's changed it in a few days. I suspect when HP gets back it could start up again, and I'll let you know.   jj137 (Talk) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Beh-nam

Hi. I am Behnam. I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

• 1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
• 2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
• 3) I explained that edit on the talk page here
• 4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
• 5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
• 6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
• 7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
• 8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation. -- ~~ Behnam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.19.171 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not explain things like the child molester and sex slave edits, another admin has already declined your unblock request, and a third admin has protected your page for template abuse. Plus a fourth commented on this case. It seems I am not alone here. Take the time to reflect. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NONE of those admins got a chance to see these 8 edits explained! So am I getting banned for JUST ONCE unreferenced edit!? There are THOUSANDS of unreferenced edits! And this is actually true, if you allow me to I can get references for it. I was frustrated and did not explain myself properly because again you are being manipulated by the SAME user that manipulated you last time... and last time didn't you end up admitting you were wrong and apologized? Give another admin a chance to read the explanation of this edits. -- 64.229.19.171 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.223 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only blocked you two times, not three. Any admin can see and read anything you've done--so yes they had every chance to see everything. I did not protect your talk page, someone else did. See my above entry of 23:25 too. You are not totally innocent in this or you wouldn't have the long block log that you do have nor have gotten your talk page protected; you even got indef blocked once and there are several admins who agree with me. What evidence you have that Hurooz is a sock? The whole root of this problem is that too many people who edit the articles you are interested in simply can't learn to get along with each other. Think about it. Finally, both sides of this topic you and Hurooz are in please go find another admin from now on. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way, you were wrong before and you are wrong to block me again. This user: Hurooz is a new user, he happened to appear right after the last confirmed sockpuppet of NisarKand was blocked (user: Dilbar Jan). I don't even know him and I've never had any disputes with him so I'm not sure what dipsutes your talking about... again you haven't even investigated. If this user is new and I've never even had a dispute with him... how is he so familiar with me, my block log, and my edits... aren't those enough clues for you to be suspicious?

What does my past block have to with this block? So are you telling me that I am being blocked for being blocked before!? This is ridicoulous. And I cannot find another admin, my talk page is blocked, so you will have to help me now since you blocked me in the first place without even looking at those edits. I have now explained them and you should be able to see that there was no reason to be blocked... so am I blocked for having a bad block log?

Now you're accusing me again of not looking at the edits, but I did and you accuse me of being wrong and you demand that I help you? Hardly the way to win someone over. And yes, you can find other admins, just like you found earlier today, like the ones on your talk page. No you're not blocked for having a bad block log, you're block for recent behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not accusing you... that is exactly what happened. This has happened TWO times already where you allowed yourself to be manipulated by a sockpuppet of a banned user... and now this the THIRD time! I was right both those times and you ended up realizing that. No you have not looked at the edits! Which recent behaviour!? Which one of these edits is bad behavior? I have explained ALL of them... so you know you tell me which one is bad behavior. And you expect me to beg and win you over now? This is the third time! Don't you think I'm frustrated now? And thanks to this frustration you caused my talk page has now been blocked! Just because you don't like that I'm frustrated with you... doesn't mean you can just ignore me. You are an Administrator and you have responsibilities. If you don't want to ADMIT your mistakes, then place everything I've written here on my talk page so I can see another Admin or possibly an Arbitration Committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.223 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you just need to calm down a little bit. If you're willing to do that, and discuss the situation in a cool, dispassionate fashion I'm sure we can find a solution which will limit disruption and get you back to editing. As a gesture of good faith, I'm going to unprotect your talk page (since it's obviously not doing any good). If you would, please refrain from request another unblock when I do — instead, if would be helpful if you explained what you feel the core of the problem with your block was — a number of people have pointed out that your edits were inflammatory, and unsourced; it may be common knowledge in Afghanistan or Iran that so-and-so is a pedophile, but for most English speaking people that's a serious allegation that requires a source. Anyways, let's talk about it cooly, but on your talk page. --Haemo (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: It's not going to help posting here anyways, since Rlevse is up late and is going to go to bed soon. If you want a resolution, it's best to work on it via your talk. --Haemo (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to interfere because my name is mentioned! I explained before there is nothing that be can said or done to justify the actions of Beh-nam. Calling national leaders of the world as child molestors clearly explains to everyone what this person has in his mind. There is no doubt that this Beh-nam is an ethnic Tajik who is also Persian nationalist (going by his contribution), and will do whatever his thoughts allow him to attack people of other ethnic groups such as Pashtuns, Turks or others. The reason is because there has always been major rivalry between Persians and other groups. His contributions are ALL RELATED TO ETHNIC WAR from the day he created account in 2006 until today. The other contributions he does is very very minor, just adding tags to articles or fixing a ling here and there, or changing image sizes etc so that to fool others to think he is editing many articles. I strongly recommend for Beh-nam to stay away from all Pashtun and Turkic articles, he's not even Pashtun or Turkic, he favors one group over the other, that's where the major trouble is. Why does this user always patrol those articles and reverts edits by others who may be more expert? Finally, the first thing Beh-nam always does is try to change the subject of his continues bad behavious by trying to make administrators focus more on User:NisarKand, who is banned but I can't see any reasons. It appears that that user was doing normal good edits and all of a sudden someone banned him. There is no unblock history on his talk page or any specific reason why he is banned.--Hurooz (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your unceasing efforts in addressing the caseload at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets, I, Akhilleus, award you the Working Man's Barnstar. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Btw, I looked at Wiccaweb and Verzastyle, and I think you made the right calls. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:HPJoker as a sock

