User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Happy New Year!

Galib is wishing you a Happy New Year. This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing!

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.True Romance iS Dead 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) .

SPI

Hello, I just wanted to alert you of this change that I made to an SPI case, and ask about it, as, before I made the change, the TOC on the main page was listing everything as under the Nrse case. Although, I Still do not think this was the best edit to make, as now the other sock cases, along with this one, are not listed in the TOC, so I'm sorry if I screwed things up further. This message shall be delivered to the others working on making the main SPI page work.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is because you used a edit summary when creating the case. Either way, I fixed it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't the one that created the case, I just noticed that particular case was the one causing the problems.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nix might be able to use his bot to fix these on the fly. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a thought. Lucas, want to email Eagle about it and see what he has to say? Tiptoety talk 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks

Thank you for stopping vandalism of User:Rabid Pole here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rabid Pole--Yopie 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Tiptoety talk 00:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I was under the impression that you were female, but after reading your user page it looks like you are male. Willydick (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Actually, I think my userpage does seem to give off feminist vibes and to be honest the majority of the people I have spoken with had the same reaction you did. But yes, I am indeed male and proud. :-) Tiptoety talk 04:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Userfication request

You speedily deleted a draft article that User:George0808 had on their main user page. It should have been on a subpage so would you please undelete it to User:George0808/sandbox? I think there is the genesis of a reasonable article there and I will help the user de-spam it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 DoneTiptoety talk 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI question

I opened a RfCU request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anywhere But Home ‎but I don't see it transcluded at WP:SPI. Any idea as to what I'm missing?

Thanks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, the bot did something wrong. Either way, it appears to have been fixed. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nikitn case

Can you please take a look above what I have written about user Nikitn. He contines to stalk and harrass me, and as I said also outside of Wikipedia. Despite warnings he continues with his disruptive editing without even trying to use any sources [1]. And note that s/he doesn't do any other editing than these disruptive edits. Närking (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Nikitn's behavior is a bit uncivil, but to be honest your actions are not the most becoming either and edit warring opposed to heading to WP:RSN or WP:ANI is disruptive too. As for the article, it has been protected, so I am hopping that you can both works this out at WP:RSN. Tiptoety talk 21:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a bit uncivil to stalk me outside of Wikipedia and spam my YouTube page with uncivil comments. And besides that the only page protected is the one where user Nikitn has deleted the source. So please protect also the other articles where Nikitn constantly has deleted sourced information: Battle of Poltava, Battle of Holowczyn, Battle of Fraustadt, Battle of Jēkabpils. Närking (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And to be frank I'm about to loose hope in this project if disruptive and harrassing users can go on for months without being stopped. Instead of spending hours of restoring articles I could have been writing even more well-sourced encyclopedic articles that would benefit the project. Närking (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Grand Avenue station

I believe railway stations are presumed to be notable: you might want to un-speedy that article. Note the rest of his recent contribution history...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I have made a mistake, you are more than welcome to reverse my action. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected socking by user you blocked

Hi, Tiptoety. You blocked User:76.15.185.72 for 3rr on Sobibor extermination camp & Leon Feldhandler. The user appears to be evading the block by editing from 200.193.129.125. Here's a link to the subpage at WP:SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.15.185.72. --Rrburke(talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it when I have some time. Tiptoety talk 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfCU/SPI

(See also: User_talk:Rlevse#RfCU.)

Ok, I'm rather lost as to how the page should be "activated", among other things. Any help would be welcome.

As an aside, shouldn't a checkuser request be easier/more intuitive/require less WP:BURO? Anything to streamline the intro page to make it easier would also be most welcome. - jc37 12:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. -- lucasbfr talk 13:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Like Lucas states on his talk page, the best place to discuss this is on the talk page. As for the issues of not knowing which "wizard" box to use, it is actually fairly easy. If you want to file a case but not request a CheckUser (much like the old SSP) then you use then first box, if you want to file a case with a CheckUser request accepted, use the second box. Once you have hit submit fallow the instructions and replace the items it tells you to replace with usernames, code letters, ect... Tiptoety talk 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 10:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible collateral damage from one of your blocks:

See User talk:Gordie. It was a checkuser block, so I am not going to undo it without your comment. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action Tiptoety. Gordie (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would you be open to a question via e-mail? Thanks, Grsz11 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Tiptoety talk 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, i've just sent it. Grsz11 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

SSP

Can the languishing cases at SSP be moved to SPI? I think people have forgotten about them. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That was already done. The cases at SSP probably just need to be removed. Tiptoety talk 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Tiptoety,

