Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 11 March 2008

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 – ...

article help

Hi. could you please keep an eye on Talk:Israeli settlement? The article is currently edit-protected. This is part of the topical area of Israeli-Palestinian articles, covered by a previous ArbCom case. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages getting long

Note to clerk: re Mantanmoreland arbcom case, I am experiencing continuing computer difficultes, and now that in particular the /Workshop page has got so long, it may become impossible for me to post further evidence, or reply to queries.

If that is so, and you wish to contact me, please do so at Newbyguesses. I should also mention, that this proceeding is taking a gruelling toll on me, and does not even seem to have completed the preliminary phases.

It may become necessary for me to take a break from these proceedings. I hope it is obvious that my comments are all sincerely meant. It may be that i would benefit from a Wikibreak—Newbyguesses - Talk 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's not much I can do about the long pages, it is a rather involved case. I'm sure you mean well. Arb cases are grueling by their nature. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Arbcom's precedent is, but the whole reason Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta was created was that user couldn't edit pages longer than 32K (old computer I think), so a subpage was created that he could post to. Maybe Newbyguesses comments could be linked to where he wants them posted and moved over? MBisanz 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou , MBisanz, for your suggestion. I am still able to get on-line, and post to these pages, at the moment, although my access is intermittent, and it is quite slow to make a post there. I may avail myself of such an arrangement, if necessary. For now, I must say that I am quite happy with the assistance that the clerk is courteously providing to me. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you puter is that old, you really should get a newer one if possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, see ],

UPDATE NBG can log on from various public terminals (at extortionate rates), donations gratefully accepted for a new lap-top, or secondhand cheep unit. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots Of OOOO Laughs~

PS:When I am on-line, I am opening a zillion windows, all on the arbcom., I thoroughly recomment it as a great way to become confused beyond all belief! Newbyguesses - Talk 20:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request (RE:Mantanmoreland and BLP)

I strongly object to User:Crum375 editing other people's evidence section under the guise of "Removing BLP violations", on the evidence page, unilaterally, without asking the other side to refactor first, and in full knowledge of how controversial his action would be. and could you please review the information provided, and then if found to be a BLP violation, go through everyone else's submissions on the ArbCom case (such as a banned user being called a blackmailer, without evidential backup), and remove them as well. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

working on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbs as a group are going to decide what to do about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for throwing you into the deep end. SirFozzie (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, comes with the clerking job. See ev talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly object to User:Crum375 editing other people's evidence section under the guise of "Removing BLP violations", and note the many objections to this action by Crum375 on the talk page(s). I apologise if any of my posts were needlessly inflammatory, I do not think I was the most extreme, or that my comments there were unjustified. Thanks for your efforts, Rlevse, the clerk's job isn't easy. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, on a case like this it is not easy. Thanks for the apology. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KL and Claymort

Currently we have the issue with KL but also with another vandal called Greg Jungwirth aka Claymort who DLC has figured might be Komodo Lover seeing as both talk to their previous identities as other people and pretend to be several people at once. I've asked him to file a RFCU on their most recently active accounts even though one comes from Rhode Island and the other from Atlanta so probably won't reveal anything. Besides that, there's a pending SSP case for Greg's sockpuppets and as they've became increasingly aggressive towards me since I filed the case so if you can could you go check it over? Thanks. treelo _talk 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So, no help on this then? I'll ask another admin if they'll help if you can't so I don't waste yours or my time. --treelo _talk 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I prob won't get to this til tomorrow. If you want to ask someone else, up to you. Feel free to remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow is fine, just needed a word from you on this. treelo _talk 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I delete a page I created?

I want to delete User:Sparkygravity/Socks because just in case I make more userboxes I created User:Sparkygravity/userboxes/socks. So now I have an extraneous page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it for you, only admins can delete pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BSA Article

Because you seemed to be picking on gothangel when she had a valid point here, you seem to want to remove the word Boys and men and male from every artcile and every passage on that article which I presonally don't agree with with. I cant understand how you can have so much mention of women and girls in a male-dominant article. It does not make logical sense. You have now threeatened me, which I find appalling. --Steven Hipkins (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page. Plus, we're only dealing with the lead here, not the whole article, get your facts straight. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

note to clerk re BLP?