Thanks for going through it. I figured it be a case of SSP since the IP was doing vandalism, and the registered user making constructive edits. I'd just like to clarify one thing said by Jj137. You can find it typed several times between my as well as HP's talkpage. Actually, now that I think of it, I did put it in the report. I was concerned about the 'bugs' section in August, and lost interest soon after. The 'bait' came earlier this week. It's kind of long, but I did make a fair argument against HPJoker here. If you happen to get around to reading it, I'd like to maybe get some feedback. Thanks again.Socby19 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes when he returns. Everyone should try to stay civil and work out things on talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help about Justiceinwiki socks. I pushing my luck now but can you please delete 1 category in article because it is without question false. Problem is that I do not know how to delete category:Political parties in Croatia in article Ustaše. Right category for article is former political parties in Croatia (if this category exist) because they have been croatian version of Nazi party and I do not see in Nazi party article category Political parties in Germany. --Rjecina 08:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That category is coming from the infobox template. You'd have to change the infobox or remove the template. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine SSP case

User:MickWest is not a sockpuppet of User:Herd of Swine. A sockpuppet is an alternate account used deceptively. User:MickWest is an old account, active from May 2005 to April 2006, with 1259 edits. User:Herd of Swine has been active from April 2006 to the present with 850 edits. User:MickWest did make ten minor edits to non-contentious pages over two months ago (updates to pages User:MickWest had edited years ago), but there has been NO overlap with User:Herd of Swine since a few minor changes to Morgellons 18 months ago.

Also note Special:Contributions/Austrogoth, seems to have been created simply to make this accusation against me.

There is no sockpuppetry here. User:MickWest is essentially inactive, an abandoned account. I would appreciate your guidance in how I might clear my name here. I know I've not been banned, but I have the rather discrediting sockpuppetry accusation on my talk page, and also on the User:MickWest talk page, which I feel should be removed as unjustified. Herd of Swine (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We are well aware Austrogoth was created just for the SSP case, but the checkuser could not determine of whom it was a sock. It's obviously not a brand new editor. MickWest edited several times in May and Sep 2007. The bulk of MickWest's edits end on April 8, 2006, just two days before Herd of Swine's first edits. Plus the checkuser tied them together and they edit similarly. If MickWest is an abandoned account, that part is a non-issue, essentially. I'm not privy to the checkuser details, but you could ask VoA what he's allowed to tell you. Do you have anything to support you're not also MickWest or are you admitting it's you but it's just abandonded? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MickWest is my old account, sorry I was not clear with that. I abandoned it because it is my real name, and I wished to edit Misplaced Pages without using my real name for privacy reasons, as seems to be common practice. I regret resurrecting it in May and Sept 2007, but they were very minor updates to pages I'd edited previously. I would be happy if that account (and this edit) could be nuked, as privacy is still a concern for me.

I suspect Austrogoth is User:Nielsp, also User_talk:75.83.171.237 and Special:Contributions/71.130.56.247. For evidence see: Herd of Swine (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Austrogoth indef last night for privacy violations. I just tagged him as a suspected, not confirmed, Nielsp sock. If you want I'll take the tag off MW's page since it's be mostly, not totally dormant. An account can't be deleted. About all I can think of is you put in a request at WP:CHU, explain the situation and see if the bureaucrats will do it. You could ask for a 3rd account with a new name, or renmae HoS so MW could then be renamed to HoS. I don't think it's possible to merge accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since HoS was not banned, but MW was, could you just remove the tags from MW and HoS, leave MW alone, delete Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Herd_of_Swine and I'll carry on using HoS? I guess the privacy issue is somewhat moot, but I'd like to avoid the stigma of being lumped in with actual puppetteers like Nielsp. Herd of Swine (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a rather unique case and MW made few edits after HoS appeared, I've done that. I've left a note people can contact me if they have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your help. Herd of Swine (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ie909 redirects

Thanks for speedily taking care of this issue. I seem to be unable to move back his various redirects. (Actually, I'm rather confounded that he was able to redirect so many articles so easily!) Could you show me how I can fix this? Thank you, Amerique 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Call up the article in question, and use whatlinkshere, and backstrace, change each redir. There's probably a better way, but this is all I know. Try User:ArielGold or the help desk too. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably leave it for those more technically-able than I am. Best, Amerique 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BradSerious

I just found quite the discovery. BradSerious is a sockpuppet of another person, as identified by a long string of logs. See the userpage for more details. --EoL talk 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

GEEZ! Don't know if it's worth retagging all that or not. Great detectivework though. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

saw you did it. thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.156.63.16

Why did you block this user? He only recieved one warning. And his edits obviously aren't that bad, as one (of 2) haven't been reverted. I (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam

Upon being unblocked today, 25 November 2007, one of Beh-nam's first edits was in the article Tajiks where in the edit summary Beh-nam said "restored vandalism by http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/209.202.115.142)" which he did. But in the process he removed the edits that I and LeeMulod333 had made. Fixing the vandalism should have been simply changing the pop1 figure in the info box from 209.202.115.142's 6,315,129 back to 8,610,279. Beh-nam is an experienced editor and knows the effect of grabbing an old version, and ignoring the intermediate edits. Since my edit was more than four hours previous to Beh-nam's, Beh-nam must have seen it in order to (1) identify the vandalism as belonging to 209.202.115.142, and (2) select an earlier version to restore. He chose his last version, 11:16, 23 November 2007 Beh-nam, even though LeeMulod333's version was before the vandalism. Something is not right, and mere inattention does not seem to be it. Beh-nam was warned in his restoration, "I think a good start would be a commitment to discuss contentious edits before you make them and get consensus, to refrain from edit warring, and to source statements which a general reader would not know as common knowledge." Beh-nam replied in part: "Well another suggestion I would have for myself is to be more patient. I have a tendency to loose my patience and edit quickly. I think that's the main thing that might get me into edit wars sometimes." --Bejnar (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar, that was an accident on my part. I only meant to fix the vandalism on the numbers there which you failed to catch. -- Behnam (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanna comment here that banned User:Tajik (buddy of Beh-nam) is using the User:Beh-nam ID now. Tajik is the one who types in better English and Beh-nam is not that good typer. Banned Tajik lives in Germany and Beh-nam in Toronto, Canada.--Hurooz (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Very funny that a user who's been banned dozens of times now (user: NisarKand) and keeps coming back with dozens of sockpuppets (such as user: Dilbar Jan, etc) is trying to get me banned with these accusations! LOL! You can go ahead and ask for my IP checked. We don't even live on the same continent. LOL! Speaking of checkuser, it's time for me to report this latest sockpuppet of yours. -- Behnam (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to a)learn to edit in harmony and b)stop making these accusations and/or file WP:RFCU cases if you truly feel the evidence is warranted. Otherwise, this'll go on forever and you'll both get blocked indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Malalai Joya

Just to let you know, I was right about those images on those articles. The Admins on Commons confirmed they had false licenses and removed them. They were probably uploaded by an account of user: Sodaba(user:NisarKand) there. -- Behnam (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RodentofDeath

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RodentofDeath (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. -- edg ☺ ☭ 15:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of the peace process

Rlevse, please take a look ] where Lahiru has violated the 1RR that he agreed to. He has actually done 3 revert (maybe 4) during a period of less than 24 hours). Likewise I have also violated the 1RR which I have also agreed upon. However, since Lahiru, initially banned and confirmed for sock, started his subsequent reverts before I have done so. Please hand out blocks accordingly (including to me) because it was said that Breaching the peace process will be dealt with firmly. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert the same content withing 24h. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Lahiru is correct, 3RR rules (1RR for us) are that it's rv of the same material the only vio here is watchdogb, who rv'd that ref twice. But since watchdogb reported him self I'll not block if you both leave the article alone for 24 hours. If you edit this article in that time after you both agree, I'll block that violator. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand Watchdogb (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, both of you not edit that Allegations article for 24 hours from the time of this datetime stamp, by wiki time. Thanks Gents. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

However, with this newly found knowledge please watch out for more revert wars. Specially because Socks are running wild. Actually, I think there will be edit wars very soon. I sure won't participate in that. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Provable socks will get no mercy from me. If they appear, report to WP:SSP, which I patrol regularly. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is an option if it gets bad too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

You may be interested in this: User_talk:The_Big_X#Unblock_request. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've commented there. - jc37 06:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Hurooz

Just to let you know, it is now confirmed by checkuser (see here) that he was a sockpuppet of user: NisarKand. Once again, I was right and you were unjustified in blocking me. In the future, please be more suspicious of user that appear out of no where and try to manipulate you in getting others banned. I just wanted to let you know about this so you can understand why I was so frustrated. -- Behnam (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not unjustified in blocking you this time, your behavior was inappropriate. That's a separate issue of who is a sock of whom. FYI, I'm not getting involved in any cases on this topic in the future. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

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) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#2006 Mannar massacre

You may want to have a look at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#2006 Mannar massacre, which raises addresses both a content issue and a behavioural issue. I've commented on both, but my dispute resolution experience primarily involves article content, so I think you are more qualified than I (especially in light of your deeper involvement with the present SLR dispute resolution) to determine what type of action, if any, is required to address the behavioural issue. Cheers, Black Falcon 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Called it as I saw it. Please do the para merge. Thanks for you vote of confidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this is comming from, but if you try to block me for this edit, I will take it to Arbcom. I'm tired of all this business. --snowolfD4 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid edit edit, neutral and sourced. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, please take it to Arbcom, dont just threaten people just do!! Really after that we can all move on to developing an encylopedia.Taprobanus (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, I don't see that Rlevse suggested that he might block you for this edit. The only relevant edit I could find is this suggestion to read a particular thread involving the inappropriate use of the term "vandalism" in edit summaries. I get the feeling that this is all a misunderstanding... – Black Falcon 07:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is some one calling (indirectly) other editors murderers who want eastern tamils dead as soon as possible. Can some one throw such huge false allegation, and yet get away without any punishment?? I was once blocked for 72 hrs for calling a site, a racist site. And now we have someone saying some wikipedians want eastern tamils dead immediately!! And yet, no one even bother to warn him. I hope you would take a swift action on behalf of the wikipedian community.Thank you.Iwazaki 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see "dead" or "murder" anywhere in that article or its talk page. You can provide more specific diffs if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

murder is not directly worded there(thats why i said indirectly). But the word dead is obviously used.Excerpt from what he wrote, Tamils did not show up in Sri Lanka yesterday and going to die off tomorrow (although some Wikipedian would like to see that happen). Isn't he clearly saying, some wikipedian would like to see tamil dead as soon as possible ? If you take a look at the talk page,there is me and one bodhi dhana. He is saying we want tamils dead by tomorrow, and how is it possible without murdering them ? You may interpret it in a different way, but the fact that he has insulted some editors remains.Frankly, I don't know how he can call editors like this.Iwazaki 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people have been editing that article mostly only mass tagging it untill I picked up some RS sources and cleaned it up. I was frustated that people come to wikipedia seems sometimes only mass tag and absolutely contribute nothing to any articles. It meant most of the editors who edited that article except the guy who started and me. But I should'nt have writen what I wrote. Hence I apologize and strike those comments. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I do not what you are talking here, other than giving a lame excuse for your outburst.You may strike out them now, but fact remain, you have been highly uncivil in your outburst and insulting. If the process let you go unharm even after this, I don't think we can have any slight trust on this.

