This user, Rlevse (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), is a standing candidate in the December 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please feel free to ask them questions or discuss their candidacy. For a full listing of candidates, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements. For more information about the election, please visit WP:ACE2008.

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

Archives

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

Input in discussion

Hello - I can see that you are an experienced Wikipedian, both an administrator and a FA writer - I request your input in this discussion regarding the long-term semi-protection of FAs? Shiva (Visnu) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Good luck with the respective election candidature. You will make a great arbitrator - I am sure of it. Kind regards, Caulde 23:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ArbCom questions

Hi. In case you miss it, I posted a follow up question here. Feel free to move the question to wherever you prefer it before answering. Cheers, and good luck in your candidacy! Giggy (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a hectic day, and week. Sorry. I'll answer now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Best of luck. Giggy (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Room

I know! lol. I was watching the launch! :D And now I'm heading to bed, lol. Will you be around tomorrow? Ariel♥Gold 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath's RfA

Thanks Rlevse for closing Aervanath's RfA, it was undoubtably a tough one to close, that some may disagree with your close... While I think you made the right choice (for the right reasons) I wanted to thank you for taking it upon yourself to digest it all. It's why we made you a 'crat... and to think, I remember when you refused an RfA nom ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is net positive dude - don't start changing it to net benefit... :) Good close, and I particularly appreciate the courtesy to the community in giving a good and full rationale at the top. Pedro :  Chat  16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to Pedro's comments. Bencherlite^Talk 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to Balloonman's and Pedro's comments. No matter what one might personally think of this candidate or the RfA, I really think you did a great job in closing the RfA. :-) SoWhy 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the support on the close. I wanted to give this one very careful consideration given the nature and numerous locales of the commentary. Yes, Balloonman, I recall refusing that first RFA. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view, while it wasn't an easy close, the consensus was clear enough that Aervaneth was trusted (even by the opposers), but a crat note is always appreciated. Is it just me, or is this trend of crat explainations largely to due with the crat's starting to take the part "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions" from RfB more seriously? In any case, agreed with your closure. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

there is that, but also the fact that I asked for an explanation.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed prior, but I figured Rlevse would explain things anyways. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I leave a note when I expect there'll likely be some questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good practice to get into. In any regard, you do the 'crat name justice (and hopefully soon the Arb name as well) Master&Expert (Talk) 04:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again M&E. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

An award for the closure... --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Brass Balls, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit late at this point, but I did still want to drop by to express my support for your decision to close Aervanath's RfA as successful, as well as your stated reasons for doing so. Good close. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Never to let to get a pat on the back, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Colourwolf

Wow thanks, regarding that CU cannot get conclusive evidence: You just admitted that its next to impossible for you to catch me. Nah-nee!

BTW, I'm the one who created Bookworm Short Stories. I have more good articles to come your way! Whee!

Elemental of Truth (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This one's bagged at least. You really should put all that energy to something more productive though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf

Perhaps we need to alert all Singaporean ISPs as to what is happening, and perhaps try to either force him off the internet, or have someone bring legal charges against him. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish

Have you been drinking? or are you talking complete and utter rubbish just for the sake of it [1]. You deliberatly slap the face of every editor who contributes more than three words "Our primary reason for being here is to build an encyclopedia; which does mean article writing." You should retract at once and resign in shame. Giano (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would note that RFA/Tadakuni, RFA/Zedla, RFA/Sean Black , RFA/Luigi30 3 and RFA/Krimpet @ 73%, 72%, 72%, 72% and 67% support were rather uncontroversial promotions. Seems this just fell within the range of discretion that good faith individuals can differ on. MBisanz ^talk 16:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Giano has any problems with promoting Aervanath, at least none that he mentions above. He just seems to be upset by Rlevse's assertion that article writing is part of building the encyclopedia. Darkspots (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it might be a discussion better had at WP:BN or WT:RFA since it it more to the theoretical nature of things like promotion guidelines, factors, and process, which the wider community could benefit from discussing. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I'm sorry you disagree with me and I respect your opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I think you made a poor 'crat call. My note to Aervanath here explains why. I've also started to wonder: does the 70-80% "discretionary range" ever mean that RFAs in that range are failed? Because I never seem to notice that happening. Do you recollect any such cases? Is there some place where I can check? If 70% plus has started to mean "invariably positive bureaucrat 'discretion'", I think the RFA page should be changed to reflect it. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I am sorry you disagree with me and I respect your opinion. Unsuccessful RFA candidacies are listed here: Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies. I knew that no matter how I closed this particular RFA, one or more groups would not be happy. I simply made what I felt was the right call in interpreting community consensus and hope you can at least understand that. I respect those who disagree with me. I recall RFAs in the discretion range not being successful but don't recall them off the top of head, so I went to the "A" page of the unsuccessful listing and quickly found this RFA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aitias_2 from May 2008 that was 71% and unsuccessful. There are more in the range you ask about that were unsuccessful. In case you're interested, all the RFA/Bs I've closed are listed here: User:Rlevse/Tools#RFA.2FB_closings. Prior to the RFA in question, all my closings ranged from Snow to 68% for unsuccessful ones and from 79-100% for successful ones. So this one at 73% was the lowest one, numerically speaking, that I closed as successful. There are also some here: User:MBisanz/Qs that you may find interesting. There is also this one closed in Oct 2008 by EVula at 73% as successful: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tadakuni. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be "respecting" everyone's opinion but only paying heed to your own. Doubtless when your insulting bahaviour has driven off those that do write, your admin friends will learn how to write themselves. Giano (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how the part of Rlevse's closing remarks you quoted, "Our primary reason for being here is to build an encyclopedia; which does mean article writing", is insulting to article writers. If anything, I read that as the exact opposite. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, I did do a mispaste "our encyclopedia is not built solely by article writing, many other tasks, including admin tasks, need to be carried out." It seems odd that the non-contributing admins now appear to outnumber the few who are actually writing high quality content. Wikipedia's attitude to the writers of this project stinks, and itis 100% the fault of non-writing admins. Giano (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still confused why you think so. Why is it an insult to writers to promote people who do not write? I mean, we would promote writers as well - there are just not those many willing to get the buttons. We can only promote people willing to be promoted and I have yet to see a prolific writer fail RfA at a similar amount of support. So when Rlevse says that writing alone does not create the 'pedia, he is completely correct. The best writers are useless if noone fights the vandals attacking their contributions, helps them clean up the mess or sorts articles into categories, to name just a few important tasks aside from writing. But please, enlighten us how giving those people the tools they need to do such tasks is against those who write articles? SoWhy 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, giano, if you were really concerned you could have participated in the RfA while it was open, as you are just now chiming in, I have to wonder how you found out about it? I should also point out, that of the last 16 !votes, 15 were supports. Also, during the period that the last 16 !votes participated, one of the opposes switched to neutral. So, I think Rlevse closed the RfA in a manner completely consistent with the current trend at the time of the close. Plus, I think you mis-represent Rlevse closing comment. While writing the encyclopedia is a major component to building it, it is not the ONLY component. The strength of WP is that there are numerous areas wherein people can contribute to the project. The project survives because we have an ecclectic assortment of people contributing to a diverse needs. If we didn't have people performing my least favorite task (Speedy Deletions) then the project would be overrun with garbage articles promoting some high school kid whose greatest claim to fame is the ability to fart out the national anthem. If we didn't have people discussing BLP, we'd have articles full of garbage and attacks. If we didn't have people working the orphanage, then many articles would be lost and inaccessible. EACH person who contributes to the project helps to build it. One aspect does not have a monopoly on "building the encyclopedia." Now, I do believe that article contribution is one of the most important aspects, it is hubris to claim that it is the only one... which is what many people seem to think. Rlevse simply is reminding us of that basic fact.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)(PS I've nominated a number of strong article builders and niche candidates---but it is very difficult, if not impossible to find article builders who want to run.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Giano) Rlevse is not exactly a "non-writing" admin. He has, according to his /files page, 15 featured articles to his credit, plus a smattering of other items. Thus, by your breakdown of admins (i.e. writers vs. non-writers), Rlevse is on the "good guys" side. And as Balloonman said, no one was stopping you from commenting in the RfA. To use a phrase I've used many times recently IRL, "If you don't vote, you can't bitch". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!!