There is quite a schemozzle, it seems, about whether these BLP? or external links are allowed in evidence, or even if RL names in evidence, are allowed. Whatever is the ruling, I am content, but I wish to draw to your attention to a number of similar entries to these possibleBLP? that occur in the Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert.

If all are these links and mentions are allowed, fine, then they should all be restored in every instance where they were wrongly removed by Crum375, but if no links or names are allowed, then i think they must be removed from ALL sections of evidence, and that would include mine, and GWH's. thankyou, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (note to self - Post to /evidence#newbygwhen next online)

Passions

I didn't do that. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes you did afd tag Passions, — Rlevse • Talk • 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone hacked into my site. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are free to comment...

...but given that you up and left Misplaced Pages in a huff the last time you got into a dispute with me, I would appreciate it if you did not continue down this road of hounding me. Your last comment on WP:AE was particularly unbecoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not file the AE case nor did I do anything to cause it, you did that. You should realize that. My last statement was mere fact. Now as for Raul654 unblocking you...Since he has a history with you to the point of having to recuse himself from an arbcom when he was a sitting arb--wouldn't that make him involved and biased? Or is it okay since he unblocked you vice blocked you? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In this response there are all a lot of red herrings and changing of the subject. If I'm making you uncomfortable, just stop getting involved in disputes where I show up. We aren't talking about you filing the case, nor are we talking about you doing anything to cause that, nor are we talking about User:Raul654. Your last statement is not "mere fact": it's clearly an attempt to muddy the waters and without providing any evidence. It looks a lot like attempting to be punitive (something you have a history of doing with respect to me). You seem to be continuing to stake out a very confrontational territory. I'm warning you to be careful in how you proceed because there is history you are very much aware of, and it's not pretty. Do not think that because you are an administrator that means that you have the right to behave untowardly with impunity. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My recusal in the paranormal arbcom decision had absolutely nothing to do with SA. I recused because less than a month before that arbcom case, Martinphi was disrupting the FA process (over the parapsychology FAC nom) and I nearly blocked him (Martinphi) for it. Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to refactor this...

This is exceedingly rude to me and Raul. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ScienceApologist, you lecturing people on rudeness is the best wiki-laugh I've had in weeks. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, Sumo. I'm going to report it to WP:WQA. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I have commented here

FT2  21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE formatting

I think the reason the Completed Requests section keeps disappearing is that the bot is archiving it. See my edits to /archive14 fixing it. You might look at diffs just before the bot to see if there is a simple reason, otherwise maybe contact the bot owner. Maybe it doesn't like = Sections = . Thatcher 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Me and several other editors have been drafting an RfC on JzG here. We listed an effort by you to influence his behavior in the past but don't necessarily expect you to be one of the certifiers for the RfC. But, if you'd to look it over and tell us if you think anything that we listed is unfair or inaccurate before we post it, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FAing

This Wilt Chamberlain looks like the kind of article I could take to an FA-status? its got a large number of cites, but could use some content reoganziation and wiki-formatting. And its already a GA. MBisanz 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will look later, remind me if I forget. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehud case

Hi Rlevse, yesterday Didodo (a sock of AA banned user Fadix) added some evidence to the Ehud proposed decision talk page, I blocked and reverted. Now VartanM (good standing user, no issue there) has restored Fadix comments, endorsing them himself. As a result, I think it should probably stay even though it was a banned user. I've quickly scanned it, and it is relevant to Adil, so I've kicked off a formal CU here. --John Vandenberg (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's hard to watch everything. I'll look into it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coach Match