Rlveese, could you please make a comment regarding this ? Could you please tell us ,why you think this is not insulting and do not deserve any kind of punishment?? I told you before, I was blocked merely calling some one as a writer to racist web sites. Here we have a more serious and more insultive outbursts, which goes beyond any comparison and richly deserve some actions.Iwazaki 02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki, I understand your concerns, but there are several differences between your case and Taprobanus':

• First, Iwazaki's comments were directed at specific editors:

,

• Second, Iwazaki's comments were part of a series of failures of AGF and WP:CIVIL: See above, as well as:
• Third, Taprobanus has since stricken and apologised for the comment, whereas no apology or recognition of wrongdoing was evident in Iwazaki's discussion with Haemo.
• Fourth, Iwazaki did not report the Taprobanus issue until about 2.5 weeks after it occurred.
• Fifth, History of Eastern Tamils is not tagged with our peace effort tag, though maybe it should be. I tagged what was in the agreement. On the other hand, it is part of the overall SLR project. So this is a rather minor point, but I did want to note it.
  • Iwazaki, you probably won't agree with this, but I think that in this particular case, that this be considered settled. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

sock puppetry

Am trying to navigate my way around some of the charges against me - first time on Misplaced Pages. I've only gone to my article for edits under my own username - slmcouncil. I've been trying to go through the help sections to understand why I've been accused of sock puppetry. Slmcouncil (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See-Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/November_2007#User:Slmcouncil. Let me know if you have more questions. The edit's look like you and IP could be the same person in what would be a violation of WP:SOCK, but could also be simply forgetting to log in. FYI, the IP's removal of the tag is vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Rlevse, your swift and neutral comment on many of the heated SLR problems are very well appreciated and is the force that keeps SLC editors sane. I really thought that past couple of days was going to turn into a war zone again, however, it didn't. This, my friend, is what you have helped become of wikipedia - a peaceful place. Your effort in this peace process is very appreciated. Thanks for your hard work Watchdogb (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for taking the time to say so. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dewarw

I've posted the case at RFCU here, like you suggested. I think this is probably the best way forward. Personally, I now think the "school friend" theory is probably the right one, but in that instance I would expect Dewarw to know who it is. --RFBailey (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The check has now been done--can you take this further now? --RFBailey (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove

This isn't an unprotect request, but I want one of my comments copy-pasted onto Giove's page. The comment that I want pasted on is the on the last revision by me, at the bottom. Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, --Gp75motorsports 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here that comment is. It will appear as a new section.

You've got it all wrong.

All Alaisdair is saying is that you should try reading the guidelines. Again, it's not the most exciting stuff, but it sure helps. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1RR violation

Rlvese, could you please take a look at the following complain made at the SLR talk page. 1RRR violation by watchdog. Thanks Iwazaki 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

New Eagle Scout

No, I actually hadn't seen that. It's been open since October 16? Wow. Shrug. Well, there's not much I can do about it, is there? Next time we sup, I'll tell you what I really think.

Have you heard of Cleveland Sellers?  ? --evrik  15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Only heard of Cleveland from the new article on him. What's "sup"? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• It would be great if we could get a local volunteer to get a picture of the proceedings for us on Monday so we use it in the article. BTW, I'm logging off in a couple of minutes and probably won't be back the rest of the day. --evrik  15:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

editing errors

I didnt realize I was renaming the Arbcom decision. Apparently you renamed it whilst I was editing. Please pardon, and while I'll try to edit it correctly, if an error happens, it is an error. The posting is quite slow, and there is apparently some problem informatically. Thx. 85.5.180.9 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP advice

Thanks for taking a look at the SSP case and giving me some advice about it. I will open an RFCU now. I've never done one, so I was procrastinating. Thanks! Darkspots 12:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I created Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Piononno. But it hasn't shown up yet in the list of requests. Just want to make sure I did it correctly. Darkspots 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to do this. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's pretty obvious, now that you did it. Oh, I'm married, so I'll take a pass on the app. Cheers, Darkspots 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The app was just a pasting error ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Luis R. Furlán

See this talk page ? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article, whom I suspect COI is the same guy, but doesn't seem overly selfaggrandizing, listed this one on list of Scouts. I have no way to confirm one way or another, and am not married to the tag being on there. Chris 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

taking it away. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup to User:Piononno Socks

Hi, looks like my suspicions and your advice to act further on them were both justified: . The only stale logged-in account was indef blocked anyway, User:Kaiser1877. So, thank you very much for your assistance. And is there anything else I need to do to follow up on this? I looked at the templates to place on user pages, etc, and it looks like they get put on by the blocking admin, so I left it alone. Let me know. Darkspots 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll wrap it up. Just let us know if you find more. 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

Hey dear, I wanted to let you know that Alison requested that I file a RFCU after I found a disturbing pattern, so I did, and no clerks were around to transclude it onto the page, but she was working on the case, so I went ahead and did that. I'm not stepping on any toes, I hope, and I did check with her to check it after I was done, so I did it right, lol. On an unrelated note, there is an entry for Daniel575, which for some reason will not link to the subpage, although I fixed the entry as the submitter did not put the time/date submitted info. I'm not sure if it has to do with the fact that the entry was submitted into a page that was previously closed, but it is something I'd be curious to know, once you get home if you have a chance to look at it, and see what is wrong. Ariel♥Gold 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The cases that had prior submissions don't click from the RFCU page for some reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

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 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Roadcrusher

Hi! Good work on clerking :). Just a quick note on this case: apparently you archived it, but you forgot to add it to at WP:RFCU/CASE! Can you check the other cases you archived to see if you did it? That's very helpful when a username seems familiar, so you can look up other CU on him. -- lucasbfr 09:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to be very diligent and thorough; did not find others I missed. I goofed this one, sorry, thanks for fixing it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, we all screw up these once in a while. I've archived a case that was run 4 times without any archival, yesterday.