Based on your expertise with WP:SPI, where should a report based on User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox go; as a case, or an IP check? I'm 100% confident it's the same person and all socks are blocked, I'd just like additional socks flushed out and the feasibility of a range block looked at by a Checkuser; that would go in the Quick Checkuser section, right? --barneca (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looks like you went offline, and I'm about to do the same, so I just assumed my guess was correct. --barneca (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on what outcome you are looking for. If you simply want the underlining IP to be blocked, as the accounts are already indef'd, then the "quick section" is appropriate. If you are wanting the CheckUsers to look for sleepers, or you think keeping a record of this users blocked socks and CheckUser cases is a good idea than I recommend filing a case. Remember, anything in the "quick check section" does not get archived nor do CheckUsers regularly look back at the page history to see if any checks were run. I think in this specific case a "quick case" was perfectly fine. Tiptoety talk 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord

Hello! Two quick thoughts: 1) I hate to see someone indeffed only on a "likely" when the other account hasn't edited in years and the checkuser didn't report any other active socks; 2) in an instance like this, i.e. where the original block for sockpuppetry was back in 2007, i.e. two years ago, and Jupiter Optimus Maximus does have some constructive edits, should we give him another chance so long as no ongoing sockpuppetry is occuring, i.e. given the precedents of User:WillOakland, User:Jack Merridew, User:Doctorfluffy, etc. (I can think of several other instances off hand, but don't want to get carried away)? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When results come back likely that is almost as good as confirmed, it just simply means it is not 100%. With that in mind, if the user decides to post a unblock request I am more than willing to reduce his block, and currently he violated WP:SOCK and per precedent that results in a indef block. Tiptoety talk 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As an FYI, Jupiter Optimus Maximus is now using his user talk page for personal attacks and leaving notes to "lesser beings". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Four observations: 1) given his username, i.e. a deity, I wonder if the "lesser beings" bit is supposed to be humorous/ironic rather than what it might initially appear as; 2) I could perhaps see why someone might feel miffed if five of the articles he created were nominated for deletion in a row by the same person (all articles were kept, so it is not as if these were disruptive articles he created); 3) I know from past experience that "likely" does not always actually mean it's the same person; and 4) he does appear to have a block notification on his talk page, which could be why he is asking for clarification. With that said, I am not excusing any actual personal attacks or anything else, but only want us to be objective in examining things and not read too much into things or lose the context. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Socking again

Hi,

User:ResearchEditor seems to have made yet another appearance - Dgol5, whose main efforts were to remove discussion of a newly created ritual-abuse-torture page (one of RE's favoured topics, and a related page created by one of his/her socks - Special:Contributions/Attafire and diff) plus a couple cursory edits to muddle the waters and talk page history. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note Special:Contributions/Cdan18, whose edits mimic another of RE's probable socks Special:Contributions/Raorino. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ddgol5 (talk · contribs) has been Blocked As for Cdan18 (talk · contribs) I recommend you open a Sockpuppet investigation, as I do not feel comfortable blocking on those contribs alone. Tiptoety talk 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Apologies for peppering you with requests, I'm not sure when I have to do a completely new sock report and when a simple request is adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hold off on that sock report. Currently someone broke the whole page, and the requests are not getting handled. I will just block the sock. Tiptoety talk 19:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You can break whole pages? Cool! Don't tell me how, I might try it. I'll wait until I've bit more time and the page ain't broke no more, then look into something official. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:P Well, not so much break the page...as more break the bot that operates the page. Anyways, you are welcome. Tiptoety talk 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