Hello Rlevse, I have been matched with you for Admin Coaching. I would like to introduce you, so we can get started with what you would like to teach me. My name is Dusti, I am 18, and I live at ISSCH. I have been editing on Misplaced Pages since April 4th, 2007, according to the account creation log. I would like to become an Admin to better Misplaced Pages. Granted, an editor can better Wiki by simply adding to articles, however, with the tools Admin's have, you can do a whole lot more to better the encyclopedia. I feel that after becoming an admin, I can do a lot more than what I have been doing, which is RC patrol, NP patrol, and some AFD stuff. I look forward to working with you. Unfortunatley, because I am living here at ISSCH, I do not yet have access to an email account. I will be graduating soon in May, and will have an email account when I attend College soon thereafter. I look forward to hearing from you! Happy Editing, Dusti 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean someone matched you to me or you picked me all on your own? Just curious. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I did the matching at WP:Admin Coaching. Just because I suggest a match though, doesn't mean a coach is obliged to accept the student. Its sorta like an introduction. MBisanz 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I wasn't watching the page. Happy Editing, Dusti 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this ok? Please let me know. Happy Editing, Dusti 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. If MBisanz recommends you to me, that's all I need to know. We'll start later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am only on Wikipeda (at the moment) from 12-3 usually. Happy Editing, Dusti 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbComm clerking

Can you tend to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Possibly urgent -- need Arbcom/Clerk clarification on BLP? GRBerry 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Add also this resumed edit war in someone else's section of the evidence page. , , . GRBerry 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Protect/Unprotect on Evidence page

I undid my own protection, as I noted that the Clerks were taking action and I didn't want my act (as an interested party) to remain once the "emergancy" had been dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Your intentions meant well and you were trying to help. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Assistance

I appreciate your input. I have followed up on my user talk page. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 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) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For Ariel: Please pass this on...

A friend sent this under the heading "Clean can be Funny." Truth to tell it had me in stitches, but then I needed it. Now you be the judge: Fifty-one years ago, Herman James, a North Carolina mountain man, was drafted by the Army. On his first day in basic training, the Army issued him a comb. That afternoon the Army barber sheared off all his hair. On his second day, the Army issued Herman a toothbrush. That afternoon the Army dentist yanked seven of his teeth. On the third day, the Army issued him a jock strap. The Army has been looking for Herman for 51 years. Thank you Rlevse, Shir-El too 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible SSP

User:Tom.mevlie is almost certainly a sock of a banned user after seeing this comment . Does the MO of seeking adoption, Wikiproject International Relations, and very odd phrasing of this apology for this ring any bells? MBisanz 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Very likely a sock, sounds familiar but I can't think of who the master is. Can you? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked long-term abuse and none looked familiar. Vaguely similar editing style to User:Kappa whose comment he edited here . Another one for me to watch MBisanz 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No comprendo

I've just noticed this comment on my (WordBomb's) talk page, but I'm not clear what it means.

Sorry I'm just getting back to you. I pretty much never go to that page. But I'll make a point of doing so moving forward.--WordMail (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been directed to block your account as a confirmed sock of WordBomb but not disable the email. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your excellent clerking on a RFAR case that turned out to be a real Fozzie of a Bear of a problem. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I didn't know about that RfA log - many thanks for adding the info there :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment at Mantanmoreland ArbCom

As the clerk, should you be commenting at all? I realise that you may have opinions and work with the Arbs in formulating a lot of what appears on the pages but aren't you supposed to be the only party that stays dumb? It will be too late to remove or strike now, but perhaps one of the arbs will proxy your opinions if you really feel the need to comment. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To a point you have point. I'm sure you're confused now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new there, then... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Oops, I misread. Thanks for telling me. Keilana| 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge clarification