(Re: Archive) To be honest I haven't understood what you meant! Usually I try to move the cases to the completed/declined once the CU replied (if there is no further question). If there is nothing more to be done, I archive then 2-4 days later (depending on the amount of cases that are waiting for archival). The only time I archive immediately is when there are 2 runs against the same user, and that one is completed. That way there is only 1 case showing up in the list (I'm not sure it's a good idea though, but that's the lesser of 2 evils IMO).

Just a note, because I saw that you were sometimes commenting on the cases: Personally I try to avoid that (except the usual "reformatted", "user blocked", "diffs needed" stuff). The idea is to appear as neutral as possible, and let the CU handle the rest. I remember delisting bogus cases once or twice, but only where there is no information. I don't comment on the fact that the CU will run a check or not (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/JaneGrey is bogus, but I listed it, for example). But since you're quite knowledgable in the WP:SSP area, I think you should comment when you have more information, but not as a clerk to avoid any confusion. -- lucasbfr 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See . — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooow, ok. You should list all the suspects, in fact. I know this sounds weird, but we archive all cases regardless of the result, and we follow the same logic on cases with mixed results. Yeah I know your work on SSP, I was commenting on Jimbopheel in fact. But as I said, I'm cool with comments from knowledgeable people, IMO they shouldn't be "officially" {{clerknote}}ed templated. (And good call on stating that you blocked the socks, I usually don't block, because I got slapped once. But I'm going to do that again). -- lucasbfr 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Valboy1672

Valboy1672 good for them but what the has that got to do with meDiamonddannyboy (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You were named in the case, so I was just letting you know, just in case. That's all. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick question

I see you created Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Azurbanipal but haven't populated it. It was found in uncategorized categories (the "orphanage") and I'll put a parent cat to it. Was this was inadvertant? You should consider populating it or deleting it. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just whacked it, it's empty as MoreGunsInSchools is the master, not him. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

First, I would like to thank you for your nice warnings and block you have given me. It really serves to help me put the flame in the right direction. Second, since people decided to provoke me a lot of articles are going to be created in the latter part of December. As is the case with all the articles I have created, I would kindly ask you to keep an eye out on the new articles. Again thanks and cheers :) Watchdogb (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Review of GAC Shaktism

Hi. I read about you in Misplaced Pages:Good_article_nominations/List_of_reviewers#Philosophy_and_religion, interested in "everything". Would you please review WP:GAN Shaktism? The article is about the Goddess oriented sect in Hinduism. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First, foontnotes come after punctuation, not before, and there's a space after the fn, before the next word. Several of wrong, such as around FNs 28-30. The web footnotes need formatted, see cite web template Frederick Russell Burnham for samples. When done, let me know and I'll look deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy

You closed my SSP case where I was trying to root out the master of EdChampion due to the master being an open proxy. This is over my head. Does that mean it is impoosible that the abusive blocked account is connected to the other three disruptive accounts? -- SECisek (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article from IP editing, that should force him to use his account and we can see what he's up to. This is more edit dispute vice vandalism. You could also file at RFCU to see if the other IPs can get blocked or contact User:Wimt to see if the other IPs you listed are proxies too, he blocked the one you listed as the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not easy with Edmund the Martyr being semi-protected for 3 months. There haven't been all that many anonymous edits in recent weeks and EdChampion hasn't been especially active either. With all due respect, this all smells rather like "sleuthing". Probably best not to go down that route. If EdChampion disrupts the article again, then a user-conduct RfC would be in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What if I shorten the page protect? Are you amenable to that? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine. I'd prefer weeks to months, but I'll leave it to you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a month. Seems reasonable to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What Angus said is true. EdChampion is mostly just an obnixious pain on the talk page. I doubt even he really expects to ever see his proposed edit appear in the article at this point, he just wont give up. As for "sleuthing", there is no way that EdChampion belongs to an editor who made his first edit to Misplaced Pages last August and has exclusively edited Edmund the Martyr. The account belongs to a user with multiple accounts and given his attitude the last few months, he almost certainly has one or more blocked accounts. There is no reason not to connect the dots if we can. -- SECisek (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So who's the master account that Ed is supposed to be a sock of? — Rlevse • Talk • 04:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff is quite plausable: ]

Obnoxious, vulgar, rude, and unneeded capitalization. It would also explain why my user page keeps getting vandalized by an IP that edits only hard rock and roll articles even though I have never once set foot into such territory. I still don't get why the master I proposed could not be connected to ol' Ed. Can you point me to a tutorial on open proxies, I want to read up them? Thank you for everything you do here. -- SECisek (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP you listed as the master, 85.189.170.202, has no edits to the Edmund article, which is what I thought this whole case is about. See Misplaced Pages:Open proxies for proxy info. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, that is what the puppets are for. -- SECisek (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Using that, anyone could be a sock of anyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has an account that only edits one article. It isn't like this guy is a model editor who has a POV disagreement with us. He may as well have chosen as his user name User:IattackEdmundtheMartyr. -- SECisek (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Eagle Scouts