As far as I can tell by roughly looking at my contribs, I've made somewhere around 7000 edits (possibly more or less) in the last 8 months since I was last blocked, and except for reverting vandalism, I don't believe I have reverted any editor more than once in a 24 hour period, although there might be a few exceptions that I may have missed; in fact I do believe there was one incident where I reverted an editor twice. As for my three blocks, the first was for reverting an editor three times in a 24 hour period, the second was erroneous, as I was blocked for reverting scibaby vandalism on sight three times, and the third was for making three reverts to the same article I was originally blocked from in the first place, a year later. In other words, in all three instances I was not blocked for violating 3RR (even though Madman claims I was in the edit summary; he never retracted in the edit summary but he did retract on my talk page and another administrator came forward to criticize the block[2]). As for the other two blocks, I have made three exceptional changes to insure that I was not blocked again, including permanently leaving the article of which I was the primary contributor; abstaining from editing alongside the editor I was involved in the edit war with, and; leaving that particular WikiProject altogether to avoid running into the same editor by accident. Since that time, eight months have passed with little if any problems to report, and during that time I have continued to revert vandalism to Hawaii-related articles. I believe that I do not have a history of disruptive editing, however, I did have a problem with a particular editor on a particular article who worked on a particular project, and I believe that I successfully eliminated that problem eight months ago by ignoring the editor, removing myself from the article, and unsubscribing from the project. Does this alleviate your concerns? Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this note, and it does help to shed some light on your block log. That said I would like to wait for another administrator to comment before I take any action. Tiptoety talk 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's at least make it interesting. How about inviting any one (or all) of the admins in my block log to weigh in for a quick heads-up review? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to do so. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to, but I see that it has been resolved, for now. Anyway, thanks for your help. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally uncalled for

This was totally uncalled for.

Your warning on my talk page I took in stride. I accepted that since Snowspinner had reverted blindly twelve times he'd get a warning, and that my one (or two if we're being draconian) reverts mean that to be "even handed" I got a note as well. However, as I'm gathering the impression that either you didn't bother to look at the facts or tacitly approve of his behavior, that acceptance is up in the air.

With respect to the Infantilism-centric editor, let be very direct: How much of the time between seeing the thread on Ani and dropping your opinion bomb did you spend looking over the situation? Did you read the two years of archives where outside conflicts were brought onto Wikipedia, or the seemingly endless rounds of accusations and recriminations when others disagree with this editor? Would you like to raise your hand and assist with these articles?

I'm happy to have my conduct reviewed. I'm happy to accept criticism. But the sort of facile, surface, drive-by interactions that you've contributed to date I am certainly not happy to have.

brenneman 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The comment I just made at AN/I was in no way productive. That said, please put it in prospective to your comment. Also, you are right, I spent no time researching the history behind the issue in which was brought to AN/I but instead simply commenting based upon the current discussion where it was clear you were unhappy because things were not going your way. As for the Phil dispute, I have no stake in it; matter of fact I have never interacted with him. I in no way condone his behavior anymore than I do yours. So please, do not say I am "taking sides". I also have looked into the history of the Tori Amos dispute so please do not say I have not done that either. Tiptoety talk 04:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm concerned as an adminstrator by being on the recieving end of interactions that I would find difficult to see happen to another editor.
brenneman 05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Freakazoid

Hey... It's been more than 6 months since Freakazoid is protected. Could you give it a try and unprotect it for some time? It's been long enough, I think. Thanks! --Koala (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It expires in a few weeks. I think we can wait until then. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

VitusBarbaro hoaxer

  • The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the hoaxer's been rangeblocked for another month [3]. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SPI clerk request

I'm not sure if Lucasbfr has contacted you (there is nothing on this page that I can see) so I would like to draw your attention to User talk:Lucasbfr#SPI clerk request. Thankyou and happy editing! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will get back to you within the next few days. Tiptoety talk 06:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Knock Knock!

  • Who's There?
  • A very happy user who now has rollback rights!

Thanks!--Wyatt915✍ 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

;-) You are welcome. Have fun! Tiptoety talk 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing rollback priviledges

Hello, Tiptoety! Since you're listed under the category of adnimistrators willing to grant rollback requests (and I've seen you mark some requests at WP:RFP/R today), should Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk · contribs) have their rollback removed due to sockpuppetry and being blocked indefinitely? Thanks. SF3 (talk!) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done GlassCobra 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

forum shopping

would it be forum shopping to report someone simultaneously to edit warring after you've notified ANI for their incivility? or would the single report to ANI make the other report unnecessary? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you already started a AN/I thread I see no reason to file a AN3 report as the persons conduct is already being discussed. That said, the community may ask that you take it to AN3 so that other uninvolved users may get involved. As for forum shopping, if you are making the report in good faith then I see no reason to call it that. Tiptoety talk 03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of Jupiter Optimus Maximus

