User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 24
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Zeus is a really cool dude and he thinks these WP:ORE articles are cool too
Greetings WikiProject Oregon guys and gals. Once again it is time for another edition of the our niche market Collaboration Of The Week. As always, thank you to those who worked on the Ross Tower and Walton. For this week we have the Calapooya Mountains and by request (and in honor of the opening) the venerable Portland Saturday Market. Just remember, if you are feeling blue, try breathing (rimshot please). Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternate account rollback
I am thinking on creating an alternate account for myself for utilization when I can't access my main account, but before doing so, I want to know whether I can get rollback on this account on the basis of my contributions from my main account. After you granted me rollback, my reversion of vandalism has rapidly incresed (you may check my contribs) and I am focusing mainly on using rollback and Twinkle to revert vandalism. Rollback has made vandalism reversion very easy. Also, since I use Linux in my computer, I can't download Huggle, but I plan to use my alternate account in a Windows environment. Please forgive me for my extremely boring chat. Pmlinediter (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you can have rollback on a alternate account as long as your main account already has rollback enabled. Just let me know that name of your other account, and I will happily grant it rollback. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the talk page of this article because of an expired prod, but not the article itself... You must have been interrupted or something :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops. Thanks for letting me know, it has now been deleted. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
For filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeutschBlitzkrieg. I'm pretty much certain it's User:SchnitzelMannGreek impersonating me again, as he has done in the past. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I found it suspicious that he included your name. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong Case - personal invitation to participant PD
I'd like to invite you to visit User:Ncmvocalist/Ryulong-PD and continue to make proposals there; I've merged what we've said and proposed so far if that's okay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Rollback re-request
Hi Tiptoety, I hereby re-request rollback status. I have learned my lesson, I have taken a few weeks off and done some other things such as trying to cut back the Spam-blacklist reports on meta. I will definitely be more carefull when rolling back vandalism. I am not sure if am going to do any more RC-patrolling since the vandals here are a lot more abusive than on other projects but rollback is also needed for ASW (AntiSpam Warfare). As stated before I have Global Rollback rights but since Rollback has been revoked here I feel it is appropriate to re-request Rollback-status. Thanks for considering my request. EdBever (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Rollback question
Hello, I was just wondering if it is acceptable to use rollback with Huggle to revert in case of editing tests that are not blatant vandalism, but rather nonsense? The question may seem stupid, but I certainly don't want to abuse the rollback permission. --Thrane (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense is considered vandalism, but just to be on the safe side could you provide me with an example (diff)? Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
.jpg)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Block evasion by User:Greatz00
3 minutes ago he started using another IP at Womanizer (song). — R2 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Another. I have a feeling this will go on for some time :( — R2 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked that IP for one week as well, and it appears Kanonkas (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi protected the page too. If this keeps up once the protection expires I recommened that you file another SPI case to request a range block. Tiptoety talk 21:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
helper bot at SPI missed reopening of case?
I believe the helper bot for sockpuppet investigations has missed the reopening of a case. I requested a new SPI (using Twinkle) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television Radio 3 days ago, and there has been no action on the case since reopening, with the exception of my addition of 2 more IP sockpuppets just now. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nevermind, bot found it, and clerk endorsed it as I was typing this. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Recent SPI
Hello,
Regarding your conclusions to this SPI, I just wanted to make clear that I never indicated a desire to have any users banned for meatpuppetry, that I agree (and noted in my comments on that page) that these editors are a net positive to the project, and that I am also your colleague. You have suggested in your conclusions that I(?) should start an entry at ANI about this, and well, I am not really interested in that as I don't see (now anyway) anything productive coming of it. I rather agree that the users should be educated (and not blocked) as a means to helping the project. To that end, do you have any suggestions for how to go about doing so? I wrote up a possible remedy for this case on the case page should it result as it has in meatpuppetry: is it an appropriate one? Thanks for closing the case, and any further considerations you give to it,
P.S. All my knock-knocks rely on dead-on delivery ;) Synchronism (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just so we are both clerk, I was not trying to say that you ever desired to have the users in question blocked, though filing a SPI case generally means the filing party is requesting a block. Either way, I recommend that you direct them to WP:MEAT, copy some relevant text from the policy and address your concerns to them. I really do not have a suggestion on how to go about educating them, but you seem to have a pretty clear grasp of the situation so I think you will do just fine. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- User:LibStar filed the case, I warned the users involved and expanded the SPI.