I'm sure this will be of interest: Category:Eagle Scouts has been undeleted per DR. — ERcheck (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good summary by closing admin. I'm sure it'll get CFD'd again though. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Eagle Scouts

This is just to inform the closer of the CfD and DRV on the Eagle Scout catgegories that per a discussion at ScoutingWikiProject, there is a unanimous decision to get rid of this category, so I've just removed it from the articles therein and deleted the category. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. - jc37 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik (2nd)

I've left a ridiculously long comment, as you requested via email. My conclusion is that Evrik should not be blocked, but I cannot clear him of suspicion either. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, amazingly detailed and perceptive work. Thanks for looking into it spending the time on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Depleted Uranium

Things haven't improved much since you unprotected the article back in November. I've tried by using the Dispute Resolution process and extensive talk page discussion to move things away from edit war mode. But the snail's pace of that approach doesn't seem to satisfy the passion of the edit warriors. Any help or advice you can lend would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on the talk page. Let me know what a big issues comes. I don't watch that page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Special protection to block the IP's would be preferable, as they are most likely another incarnation of Nrcprm2026. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. Cheers, Rkitko 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

What happened to User:Neranei? She vanished? I don't get it. Did she quit or something? RuneWiki 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She had to vanish under WP:RTV, but she's quite fine and safe. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star discussion

As you were instrumental in making the Medal of Honor article an FA, you might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the Silver Star talk page on the inherent notability of Silver Star recipients. — ERcheck (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

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) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Episodes and characters

Hi. I see you're the new clerk for this case. Could you please see my comment here? Any comment you care to offer about how discussions on the workshop page connect to the Proposed decision page would be appreciated. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Please see also: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision#Workshop, anyone? and the edits I then went ahead and made to the Workshop page that brought-over stuff from the Proposed decision page. I believe I did everything correctly but welcome a double-check. If this sort of bold editing is not welcome/making work for you, just say so and I'll go easier. Best, Jack Merridew 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See response here — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just reading it. Hope no one minds this edit I made. --Jack Merridew 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the correct move, as he is not an arb nor clerk, he should not edit the proposed decisions, moving to talk was the correct action. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern was that technically *I* also made an edit to the page. I'm glad to see that the correctness matters and the technicality does not. I was in the middle of copying bits to the Workshop page when this happened - had the Proposed decision page open for editing. I was worried the whole while that I might goof and save the Workshop page into the Proposed decision page (I was copy-pasting to/from an external editor). Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honorary membership

I am pleased to announce you that you have been accepted as an honorary member of WP:SLR. — Sebastian 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another quick question

Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Gilabrand also created by you and also empty. Please review at your convenience. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yogi

Civility states: "...Our Misplaced Pages community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles —the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others..." Note that the comments I made were factual and in response to a single purpose, anon advocacy editor's POV assertion that Maharishi deserves "...great deal of respect for what he has done and is still doing 24/7 since 1955 - to bring the peace of the Himalayas to all mankind". MMY's claims and TM's belief (see Yogic_flying) in a "Maharishi Effect" producing peace and harmony in surrounding areas and attempts to produce a cadre of yogic flyers ("...Proponents of Yogic Flying claim that world peace and many other social and environmental benefits can be generated by having at least seven thousand yogic flyers around the world hopping at the same time...") has not produced increased world peace and harmony or yogic flight as was predicted. Maharishi is not widely recognized as a scientist, a physicist, or as a key leader in the world peace movement outside of his organization either, TM is his claim to fame, just as I stated. It is hardly a personal attack to note that Misplaced Pages offering MMY a great deal of respect for his merely alleged efforts to "bring the peace of the Himalayas to all mankind" represents undue weight for fringe claims and a very minority opinion and that the editing history creates a reasonable conclusion of COI.--Dseer (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Admin Coaching

Hey Rlevse, thanks for contacting me over the admin coaching request. Yes, I had two other accounts, both you mention, but they were me older accounts or in other words, I had Radio_orange (dont ask:)) but was then renamed to Onnaghar and then once again renamed to Rudget. I'll create that sub-page now, and I once again want to say thank you for "taking me onboard". Regards, — Rudget _{Contributions} 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left the comments at the sub-page just now. Thanks once again. — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing the subpage now, it'll take several minutes for this first round. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On Q7, are you referring to general off-wiki conversations or ones specifically about a user inparticular? — Rudget _{Contributions} 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Both, let's me thorough. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the email thing, it's just I am unwilling to disclose my specific age. — Rudget _{Contributions} 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm going on a long wiki-break. I really need to get away, and I've done enough edits this month. Thank you once again, and I look forward to interacting with you further, by email or in early January. Regards, Rt. 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I apologise for any inconvenience. Rt. 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) - Ah what the hell. I'll carry on, in the name of Wiki-spirit. Hope we can get back to usual. And once again I apologise if this has caused lots of inconvenience. Best, Rt. 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that seem to show the kind of balance required of a potential administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam

NisarKand was banned for a very good reason. He wrote several long racist rants to other users and admins. NisarKand also uploaded images with false licenses and also used fake referencing. Beh-nam on the other hand was banned for no good reason, he was falsely accused of proxy editing and banned for it but really it was just that user: Thatcher131 didn't like him because Beh-nam reported a friend of Thatcher131 for sockpuppetry which was confirmed. Considering this, Beh-nam shouldn't even be banned right now. And he has contacted ArbCom but his emails are ignored. What else can Beh-nam do?