Hi, I wonder if you could comment on this block a bit further. It seems like behavior-wise, (1) J.O.M.'s contributions have not been problematic (no prior blocks or major warnings, only some disagreements), and (2) any overlap has been in editing a pop-culture domain where coincidences may be reasonably likely. Your Lord was blocked for recreating deleted material (originally) which so far as I know is not an issue with J.O.M. And it sounds like the checkuser outcome wasn't a complete confirmation; Your Lord is known to edit on the 81.x.x.x range but this is a large range with dynamic addresses. Also, Your Lord is often said to be especially interested in Family Guy topics and I don't see this as an interest of J.O.M. at all. I'm inclined to say that if JOM's edits aren't disruptive in themselves and if this connection is shaky, we should unblock. Mangojuicetalk 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is. J.O.M. deliberately recreated merged articles under new names, despite having claimed to accept the redirects. His edits are also disruptive, ignoring consensus, recreating copyvio materials, and, as you might notice on his talk page and his comments to others, making personal attacks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there are some regrettable comments he has made, but his arguments when not commenting on editors in AfDs seem reasonable and his article creation worthwhile. The Your Lord account hasn't edited since 2007. If someone has been mostly constructive in a year and a half of editing, maybe we should extend a second chance on the condition that we will not tolerate personal attacks and assurance that limitation to one account. I can think of others with worse histories of incivility (even harassment) and sockpuppetry that we gave second chances to when we saw potentially good edits. I of course do not endorse any of the less than civil comments Collectonian alludes to and if the checkuser turned up active socks, then I would understand, but when two account's edit histories don't overlap, then it's more of block evasion or starting over fresh than sockpuppetry and if the mainspace edits are worthwhile then that should count for something. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There is at least one major difference between those given other changes and JOM. They admitted to their sockpuppetry, apologized, and repented. JOM refuses to admit what he is doing and is stead playing the victim and continue to try to pretend they are not his socks. Also, this is YourLord's third known sock, not the first, which is very clearly sockpuppetry. JOM's account was created within days of one sock being discovered and identified. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The blocked was based on the checkuser evidence, and I don't have a lot of time to comment. I trust that my fellow administrators can review the unblock request and take what ever action deemed appropriate. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: JOM has confessed to being YourLord, and YourLord has previously been accused of sockpuppetry twice and blocked for it once (User:Illustrious One). See User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus#Request for unblock. He has, in fact, also had prior blocks and numerous warnings. If you check his talk page and archive, you'll see multiple warnings and messages about NOR, disruptive comments, 3RR, and edit-warring. You'll also see a block for incivility. Just wanted to note these things because Mangojuice mentioned that "J.O.M.'s contributions have not been problematic (no prior blocks or major warnings, only some disagreements)" and that statement seems very inaccurate. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, could you see your way to unprotecting User talk:YourLord? Ryulong protected it in June 2007 because after his block YourLord had continued to use it as a bit of a chat forum. Given the sockpuppet findings, if YourLord/Illustrious One/Jupiter Optimus Maximus is going to make further unblock requests, he's probably going to have to do it from his original account (per WP:SOCK) which he can't do if that account's talk page is full-protected. Protecting the page has also prevented other editors from leaving subsequent messages and templates, including ones related to the sockpuppetry cases. If Ryulong wanted to prevent YourLord from editing his own talk page, he simply could have extended the block to include that page; full-protecting the talk page wasn't really necessary (and prevented YourLord from following the steps he'd been advised to demonstrate his ability to make positive contributions; probably what led him to start socking). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
He seems as if he wants to be unblocked, so should we start an ANI thread that is transcluded (right use of word?) to his talk page so he can participate? Also, he might not still have the passwords for his old account. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking case

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions, I have listed Date delinker (talk · contribs) as being indefinitely blocked for mass-delinking -- against the temporary injunction. I noted that you had given Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) a 48 hour block, but may not have taken into account Date delinker -- his alternate account. Both accounts were being used concurrently. seicer | talk | contribs 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, it totally slipped my mind. Tiptoety talk 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unilateral deletion of two articles