- I feel awkward writing this but I can't help it: I suggest you refer to your fellow clerks as such, for we are all colleagues here, are we not? And in the spirit of that collegiality, I'll get to your recommendations. See yaSynchronism (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, okay... Tiptoety talk 04:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry... Synchronism (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, okay... Tiptoety talk 04:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Thank you for giving me Rollback privileges. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Question About Deletion
My page Graboid video was deleted. I believe it was unfairly deleted. The firs time I made it, it was mistaken for an ad, so I went back and reformatted the page to fit Wikipedia’s guidelines, I included significant references and it was deleted saying that it was showing a website. When truly, the post was describing the program itself, like LimeWire. Please get back to me on this if you can. Thanks =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuckl3s0 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I have taken a look at the page in question, and I am not willing to overturn the deletion. In order for it to be undeleted you will need to contact the deleting administrator, or take it to deletion review. What I have done is given you a copy of the deleted material in your userspace (it can be found here). What you can do is read over Wikipedia's notability policy, and work on the article in your userspace to ensure that it meets it. Once you have made the changes necessary to ensure the article will no longer be deleted you can repost it to article space. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Bitter grapes of wrath
Can you check out the talk page of Bitter grapes of wrath (talk · contribs), they requested help with an unblock. I've explained what is happening regarding sock puppetry, but it'd be better if those involved are kept in the loop. You might also want to contribute to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hobojaks. Hiding T 10:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Question
You reverted the notice I placed on the SMG SPI page, because it screws up the bot. Since then, another (different) notice has appeared, but I can't see when it was placed there in history, and I don't see where it is when trying to edit the page, either. Do you know how it got there, and will it mess up the bot? Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was added by creating this page. To the best of my knowledge that should not screw with the bot, but to be honest I have never tried it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Awarded to Tiptoety for his devoted efforts at WP:RfPP Enigmamsg 01:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
Making edits to redirect pages
Hi Tiptoety, It is me again and again a comment about Biophys' questionable edits. I refer to this edit. Edits like this stop editors from undoing a controversial move. Personally, I do not care about this particular title. However I feel that such edits are unethical to say the least. This behaviour was discussed sometime ago and I warned Biophys not to do such edits before. Now I feel that I have to take some action, but not sure what I can do to stop him, or even if I should do anything at all about that. (Igny (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
- Hm, maybe I a not sure what I am looking at but that edit Biophys made to the redirect did not seem to change the content of the page at all, nor did it break the redirect. What is disruptive about this? Tiptoety talk 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now regular non-admin editors can not move the page back over the redirect because it got a history of edits. That is just the way how Biophys fights against the move-wars.(Igny (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
- Oh. I did not think of that. This may be a good thing to discuss at WP:ANI, where you could ask for a topic ban. Maybe something like "restricted from moving pages...". I personally do not have an opinion either way, but know that there is not much I can do about it. Things like this would need community consensus. Tiptoety talk 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now regular non-admin editors can not move the page back over the redirect because it got a history of edits. That is just the way how Biophys fights against the move-wars.(Igny (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
- A funny thing, Tiptoety. You gave me the restriction warning, and I am sure that it was not in your intentions that it would be used as the ad hominem argument in my future disputes. (Igny (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
← All I can say to that, is that I placed you under those restrictions to avoid any further conflict or disruption. Unfortunately, it appears to have done just the opposite. Sigh... Tiptoety talk 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised you thought this should be listed under General Tojo. I just don't want the link to General Tojo to be the issue, it's the separate behavior afterwards that really concerns me. Anyway, would you be willing to semi-protect Maltese (dog) for a while? Whether or not these are sockpuppets, we've had 2 IP editors and 1 new account show up to make unexplained reverts in the last couple of days, during a discussion that's rather tense to begin with. Mangojuicetalk 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I moved the page is because SPI cases should always be named after the master account, which in this case is General Tojo, regardless of who the active account is. This is done to limit the number of cases and to keep a good record. Also, I have
Semi-protected the article in question. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Constant POV and content forks
In addition to what Igny said above, I'm also worried about Biophys' constant creation of POV and content forks, such as Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings. Note that 100% of the content in both simply duplicated from Theories of the Russian apartment bombings and Russian apartment bombings. An earlier example was this: Revision history of Internet operations by Russian secret police, which Biophys created by duplicating a very old version of Web brigades (Biophys' favourite version before other editors "destroyed" it.) Trying to delete the duplicate content directly leads to threats like this: [3], and taking the page to AfD results in "no consensus" (i.e. keep) because Biophys' friends will all automatically arrive to vote keep, while everyone else says delete.
