User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
RfA thank you
— JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008
Thanks
Thank you! I'll be more visible after Yom Kippur and Succos have passed 
-- Avi (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
PoC block
Hi. I am mediating a dispute in which PoC is a party. As such I need him (in the interests of Wikipedia) to comment on possible solutions as they come up. Whilst I do not ask for you to unblock him, I wish to inform you that it is my intention to allow him to respond (to this dispute) via his talk page and copy, verbatim, his replies to Talk:Commonwealth realm. If you would prefer that I do not do this, please let me know at my talk page. Thanks! :-) fr33kman -s- 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested to take a look in the discussion in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Max Mux. It seems anonymous IPs 84.134.xx.xxx are involved exactly as in the case of Jakezing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
AAU reminder notice
 |
Hey there Tiptoety! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers! |
- Notice delivery by xenobot 14:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A 3RR case
Hello Tiptoety. A case has been filed at AN3 involving User:PrinceOfCanada and User:G2bambino. Since you were involved in setting up a 1RR deal for these editors you might be the best person to look at it. I see the last block was for one week and if diplomacy isn't working then a longer block may be in prospect. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention EdJohnston, this is a rather in depth conflict that requires a solution outside of conventionally blocking, but I am afraid blocking is currently the only option. I will take a look at the 3RR report. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoety- I've just caught up on your recent actions. Firstly, rest assured I won't revert the template at this point; I think we're both aware that there's no vagueness to the stipulation: You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions by PriceofCanda (and vice-versa for him). Though there has been a lot of (sometimes regretful) commentary on talk pages, this 1RR bit has actually been a help. Now, you've peaked my interest by mentioning the "in depth" conflict, and the solution it requires; this is because, while I'm happier with the tighter restrictions placed uniquely on this case, I don't imagine them to be a permanent fixture, and have had a willing, but undirected, eye on the future. If there is a way to a more enduring resolution to this matter, I offer my ability and cooperation. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- G2B, I've been somewhat involved with this as well, discussing with PoC through IRC on the various issues you two have had. He's been quite frustrated at times, as I'm sure you have been with him, over the difficulty you two have on agreeing on just about anything. I know you two have both attempted several steps in dispute resolution before; third opinions, I think PoC mentioned a MedCab case that failed once. I'd encourage you to go up the ladder a bit and open a joint RfC on this issue, as well as both of your conducts in these conflicts. This will invite other, uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation, and give you both some feedback and suggestions on what to do. I would highly encourage you both be open to this, and take any feedback given to you to heart. What advice you receive will likely be useful in other fields as well, where you're not both involved but are working in other areas. Even if this doesn't prove to be the most successful course of action (although hopefully it will be), it will act as a stepping stone to some of the more binding levels of dispute resolution, such as the Mediation Committee, and as the absolute last resort, ArbCom. I'm hoping both of you are open to this course of action, as allowing this dispute to continue will not help matters. PoC is, from what I've seen, a fine contributor, and his block today, while in my opinion appropriate, was unfortunate. Should this dispute continue, it is very possible that both of you will end up blocked at some point, probably indefinitely. I personally would hate to see that happen. If the two of you can work out some sort of agreement, even if it's to leave each other the hell alone (I've made such arrangements myself and they're working out quite well), then we can avoid the possibility of losing some good editors and get back to constructively working on the project. How does this sound to both of you? PoC, I know you can't reply here at the moment, but if you'd leave a note on your talk page, that would be great. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent words of advice by Hersfold, and G2B I really hope you take them to heart (as well as PoC). I feel that at this point in time the two most important things for you to do is stay away from one another and open a RfC. Tiptoety talk 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, those certainly are good guiding words, and the steps to take in content dispute resolution are clear (and also tried; not just the MedCab (which was actually mostly successful), but also an RfC and a 3O). However, when I read your words, Tiptoety, I interpreted "in depth conflict" as that which seems to be going on above, yet also throughout, the various content disputes; namely, that which arises pretty much any time PoC and I end up anywhere near each other for more than a couple of edits. I know it's generally recommended that we keep things impersonal here, but I sense that, because the various flare ups happen around multiple and completely different content issues, the overreaching issues here are, in fact, personal. Ignoring each other would be a beautifully simple solution, if it weren't for the fact that we seem to haunt all the same articles; ironically, because we share similar interests. I could open an RfCU on PoC, but, somehow, I'd rather not; they always seem to end up as ineffective character assassinations. However, if it would ultimately be beneficial, I'd be behind such a move. It doesn't presently seem that PoC is terribly open to any kind of RfC, but is there such a thing as a joint RfCU; I mean, as in two users mutually requesting comments on themselves? Just a thought. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- PS - I'll put your talkpage on my watch list, Tiptoety; but, if you'd like conversation to not take place on your talk, I'm happy to host it at mine. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Things between PoC & G2, haven't been the same since their dispute over Images. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent words of advice by Hersfold, and G2B I really hope you take them to heart (as well as PoC). I feel that at this point in time the two most important things for you to do is stay away from one another and open a RfC. Tiptoety talk 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- G2B, I've been somewhat involved with this as well, discussing with PoC through IRC on the various issues you two have had. He's been quite frustrated at times, as I'm sure you have been with him, over the difficulty you two have on agreeing on just about anything. I know you two have both attempted several steps in dispute resolution before; third opinions, I think PoC mentioned a MedCab case that failed once. I'd encourage you to go up the ladder a bit and open a joint RfC on this issue, as well as both of your conducts in these conflicts. This will invite other, uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation, and give you both some feedback and suggestions on what to do. I would highly encourage you both be open to this, and take any feedback given to you to heart. What advice you receive will likely be useful in other fields as well, where you're not both involved but are working in other areas. Even if this doesn't prove to be the most successful course of action (although hopefully it will be), it will act as a stepping stone to some of the more binding levels of dispute resolution, such as the Mediation Committee, and as the absolute last resort, ArbCom. I'm hoping both of you are open to this course of action, as allowing this dispute to continue will not help matters. PoC is, from what I've seen, a fine contributor, and his block today, while in my opinion appropriate, was unfortunate. Should this dispute continue, it is very possible that both of you will end up blocked at some point, probably indefinitely. I personally would hate to see that happen. If the two of you can work out some sort of agreement, even if it's to leave each other the hell alone (I've made such arrangements myself and they're working out quite well), then we can avoid the possibility of losing some good editors and get back to constructively working on the project. How does this sound to both of you? PoC, I know you can't reply here at the moment, but if you'd leave a note on your talk page, that would be great. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoety, I feel that I must speak up here -- while I don't think your block was wrong in principle, I think the way that this situation has been handled is not optimal. A two week block is quite harsh, considering the muddled circumstances; I think a one week block would have been more appropriate. Further, while I am not opposed to PoC sitting out his block, I must protest the fact that G2 did not receive a block as well. He clearly also violated the restrictions as pointed out on east's talk page, and the reasoning of "it's too late" is a bit of a cop-out, I feel. GlassCobra 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with GlassCobra here. In the end, G2 and PoC both violated their restriction. PoC at least has the excuse that he didn't think his first action (a partial revert) counted. G2 has no such excuse: he reverted two different editors one after the other on the same page. (BTW, the violation was right there on the same template, involving the same edits -- the edit PoC first partially reverted was itself a revert of another user.) East declined to block G2 as the violation is now old. You are the admin most familiar with this situation, and East has taken his stand on how to resolve the disparity. I think it's up to you to address this. Mangojuicetalk 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- /me Slaps self. It appears I made a mistake, and as such I have unblocked PoC (much to my dislike) Maybe one of you would like to attempt to work on some dispute resolution with those two seeing as I feel my efforts are failing. Tiptoety talk 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did indeed make two reverts; however, the 1RR restriction on myself is only in regards to Canadian monarchy articles, and PoC's edits, not to other pages or other editors. Now, though I was technically within my bounds there, having later read MangoJuice's comments to PoC on reverting and entitlement, I realise that the same applies to myself, and would have applied earlier. That second revert was a kneejerk retaliation to a move that was purposefully irritating, and, though technically allowed, was just a continuation of a dispute, rather than an effort to seek resolution. Anyway, I hope that clears things up. --G2bambino (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- /me Slaps self. It appears I made a mistake, and as such I have unblocked PoC (much to my dislike) Maybe one of you would like to attempt to work on some dispute resolution with those two seeing as I feel my efforts are failing. Tiptoety talk 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with GlassCobra here. In the end, G2 and PoC both violated their restriction. PoC at least has the excuse that he didn't think his first action (a partial revert) counted. G2 has no such excuse: he reverted two different editors one after the other on the same page. (BTW, the violation was right there on the same template, involving the same edits -- the edit PoC first partially reverted was itself a revert of another user.) East declined to block G2 as the violation is now old. You are the admin most familiar with this situation, and East has taken his stand on how to resolve the disparity. I think it's up to you to address this. Mangojuicetalk 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoety- I've just caught up on your recent actions. Firstly, rest assured I won't revert the template at this point; I think we're both aware that there's no vagueness to the stipulation: You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions by PriceofCanda (and vice-versa for him). Though there has been a lot of (sometimes regretful) commentary on talk pages, this 1RR bit has actually been a help. Now, you've peaked my interest by mentioning the "in depth" conflict, and the solution it requires; this is because, while I'm happier with the tighter restrictions placed uniquely on this case, I don't imagine them to be a permanent fixture, and have had a willing, but undirected, eye on the future. If there is a way to a more enduring resolution to this matter, I offer my ability and cooperation. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Tough call
I was monitoring the stuff regarding PrinceofCanada. Whew, tough call. I think you did the right thing, unblocking on technicality. If it happens again, you can honestly say you have given them every chance in the world (and some from outer space, as well). Kudos, dude. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it was a tough call, and I was reluctant to make it but seeing as it was my mistake I could not fault PoC for it. Thanks for the words of confidence. Tiptoety talk 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Input requested
Hi. Last month, you'd blocked G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple of times. He is now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Partially missed rfcu
Hi,
how do I call to a checkuser's attention that part of a request may have been missed? A series of MarthaFiles reports have concluded positive for Fatim1, ambiguous for MarthaFiles... and the users have been blocked (mostly by you). A checkuser handled a new request WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles, and checked for MarthaFiles (unlikely), but not Fatim1, and marked the request completed.
Yesterday, I left a note under the completed request, and one on the checkuser's user page, but no sign that he's noticed. Is there something else I can do? Move the request from "completed" to "outstanding," or will that just be likely to annoy?
Thanks, Jd2718 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Very Special COTW, act now!
Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped eliminate some red links the last few weeks (the NWFP received little attention). This week, we have the stub High Desert Museum and then in honor of losing airline service again, McNary Field. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Protection of Chess
Hello Tiptoety ! on 23rd September you removed the protection of the article Chess. Since then there have been 16 edits from anons, and 15 of them had to be reverted. So could you please reinstall the protection you had removed ? Thanks ! SyG (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected Tiptoety talk 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the blocks
Thanks for blocking the sockpuppets turned up by Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/72.35.4.220. I don't know if it makes a difference to anyone, but you identified everyone as a sockpuppet of Swamilive, when several of them were a different puppetmaster, piggybacking on Swamilive's socks for maximum disruption. Ahhh, fun. Just letting you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware, and trust me there is a method to my madness. Either way, you are welcome. Tiptoety talk 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Despite the checkuser and the SSP case, no one extended the block on the IP in the case titles. It's back with more of the same. Can you reblock? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sock
124.182.113.108 (talk · contribs) is likely a sock of banned Miyokan (talk · contribs) (if you followed that wikidrama you know why it is likely). Colchicum (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or maybe just logged out EZ1234 (talk · contribs), though it looks very suspicious that the IP started editing on September 15 and tried to restore Miyokan's userpage. Colchicum (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Request a CheckUser. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I need your attention
Hi Tiptoety. I had previosuly appealed to you on 13 September 2008 on your talk page (diff). This is to inform you that the same problem has resurfaced. As of now two users have taken turns in wholesale reverts. I have again requested assistance from the admin Khoikkoi, who had previously been involved with the article through protection. I have received no reaction yet. I have also brough this issue in the WP:AE (User: Eupator with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2's decisions). Thanks.Omer182 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Hello Tiptoety. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
- About the knock-knock joke thing, I don't know any good ones....... how about this video? http://www.youtqube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI (copy/paste to address bar and remove the "q".) Thingg⊕⊗ 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
...