I am not going to make more reverts, but you should probably take a look at recent actions by User:Igny. I think he is repeatedly trying to unilaterally delete two articles, one of which was decided to be kept at AfD, and another, Aleksei Mikheyev is a valid BLP article. Here are the diffs: this is an article that was "kept" at an AfD and this is another article. This user knows he should use AfD instead, but he did not listen. Please note that Igny has an editing restriction, as logged in Digwuren case.Biophys (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing this out. I think your repeated attempts to go against consensus, multiple edit wars, forking information with tendentious titles requires to put the same restriction on you, Biophys. (Igny (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
And I want to point out that Biophys' recent disruptive editing goes against the consensus that Mikheyev v. Russia is a proper title for the information in the article which he tries to recreate to fork the info. AfD is not for requests to move nor for requests to merge. (Igny (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
  • What consensus? There was none. If there was a consensus, you had to place a note at "suggested moves" noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There were suggestion to move at the previous AfD, and my suggestion to move at the talk page did not have any objections, so I moved, and several editors expressed support for the move. If you did less edit warring and more discussing you would see that yourself, there are talk pages you know. And you are not the person who can give me advice what I had to do. I do not think it is proper to drag the tired community to yet another pointless vote. These AfDs, RfCs, ANIs, admin talk pages are flooded enough with complaints of disgruntled editors, participating in this ridiculous "Eastern battleground". But if you insist on this, why didn't you request the move back to the previous title after I moved it? Why did you try to fork the information? (Igny (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
Just to make this clear, this argument is about what article is better to be kept, Phone call to Putin or the current version, Mikheyev v. Russia (Igny (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
Please note Tiptoety, Biophys is acting in a very tendentious manner. He made numerous claim in the AfD that "almost everyone in Russia knows this term", and when asked ignored numerous requests from myself, User:Ezhiki and other editors, asking for sources to show that the term has been used widely (which would have to be done for almost everyone to have heard of it). After being called on this utter b/s, he then claims that he heard of this term long before this case, of course it's more utter b/s, because all evidence points to it being created by one of his favourite yellow journalists. He is now being asked again. Biophys, please provide a single source from a major Russian newspaper which demonstrates your claim that almost everyone in Russia could possibly know of this term (a low-circulation fringe newspaper, with a history of making wild accusations without proof, is not an acceptable source, particularly as the term seems to have been created by them), and also show me a single source which uses this term outside of the Mikheyev v. Russia case. Your ignoring and refusal to either answer these questions, or even acknowledge that the use of the term is only within the confines of this case, is absolutely tendentious. I am here, as I am sure others are too, to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in pushing fringe theories and advocacy. When numerous editors who are not here for those latter reasons put up an argument that is entirely backed up by the sources being used, and move an article to its actual notable term, perhaps one really needs to think about why they are on the project, and why they are defending what numerous editors disagree with. People may be willing to "trust Biophys on this" (that was a comment from the Afd which resulted in it being speedy kept), but there are those of us who do not trust Biophys so quickly, simply because he continually refuses to answer relevant and pertinent questions which are asked of him, not just on this article, but on many. --Russavia Dialogue 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

←Having not fully done my homework, and having come into this a bit late in the game here is what I see:

  • Strong consensus (found here) against "deleting" Phone Call to Putin, and in support of the article remaining in its full state. As such I am seeing little justification for Igny's actions here, though he does state there is some consensus to support his actions. I would would be interested in seeing that.
  • Edit warring on the part of both Igny and Biophys. While it is nothing worth (yet) taking any administrative action for, I do not think all of this is simply Igny's doing and I urge all parties to find a better way to deal with this. Possibly WP:DRV?
  • For once I am not seeing a whole lot of incivility, which is good.

As for Russavia's comment, I am not sure I see what you see. The reason Biophys has been attempting to gain so much consensus is so that he can avoid situations like this one. Now, I will not comment on the way he has been going about doing it because frankly I have not put the time in to looking into it, but you make some fairly serious claims. Claims that if true paint a very dim picture of another editor. If you do indeed have diffs of such behaviour, maybe a RFC/U would be in order.

I am not (and will not) comment on the content dispute itself, as that is not my role here. Should any further edit warring continue on anyone's part, blocks will be issued. But seriosuly, I really don't want to do that, so maybe we can all talk out our differences? Tiptoety talk 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A compromise. I will revert myself, and put a {{mergeto}} on Phone call to Putin to establish consensus if any. (Igny (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
There was a strong consensus to keep in 3rd nomination for AfD simply because nominator should have used DRV instead of nominating again. There was no strong consensus and there were suggestions to rename in previous AfDs as well as in the talk page. (Igny (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
Sounds good, thanks for doing that.
While the issue with the third AfD may have been the fact that the nominator should have taken it to DVR, the other two AfD's seem to show consensus for the article to be kept. But like anything, consensus can change and this {{mergeto}} discussion will either reinforce the need to merge the article or tell us that the article needs to be kept. Tiptoety talk 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Interested parties may look at Talk:Phone call to Putin. Should I notify anyone anywhere? Some noticeboard perhaps? (Igny (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
Hm, I think really the only applicable place to post such information would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, other than that I think the article is already receiving quite a bit of attention. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible salting of the original move here? Martintg (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I am thinking both discussions can take place at one time. Then someone can determine which one has greater consensus. Tiptoety talk 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored this BLP article. Do not you agree that a BLP article, an article about a criminal case (Mikhhee vs. Russia), and an article about a neologism describe different subjects? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this too is a good time to discuss it on the articles talk page. Tiptoety talk 04:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