I don't think WP:ANI will be of any help either. Judging from the reactions of admins it seems that everyone is just waiting for The Big and Ugly ArbCom Case That Will Sort Everything Out. In the meantime this mess continues and, nothing can be done. Offliner (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- For some background, Tiptoety may wish to look at Talk:Russian apartment bombings and the history, because this is not quite like Offy and his pals are trying to represent. Colchicum (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, after reading over a few talk pages (Talk:Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings & Talk:List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings) I see little to no consensus in opposition or support of the split. Because of this, there is really no action that I can take in my role as an administrator, as I am no here to arbitrarily decided content disputes, but instead I only act upon consensus.
- I would also like to note Wikipedia:Content forking which states:
"Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. Criticism sections should be preferably integrated into other sections within an article rather than being spun out, as our NPOV policy states that opinions should not be considered separately from each other." (link)
- That said, I see nothing wrong with Biophys' actions on a policy level (I will not comment on a editorial level). I encourage continued discussion on the articles talk pages, and think it would be best that in the future (should someone want to split an article) the article goes through a proposed merger. This will ensure consensus is clear before the split or merger is made and will hopefully recruit a few new neutral voices. Tiptoety talk 22:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to repeat that articles such as Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings consist of 100% duplicated material. There is not one word there that wasn't present in the main article. If it's OK to have 3 different articles in Wikipedia consisting of exactly the same information, then fine, I have no complaints. Offliner (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Although it's mostly the same, it's not 100% duplicated from the current main articles. Some sections are cut-and-pasted from earlier versions of Russian apartment bombings. This is exactly what happened in the case of Internet operations by Russian secret police also. Offliner (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This POV forking seems to be getting out of hand... Today Biophys created yet another one: List of deaths related to Russian apartment bombings. Offliner (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, we had no such list; and such list was not included in main article. Would you suggest to place this list into main article? I have no objections, but we should also ask others. I thought this list should be kept separate for readability reasons WP:MOS. You should ask third opinion though. These are notable events, and I am going to create more articles on this subject, as I told at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
reinvented sockpuppets of a blocked user
A user you blocked [7] reinvented herself/himself and is continuing the editwarring. I have placed a sock notice on the page, but I trust the block should become permanent at this stage for a very serious disruption by user. Same should apply to the sock User:RoupaManjaridevidasi. Can you please also semi-protect the article in question. Regards, User:Wikidas 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked If the article gets hit with more socks let me know and I will protect the article. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since the Checkuser has confirmed the socking suspicions, I was wondering what happens now. Do I need to start a thread at WP:AN/I to see what consensus is for blocking the main account, or should I wait for another admin to stumble across the result and do the sock blocking? I doubt it'd be appropriate for me to take any action myself given that I initiated the case. – Toon(talk) 21:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Duck closes
I'm of two minds on a couple of your recent closes. I understand that most Brexx socks can be detected purely on behavioural evidence, and that running the checkuser isn't strictly necessary. On the other hand, Brexx accesses Wikipedia nearly exclusively by abusing open proxies, and, if we don't run the checkuser, we don't discover the identity of the open proxy, leaving us open to future abuse.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Recent closes? Are there more than just this one that you have an issue with? If so, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Secondly, your request did not state that you were interested in a IP check but instead just a check on the account. Also, I already had the IP checked and blocked off-wiki. This was done after I closed the case, because at the time I was not able to get a hold of any active Checkusers. Hope that clears things up, Tiptoety talk 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I remembered the other one as being Brexx, but it was actually Greatz00. I don't have any real concern with that case, as it looked like a really straightforward case without proxies involved. As long as an IP check happened with Brexx, I'm not strongly concerned there, either. I'll try to remember specifically to request a IP check due to proxy abuse in the future.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, remember not every case needs a IP check / proxy check done. Really, if the cases is a clear cut case of WP:DUCK and there is no past history of proxy abuse (like in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greatz00) then there is really nothing to warrant a CheckUser being ran. Tiptoety talk 02:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I did some major trimming to the article and added sources. And have now just found and added multiple awards from various organizations... 2005: Aegis Awards Winners and finalists recognition[8], 2006: two awards at the 27th annual Telly Awards[9], 2007: they won a Radio-Television News Directors Association of the Carolinas (RTNDAC) Award for "Best Student Television Newscast".[10], 2008: Three awards at the 29th annual Telly Awards[11], and the 2009 Broadcast Education Association awards[12][13]. I think it has enough independent notability after being trimmed and properly sourced to exist as a stand-alone. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet Explanation