this is the second time that this is happened to me and it's sort of pissing me off. Please restore my page immediately. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have already stated that you need to agree to remove all information relating to your age before I would be willing to send you a copy of the deleted material. Tiptoety talk 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why? i've seen lots of other wikipedian's userpages who are under 18 that list there age. I really don't care, i'm not a goddamn child... - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Really? Who are they? Also, you are clearly acting like a child. Tiptoety talk 04:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Tip here, I just viewed the deleted page and there is far far too much person information there for your own safety. MBisanz talk 04:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've been through this before, and it's getting really annoying... i really don't agree with being called a child; wikipedia's definition of a child is :A child is a human being between birth and puberty; a boy or girl. I don't fall into that definition, being nearly 17...For my own safety.. that's BS...the first time it got deleted i remvoed some stuff and the person who deleted it said it was okay. .. i'm just sick of this getting deleted; i put alot of work into it. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Like I have said before (quite a few times) I will give you a copy of the deleted material, you just need to remove your age. I am not here to argue the RfAr findings, but instead to enforce them. Either play by the rules or go without a userpage, your choice. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why? i've seen lots of other wikipedian's userpages who are under 18 that list there age. I really don't care, i'm not a goddamn child... - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- why don't you just restore the page and remove the age yourself and save some time? I don't see why i apply to this though, the name of the thing is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and again, i'm not a child. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- okay, just send it to me; also, in a completely unrelated thing; how come you have to be an administrator to view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions ? I've always wanted to see my deleted contribs but apparently i can't.. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia Foundation that owns the servers Wikipedia runs on has advised at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted that if we were to permit non-admins to view deleted materials, it could prompt the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to undo this action, therefore we have decided to maintain the status quo and avoid that risk. MBisanz talk 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
rollback request
Please see reply on request 45Factoid44 (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your Userpage
On User talk:BlastOButter42, Tiptoety said:
Hi LukeTheSpook, as you have probably noticed I have deleted your userpage. This has been done in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please understand that my reason for doing this is to ensure that you are safe while using and contributing to Wikipedia. I am willing to provide you with a copy of your deleted userpage with the understanding that you will remove all personal info (regarding age) before re-creating it. Tiptoety talk 06:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please restore my userpage. I've read through Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy and the results of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy, which is over two years old, and there was nothing on my userpage that provided any personal information besides my first name and age, neither of which create any danger that the decision seeks to prevent.
- It seems that it was the display of my age that brought about your concern; the decision states, "Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate." Surely my age is not identifying in any way. The template I had in use on my page to automatically calculate my age could be used to determine my birthday, but even that is not personally identifying, and should not provoke such a drastic action as deletion of the entire page -- that's hardly "reasonable," either.
- Furthermore, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, to which the ArbCom decision refers, applies only to those under the age of 13.
- It seems to me that you are unilaterally interpreting this old ArbCom decision to include age as "identifying personal information." Please undo the deletions of my userpage as well as others who provided similar or less personal information. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 07:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. In response to your request: Knock knock.
- Who's there?
- Norma Lee.
- Norma Lee who?
- Norma Lee I have my key. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 07:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just to interject, I reviewed the deleted page, you have your first name, high school, birthday, age , hometown, and one of the IPs you've used listed on your userpage. That is far more private information than a minor should have on a public website like Wikipedia. Also, I am aware that COPPA covers children under 13, but as a general rule of thumb, we should be mindful of all minors privacy. MBisanz talk 07:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
rollback criteria?
Hi, this is not for me but just wondering about a friend and whether he might be eligible. I was wondering roughly how many edits/ how long someone has been on wiki you would want a user to have before you granted rollback? They have a clean block log and have never accused a non-vandal of vandalism falsely, as far as I know. Sticky Parkin 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- They should have ~300 edits, a clean block log, no history of edit warring, at least some anti-vandalism reverts, and have a clear understanding as to what is to be classified as vandalism. Tiptoety talk 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for attending to the blocks related to my latest checkuser report on Jvolkblum. (I tried to turn "Jvolkblum" into the punchline of a knock-knock joke, but I couldn't make the joke funny...) --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Lancaster University
Thanks for dealing with the 3RR on this and my apologies for not using the template properly, I will know better next time. --Snowded TALK 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Coldplay
Hey Tiptoety, listen, Howard2112 (talk · contribs) keeps adding a fansite to the External link section of the Coldplay article. The user has been blocked for that exact reason, adding the site to the section. I've reverted the users edits and gave numerous warnings. However, he's undone my edits in the article. I was wondering if maybe you could help out here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Doing... Tiptoety talk 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Messianic Judaism
[1] With all due respect, the user's 4th revert was 15 minutes after the warning. He couldn't have avoided seeing the notice that he had a message on his talk page. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- He made that edit after I had closed the AN3 request, I have sense blocked him. Tiptoety talk 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.
thanks i just have one question. when i get my article done to my standards may i please ask you to review it and make sure it is up to par to be released? and if you do not think so i would do more work on it. i am putting alot of time into this and do not want to see it simply disregarded.
Could I "Borrow" You For a Second?
I have a move request that I am waiting on on the request moves page. It is nothing much, just a simple history move, could you please push that through for me? I would appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 03:25
Done I deleted the page too, so you can start with a clean page history. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thank you very much! Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 03:30
Userpage
|
The Excellent Userpage Award | |
Wanted to give you this barnstar for your lovely userpage.  I'm jealous of it and will cry myself to sleep at night until I come up with something equal or better than yours. Enjoy! DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Your unblock of User:Spacefarer
While administrators were considering the multiple unblock requests by Spacefarer (talk · contribs), checkusers Deskana (talk · contribs) and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) uncovered and blocked additional socks related to Landmark Education/Werner Erhard/Erhard Seminars Training topics, socks of Barnham (talk · contribs) and Gilbertine goldmark (talk · contribs).
The first unblock request by Spacefarer/FreedomByDesign was October 3. See actions from October 5-6 -- Gilbertine goldmark2, Belladana, Wisdum, and blocks extended on Gilbertine goldmark and Barnham. In light of this information do you still think the unblock was appropriate? Cirt (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is pragmatically better for them to use one known account than for them to create new socks. At least we can watch the one account, and it provides fresh data for checkusering in case they do create new socks. Jehochman Talk 11:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is not my point, rather I am asking Tiptoety (talk · contribs) to reexamine the unblock of Spacefarer (talk · contribs), in light of these actions by checkusers YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) and Deskana (talk · contribs) that went on during Spacefarer's unblock requests. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
ResearchEditor
Tiptoety, regarding your clerk note on the CU you may not know that Uswer:Baawip80 exclusively edited a now deleted entry. These edits no longer show up in his/her history for that reason. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Extreme_Abuse_Survey -- the deletion discussion of the entry created by and primarily edited by this editor. Soon after the entry Extreme Abuse Survey was created by that user, User:Albigolow inserted a reference to the survey into Satanic ritual abuse and User:Extrabeeze edit warred to keep the information in the entry. Just thought I'd give you the back story in case it eluded you. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikicookie
Hello
Sorry to bother you but someone made this edit on one of your adoption pages. Have you adopted that person? I am assuming it was a test. Guess that page is not on your watchlist, otherwise you would have picked it up much earlier. Thanks 211.30.16.21 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
RCU - ResearchEditor
Hi,
I've noticed you've blocked a whole whack of editors related to the check user for ResearchEditor, but no notices on their talk pages that they've been blocked. I thought this was standard, out of curiosity, am I incorrect? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is a common courtesy, but is not required. The block message that MediaWiki provide them does the same thing. Tiptoety talk 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lurvely, thanks! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Tile join
Please can you stop deleting all the userpages and restore all the ones you have already. There's no speedy deletion criteria for that and I've found the cat to be rather useful when finding recent socks for a CU. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Um, calm down. First off the reason I am deleting the userpages (mind you they have all been deleted) is because he has recently been creating userpages with a sock tag on them, he is clearly doing it just for attention. So the best way to handle that is to deny him that attention. Second, I spoke with a CU off-wiki who agreed it was a good course of action to take, and third I made a list found here with all of Tile Join's sock. So either the CheckUsers' can check the RFCU archives, or they can check my subpage. Tiptoety talk 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Pioneercourthouse
Tiptoety, sorry to bug you with this, but can you double-check your decision at User talk:Pioneercourthouse? That user has admitted to socking, but I think you incorrectly assumed that a different account was the "main" account.