If not Sock Then Meat

Your action on 'Mspraveen' (here)need to be revisited. If not Sock for Sure 'Mspraveen' who pop up just to support POV is a meat of 'Ncmvocalist'.(here) From Multi-user System. 76.212.2.204 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/13Anonymous 49

Hi I added the code letter and clarification --DFS454 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety talk 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

Hello Tiptoety. At what age do you recommend applying this? I did not find an age specified in the RFAR itself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom left that up in the air on purpose, in hopes that administrators would use common sense when enforcing their finding. That said, the internet safety law(s) generally refer to "internet minors" if you will as those 14 and younger. I think there is a legal page linked in the RfAr somewhere that provides more information. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I found it: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Tiptoety talk 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Would this also apply to eight year olds who in all likelihood are being supervised by parents and/or teachers? I've run into a few but haven't kept track of them until recently. Also, in the case of editors like User:Howdoyoudo08, where he has blanked his userpage now, but much info is still available through revision history, is that OK? He has mentioned being able to attend a Wiki meetup so I assume he is the son of another big-time Wikipedia editor. Soap Talk/Contributions 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the Online Privacy Protection Act, minors with their parents or legal guardians permission may post personal information, but because we have to sure way of knowing if they really have their guardians permission we just have to be smart about it. As for the page blanking, we just have to use common sense. There are times when deleting the page may be applicable, or just deleting certain revisions. While there are other times blanking it will work just fine. Tiptoety talk 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What should we do about a 15 year old teenage boy who has posted his photo, website, and name? Nobody is going to give him trouble most likely but allowing him to post his name without parental permission shown is not a good idea. If he just has his photo and no identifying information, this is safer for him. What do you think about User:United Statesman. I think he's a smart kid and don't want him to think Wikipedia bureaucracy is making life difficult for him. Yet the child policy is there for good reason. Chergles (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, he took out his name. It is hidden in the history but I think it's safe enough. Chergles (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you again

NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

I wrote to you on a different matter a few days ago so I recognized your name. 2 years ago, Ryulong indefinitely blocked me because I made a comment about a user who is accused of making a legal threat. I was not defending the user but thought that the comment thought to be a legal threat should be clearly identified to clarify the discussion. Ryulong assumed that I was defending the user and therefore must be the user's sock. When I was finally unblocked months later, we saw the damage that Ryulong did. I created quite a few articles and made some good edits (rare information) while Ryulong has not been a productive mainspace editor. What we need is a professional Wikipedia, not a social site. In WP, we should write high quality material and act like a hotel or cruise line that offers the most polite and best service. That's how WP will earn a great reputation. Chergles (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS/ GFDL

Hello,

If I want to ask this Flickr user to release their work under a free licence do I need to use OTRS? Also What is the difference between the GNU license and Creative commons license? Best --DFS454 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, OTRS is one way you can do it. The other (which is much easier) is simply have the flickr user change the image license to Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Then you can simply upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and there is no need to involve OTRS. Otherwise, yes OTRS would need to be involved. As for the licenses, try GNU license and Creative commons license. If you still have question feel free to ask. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Action/comment requested

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop#Removal_of_Lightmouse.27s_comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A few other clerks We are currently dealing with this, and it is being discussed on the mailing list. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Tiptoety talk 06:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response at AN

Hi. I came to AN for help in trying to move an edit war back onto the talk page. Your response was frustrating, and to be honest, a bit upsetting.

To draw an analogy: I feel like I got involved in a fistfight that I didn't want (yes, I threw a few punches myself -- two, specifically), and I brought the problem to the cops to ask for their help in stopping the fight and trying to resolve the dispute through more peaceful means. The cops' response was to fine me for fighting, and take no further action.