S2 Lovely Boy == 나 탄광촌인데. But,S2 Lovely Boy != 기름통휘발유
Best regards. S2 Lovely Boy (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is what I assumed. I ask that you read over WP:MEATPUPPET and understand that asking friends to make edits for you is a blockable offense. Tiptoety talk 03:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Tom.jer007
We seem to have a "live chat" going on the talk page of User:Tom.jer007. -WarthogDemon 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hm...that is very odd. Not sure what to do really. Tiptoety talk 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
New sockpuppet
Hi there. I saw your name here: [14] and I'm thinking I found another sockpuppet: Edye Flux. Based on this and this. Also, practically all the user's contribs are film based, which is where I always came across Tom Lennox. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wage slavery
Hi, Tiptoety, the same editor blocked before User talk:NeutralityForever... and his I.P. 99.2.224.110 that was blocked as disruptive has returned to the Wage slavery article... and it seems like they are doing the same thing as before. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, can you provide me with some diffs of abusive edits? All I am seeing is that he is taking place in a conversation on the talk page. I would much prefer that over edit warring. Tiptoety talk 00:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I might be jumping the gun. I may have over reacted. Sorry if so. I was thinking that the repeated stuff on the talk page might be disruptive. skip sievert (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you know more than me here as I have not been keeping up on his recent contributions. If he is in fact repeatedly starting the same thread on the articles talk page then that is disruptive. Tiptoety talk 01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried along with another user just recently to calm him down and get him to think about his choice of confronting us super aggressively (maybe un-civily and disrupting the talk page). Maybe that will work... but if history is an indicator... maybe not. His move now. skip sievert (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you know more than me here as I have not been keeping up on his recent contributions. If he is in fact repeatedly starting the same thread on the articles talk page then that is disruptive. Tiptoety talk 01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I might be jumping the gun. I may have over reacted. Sorry if so. I was thinking that the repeated stuff on the talk page might be disruptive. skip sievert (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
U too can help Oregon
Howdy WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week. A big thank you to those who worked on Calapooya Mountains and Portland Saturday Market, both saw some great improvements. For this week we have two great opportunities for DYKs with Brian McMenamin and Algoma, Oregon. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Gavin_Drake
Could I please ask why you deleted the article Gavin_Drake? It was sourced with quoted national news media and published books. Fooey-fooey-flop-chops (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It appears the subject of the article placed a {{Prod}} template on the page citing that they were not notable enough to have an article on them. Because it was deleted per WP:PROD you may recreate it. Tiptoety talk 17:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
misspelling
I caught a misspelling in RFA/Ayn Rand. It is in the Findings of Fact section, subsection Locus of Dispute. It should be Focus of Dispute. Since you are a clerk and ArbCom decisions should look professional, I thought you might want to know. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser Clerk Questions
Hey I have a few questions for you about being a checkuser clerk. Before I took a long wikibreak I used to be a checkuser clerk under the old system and I'm interested in helping out again under the new system. So first off, (and be honest!) do you think if I jumped back in there would be too many clerks? Sometimes too many volunteers can actually be a hinderence and I'd hate to be a burden. Also, I see the system has changed to mirror that of arbcom (appointed official clerks and trainees) and saw that trainee clerks are advised to not post formal official Checkuser notes. So does that mean we are or aren't able to comment as clerks on the cases? I'm slightly confused by the wording. Anyways, thanks for the help! Icestorm815 • Talk 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Icestorm, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. First off, seeing as you are an admin you do not have to be a clerk to "patrol" SPI cases. You can issue blocks, and or comment on evidence. If you are interested in becoming a clerk (doing more clerical stuff) than you can contact a currently active full clerk and request they take you on as a trainee. If they say yes you are added to the list, and we go from there. What it means about formal notices is like actions done by you on behalf of the CheckUsers. They ask you do not do that until you are a full clerk. Does that answer your question? Tiptoety talk 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that does help. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I did want to make some more proposals, but I don't have enough time to get through them - so unless I make a note to the contrary, you can assume I'm done. As there are some new proposals & comments (in principles, findings, remedies and enforcement), you may wish to make your views known - similarly, you might also wish to revisit your previous comments. If that can be done in the next 2-3 days, that would be great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am not going to be very active for the next couple days, but that you for the heads up! Tiptoety talk 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's okay...but it's now my turn to be inactive, though perhaps for a little bit longer than that. :) Ttyl, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for protection