Happy Birthday Rlevse! I hope you have a wonderful, awesome, happy day! ~*Big hugs*~
Ariel♥Gold 16:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for remembering. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Caulde 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is today your birthday? Here is a type of tteok, Korean rice cake, for celebrating the birthday boy. :)--Caspian blue 23:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday to you!

Thanks to all. It was a fine day for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

祝你生日快乐！Or if that doesn't show up on your computer, "Zhu ni shengri kuaile!" Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows up, and thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Belated birthday wishes, Rlevse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Happy birthday from me as well. Hope all is well with you. I don't know what we'd do without Ariel. :D Enigma ^message 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I'm awesome!

I knew I was awesome!!! Joke aside, thank you very much it really made me laugh when I discovered it on my talk. Thank you so much! (funnily enough, the first thing that crossed my mind is the How I met your mother line when Ted dumps a girl on her answering machine on her birthday "Listen... You're awesome...") ^^ -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Happy birthday! May your cakes always be sweet and your candles lighted! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question for you

Regarding this, I'd like to co-nom (assuming it's ok with you and Mizu). I assume I just add my waffle below yours before the page gets transcluded? Regards, EyeSerene^talk 17:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ok ask her. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you a *new message* on this archived heck of a CU mess. Please help out if you can (not that I would blame you for not trying :D). Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

LukeTheSpook

Could you check out Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), as he reinstated Sum88 edits on atleast two occasions. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to LukeTheSpook, but Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs) = Smithy_14 (talk · contribs) = Stebucko313 (talk · contribs), I've already indef'd all 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on my talk page. Much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NajiimP

Please double check. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has confirmed the results. Have replied to you and Tiptoety separately too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate clerk behavior on RfA

Rlevse, there is an RfA here over a disruptive editor. I had what I labeled as a “statement” here and which clearly conveyed germane information that spoke to the issue. I even had an editor leave a note on my talk page stating that “your ArbCom post is great.” But a clerk, Tznkai, deleted my statement. Wikipedia is not a is not a bureaucracy and it shouldn’t be so damned hard to weave through the convoluted procedures. There is already an exceedingly large amount of human effort being devoted to afford an arguably disruptive editor every protection. But this deletion, and Tznkai’s stated reasoning for just flat erasing my contribution just makes this an absurd amount of hoops to jump through in order to have every procedural T cross and i dotted. Greg L (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually he didn't delete it, he moved it to the talk page because he felt it was more of a statement than evidence and that goes on the talk page or workshop page. I can talk to him if you like, but please understand there is no head clerk, clerks work for arbcom. I'm flattered you came to me with your concerns though. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea who Tznkai is directly accountable to—if anyone. However, my statement speaks to A) how one should select a specific external article to serve as a paradigm reliable source so that the tone of fringe-science articles can be modeled after it, B) explains that editing contrary to the tone of that template of a reliable source should be considered as editing against the consensus, and C) details my interactions with Pcarbonn and offers an plausible explanation as to why he persists at doing what he is doing and how it affects other editors who try to deal with him rationally. All three points are buttressed with evidentiary links.

  Whereas my 2¢ there do not conform to the layout of the page, I did try to keep my post close to 1000 words (others have gone way over the limit), and it obviously is germane. So what if I didn’t put my zip code in the “zip code” field? Editors who are trying to offer good-faith comments to this issue and clearly intended to speak honestly to what they perceive as the heart of the matter shouldn’t have worry that some clerk will pull a knee-jerk reaction and say “that’s not *technically* close enough to ‘evidence’ ”. It’s hard enough learning wiki markup and html and doing good technical writing to really improve articles without also having to become expert in administrative and procedural matters in order to have a voice here. I certainly see no reason to toss what I wrote onto the “discussion” page with an [expand] button; it mutes my input beyond reason. What I entered should be available for arbiters to directly consider and should be part of the record.