I am not too familiar with unblocking procedures, and am not sure how to proceed on this. He has made what sounds like a reasonable request at Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square, but at the same time, he has certainly racked up quite a history of inappropriate edits and sock puppet behavior. Your perspective would be helpful, I think. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- If it is his main account than he can address the issues there, all I was saying was that either way he needs to do it on what ever account was the first to be blocked. Either way, I was going to decline. Tiptoety talk 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. It's because he didn't mention the sockpuppetry, not because he made the request in the wrong place. Thanks for explaining. His talk page is now protected, so I think further requests need to go to email...right? As you can tell, I didn't learn my admin school lessons as well as I might have! -Pete (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, the request was denied simply on the basis that he did not admit the fact that he had engaged in sock puppetry and showed no intention on stopping. As for any further unblock requests, yes they could be made directly to the blocking admin via email, or he has the option of emailing the unblock mailing list or using the unblock IRC channel. Oh, you make a fine admin... I envy the fact that you spend more time writing opposed to admining. ;) Tiptoety talk 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. It's because he didn't mention the sockpuppetry, not because he made the request in the wrong place. Thanks for explaining. His talk page is now protected, so I think further requests need to go to email...right? As you can tell, I didn't learn my admin school lessons as well as I might have! -Pete (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Any chance you can grant me rollback? I would only use it in clear cases of vandalism. This happens from time to time on lists and tables that I've maintained. Thanks. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done Tiptoety talk 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind message! I've read over the rollback feature article and will only use it in clear cases of vandalism. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
In response to Your userpage
Could you please send my a copy of my deleted userpage so I could remove the age? Also, I read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, but I still don't understand why my userpage was deleted due to children's privacy. I am not a child. Also, I thought children under 13 were not allowed here anyway due to COPPA. --real_decimic 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can not send you an email if I do not know your email address. You can either go to "my preferences" and add one or provide it here on my talk page. Tiptoety talk 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
CT
I know there hasn't been a lot of anon activity, but if you look at the contrib history it is troubling in one case (the older one), and very short in the other. Catch my drift? (Wallamoose (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
- Another admin appears to be dealing with it. Tiptoety talk 05:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
DickCharlesPhD
I hesitate to bring this up, because there's a 90% probably 95% chance you made exactly the right call, but might this have been a little hasty? I'm just thinking there's a 10% 5% chance that a PhD student named Dick Charles, with a self-efacing sense of humor, is sitting at his computer right now saying "what the hell did I do?". Maybe instead of a {{usernamehardblock}}, a {{usernameblock}} with a short comment, so they can choose another name? Or, maybe you know more than me; there are all kinds of internet memes I don't know about, and like I said, you probably did the right thing. If you feel comfortable with this, I'm not going to argue more, I trust your judgement. Just wanted to make sure you'd weighed this possibility. --barneca (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as he just sent me a rather rude email I think I will leave it the way it is. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I guess you do have more info than I do. --barneca (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for assuming good faith though! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I guess you do have more info than I do. --barneca (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Request to post me a deleted article (is that how you add a new subject here?) (hope so)
Hello there! Woz wondering if you can be sympathetic enough to mail me a deleted article marked for speedy deletion A7 (for not stating the significance of it)? The article's title was Adamaduma an israeli band playing very special afro-yemen fusion (I know i'm not objective as I'm a member of the band, but thought it to be interesting enough for the community, and also a good linking station for many musical generes and instruments)
I'm a Wiki newbee, (really new), and this is the first time I'm putting something on the database. I didn't know that I can write it in the sandbox. too bad. I am an ethno-musician with a lot of information and knowledge to contribute to the database, that I think would interest others. I wish to understand how it's done, and would appreciate it if you or somebody else can help me do it the way it's done here in wikipedia! quite complex... for someone who's never done that before..
blessings! --Adamaduma (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy to send you a copy of the deleted material, but first you need to enable email on your account, you can do that in your preferences. Tiptoety talk 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Tile join socks
Hi there, I noticed you deleted Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join, and all the tagged userpages of the socks. This is making it very difficult for me to list a new suspected sockpuppet for checkuser since I need to refer to previous socks to describe behavior and find the block logs and when they were checkusered. Could you restore these deletions please? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- They can all be found here. Tiptoety talk 20:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well I've listed the case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tile join, but that took me a lot more time than it would have otherwise due to those deletions. I think understand your reason for doing it, but it created a lot more work for me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you just drop a line or two in here about your evidence for the block - it will make the unblock review a lot easier, since the user is hammering the unblock template with what looks like genuine confusion. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Knock Knock Joke
Knock Knock ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Who's there? Tiptoety talk 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kanga ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kanga-Who (and don't you dare say, Kangaroo!) :D Tiptoety talk 23:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ohh bu I wanted to say Kangroo =[ :P ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kanga-Who (and don't you dare say, Kangaroo!) :D Tiptoety talk 23:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kanga ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You've moderated the 2008 South Ossetia war talk page before right? The following user has a history of uncivility and never seems to assume good faith. I've pointed it out to him and asked him several times to change his posting style, but in vain. If you want a list of examples I can make this. There's special enforcement sanctions on Eastern Europe subjects right? Well, all I care about is that it stops, because it's just tiring. Cheers. Grey Fox (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy to look into it for you, but am currently a bit busy. Would you mind providing some diff's of incivility, along with some diff's of you (or others) attempting to resolve the issue or warn the user their actions are inappropriate, doing that will lay the ground work for me. Thanks! Tiptoety talk 18:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Userpage Template
Hi Tiptoety, I am EntertainU, am I am adopted by Addshore, one of your friends. I was wondering if I could use your userpage template for mine. My userpage is not that interesting, and so I would like yours. Thank-You and Happy Editing! --i-am-entertainU (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, sure..but it is not very original anymore seeing as like 10 users are now using it. While I do not care if you use it, I would recommend that you create your own. I can direct you towards a few users who would be happy to create one for you. Tiptoety talk 00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The editor continues to blank his/her talk page in bad faith. Do you think it should be fully protected? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but what does blanking their talk page "in bad faith" mean? The policy is fairly liberal on allowing people to blank their talk page (including warnings). Some of the attacks are unnecessary but that was Cubfan789's talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean this comment? Because it's the only recent comment Cubfan789 has made to any user recently. It's certainly not a personal attack. I'm sure Cubfan789 was frustrated that Sesshomaru kept reverting Cubfan's blanking of his own talk page, which is a perfectly reasonable edit, and Sesshomaru should be asked to stop. Mangojuicetalk 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mangojuice, you have to stop right now. I restored the messages on Cubfan789's talk page twice after Tiptoety did it once. I suggest you follow this example. It's pretty obvious why someone should use rollback in such an instance. Why else would it be reverted the first time? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that your block of Cubfan789 (talk) was out of place. The statement Get a life doesn't seem to be that bad; nor does STOP EDITING MY PAGE as a response to a violation of WP:DRC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I missed the "get a life" comment, but it seems to me Sesshomaru was over the line here clearly, edit-warring over another user's own user talk page. A mild warning would have been appropriate, a 48-hour block is not. Mangojuicetalk 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then you are more than welcome to unblock, I just think Cubfan789's messages on his talk speak from themselves and I know that once unblocked he will go right back to edit warring and violating WP:CIV. While the basis for my block was the civility violations (which I feel are not enforced enough), there are quite a few other concerns with this account. But like I said before, if consensus determines that a unblock would be the right course of action, than I am fine with that. Tiptoety talk 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the "Mirror, Mirror" page be recreated after the episode airs on ABC this Sunday?