Hi. Could you please un-archive my request for clarification of the Ferrylodge case? It has not been clarified, since the two admins who commented leaned towards applying the decision to talkspace, while the admin who closed the AE thread apparently took home a different message. Ferrylodge is disruptive in talkspace and articlespace. I'd like concrete clarification or amendment to indicate that the decision either applies to all namespaces or is restricted to articlespace. Thanks. MastCell  04:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It applies to all namespaces, see — Rlevse • Talk • 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is this. Ferrylodge's case reads that he may be banned from any "article" which he disrupts. User:GRBerry, who closed my AE thread on Ferrylodge, interpreted the Macedonia finding to mean that Ferrylodge's sanctions applied to "articles" but not to talk pages (). In which case, I need to reopen my request, because I think it is essential that Ferrylodge's remedies apply to talkspace since that is where he is (and has always been) at his most disruptive. I've asked GRBerry to touch base with you - could you help me straighten this out with him? I'm sorry to bug you further, but I'd really like this nailed down, because it keeps coming up, Ferrylodge keeps talking his way out of sanctions, and the underlying problems are still there. MastCell  05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbs

The arbs have a lot to do and I'm sure are giving the case its fair share of attention. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have a lot to do. I am also sure that they are giving the case its fair share of attention, in fact I wouldn't bother posting anything to their talk pages if I thought to the contrary. However I feel in the massive amount of evidence and discussion by others, my evidence may have been overlooked. Furthermore I presented my evidence a bit late. Had arbcom declined my evidence with a rational explanation I would not be overworking myself this much. -- Cat 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bolefy

Hi. That user requests to be unblocked. Judging by the tone of his unusually articulate unblock request, I'd say we can risk giving him another chanca. What do you think? Sandstein (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG RfC

A user conduct RfC involving the actions of JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in which you have been mentioned is about to go live and will be found at WP:RFC/U shortly. Viridae 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Hope you don't mind that I protected your userpage for a short while. IPs aren't on the constructive side today for some reason. :) Regards, Rudget. 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and attempting to mediate. :) Rudget. 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You? Rudget. 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So that article you were working got to FA? And yes, sock fighting. Lucky us. :) Rudget. 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCU on User:Vr

I've created the RFCU here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vr. BTW, the banner on that page says "to the checkuser page here" which seems to be an out-of-date way of creating a new request. Someone should fix that but I've no idea who handles this part of WP. I've never raised an RFCU before, so if I've done something wrong, feel free to tweak it. Colin° 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You did fine. I fixed the link. Alison accepted the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Five more, all with the same user page style. When Alison said "as well as numerous loggings-out to edit" does that mean editing "anonymously" as an IP? If so, is the IP blocked too? What stops this person creating another account? Thanks for dealing with this, I wasn't sure about doing an RFCU as the page has so many "you shouldn't be here" warnings. It didn't occur to me that it could be used to find other socks too. Colin° 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Misplaced Pages's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Misplaced Pages is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Misplaced Pages supports both spellings. Misplaced Pages:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Misplaced Pages one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. Nominations: Chapel Hart (talk | history | start review) • Mating of yeast (talk | history | start review) • History of the National Hockey League (2017–present) (talk | history | start review) • The Legend of Ruby Sunday (talk | history | start review) • People's Movement for the State (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: 2017 World Series • Wilsonville, Oregon • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hello

Checking in. What's new? Dusti 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much except I've nom'd another user, User:Gadget850 for admin. How's your admin related work going? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is going well. I have joined a couple of comittees and am working away. Anything that you want me to do? Dusti 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Check in with me around 18-19 Mar and we'll do a status check. Mainly you need experience right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again! Dusti 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 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) 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Help please