I would like to request for the article for Korn to be semi-protected, a large majority of the edits upon the article is being vandalized by IP addresses numerous times daily. - GunMetal Angel 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Bring on the COTW
Good afternoon WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is time again it is time for another round of the Collaboration Of The Week, Volume 82. Thank you to those who worked on Algoma, Oregon and Brian McMenamin, both saw some great improvements and are up for DYks. This week we have Mary Alice Ford and by request Waterfront Blues Festival. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Live long and phosphorous. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Rex Germanus
Hello, regarding the status of Rex Germanus as being blocked or banned, I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users#Rex_Germanus and at User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_12#Blocked_or_banned.3F, and voiced my concern on Commons [15] that he might be active there with socks, attacking some maps and uploading others. Also, this revert makes me wonder. -- Matthead Discuß 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, I am not sure of the full story so I can not say for sure if the accounts is truly banned or not, that may need to be a discussion for WP:ANI. As for the socking, if you feel you have conclusive evidence you can always file a sockpuppet investigation and request a CheckUser. Tiptoety talk 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Clerks
Yes, that's probably a good idea. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Ireland naming arbitration
The arbitration process has crashed and burned, because ArbCom's Admin Moderators have just jumped ship. See [16] and please suggest a remedy. Do we have to start this all over again? Or do you appoint new Admin Moderators? -- Evertype·✆ 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider semi-protecting again? link and link. Cheers, Enigmamsg 03:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Userify request
Hey can you userify Bernard Morris onto User:Giants27/Bernard Morris? Thanks.--Giants27 T/C 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Request for assistance in ChrisFournier case
As the prevailing admin on this investigation, I am requesting guidance and personal administrator assistance for the citation conflict that has popped up. As it says on my userpage, people may email me if they have any problems. A member of ChrisFournier's company sent me an email with 'supposed guarantee' of evidence and it included some not so nice threatening gestures towards action on Wikipedia should I not bend to their corporate will. I figure I should get to you before they do, I would like a person with a mop (and more knowledge) to help me oversee this dispute. Should you accept, I will forward you the email I received. Thank you. The Red╬ 03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Unprotect
Please unprotect my user page. I never asked or wanted it protected. I wouldn't have minded it semi-protected, but protecting MY userpage indefinitely where I cant edit it is terrible. I now have a missing section that I cant do anything with, or edit my userboxes. --DougsTech (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry or Religion Class?
Hello, could you comment on Talk:Historical_Jesus#Latest edits about this case as some observers are not sure they should have all been blocked. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- FYI - The professor contacted us at unblock-en-l after a couple of the students did and were told to have him verify the bonafides. I have verified that he is who he says he is, and that this was a class project ( class is on university courses list, professor is department chair, email checks out ).
- I am going to unblock the accounts - my email to the professor explained the policies involved, hopefully they will use talk pages going forwards. I think that this was an unintentional BITE... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping me updated, if they are in fact all different people I have no issues with them being unblocked. Though, I hope they have taken the time to read over WP:ROOMMATE. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Request to un-delete Steven Van Slyke
On 4 May you deleted the page entitled “Steven Van Slyke” since due to an expired PROD. I would like to request that this page be restored.
The user who proposed the deletion gave the following reason: “No real assertion of notability, other than winning an industrial award.” I dispute that assertion for the following reasons:
1) Two of VanSlyke’s refereed journal papers that were listed on that page have been cited over 1000 times. The notability criteria for creative professionals include “widely cited by their peers.”
2) The page listed 23 patents. The notability criteria for creative professionals include “originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.”
3) The award that was listed was granted by a recognized professional society (American Chemical Society) not an industry entity.