Can the "Mirror, Mirror" page be recreated after the Desperate Housewives episode airs on ABC this Sunday? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- It will need to go through deletion review. Tiptoety talk 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Rollaback
Shame you fixed it, I was looking forward to the new hit, "Administrative Rollaback Girl". :D Acalamari 16:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Stock market
Hi Tiptoey: Your deletion of stock market has put a red-link on the main page... MeegsC | Talk 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oopsy! I was trying to revert some nasty page move vandalism and did not mean to capitalize the "M". Appears to have been fixed. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Rollback request
Could you please give me rollback? At this point I would use it mostly on the extreme nasty vandalism on articles relating to candidates in the presidential election. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 18:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks
|
The Resilient Barstar | |
| Thanks for all your intellectual, intelligent, and masculine contributions, keep up the great work. Nissanaltima (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) |
Unblock
Many thanks.Londo06 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey what's up? Good job administering the net :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopface1013 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
About me blocked for Nadal's warring
I was warring VS Tennis Expert. He's not blocked? He warred way more than me, check his thousand vandalism edit the last 2 months. Block him also or I wont stop posting (IP ban this ip range if ya want, ive 2 isps lol). 81.184.39.193 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you WARN him and BLOCK me? I'm reporting you as admin abusing. 81.184.66.56 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- My block isn't legal since you blocked me and you just warned him, and as I told you before, I will report you for not doing equally your admin job. Block him like me and I wont edit more with other ips. 62.57.239.105 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's great that you keep getting me more blocked, this means one thing: I'm 12 days banned? Tennis expert is 12 days "banned". All his edits will be reverted the next 12 days. 62.57.197.96 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety! Thanks for blocking Korlzor and some of his (and Wikitestor's) IP. As you can see, he threathens to keep his disruptive behavior through IP adresses, which has already occurred here and here (as Wikitestor and with a "strategic" edit summary, that is hiding the same as what Kolzor did with a more profane summary here)]. How can one get around such an unfortunate situation? I watch this page. Cheers! (While writing this, he has as yeat another IP made this disruption.) --HJensen, talk 06:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- The IP's appear to have already been blocked by one of our Checkusers. Tiptoety talk 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't you banning the warrer and 3rr rulebreaker tennis expert?
He broke it yesterday, today also and hes getting only warnings. I'm making people know of this. Wikitestor (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which is the master?
Just wondering, how did you determine that Korlzor (talk · contribs) was the master? Wikitestor (talk · contribs) was created and edited a month before Korlzor. Am I misunderstanding the definition of sockmaster? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was simply becasue Wikitestor was indef blocked while Korlzor remains with only a one month block, making him the master. You do not always have to choose the user who has been around the longest. Tiptoety talk 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Cubfan789
It's not really a big deal to me, but I thought I would ask one last time if you could reconsider the block on User:Cubfan789. He's probably a.. younger editor, and he made a mistake about who the anon account was. From his point of view I can understand his reactions, and I don't think it's fair to treat this on the same level as a case of harassment on Sesshomaru (as in, it wasn't an unprovoked action, and his comments were out of frustration). I think a better way to have dealt with this would have been to tell him that if he thinks Sesshomaru is talking to him/messing with him/whatever, is to not respond at all and instead ask someone else for help rather than respond. That would prevent even a mistaken situation such as this one.
But that's just my two cents. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ned. While I understand where you are coming from and could see where discussion may have been a better option, I also have been watching this user rather closely and from what I gather he is intent on being disruptive and discussion has seemed not to work all that well. I agree with you that it was not a unprovoked action, but in saying that, it does not mean that it makes it any more ok. Either way, his block has expired and he is once again welcome to edit. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough (and oops, didn't notice the block being expired). -- Ned Scott 05:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
re WP:Bear
Nope, only possible offensiveness is that it may have regarded as belittling someones legit complaint - which, since the complainant joined in, was not the case. As someone who has had their bear-like appearance commented on by their gay male friends I am pretty familiar with what I speak... which is one reason why I do not comment about people who use Twinkle in everyday WP use. Nevermind, I realise that your action was as well intentioned as mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Check User
I have added more info. Schuym1 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Test page deleted
Why did you delete my test page? Further, why did you delete it without any notification?? Timneu22 (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because you placed a speedy deletion tag on it requesting that it be deleted. I would be happy to undelete it if the tag was part of the test. Tiptoety talk 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Lee Kirksey deletion
You closed this discussion without allowing it to run for five full days, without explanation. Please reopen it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- No thank you, the AfD was only hours away from its five hour mark and consensus was clear. Tiptoety talk 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- At the time it was deleted, it had 37 hours to run. Per this discussion, [[2]], the consensus appears to be that such premature closures are inappropriate. I, for one, would like to comment on it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting this article! :) ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
66.90.73.125
Hi Tiptoety. FYI. [3] [4] [5] -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"Message Bar" reply
No problem. I thought you did it on accident. I am going to continue to keep a copy of my mainpage in a template so low level vandals don't change around my mainpage. Just letting you know. Beano (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
As we've previously discussed, I've put your name forward for a referee panel WP:Arbitration enforcement#Further Proposals--Tznkai (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A good knock knock joke
... but you have to start it. Reply and say "knock knock"... Beano (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
sup
ay man, yep back in action. Let me know if you need anything. MatthewYeager 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- still active in the holding pen? if so hit me up on chat sometime. MatthewYeager 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks you for granting rollback on my account! When I get some time on my hands, I'll have to check out Huggle. Good luck! Jock Boy (t-c) 23:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Holy moley!