Can you see why I would find this frustrating and upsetting?--Father Goose (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I must second this quite strongly. While I'm probably not completely objective I canna help but notice that not only did you warn the user who came asking for help you warned only that user. - brenneman 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree Tiptoey. There was no reason for this "warning" to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
See my reply on AN please. As for this comment brenneman, I ask that you assume good faith. I did not mean anything malicious by not using first person. Tiptoety talk 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Och oy. I suspect, looking over the interactions that we've had, that we're not communicating very well due to our differing styles. There's a long way from passive voice to "malicious" and I apologise for giving you any impression that I was thinking the latter. Despite disagreeing over your approach, I've got no question about your good faith. (That's such an awkward phrase, but saying "your good intentions" sounds terribly patronising.)
To use passive voice in that manner is very similar to the pathetic fallacy and is disempowering language. It creates an impresssion of inevitibility in the warn-ee, and removed to some degree personal responsibility on the point of the warn-er. (See what I did there?)
Anyway, I don't want you at all to feel like I'm badgering you, or assuming bad faith. I try to take (and elicit) feedback as much as possible, and am occasionally prone to giving too much of it out. Thanks again,
brenneman 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Can you remove your vote explanation to the comments section?--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:-( I can not even link to a subpage? Oh.... well, if you say so. Tiptoety talk 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the heads up. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Block appeal

There is an appeal of one of your blocks at User talk:Brothers in Arms. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

KingTurtle for Checkuserer

Thanks for the warning, Tiptoety. I guess I missed that request and will promptly move the comment to the appropriate page.

I can't help but leave a joke before I leave your talk page...

Top 10 reasons to join Math Club:

1. We have pi.

10. We understand binary.

Have a good day! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already taken care of that for me, thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglemeister Conclusion.

"Thejka (talk · contribs) is Likely." I don't get this. I think this is unfair and incorrect conclusion, but one that I can't defend because this investigation is closed. How can I prove that I am not a sockpuppet? What do I need to do? I don't get this. I make one edit to the Ralph Nader page and I defend it because I made the edit, and somehow I am swept up into these Sockpuppet investigations. This is not a fair assessment. Please, is there anyway to overturn this ruling? I don't know how to prove my innocence if the conclusion has been reached. Is there anyway to fight back against this conclusion? Thejka (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CHECK. The  Likely tag is simply a technical reading of the CheckUser tool which allows certain users to see what IPs editors have been editing from, and in this case it is likely that you have edited from the same IP as the other editors listed in that case. As such, there is really no way to "fight back" against the CheckUser results, as they are simply facts. If you do get blocked though you can place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talk page and have it reviewed by another administrator. Hope that answers your questions. Tiptoety talk 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's often not as simple as that. A likely tag will automatically mean a block in many cases. The unblock template is rarely successful. In fact, often it is a way to make a user feel bad as they are denied without careful thought and investigation. Backing up an administrator is the usual result.
I have not investigated this much but the RFCU request is very poorly written. It cites the Ralph Nader article as the problem but I find only 1 Ralph Nader edit by Thejka. So even if he is a sock, socking for one edit hardly is a blockable offense particularly if there is a reasonable chance that he is a different person. A bad block can permanently affect an editor. That's why cooperation and counseling is my perferred method. If the person is rude and resistant to discussion, this is a different matter. I must also say that I have simply looked for Ralph Nader edits and have not done a full investigation. At least the RFCU is written poorly if nothing else. Chergles (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

checkuser elections

I read your comments on your own page with interest.

Help me figure out what the oversight person does. I thought they delete sensitive information, such as if a young editor wrote "I'm Sally, I'm 16 years old, and I live at 25 Binghampton Lane in Leeds". Forgive my ignorance, but what is the danger of an overzealous delete?

In reading the checkuser page, too often I see overuse of the checkuser. Often it's requested by people who want to punish a user and dream up a sock link. The better way is to evaluate the edits and dismiss those with little scholarly benefit, whether those edits are written by one user or three users. I've had 3 brushes with checkusers over the past two years. One involved just curious fishing, another involved a checkuser with the flawed logic of "anyone who defends a sock must be a sock" even though the main administrator submitting the original ban discussion said I was not a sock based on behaviour. I wasn't even defending that sock. Handling the case based on logic, not checkusering, would have concluded that I wasn't defending the bad user so socking wouldn't even be an issue.

Please answer my oversight question. Thank you.Chergles (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the Oversight tool is to be used to remove personal information, such as a article with a persons phone number, or social security number. It can also be used when dealing with WP:OUTING. The danger of a overzealous Oversight is this: Wikipedia is a project where anyone can contribute, and while that persons edits may be reverted it will always remain. If a oversighter simply does not like the persons edits and removes them at whim, then it defeats the purpose of a wiki. Also, it can be used for personal gain, ie: to remove mistakes you as an editor have made, or those of others. While this is not a regular occurrence it is know to have happened and because of that we as the community must have the utmost trust in the users who we grant that tool. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Should there then be transparency in oversight? I once read something that the CIA censored. It was indicated how many lines were blacked out. This way, we know something was oversighted. In WP, we could also require an explanation, such as XXXXXXXXXXXXX (deleted address, 13 characters, 3 words). I am for transparency. That's why I use references as much as possible in editing, as little made up facts from foggy distant memories as possible. Chergles (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly WP just installed a new piece of software that shows when a edit was removed from a pages history...but I am not sure where to find the notice. Tiptoety talk 22:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A report