  And just so you know where I’m coming from on this, his moving that to a [hidden] section on a talk page tickled my “censorship” radar here and I tend to fuel my SAMs whenever this occurs—whether it’s me being affected or someone else being so affected. Someone should have to be way out of line with irrelevant garbage, personal attacks, flames, and vitriol to have their contribution neutered so. You know, with an accolade or two posted on my talk page over my contributions on this issue, this shouldn’t even be considered as a close call; it obviously passes the “grin test”. Please, I would appreciate it if you would see to it that my voice is properly restored. Greg L (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse is a clerk, the same as Tznkai, I suggest you post to WT:RFAR or contact an arbitrator if you disagree with his actions. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• And a Bureaucrat too, yes? And I am addressing Rlevse here; thanks. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my 2cents here is that the Arbitrators have an enormous amount of information to read through and analyze, so it’s imperative that the established process for posting information on an Arbitration case be followed – the /Evidence page is clear about this: “It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format." and "Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible."

It appears that a large majority of the post in question moved from the /evidence page is not actually evidence, but instead a long statement capped off with an “open letter” to another editor, totaling over 1200 words. This isn’t the appropriate use for the page, instead most of the comments (if not all) should have been placed on the talk pages or on the /workshop page.

Your post wasn’t the only one touched, others were too, [2] This was a move to make the Arbitrator’s job easier, so I think the clerk did the right thing here.

I recommend following the instructions at the top of the page and submitting a short and concise presentation of evidence, focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior. Post the “open letter” and other general comments on the talk page or other appropriate pages such as the /workshop page. There's nothing really "hidden" on any pages of an Arbitraion case, the Arbs see all.. :) Dreadstar † 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are you really trying to tell me that the very last paragraph (the “open letter part”) is why the whole thing was tossed? That’s easy, I’ll copy the thing back and leave that last part off, which will also keep it under 1000 words. In the mean time, how about we dispense with going to “WT:RFAR or contact an arbitrator”, which basically amounts to “fill out more paperwork to file a complaint about how improperly-filled-out paperwork was ignored.” Greg L (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• …And… done. re-posted at 987 words. I left the “open letter”-portion behind on the talk page, which, I agree, didn’t belong on the main page. Note the links in my evidence to the relevant information. Please, let’s dispense with the bureaucracy-run-amok here. If my evidence is weak or unsubstantiated or poorly supported, or whatever other shortcomings you find, then it is what it is and take it as such. There are multiple arbiters and some will no doubt view my evidence differently than others. Let’s just not have some clerk banishing the whole damned thing to remote backwaters where it has near-zero voice and no arbiter will really see it, huh? Greg L (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said at all, the open letter is just the capper to a long statement that contains a very small percentage of actual evidence. I wouldn't recommend just pasting most of it back. Collect the actual diffs, then write a short statement about how they illustrate the relevant behavior for the issues raised in the opening statements. Good evidence is short and concise, with short explanations about the behavior being presented in select, targeted diffs. Dreadstar † 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Too late obviously. If someone deletes it again because there is too little evidence link-to-verbiage ratio or whatever your latest objection is (“because it doesn’t look exactly like everyone else’s posts”), I’m not going to put it back in. But such a deletion will certainly make it appear that the people sitting in judgement of Pcarbonn are about as intransigent and stubborn as he is. Greg L (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot went on while I was soundly asleep. OK, let me deal with some of the key points. I am a crat, but crats have no role in arbitration or clerking, but I am a clerk. The crat areas are renames, bot flags and RFA/B. I have talked to Tznkai about this. Honestly, I can see why he did what he did but I also see Greg's points. Given this reposting, it's best if Tznkai and the arbs deal with this, it's his case and clerks work for the arbs. It is also true, ask any arb, the more you write and the less focused it is, the less the arbs read it, so Dreadstar's points are oh so true here. Evidence should be evidence, not personal opinions, essays, etc. Give facts, with diffs and links. Things like opinions, vice evidence, go on the talk page or workshop page. What Greg wrote was a mix of evidence and opinion; that is why I see both sides here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your wise counsel. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this warrant a checkuser

[3] ? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of that page, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

EggOne (talk · contribs) = EggLeader (talk · contribs) = CrackingEggs (talk · contribs) = StaleEgg (talk · contribs) = SixPackOfEggs (talk · contribs) = WikiLinux (talk · contribs) and even more here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EggOne, so I stopped looking since Nish beat me to it.

— Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Premature archiving

This was premature; I was still awaiting further clarification. Could you please restore it? Everyking (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AC/C/N#Other_work Bainer directed the clerks archive it, being a clerk, that's what I did. You'll need to take this up with the arbs or if you prefer I'll ask on your behalf. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Belated Thanks

Thank you kindly, Rlevse, for the "Today's Wikipedian" day. I'm not sure I belong in the presence of such venerable company, but am grateful all the same. MfG, Эlcobbola _talk 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse

Hi, Rlevse, if you have a spare time, could you take a look at the RFCU file, Occidentalist? Since you've had to deal with the evading indef. blocked sockpuppeter many times, your assessment would be great help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it later today, don't have time for it for several hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA Co-nominations

I am about to nominate an editor for the bucket. What is the proper way to solicit co-nominators? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can ask the candidate if there is somebody they want to have co-nominate them, or you can approach the other party directly and simply say, "I'm thinking about nominating USER:XXX, what are your thoughts about a co-nom?" You might be interested in my essay on how to nominate people, you can find it on my user page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what Balloon popper man said. You want users who are familiar with the candidate and/or the RFA process. I'd suggest no more than one nom and two conoms (3 total) as some will object if there are lots of conoms. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've come to see 2 total noms as the proper amount. One nom doesn't always give me the sense that the candidate has been vetted while 3 is starting to get to be too many.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one thing that I LOVE to see in candidates, is if I approach the candidate and suddenly a bunch of people I know and respect starting adding "I want to co-nom" before the candidate even has a chance to respond. When I see that, I feel that I've found a good candidate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Honored

Wow... I really can't say how honored you made me feel today... there are literally scores of people I would have given this award to before myself... so it means a lot, because your opinion does matter to me... and it was nice coming from a crat because I think most of them are pissed at me right now (and I don't think one will ever care for me.) So, this REALLY REALLY meant more than I can say. What a simple, but wonderful idea.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You deserve it. People will differ on wiki and that's okay. I got the idea from Phaedriel, used to do this. I have dozens of people picked out for this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User rights

How can I become a transwiki importer? -- IRP ☎ 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than making the links at the bottom of an article, which show up on the left of the article when you look at it, I don't know. Ask at WP:AN. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting, this is a special userright that only stewards have and only they can assign it to other users. Because of GFDL concerns, importation is deprecated on en.wiki. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What about exportation, so I would be able to move dictionaric pages to Wiktionary? -- IRP ☎ 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any user can use the Special:Export facility. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And if there are GFDL concerns, why is there a feature that allows import? -- IRP ☎ 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Boyce Building

I don't know if I can get a shot until the summer. With short days and the clacks set back, I have not been near the building in daylight recently.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Back

Hi. I am back for my earlier request for review. --Vacio (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) In the meantime I have tried to use talkpages to avoid edit-warring.

Yes, you seem to be making a good faith effort, so I'll lift the restrictions; and please continue down this path of constructive editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot names

Yup, I know that. I usually refer them to BAG in my concern note. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

I was considering deletion review of the following articles:

• February 17, 2009
• Aimé. M.

At first, I agreed with the deletion of February 17, 2009, but now, I'm starting to question it. I never thought Aimé. M. should've been deleted. It was deleted in the middle of the rescue process. -- IRP ☎ 16:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I start a deletion review? -- IRP ☎ 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV — Rlevse • Talk • 17:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quissamã and Zephynelsson Von

As you know, I have used both accounts: Quissamã and Zephynelsson Von.

Could you block the Quissamã account and leave a message addressing that this account is a socket-puppet of Zephynelsson Von?

I believe that doing so everyone will contact Zephynelsson Von if they want to talk with me.