The memory of water page seems to be under attack by a series of different IP editors. Now I have certainly used up my reverts but cannot deal with this editing. They are anonymous casual visitors and refuse to discuss the changes. What can I do? Am I allowed to simply revert them? Being new to this I am unsure what channel to follow as if I assume good faith, they are not real vandals. The Tutor (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterise correcting a misleading edit as an "attack". There seems to be more than one person involved in correcting this mistake. The original version of the sentence was correct and supported, it was changed by DullMan into a parody of its original and supported meaning, and is now much fuller and informative for the subsequent little back and forth. It seems to not be vandalism (certainly not my intention) nor an "attack" --206.222.28.93 (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to two places on wikipedia, this user is Martin Chaplin. Perhaps a checkuser is required? (Note I am the same editor who left the comment on his page in answer to yours, that he removed --195.141.76.131 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. Checkuser please. -- Fyslee / talk 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I thank you for your help on this page but my edit was reverted before your restrictions came in to force. This has now been reverted. I am happy to Talk to editors concerning our different perceptions concerning the phrase in question and its support or otherwise by the references, but clearly this has never been the intention of this group of editors. Clearly it is no longer proper for me to revert, but such changes should be properly debated on the Talk page, as I have been requesting all day. I feel the edit now is quite different to what it was originally, definitely someones POV and very far from being a correct conclusion drawn from the references given. I wonder whether the issue here is not the 'Water Memory' but something more personal. The Tutor (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please rethink your page protection of the Water Memory article? The editor that requested it obviously did this so he could gain the upper hand in a content dispute, as evidenced by the fact he decided to "fix" the page right after you protected it, knowing full well that none of the IP's would be able to edit the page. If you look at the edits from the IP's and the actual reference, you will see that the IP edits in no way hurt the article. Baegis (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This perhaps, indicates that the several references (not one reference) given has not been read by the anonymous editors. I believe that the rapid reversion by such a number of 'different' anonymous 'passing by' editors shows a clear 'guiding light'. I did not do this to gain any upper hand (show a bit of AGF!) but they all refused to Talk; just see who has 'won' and how they 'won' a totally new (and rather perverse) edit without any Talk. The Tutor (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm filing and RFCU on this myself. There's obviously something fishy here. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Case now filed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with my edit?

Hi, as a newcomer editor I'd like to know what was wrong with my edit on the Medal of Honor page.

1 cool guy (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ellis?

Can you take a look at Kurt Turkulney (talk · contribs) and decide if this is another User:Arthur Ellis sock? I blocked an IP this morning following this edit that included signing as Ellis. This user came to the RM page this evening, and his contribs are 90% Kinsella and RM related, which were two Ellis focuses. But, given the situation, any Wikipedian with interests in Canadian politics might well come to this article now. And I don't know Ellis well enough to judge for sure - but my intuition is saying the user probably is. GRBerry 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very possible. Someone has blocked him for 31 hours for disruption. I'd say watch what he does when the block is over. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

edit war on my talk page

I have an edit war going on my own talk page. I've replied, it's not enough, they have to get the last word in. It's the cyber equivalent of junk mail. One has even gone so far to comb my edit history for missteps. What can I do to stop the Wikistalking? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See email. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OurCabañaLogo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:OurCabañaLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How to proceed an Arbicom case?

• Long time abusing Misplaced Pages by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

Your previous remark on me is right. I'm apt to make very lengthy files or too vague files for sysops to have a difficulty to figure out what is a problem with my report. However, this long-time (over 4 years) disruptions by Japanese editors from the off-wiki bulletin board, 2channel is way too big for me alone to deal with.

I don't know how to proceed the case because the related people are over 30 and I'm the one against their disruption so far. I recently notified of this incident(s) to several Korean editors but I don't know they would participate in the process if I file it to arbicom. You've seen my filing RFCU, SSP, and AIV a lot, so can you take a look at the link and give me an advice? thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR. You need to be concise and to the point. Only enough to show long term abuse and that you've tried to resolve it before and those efforts failed. Use prior RFAR cases as samples. The time to present lots of detail comes later if the case is accepted. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, but I'm very afraid of a possible bad result if I, only participate in compared to many 2channel people. I had a similar experience when Nanshu (talk · contribs) filed a bogus report on me to stop RFCU files on them and he later said his plan at 2channel. --Appletrees (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to get support from others familiar with the case first. Look at it this way, if you don't file, nothing will happen, if you do file, you at least have a chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Roast turkey