Man, what the heck is up with that "Avril" vandal? He has a sockpuppet drawer which rivals some of the worst vandals I've ever seen on this site. Talk about wasted time in creating these things in the first place. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You need a cookie.
PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- I don't know, but what I do know is my pointer finger now hurts from clicking the block button so many times.
- Also, thanks for the cookie! *Much* ~
- Tiptoety talk 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad to pass along the goodness only a cookie can bring. Rest thine weary finger, O Pilgrim. As for me, I'm off to stare once more at the backs of my eyelids. Catch ya later. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Strange error
If you have a moment, can you take a look at this, and tell me where the stray "{" is, 'cause I can't find it... I am stumped by this error. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific please, I am not sure exactly what you are asking. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Uuhhh... checking the page now, I see that the error message is no longer there... now I am even more puzzled. Previously, there had been a rather large message in red font indicating that there was a stray opening bracket and that its presence was incorrect. Had I been thinking, I would have copied the bloody message so I could show it to you. But, as I say, it is now gone, rendering this all moot. Thanks for your time, anyway. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety. 72.179.59.89 and 70.112.78.91 are clear Hkelkar socks. Both have made identical edits, both have Austin’s IP adresses. 72.179.59.89 has already been blocked. Atomicdor (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- One more sock puppet of Hkelkar: User:Usedholding. Atomicdor (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hkelkar socks are everywhere. Three more likely Hkelkar socks: Lakumdeena, Goingoveredge and 70.112.6.246. Atomicdor (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
October 2008
This warning is not needed. The situation has already been discussed on the talk page as well as several other forums. The image was deemed suitable for use. Myself and two other users have replaced the image on separate occasions. The offending user has been given fair warning. Libro0 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats!
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| This is for blocking a lot of socks! Mixwell!Talk 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
XXX<-COTW->XXX
Howdy WikiProject Oregon humans. Time for another edition of the C to the O to the T to the W. Thanks to those who help out on McNary Field and Bend’s High Desert Museum. For this week, we shall tackle Bridges on US 101 and then with the last few days of decent weather, The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. Plenty of red links on the bridge list, or improve a stub! Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Desperate Housewives
FYI Frank | talk 10:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I too recently directed him to DRV. Not sure there is too much else we can do. Tiptoety talk 14:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Need for clarification
Hi, a little extra clarification is needed regarding this [6]. In a previous 3RR case admin Doug said the following "Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again. " [7]. Your comment was more about "involved parties" but since the above comment by admin Doug was specifically about GreekParadise he is the only person relevant in this regard. Where the clarification/reinforcement is needed in your ruling is "Did GreekParadise "violated again"? Did GreekParadise violated the rules regarding edit warring? Your comment "Okay, I was all ready to block quite a few editors involved in this most recent dispute" suggests that he did, but does not mention him by name. A clear "ruling" or clarification saying, yes "GreekParadise violated 3RR/edit warring rules" would be needed here first. Thanks in advance. Hobartimus (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, GreekParadise was in violation of WP:EDITWAR, but seeing as he stopped when asked a block at this point would be purely punitive. Tiptoety talk 07:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, this thing seems to continue [8], between the same parties, nothing that bad but clearly there are some problems, like issuing ultimatums [9] like "you didn't comment within 3.5 hours so I revert" and "I will report you" the same place there and [10] accusations of bad faith, accusation of bad motives accusation of ownership by GreekParadise in a single post, so it does not seem like the problem will just go away. All this is since the latest incident. There is also an ANI thread but no admin commented there with anything of substance. The other problem is that I think GP believes he never violated any rule or any guideline at least his comments on Lar's talk page(another place where this was discussed) seem to indicate this "As noted, the most I've done is three reversions with one thing: putting back in the eight-word sentence that Collect and ThreeafterThree have repeatedly taken out" [11]. If they publicly state that there was nothing wrong with their edits it's safe to assume that they will not change their actions. Do you have any interest in commenting these things or I shouldn't bother you with stuff relating to this? Hobartimus (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, this seems like something that needs wider community discussion. I am not sure that any administrative action can or should be taken by me at this time, but it sounds like something certainly needs to happen. Tiptoety talk 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoey, I'm extremely insulted that Hobartimus has chosen to post utter lies about me on your talk page without even alerting me he was doing so. There was a full discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard if you care to read it there, and Hobartimus' complaint was dismissed as meritless. Meanwhile his ally Threeafterthree was sanctioned for 3RR. Virtually anything Hobartimus says about me is 1 part true and 99 parts false. He has been out to get me for some time because he wants to insert his own strong POV in the Palin article. Many, many editors (and an administrator or two) have called him on this and openly accused him of bad faith. I could go on for pages and pages about Hobartimus' bad faith. Not my accusations. Others. But I won't. I hate wikilawyering. At any event, I am not asking you to do anything except ask you, in the future, that if Hobartimus ever complains about me surreptitiously again that you alert me so that he cannot continue to slander me beyond my back. He is unfortunately wont to do so again and again and again, so all I'm asking as an alert so I can defend myself. A detailed description of my response to Hobartimus false report about me is on the Administrator's noticeboard. I won't waste your time by repeating it here. But Hobartimus is the ultimate wiki-lawyer. When he can't get an edit he wants, he repeatedly complains to administrators. All I want is the "due process" of knowing in the future that whenever he makes up lies about me, I am not tried in abstentia. Without knowing both sides, I fear you are apt to believe Hobartimus' frequent libels against me. Perhaps after the election, when the fervent need to protect a certain POV is diminished, Hobartimus will finally let me edit, and follow all proper wiki-guidelines, in peace.GreekParadise (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- In light of the above personal attacks about me I think a block of GreekParadise is long overdue. Notice how none of the above addressed any of the complaints against his behaviour, his disruptive editing, his proven edit warring, his history of previous disruption edit warring all documented, all commented on by admins, he did not defend a single action a single edit of his([12] [13] [14]) and instead he launched a multitude of personal attacks. Did he deny edit warring and violating 3RR in the most recent case? No. Did he deny previous disruption as documented in his block log and previous ANI reports? No. This is not acceptable. Note that while I every statement he dismisses is backed up