Thank you. RSRScrooge (Talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Done - Tiptoety talk 22:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks RSRScrooge (Talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Date delinking
I was under the impression that John wasn't ready for it to move to voting yet. Have you heard differently from him? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. Someone mentioned that it needed to be updated, and I could not see anything on the noticeboard that said not to. Then I remembered he had stated he wished it not be moved to voting yet. I reverted myself, thanks! Tiptoety talk 04:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
75.154.186.241
Since you blocked User:75.154.186.241, I am bringing this to your attention. It appears the User:Ramu50 sockpuppet is using the IP talk page as a Sandbox and continuing to "play" with the templates while on block. I have removed the sandbox from the page and all the templates so they can't "play" with them, but it might be necessary to block the talk page....hence why I have brought this to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- User:Syrthiss has blocked talk page access for the IP user, so all is resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, sorry I could not have been of faster assistance. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- No worries :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, sorry I could not have been of faster assistance. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you block him 7 hours after he stopped editing, when he hadn't edited since my final warning?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because he had. Please see [17], and [18]. While the second one is not made directly to the page in question, it is the same disputed content that the editor was warring over to being with. While the content of the first diff may not be the same revert as all the others, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR state that that does not matter. Simply continually reverting someone is grounds for a block. I hope that clears it up, Tiptoety talk 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Link three above is at 13:22 EDT: Link 4 was at 13:27 EDT. My warning was given at 13:33 EDT, after which he did not edit any pages at all. Seems kind of unfair to block when he hadn't been warned, and when he had stopped editwarring already: blocking is preventative, not punitive.--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, crap. I read the times wrong. Shit. I will unblock. Sorry, Tiptoety talk 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ECx2)Cool. I appreciate the second look. :-)--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, crap. I read the times wrong. Shit. I will unblock. Sorry, Tiptoety talk 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Your block of Scorpion0422
Please reconsider this per my comments here. GARDEN 12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
knock knock
- Who's there
- blocked
- blocked who?
- blocked sockpuppets making idiotic remarks on their talk pages
- Perhaps a block adjustment is needed... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- One of the other ones is doing it too. I know it's not anything too serious, but checkuser did confirm they are all one user. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- If they want to scream into an echo chamber, I have no issues with that. As long as they are not alerting or removing any block messages, making personal attacks, or edits with obscenities I think they are fine. If they want to waste their time talking to no one, that is their problem. :-) Tiptoety talk 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point. Never mind. (next time I'll try to come up with a better knock knock joke) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Need an advice
Hi Tiptoety! I noticed a suspicious account, Kupredu (talk · contribs). He looks very much as an account of banned Jacob Peters (talk · contribs).
First of all, Kupredu also seems to edit as 208.87.66.239 (talk · contribs). At least some of their edits are almost identical like here by Kupredu, and and here by the IP. The IP comes from LA area, the home of banned Jacob Peters.
Second, the edits by Kupredu and Jacob look very similar:
- this is Kupredu about Hezbollah and this is Jacob Peters about the same.
- This is Kupredu about Allende, and this is Jacob about Sandinista.
- This is Kupredu about Robert Mugabe, and this is Drabj, his sock about Mugabe.
Do you think an SPI report would be needed? This Kupredu so far made only around 200 edits, a significant part of them are reverts.Biophys (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would say the evidence you just provided me is almost good enough to conclusively say that Kupredu (talk · contribs) is a sock of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). That said, Kupredu does have a number of edits that are not directly related and I would hate to block an innocent account. I recommend that you open a SPI case under Jacob Peters name and request a CheckUser. Tiptoety talk 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strangely enough, I had almost exactly the same thought as Biophys which I expressed here: [19]. I got suspicious when Kupredu started telling me to read Mawdsley on the Russian Civil War which is exactly what one of Jacob Peters' socks told me sometime ago. Also, while I see the point of opening a SPI case (though those take a long time and are complicated), I think Kupredu's edits follow JP's to a t. He's editing Soviet/Communism/Easter Europe articles with a Stalinist POV, Israel-Palestine articles with a support-Hamas/Hezbollah POV and Soviet-related leaders of third world countries (and Chile) with Soviet POV - this is exactly the same pattern as JP (who used to also make remarks like this: [20]).radek (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tiptoety! I will do it. Since you are more familiar with IP locating tools, may I also ask another question? There is another PasswordUsername (talk · contribs) who came under a variety of IP addresses (, , , , - as he admitted himself). Some edits by his IPs (edits by 166.217.251.170) are rather similar edits by Drabj, Jacob Peters sock, but IPs came from a different region. Does it mean that users are different, or that could be a proxy server? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- The reason those IPs do not all Geo-locate is because they are dynamic IPs (meaning they are from a mobile device). Because of this, the users IP changes rather often and could really Geo-locate anywhere. The one thing they are not are open proxies. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Add
{{RFCU|Code letter 1|Code letter 2|new}}to the case. That will move it to the CheckUser queue. Make sure to replace the code letter sections with actual code letters. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)- Thank you. That was swift. I am not sure if any action is needed, but only secondary account has been blocked by Moreschi in another case, although that was an evasion of block by ArbCom, I believe.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Add