Rlevse, I think you have confused me with somebody else. I have no conflicts or involvement with Igor, other than having had a few friendly chats with him past, and today having counseled him a few times to lay off the drama. As VirtualSteve noted, I have been generally supportive towards Igor. However, I could not ignore Igor's use of my talk page to make attacks on third parties. Would you be willing to strike out your comment? Jehochman 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm confused, I quote "

I just blocked him for 24 hours for a comment he made on my talk page. Jehochman 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)", so you blocked someone with whom you were directly involved with. I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm saying admins should never take admin actions against those with whom they are involved. That's common sense. You really should know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis of the situation, and I think you have misunderstood. I've left comments at WP:ANI on the existing thread inviting you to provide a detailed explanation with diffs. Sorry I am being dense, but I really want to try to understand where you are coming from. My involvement with Igor has only been friendly, non-adversarial conversation. That does not disqualify me. Heck, I try to be friendly to everybody. Just because somebody chats me up doesn't mean I can't block them if they step way out of line, especially if they start using my talk page to attack third parties. He wasn't on my talk page complaining about me. No. He came to me complaining about third parties. I discouraged this, and eventually another administrator warned Igor to stop. When he continued the abuse right under my nose, I really could not pretend to ignore it. Anyhow, if you can't make me understand, please go find another party to review this situation and ask them to give their opinion to me. Thanks. Jehochman 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hi Rlevse,

Guy thinks it is Tom Butler

It is not Tom, and I know who it is- a WP user in good standing. The WP user has nothing on its block log. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Uploading image

I come here to you for a help. I want to use this image in the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany. But I am still not well-versed in uploading image manually outside of Flickr through flickr upload bot. I am a bit confused about the license and the process of manual upload. Can you please help here or upload it in wikipedia. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some questions, it's not on Flickr so what has flickr got to do with it? How do we know the copyright status? Do you have a sharper image?-this one is fuzzy. I can upload it but please answer the questions. Oh, and how did you come to find me?-just curious. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem I am also facing here what is the license. It is the only image I found in the internet. I found you through recent change patrolling. The image will be deleted if it is copyrighted, but it is hard to know its copyright status. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a question on Commons licensing. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's FU, see — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad luck. But thanks for your help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is possible, then it will be good to upload the image for the article. The image will be very appropriate with the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I will just request you to please upload the image. It is the most appropriate image for the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, see the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made, . Seems no one has yet looked into it, no one i have contacted has been of help, and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. One of the users IPs has just vandalized multiple page again and i am seriously getting tired of having to revert all of his mess everyday. Please look into it. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Kahmend and the two 71.x IPs one week each. See case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kahmend? Two 71.x IPs? Did the link redirect you ti the case about Editor652 (talk · contribs · count)? Thats who the case is about.-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What you need here is a WP:RFCU for IP check. Two separate IP ranges, with several IPs. 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comments on User talk:130.101.152.83. This is the same user; I didn't want to use an account after seeing the mess on paranormal articles in general. 130.101.152.24 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above user is currently blocked, see . If you want to be unblocked, please file a request. Do not hop IPs to avoid a block, as this is abusive sock puppetry and may result in longer blocks. Jehochman 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is right, you just shot yourself in the foot. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I didn't know the other IP was blocked. I actually found out when I went to see if Je had replied and he put the block log link in the edit summary. I'm not going to do any more editing anyway (other than the unblock on that IP). 130.101.152.24 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't quit, just stay within the rules and stand up for what you believe in. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of the rules only works once...so be much more careful in the future, 130.xyz... Dreadstar † 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AnimalRightsNaziGermany.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:AnimalRightsNaziGermany.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Look, I have a very short fuse and my patience is being severely tested by some terminally stupid people. Give me a break. Who are you anyway???? The Rationalist (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to take a wiki break. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why don't these people take a wiki break? Why should I take a Wiki break? The Rationalist (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you're the one that's losing your cool and civility, worsened by your obvious contempt for those you consider less intelligent than yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say less intelligent, I said 'terminally stupid'. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, no? The Rationalist (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you consider yourself not stupid, you're obviously very intelligent. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just averagely stupid, it's the terminal Richter 6 stupidity that gets my goat. The Rationalist (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, may I urge patience. The indicated links contain offensive words, but some of us believe the aggregate effect of wikilawyering is also uncivil. The Rationalist got caught in a trap (and he should know better) of resorting to harsh language in exasperation. But enless nit-picking (such as arguing the distinction between verified and found true; which is what verify means) grinds us down sometimes. It's unactionable (see e.g. my expired ANI) but I hope it's sufficient cause for a bit of patience. (Incidentally, my ANI was against one of the anti-anti-science camp. All sides seem to be willing to use endless wikilawyering and obfuscation to evade consensus. It drives me nuts.) Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He can make his point without foul language, being rude, or offensive. Someone had already talked to him on related issue from what I can tell, that's why I warned vice block. This is a collaborative encyclopedia and civility will get you further than offensive language and incivility. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't use any foul language, just the beginning of a word with blanks that anyone can fill in. I have an abhorrence of the real article, FWIW. The Rationalist (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCU for IPs?