with EVIDENCE, diffs, we do not find a single diff in the attack filled posts of GreekParadise not one. This post truly crossed the line. If there is such a request by Tiptoety or someone else I am willing to go over these attack filled tirades line by line and point out each attack, falsehood and statement taken from thin air. Just to give an example "Meanwhile his ally Threeafterthree" do you have any basis any basis at all to say something truly absurd like this? I first heard this person via the 3RR edit warring case of GreekParadise. As I listed fully GreekParadise made 8 reverts in that disruption this was the case that you handled Tiptoety and some of the reverts were reverting Threeafterthree this is the only reason I know this other user exists at all. Tiptoety do you think that GreekParadise should be reported for a block at ANI at this point? Hobartimus (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoey, I'm extremely insulted that Hobartimus has chosen to post utter lies about me on your talk page without even alerting me he was doing so. There was a full discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard if you care to read it there, and Hobartimus' complaint was dismissed as meritless. Meanwhile his ally Threeafterthree was sanctioned for 3RR. Virtually anything Hobartimus says about me is 1 part true and 99 parts false. He has been out to get me for some time because he wants to insert his own strong POV in the Palin article. Many, many editors (and an administrator or two) have called him on this and openly accused him of bad faith. I could go on for pages and pages about Hobartimus' bad faith. Not my accusations. Others. But I won't. I hate wikilawyering. At any event, I am not asking you to do anything except ask you, in the future, that if Hobartimus ever complains about me surreptitiously again that you alert me so that he cannot continue to slander me beyond my back. He is unfortunately wont to do so again and again and again, so all I'm asking as an alert so I can defend myself. A detailed description of my response to Hobartimus false report about me is on the Administrator's noticeboard. I won't waste your time by repeating it here. But Hobartimus is the ultimate wiki-lawyer. When he can't get an edit he wants, he repeatedly complains to administrators. All I want is the "due process" of knowing in the future that whenever he makes up lies about me, I am not tried in abstentia. Without knowing both sides, I fear you are apt to believe Hobartimus' frequent libels against me. Perhaps after the election, when the fervent need to protect a certain POV is diminished, Hobartimus will finally let me edit, and follow all proper wiki-guidelines, in peace.GreekParadise (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, this seems like something that needs wider community discussion. I am not sure that any administrative action can or should be taken by me at this time, but it sounds like something certainly needs to happen. Tiptoety talk 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, this thing seems to continue [8], between the same parties, nothing that bad but clearly there are some problems, like issuing ultimatums [9] like "you didn't comment within 3.5 hours so I revert" and "I will report you" the same place there and [10] accusations of bad faith, accusation of bad motives accusation of ownership by GreekParadise in a single post, so it does not seem like the problem will just go away. All this is since the latest incident. There is also an ANI thread but no admin commented there with anything of substance. The other problem is that I think GP believes he never violated any rule or any guideline at least his comments on Lar's talk page(another place where this was discussed) seem to indicate this "As noted, the most I've done is three reversions with one thing: putting back in the eight-word sentence that Collect and ThreeafterThree have repeatedly taken out" [11]. If they publicly state that there was nothing wrong with their edits it's safe to assume that they will not change their actions. Do you have any interest in commenting these things or I shouldn't bother you with stuff relating to this? Hobartimus (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, since you handled the block yesterday: there's continued edit-warring right after expiry of block, and a follow-up I posted at WP:AE#User:Cukiger. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, that is rather unfortunate. Anyways, I have blocked them for 72 hours. Tiptoety talk 05:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Tiptoety, can you move The Offspring: Complete Music Video Collection to Complete Music Video Collection?
See the history of The Offspring: Complete Music Video Collection, is more relevant.
Thanks.
OffsBlink (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- It needs to be discussed on the talk page first and gain consensus. Tiptoety talk 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
I have no wish to continue anything on permissions, and neither do I wish to start any arguments, but I'd like you to know that I was surprised by your response to my review. As such, I'll explain to you how I reached my conclusion before posting my review: regarding this edit, at a first glance, I agree about assuming good faith and how it could be a test edit, but I then reviewed the user's other edits at that time, and found these: [15][16], as well as a few other edits made at the same time that were also vandalism.
With this, again, it could be considered a test edit, but after a third look, it depends on your point of view: in the articles where I edit, I often encounter a lot of date vandalism (and they're not really tests either), which it what that edit appeared to me as.
As for the third example, as I said on permissions, that wasn't clear-cut, and should have been reverted with a better explanation. Despite a couple of mistakes, they were more than countered by all the good reverts Terrillja made, so going on that, and with a reminder to Terrillja to be more careful, I then came to the conclusion that him having rollback would be a benefit. However, I did leave the granting to another admin.
Finally, I agree with you that people should be more civil and helpful to newer users. Unfortunately, there seems to be a "if they can't handle it, then they probably wouldn't have been constructive anyway" attitude among some users, which I believe is a negative and unproductive view, and it not only discourages new users, but also drives away estalished editors too...especially ones that try to create a friendly working environment.
I hope this clears things up. :) Best wishes and happy editing. Acalamari 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Steve Dufour
As the user who reported User talk:Steve Dufour for 3RR, I believe that it would be useful to unblock him early as he requested. He seems plenty contrite and in good faith erred in making his fourth revert (he presumed the first didn't count) and was beginning to contribute productively to the article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Clarification on G2bambino restrictions
Hi Tiptoety, to the best of my knowledge, you are the author of editing and behaviour restrictions places on G2bambino here. I'm not aware of succeeding restrictions being placed and G2bambino is unable or unwilling to comment on whether there are more recent restrictions.
Are these restrictions in fact placed by yourself? If so, I would invite you to study Canada talk wherein G2 states that "the 1RR applies to Canadian monarchy and Royal Family articles" (i.e. not applicable to the Canada article). The wording under discussion relates to the role of the "monarchy" in a "Canadian" article, so there is a very fine distinction to be made, which is at odds with your "(generally speaking)" caveat. The successive changes are at [17] and [18], less than 2 hours apart. The DiffEngine coughs up a furball on these diffs, basically the first is a re-instatement of two {{fact}} tags (subsequent discussion started on the talk page); and the second is a re-revert of the re-removal, this time using {{dubious}} rather than {{fact}}. (Search for "successive Canadian governments") The discussion on the talk page, in which I am involved, generally supports the view that neither tag-form is required, rather, a single word ("successive") may be in question.