Thanks. Zephynelsson Von 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephynelsson Von (talk • contribs)

I put in redirect on Q's user and talk pages. That'll redirect people to your new pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

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) 10:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was so busy with my RfA I forgot...

HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY! I can't believe I didn't even think of that, all these days. Are you going Trout-fishing any time soon? Cheers! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and good luck with the Election! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on both! As for trout, the only trout I catch are ones I use to trout-slap someone on wiki ;-0 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First action

First protect: Semi-pp. What do you think? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I think that's fine. Next time give me a link so I don't have to look into your logs ;-0 — Rlevse • Talk • 18:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin "toolbar"

Rlevse, do you know where I would find one of those "admin toolbars" that contain useful admin links, such as to UAA, CAT:CSD, AIV, AfD, and the like? I'd like to use one on my userpage or user talk page, for easy reference. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See User:J.delanoy, scroll to the toolbox section, copy that stuff and/or this {{WP_navbox_with_icons}}. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, {{Admin dashboard}} is good, that's what I use. L'Aquatiquetalk 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, either will do. Thanks you guys. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Rose star

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viewing deleted pages

How would one actually view deleted pages? At the top of a page I recently deleted (db-A7), it says that I can restore it, but obviously I don't want to do that. There doesn't seem to be any link for actually viewing the page (but maybe that's just my browser). —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, that confused me at first too. Clicking the "restore" link just lets you view the deleted edits. You have to click the "restore" button on that page to actually restore the page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To view the page that is deleted, scroll down to the section with the version date time stamps. It confused just about everyone at first. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A similar question: I recently closed an AfD, so far everything is okay, except at the old log it still shows that the AfD is open. Do I just go right in and remove the link to the now-closed AfD? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read the admin instructions for AfD. Or consider using Mr.Z-man's great closeAFD-script. SoWhy 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That AfD appears closed now, in the log. Never remove one from the log unless you are relisting. I second the advice to use Mr.Z-man's script. (It helps you avoid mistakes and it makes relisting trivial). EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnson. My point is, SoWhy, I've already read the admin instructions more than once, but it wasn't disappearing until now. Regards, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for the "Awesome Wikipedian" banner. It was kind of you to think of me. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

'Nother question

Regarding prods and AfDs, does an article have to be deleted or (AfD) closed precisely at the time given (for example, 4:28 UTC, on the minute), or can it be closed early if the time is approximate? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could close it a tad early, but to be safe, close it after the ending time. The clearer the consensus, the more leeway for an early close. Until you get more experience at this, wait til at least the official ending time. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI CheckUser

Hi. Would it be possible for you to do a check user on User:The Mad Pigeon and User:Jdfielder for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Divulgance of personal info about a possible editor using throw away account to post a lot of personal information about me in an article (and possibly other accounts to do other harassment). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jfielder account is stale, but if anything along this line reoccurs it may be worth looking into. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations:Salamandar → K90

I get some diff to prove it and put this on the page, can you help me please?--Salamandar talk 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--K90 ^d 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. But the user and talk pages wouldn't move, so if you need help, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious expired prod

Hey, Rlevse. I'm a little unsure about a certain prod that expired several hours ago, but has not yet been deleted. The article is Cultural Experiences Abroad. My problem is that while the article should be deleted, the reason is less than legitimate; it does little to explain why said page should be deleted, except that it does not merit its own entry on Wikipedia. At this point can I remove the prod tag because I don't believe the reason is sufficient, or must I just delete it because it's already expired and no one has found any problem with it? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, even deleted PRODded articles can be undeleted upon request, so think of this as a request by yourself to undelete the article another admin might have deleted. I'd either let it die if you think it would fail AfD or deprod it, try to improve it, and if you can't improve it, send it to AfD or get some help improving it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, this should probably go to AfD, as a non- or marginally-notable organization. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I was pretty certain it wouldn't last AfD, but I didn't agree with the actual reason for the prod. Either way, though, I don't think this will survive, so I'll see if this gets deleted by someone else. If not soon, though, I might take it to AfD anyway. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

If it's not deleted by evening, AFD it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

De Beers

Please could you take a look