Thanks for your suggestion that I file an RFCU for the spamming IP addresses. I would like to do that, but I am unsure how to use the RFCU template when the sock master is not a registered account, and all I have is a large bunch of IP addresses, none of which is really the sock master — a situation that the template and the RFCU instructions do not seem to have been designed to handle. I posted a question about RFCU for IPs on WT:SSP. The replies so far have not really addressed the issue I raised. I'd appreciate any advice you could offer over there. - Neparis (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Use a named account if you have it, otherwise pick the most active IP address as the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Would you copy your reply to WT:SSP under the thread titled "RFCU for IPs"? It would help balance the 100% negative replies that others have posted there questioning the need for an RFCU, a thread of discussion that might be used as a point of reference for the checkuser who handles the RFCU. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Just as a reminder, if you delete a page, you should close out the AFD. I did these for you (Noveninsk and Andrzej Koswakij). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I got distracted. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just bringing it to your attention. Kudos at it were. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

About the behavior of Appletrees

I have been perplexed to his behavior. What contribution can I do? (I do not want to be hated by him. And, I want to avoid the edit battle. )

I introduce my denied contribution.

Case1 Namdaemun

Chosun Ilbo introduced Namdaemun. "Namdaemun was specified for the national treasure No.1 by a Japanese empire. The South Korean thinks the succession of the specification of a Japanese empire to be disgrace. ""

Appletrees was not able to deny the fact written in this source. Therefore, he tried to conceal this fact shouting, "You are a puppet".

Case2 Japan-Korea relations

Chosun Ilbo analyzed "Japanese boom in South Korea". The South Korean was worshiping the electronic gadget made in Japan when South Korea was poor. However, the South Korean enjoys Japanese food and clothes today.

Appletrees shouted "Vandallism". And, the source was deleted. He doesn't verify the source.

Case3 Hanbando

JoongAng Ilbo explained the movie Hanbando. "The end for which Japan apologizes to Korea will satisfy South Korean's anti- Japanese sentiment."

The signature of Ser Myo-ja shouted and he shouted though it was.

He shouted though this was an article with the signature of Ser Myo-ja. "That is not a real "article" written by a reporter. Don' try to fool me again" And, the source was concealed.

I advised. "Do not delete the source without the reason. " He answered. "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Japan-Korea relations, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Again, read the citation, possibly a 2channel meat/sock"

I am a beginner. Please guide me. --Opoona (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rlevse. I add my rebuttal to this newbie's statement. WP:ANI#Rebuttal to Opoona (talk · contribs). Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philadelphia CSP.png

Could you look at Image:Philadelphia CSP.png? --evrik  14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliko sockpuppet case