I have no particular wish to lodge a 1RR claim at this point, since I'm OK with tags remaining until we resolve the wording. I would appreciate clarity though on G2bambino's assertion that making reverts on an article related to both of Canada and the monarchy are not subject to restrictions on edits to "all Canadian monarchy related articles (generally speaking)". Your help is appreciated. Your views on this specific matter as it relates to the current AN thread would also be helpful. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Or not. He's already been blocked for 24 hrs. I really should learn how to type faster. Actually, my typing speed is just fine - it's my let's-think-about-this speed that's incompatible... Anyway. Enjoy your morning coffee! Franamax (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Revisting a sockpuppet
RE: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Guitaro99
User talk:76.94.25.192 is back, making "Matt Lee" related edits to The Aquanettas and seems to be recreating the Matt Lee (musician) article here: User:Spartaz/Musician. Even though this user is "retired" (User_talk:Spartaz) they have been making edits as recent as October 29 (Special:Contributions/Spartaz and the "Musician" sub page has been active since September 18, 2008 (Revision history of User:Spartaz/Musician) with edits mainly from Special:Contributions/Joeyboyee and Special:Contributions/76.94.25.192. From what I can tell "joeyboy" and "76.94.25.192" (along with "Guitaro99") are all SPA's.
Before I issue a warning about the repeated "Matt Lee" edits to The Aquanettas article I thought I would check in with you first as you closed the Sock Puppet "case" to see how and what I should warn about. Or should you just jump right in and do a block - MoP's 2 week block of the I.P did not seem to do any good.
Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Thanks for enabling rollback on my account. It's already been much simpler and quicker to revert vandalism than to do it the non-admin way. I do have a question for you. I had a newer user with a question and I wanted to see if you could tell me what the right answer is. He wanted to know the best way to reverse a speedy deletion tagging of an article that he did on accident using Twinkle. He gave me another message before I could reply saying he fixed it himself, so no big deal. So I thought about what I should tell others with the same question in the future. To reverse a tagging properly, do you just remove it yourself and describe in the edit summary that it was an accidental speedy tagging? Or is there a more efficient way to reverse the mistake? I always watch what I tag so I'm not too familiar with undoing mistakes like that... ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you are reverting yourself, you do not need to provide a edit summary (unless you want to). Simply revert. Tiptoety talk 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Adopt-a-user
Not sure if you are currently adopting or not, so I left a notice here. Chrishy 02:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sigh
I agree with you. Especially the last point. Ah well. Tan | 39 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, whatever way you choose to !vote, I respect you for it. Tiptoety talk 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I already !voted, pretty early. I'm torn on this one; I sort of feel that the huge amounts of contribution to Wikipedia - in time, blood and treasure - makes up for some of the shortcomings. I dunno. I commented against one of the opposes - #3, I think, because it was so frivilous. But then I get ones like yours and DGGs. Tan | 39 01:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
RE RfA's
Hey there Tiptoety, Just a little FYI, your voice at RfA's is becoming one of the voices that I have a lot of respect for. I may not always agree with you, but if I see that you've supported/opposed a candidate, it catches my eye.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
3RR-decision
Hi Tiptoey
Have you, when you evaluated [19], considered the report right above, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Josephjames21 reported by Amalthea (Result:_). I've just tweaked it a little, and I think it's very obvious that the user reverted four times.
All of that notwithstanding, and following up on the warning you just gave me, I am honestly very curious how you think I should have reacted in that situation. I noticed the problem at the article in question after a complaint at Josephjames21' talkpage, who I still had watchlisted. I politely asked him *yesterday* to provide a reason for his recent edit, where he removed content and all references the article had. Note that this was before any of the reversions today.
Today he repeated that edit (again: unexplained removal of content and all references). I reverted, which was my first edit *ever* to that article, and again strongly urged him to explain his edits on the talk page. He reverted, I warned, he reverted, I warned again, he reverted, I reported (And Onorem just restored the sourced version again).
Please explain to me where in your opinion I did wrong, and what I should have done instead. I couldn't care less about the topic in question and had no other intention than to restore the article per WP:V, and revert what I considered disruptive editing (removal of content and all references, while showing no willingless to discuss).
Thanks & Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 20:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Amalthea. I will take a look at your report a little later, or just allow another administrator to deal with. As for your question in regards to what action you should have taken. In a nutshell my answer is "anything but continually revert". When you run into users you get into a dispute with, you need to take your issues to the articles talk page, so that a wider audience of users have a chance to pipe in and comment on the dispute too. That in turn creates consensus, which if a a user chooses to violate it and revert against it will result in a block. You can also request a third opinion where a uninvolved party has a chance to give their opinion on the matter and attempt to resolve the issue. I recommend to take a look at all these dispute resolution options. I mean, if it gets so bad that you need administrative action post to the administrators noticeboard. Like I said before, anything but revert over and over. It really does nothing but harm the project. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I did think to have consensus strongly on my side, since two other active contributors had undone the very same edit before, and one of them had started a discussion on the talk page, which was ignored by Josephjames21.
Nonetheless, I acknowledge that I probably classified the edit too close to vandalism: replacing sourced content with unsourced content after being asked not to by three people had left me considering both edit and editor as purely disruptive, which is why I reverted and didn't consider dispute resolution.
Thanks again, and I really hope you will have a look at the other 3RR report, too. I'm really looking forward to unwatch both the article and the editor once the 3RR report is closed and and I've taken care of Josephjames21' remaining copyright violations.
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- [removed my ramblings]
- You know what, forget what I said. I'll follow my own advice and unwatch everything related, and as I said will follow yours and EdJohnston's in the future when I'm dealing with a disruptive, yet non-vandalistic editor. I guess I'm still somewhat shell-shocked from getting a final warning, I did not see that ever happening to me.
Thanks again for your insight, and see you around. --AmaltheaTalk 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I did think to have consensus strongly on my side, since two other active contributors had undone the very same edit before, and one of them had started a discussion on the talk page, which was ignored by Josephjames21.
need someone who knows this user
I found Spock44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who reverted the Sher_Shah_Suri article back to the version written by User:NisarKand. See a diff comparing the versions where the only change is linking "Afghan" to Pashtun people.
They have both edited Saffarid dynasty and Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari (this last one with sock User:ZmaGhurnStaKona). They have both added the same link to an article [20][21]
He was registered 29 July 2008, and, according to the sockpuppet case, the last sockpuppet by NisarKand was blocked on 15 July 2008[22]. He is also adding afghan people to Category:Pashtun people [23]], on an article that doesn't mention "pashtun" anywhere.
I am not familiar with NirkaSand. Can you check his contributions and tell me if he looks like a WP:DUCK sock, or if he is just an innocent bystander that decided to revert to that version because it looked better? Does this merit a checkuser? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Filed. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your oppose vote in my rfa. I will get around to reading through and taking notes from your oppose but currently I am trying to get through messaging everyone that took part in my RFA. Thanks for your truthful and needed comments. I hope I can work on them in the near future!
|
RE: Vandal on Mario Vargas Llosa
Ugh, looks like he's going proxy to proxy... Guess we'll just have to wait until he's bored... HAGGAR?? lol ~Pip2andahalf 04:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is a 4chan attack. They are all different users. Pretty scary, huh? Tiptoety talk 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
NOES
*throws computer out window* User:Juliancolton/Faces –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)