Thanks

Thank you for your comment. Broadway14122 is not my sockpuppet but I do agree that there is no chance the user is new to Misplaced Pages Alexfusco5 17:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion problem

Sorry to bother you but since you are active can you delete this failed archive because it is not being categorized Alexfusco5 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, gone. Why did you turn down RFA? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I am too new I might accept a RFA sometime in February when I am more experienced user Alexfusco5 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when ready for nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Probably will be sometime in February Alexfusco5 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU clerking

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You do some totally awesome work over on WP:RFCU. It's thankless at times, always tiring and tedious but you do some super work over there and I really appreciate it! - Alison 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

	I just appreciate to you for the fast and wonderful job at the RFCU. I didn't expect much from suspected sockpuppetry due to my past report on him at ANI. I don't know how to find the barn stars, so the pictures are kind of my present to you instead of stars. I believe you've got many of them already. :) Thank you again. --Appletrees (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC) PS. The guards are diligent just like you, and look cool in the costume, so I pick it. I hope you like it.
Peonies in Beomeosa, Busan, South Korea		Guards at Gyeongbok Palace in Seoul

Thanks, and I do like the pictures. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi, I noticed that you are currently offering up your help as an Admin Coach. I understand personally I am a long way off, both by edit count and experience, but I am wondering if you would be willing to give me some pointers and perhaps help me further my goal nearer an RfA. A lot of the things I contribute to could be done better with administrative tools and getting them would be a real boost to what I can do to further my work here. Thanks for your time, please respond on my talk page if possible. Mattie 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I'm currently working on removing a lot of the AFC backlog though I will definitely consider and look into the other areas you have suggested. I'm also a spelling and vandalism 'nazi' as you have probably seen and am currently waiting for VandalProof approval. Again, thanks. Mattie 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fleur-de-lis

Could you check/verify these edits at Fleur-de-lis? Gimmetrow 04:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rv'd to prior edit war version, semi-prot, it is also elaborated on in Fleur-de-lis in Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, there wasn't any edit war, and this didn't need protection, and especially not for a month. This was just a content check so I could determine whether the anon's content should be disentangled from POV and kept. Gimmetrow 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've unprot it and as far as content, I think the version I rv'd to is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Coker and Hearts and Minds

You removed a reliably sourced mention of Hearts and Minds in the George Thomas Coker article citing claims of WP:BLP issue. I find the removal a bit baffling and have offered this as a subject for discussion at Talk:George Thomas Coker. Your input justifying the removal of sourced content from an article is requested. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

Contact JetLover. It was his original report on WP:AIV. I just Put it on SSP's. Ps, someone added a diff. Thedjatclubrock :) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

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) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rejected RFAR's

Hi. Just curious - on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests page, are you only adding yours? Or are you keeping it up to date in general? I was going to stop maintaining it thinking that you were instead, but if you're only adding your own, I will continue. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do my own and the ones I notice others don't do, like Brad didn't archive two today, so I posted them there. I think it's important we do this, though I know many aren't done. Appreciate it if you and whoever help. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent sock puppet, suggested action?

Rlevse, you closed the report for a suspected sock at . As you know, RFCU returned a finding that the editor was not related to Nrcprm2026, which was always known to be a speculative identification of the puppet master. However, there is blatant and arguably abusive sock puppetry from the account behavior; the alleged sock has not denied being a sock, only being Nrcprm2026. Your comment was that the sock puppetry was "possible." I'd say the evidence shows "probable," indeed, I am unable to find any other explanation for the account behavior (immediate engagement in AfD within minutes of registration, SSP -- voting system issues only --, almost no content edits, very many AfDs and deletion/redirects). Given my so far uncontradicted conclusion that the account in question is a sock, and that the behavior is inappropriate for a sock, how should I proceed to obtain a determination on the issue of WP:SOCK violation rather than being a sock of a specific banned editor? From examination of other SSP incidents, I'd expected some determination on this for the original report. Should I go to WP:ANI? I'm trying not to escalate this beyond necessity, going one step at a time. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since not Nrcprm, do you have any other probable sock masters? Will look at more tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)...I've contacted another admin and asked for input. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the SSP report and the CU reports pertinent to this case at the request of Rlevse. It seems difficult to me to have a sockpuppet without a puppeteer. The CU makes plain that Nrcprm2026 is not the same as Yellowbeard. So we are left with only suspicious editing patterns and no second account to compare it to. A first edit at AfD is not terribly unusual for a new account. An editor may have a second account so long as he is not disruptive with that account. The user could be an ip editor who decided to register or an established editor who decided to create and edit, for whatever reason, under a new name. He could, perhaps, be an editor who is a sock. We just cannot tell from the available information. It does not appear that Yellow has done anything worthy of serious warning or blocking. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, but he does not appear to be disruptive.

It is my judgment that Abd begin the dispute resolution process immediately. While he acted in good faith in filing what he thought was a SSP case, it was, at best, unclear and unactionable. Absent any further evidence to the contrary, I would leave the sock allegations alone and move to WP:DR. If I have overlooked anything concrete, please do not hesitate to ask again. -JodyB _talk 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concurring with JodyB, the DR process seems best approach here if you wish to pursue it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the impression that Abd started this RFCU in the hope that he could get private information about me. Abd always admitted that there are no reasons to believe that I was a sock puppet of Nrcprm2026. This time, Abd's attempt to get private information about me failed; but his attempt was a progress insofar as the admin fulfilled Abd's request without checking his arguments. (Already in March 2007, Fahrenheit451 tried to get private information about me . But his request was simply ignored by the admin.) I predict that Abd will start a new RFCU in the hope that the next admin will be less cautious than the other two admins. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if a RFCU is run, the private info would not be revealed to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he knows that. He may not be Nrcprm2026 (or Nrcprm2026 has become more sophisticated), but this is an experienced editor, and the edit above one more piece of evidence for ensuing process. The SSP report was an obvious first step which would have made further process, involving more editors and administrators, moot, and the RFCU was filed at the explicit request of Rlevse; and, if Yellowbeard is paying any attention at all, he already knows all this. There is no emergency here, I'm taking this one step at a time. The next steps involve wider community involvement, and I certainly hope that all the evidence is examined carefully! I'm also certain that if I make mistakes, they will be pointed out to me, as they should be. In any case, thanks to Rlevse and Jody B for the time they have put into this, it is appreciated. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