Hi Rlevse, you had recently closed Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko with a "let's watch and see" conclusion. About a week after I had started this SSP case, I had also started Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliko, which concluded with a verdict of "somewhere between possible and confirmed". I'm not sure if you had seen that case when you made your SSP conclusion. Also, per the discussion at User talk:Thatcher#Checkuser follow-up, I'm concerned that Eliko views these case closures as clear proof that he is not the puppetmaster of Manstorius et. al., and no sanctions are necessary. I had also promised to block him or another editor for 7 days if they made any edits to a specific article during a "cool-down" period, (discussion at User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 6#Protection at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita), which he appears to have done with one of the sockpuppets. Therefore, I don't think a "no action" outcome is entirely appropriate. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk on Thatcher's page is today's, so that's new, but the CU case isn't. I did see the CU case. Thatcher states he's okay with my my handling. However, the new talk thread on his page is interesting. Eliko seems to be arguing awful hard for someone that is innocent and he is wrong, the case is not conclusive either way. Manstorius's account is still inactive. If it reactivates or Eliko uses other accounts that are suspicious, feel free to let me know directly. I'm putting a warning on Eliko's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I indef blocked Manstorius yesterday — "somewhere between possible and confirmed" is close enough for me to take that action, and {{unblock}} can always be used if he disputes it. I'm still concerned that Eliko is getting away with breaking an agreement (also made with User:CieloEstrellado) not to edit their disputed article for a week or get blocked for 7 days, but I guess Eliko is on an extremely short leash as a result of this casework. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not full up on the agreement you refer to. Drop a warning on his page about it and if he does it again, I'll block him, up to a week. Discuss the agreement details on his talk page so that I can be up to snuff enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The agreement is discussed in the link to my (archived) talk page at the top of this thread. In a nutshell, this whole sockpuppet investigation was precipitated by the following chain of events:

1. I happened to make an edit to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita when I discovered I had dropped into the middle of an edit war between Eliko and CieloEstrellado.
2. I protected the article for a week when the two of them continued their edit-warring, both just staying within 3RR limits.
3. CieloEstrellado complained bitterly on my talk page about the protection, and in the ensuing discussion, they both promised to resolve their content dispute on a sandbox version of the article if I unprotected the page, and they both agreed to my promise of a 7 day block if they edited the mainspace version of the article within the next week.
4. SSnormal (one of the socks) did make an edit during that week, and CieloEstrellado had suspicions that it was a sockpuppet. I did too, as I had encountered SSnormal a couple of weeks earlier, and the related discussion on my talk page (User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 6#country names) was remarkably similar to Eliko's writing style. Therefore, I pored through the old diffs to prepare the SSP case.

So, the current situation is that the SSP/CU cases are likely but not 100% conclusive, and Eliko has not "paid the price" for his violation of the no-edit agreement on the GDP list. I'm not certain that a warning on his talk page is sufficient. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say "his violation of the no-edit agreement", whereas you admit that it is not conclusive that Eliko is SSnormal?

The events you are talking about - are described in the same closed SSP case, whereas Rlevse closed this case with the conclusion: "As there is room for doubt, let's watch". Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases, including any closed SSP case. Eliko (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Eliko, you're on thin ice here, abide by policy and your agreements. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Rlevse,

As a matter of Misplaced Pages policies and procedures, if an anon IP has a 30-day block imposed for violation of 3RR, is he then allowed to evade the block by registering? I am referring to blocked IP61.127.11.135, now registered since yesterday's block as Ahoalton JGHowes - 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Let me research it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No they can't and he's been blocked and declined unblock for that very reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

We got off on a bad foot and I'm sorry for snapping at you. I saw a real named person being accused of being a sock puppet account, and I don't need to rehash the details, but I wanted to protect a new contributor even if he might be the same person trying to be pseudonymous, since he had done nothing wrong and neither had the real named person. It was clear to me that there was no possibility he could be the same as Unprovoked, and the basis of the RFCU was therefore missing a foundation as I viewed it. Had I not felt an urgency to stop the situation before it got out of control, I would hopefully have been more polite to you. The reputation of the named person seemed paramount to me in that moment, especially if he might wish to return as a pseudonymous editor. —Whig (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Allstarecho/scouts

User:Allstarecho/scouts has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/scouts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Allstarecho/scouts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)