Hi Tiptoety. I filed a checkuser report. Was it done correctly? I could not include it in a checkuser list because the page was protected. Thank you for help and advise.Biophys (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Checkuser is no longer an active page (see the {{historical}} template). For live sock handling, please see WP:SPI and follow the instructions there. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I placed this to WP:SPI.Biophys (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Due process at the ArbCom hearing

A number of queries have been raised at Ryan's talk page that I believe involve you as co-Clerk at this "hearing". Tony (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will keep an eye on it an comment if necessary. Tiptoety talk 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! Since you are an administrator, I would ask you someting. I suspect a disruptive user to have more sockpuppets and I reported him here, but I don't know how to open a case and I don't have much time to read the entire page about such things .... The reason for the report is this:

During the edits with the sockpuppets Panlatdelkwa and 78.146.79.227, Mttll was blocked to edit for 48 hours. Therefore, he broked his blocking. In the case of Attlmt, I suppose that he is trying to hide the his list of block logs. Without a justified permission, the using of more than 1 account is not allowed in Wikipedia.

Could you make a user check, please? I don't know how to open a case... The connection between Mttll and Attlmt is already known, but I don't know about the rest. --Olahus (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mttll. Tiptoety talk 05:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! --Olahus (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

had to add...

a missed sock to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YouTubeFan123. Did I do it correctly, considering the ticket appeared to have been closed? What is the process for future encounters, if any? Thx... SpikeJones (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Already dealt with, next time file a new case using the input box on the mainpage using the same case name. That will add a new request to the same case. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher

I'm not going to throw a fit over closing the case with no action taken, because I think the situation has resolved itself. Just for completeness, though, it would be nice if a reviewing clerk would comment on the accusations and apparent admission of meatpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 12:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User following my edits

Please, I need your help. User:Donadio disruptive user following my edits. Recently, I noticed that when I post something in an article, he soon appears on the same articles, trying to stir up trouble. Please, take a look here 1, here 2 and here 3. Notice that on the last example, he tried, at the buttom of the discussion, to re-opene an old issue that I had already resolved with another user long time ago. He was already accused of being a Single purpose account, which I agreed. This user not only followes my edits, but also changes sourced informations here1 here2 but also floods talk pages with disruptive discussions here3. Remember that he was recently blocked 2 times, on the same week, for the same disruptions and that other users accuse him of not assuming good faith here4. May you check this user? Opinoso (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While I wish I could help you, I simply do not have the time. Instead, take this issue up at WP:ANI. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Brothers in Arms

Hello, you recently blocked this user for sockpuppetry. As soon as the block expired he resumed edit warring on Legitimacy (political) where he is continuing to make personal attacks, in breach of WP:CIVIL, by repeatedly referring to me as a "vandal" in edit summaries. Can you please intervene or advise? Chrisieboy (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Brothers in Arms has now placed this spurious warning on my talk page, although I have not reverted his edit. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Brothers in Arms has now placed this message on my talk page, mirroring a note I left on his talk page earlier. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I left him/her a note. Should they continue I will take further action. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He has now left this message on the article talk page. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is spurious here. If he is allowed to make threats of incivility on my talk page i am also entitled to make the same when he is calling names in disregard to good faith assumption. I invited in as pointed out by the user chris boy to discuss and talk on the page many days back. The user chrisboy instead of talking over the issue made a one liner and continued to restore without explanation. From his complaints to you and attempt to block me indirectly highlight the point that he is not interested in discussing and consulting over the disputed issue. Please do not drop unexplainable oneliners which may prove nothing but the point that you are an Administrator on wikipedia. I genuinely appreciate your actions if you type in reasons for your notices.

Brothers in Arms (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you for persuading user Chrisieboy to change his mind. He cited source for his insertions after much pleading from me.Brothers in Arms (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cp fan

You've tagged this user as a blocked sockpuppet of User:Hamish Ross (after it was confirmed on the SPI page), but the account doesn't appear to be blocked. —Snigbrook 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Tiptoety talk 20:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_21&oldid=1089126284"