put SERIO page back please

To Whom It May Concern: It has been brought to our attention at Serio Controla Records from one of our web developers here that you wish to delete our artist page of Serio. We at our company do not intend to mislead or vandalize your website which has been said that we have done nor is this a promotion. This page like many other rappers pages on your site was made in the guidelines of your policy. If you feel that the article was not please let us know what changes you want and we will make them. However to say that it is incorrect is false you have a rappers page on there Kid Frost or Frost(rapper) our artist recently did a song with Frost that will be released latter this year. Serio is very known yet very new we understand this here are just of few of the places you can find info about him on the web as a chance to help your investigation to prove who he is: If you have any questions you can respond to the e-mail or feel free to give me a call at 509-475-2561 you are free to call 24/7 if no one answers please leave a message and your call will be returned ASAP thank you and take a look at some of these links.

Check out just a few places where he is at on the web there are more too…Such as Napster Itunes ect..

http://www.myspace.com/serio323

http://www.myspace.com/serio12

http://www.myspace.com/serio5

http://cdbaby.com/cd/seriomusic

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SERIOofficialsite

http://www.groupietunes.com/artists/serio

http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/1499330

http://www.greatindie.com/ipnmusic/store/list.php?item_number=837101154482

http://musicishere.com/artists/SERIO/Nightmares_Turned_Into_Reality

http://www.bitmunk.com/view/media/6549334

http://payplay.fm/seriomusic

http://chondo.net/cnd/viewAlbums.do?albumId=20170 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.23.74 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that the above user is a sockpuppet of User:Serio1 and I have tagged the page as such, haven't done anything else yet. Needs to be blocked yet again, but I'm not an admin. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pharmboy&diff=prev&oldid=179001922 for the same message as above, sent to me. Pharmboy (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone has already blocked him for 31 hours. Let me know if the problems continue after that. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an old block for deleting tags and such, it has expired. He left you and I the letters the moment that block expired, which led to me to leaving the open letter to him after the old block. Not sure a block would be appropriate right now as he has only left two letters to you and I, but I have faith he will provide a reason shortly. Pharmboy (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yea, it expired two days ago. I've now hard blocked 72hrs for socking and disruption. Let me know if you see more thereafter. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On my user page I list the known Serio accounts, including the two IPs, Special:Contributions/63.224.213.47 and Special:Contributions/67.185.23.74‎ (left an open letter to Serio there), plus the puppetmaster Special:Contributions/Serio1 (blocked) and his second, Special:Contributions/Serio2 (blocked) Pharmboy (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

your note to NYBrad

Hi, my watchlist just showed my that you seem to have inadvertently posted to his user page instead of his talk page... --Jack Merridew 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

oops, thanks, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Could you look at something for me? See WP:ANI#I'm being harassed by my old account — the latter posts — and consider protecting Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali. This has also been listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to no effect. --Jack Merridew 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just saw your ani post. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but now my talk page is being vandalized . Could you semi protect it and my user page for 24 hours? --Jack Merridew 11:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already did. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Did you mean to close the discussion on AfD on Natalee Holloway? Your note indicated that you did, but it seems to remain open. Thanks and happy holidays.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No I did not mean to close it, just notate the socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbclerking

Can you close the Physchim62 case today if Anthony doesn't get to it? It's a couple of days overdue to close and I have limited wikitime at the moment. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like AGK is doing it now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

Hey Rlevse. I know I've not had time to answer all the questions, but I've now received two co-nomination offers in the past 5 days. What should I do? Accept? or Carry on with the admin coaching? I hope you don't see this as a shift of decision, but seen as you're an admin and have been here longer than me, you may have a better idea of what to do. Regards, Rt. 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if you an RFA now, you'll be piled on for it being too early. I suggest finishing the questions and we work on those issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. If they want to, Ioeth and Phoenix-wiki can co-nom later. Thanks once again. Best, Rt. 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ulterior motives

The ulterior motives of various fringe-promoters are clear and have been documented in said arbcomm case. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, is this an indication that you are singling me out for some reason? How did you come upon this supposed "violation" in the first place and why did you decide that you were going to get into arbcomm enforcement when you admit that you haven't done it before? Do you have something against me? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a new arbcom clerk helper, as evidenced by this thread on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, it doesn't explain why you singled me out. Are you patrolling my edits? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, any administrator (unless directly involved in the dispute himself or herself) has jurisdiction to enforce arbitration decisions, on his or her own initiative if necessary. There is no direct relation between the enforcement function and the clerking function, although it often happens that the same admins tend to handle both because they are the ones with their eyes on the arbitration pages and who are aware of the decisions as they come down. If an issue arises concerning an enforcement ruling, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement will often be the best venue for gathering additional comments (although often there is usually a shortage of admins putting in time watching that board). Hope this is helpful to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the arbcom ruling on Martin was different than yours, SA. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that, why did you address this to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)