Jump to content

User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision

Cross posting to all five of the names at the top of the page (except Risker, who's talk page is locked)

Sorry to bother you, but in case you haven't seen it there's a lot of complaints here that it's now well past the Proposed Decision date and nobody has made any kind of announcement, even to say "there will be a delay, the new expected date is...". This isn't fair on anyone involved, as nobody can start work on anything until they know what the likely decision will be since nobody knows who's likely to end up blocked or under some kind of sanction. I appreciate that you don't want to rush the decision, but is there any chance someone involved in the case can post an update as to when a decision is likely to be made? At the moment, the closest thing there is to any kind of response from the Arbitration Committee is a sarcastic comment ("since when is a target a promise?").78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have spoken to the drafting arbitrator and has been told a PD should be posted soon. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking your opinion

Please see WP:AN#Requesting reappraisal of a block. It's about something where you had offered an opinion as a checkuser, and I'd like to know what you think. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have anything to offer to the discussion. If there is something specific you would like my thoughts on I'd be happy to give them though. Tiptoety talk 01:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That's OK, thanks anyway. I guess the one question where you might be able to provide something would be whether or not you are satisfied with the checkuser evidence that the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts are socks. In the original SPI, you seem to have felt that they were not, but then the later SPI concluded that they were. Do you have any insights into the seemingly different conclusions that were reached by you and by the other checkuser? Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Bah! I totally missed this for some reason. Anyways, to answer your question all that data is unfortunately stale making it hard for me to speak as to how I came to my results. Sorry, Tiptoety talk 02:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just because your nice and helpful. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvatore Giunta

What about Semi-Protection? I think a Medal of Honor Recipient's page merits that at least. But I'm not an Admin so I don't know?TucsonDavidU.S.A. 05:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no recent disruption. It goes against everything Wikipedia stands for to prevent anonymous editing to any article without there being significant disruption to the article first. Tiptoety talk 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again I learn something thank you. It's user's like you who make the best teachers on wikipeidia.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking Alexandria's report at RPP

I actually requested for Asking Alexandria to be protected indefinitely. There is no way the vandalism will be off it anytime soon, they're blatantly popular and these kind of edits occur daily. I changed the report merely a minute before you responded to it, so I'm writing you this message in case you didn't see my change. If you agree with my suggestion then could you perhaps change the protection? A month is something, but it probably won't do for the best like an indefinite would, especially after all the times the page has been protected in the past. • GunMetal Angel 08:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you have the wrong admin. I rarely, if ever indef protect pages. To me, it goes against the five pillars and completely defeats the purpose of Wikipedia "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." That said, I have no issue with you asking someone else to extend the protection. Tiptoety talk 08:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll just wait till it's over and then re-request it, it'll probably even prove the point further. But yeah, I bet you've even heard or listened to these guys before =P • GunMetal Angel 08:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD

Hi there Tiptoety, hope you're well. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh...I did? I don't remember that, and after checking my archives it appears that my memory is correct. Mistake? Tiptoety talk 03:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Judge Dred Scott

You blocked this editor for making personal attacks recently, I just noticed an IP from the same area[1] as him is currently editing the same articles as JDS.[2] Dun't know if it is sock puppetry or not, as an admin you have more tools to check I suppose. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tiptoety. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wagner.
Message added 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just an FYI TNXMan 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned

I mentioned your name at this SPI case since you had issued a checkuser block of one of the IPs. My guess is that this edit could have had something to do with your action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Brookhaven

The article for the community Brookhaven posted on Wikipedia contained propaganda designed to promote the city hood of Brookhaven. A close check of the statement by the Georgia Senator posted proves Brookhaven is not entirely located in Dekalb County as claimed by the original author. It is fraught with false information that even a basic Google check can disprove. Ashford is not located in Brookhaven, neither are it's schools. There is no "City of Brookhaven" and never will be. Brookhaven is now a community located in the City of Ashford. The majority of the schools and parks claimed to be in the "Brookhaven" community are located in other communities or cities. The population listed is that of many surrounding communities combined. Very little is correct and most is political propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTimeTraveler2025 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with you removing content that is inaccurate, I just ask that when you do so, you provide an edit summary so other editors know your reasoning. Tiptoety talk 08:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, not in an edit war. In fact I would like it to stay as it is for US District Court review... Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTimeTraveler2025 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Closure of IP case

I think this closure was premature given that Brad had specifically requested the case remain open to allow for further discussion, and only 18 hours had passed since I had added my own comment. I think you could have given it a couple more days, especially since a lot of Wikipedians are inactive over weekends. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was specifically instructed to close the case by an arbitrator on the clerks mailing list. Tiptoety talk 04:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Gatoclass: The motion had carried, so there was no reason for further delay. In the absence of compelling circumstances, the request of one arbitrator does not overrule the decision of a majority of the committee. I can also confirm that Tiptoety was acting on my instructions (and in accordance with the clerks' procedures), and did not implement the motion unilaterally. Regards, AGK [•] 14:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Deadline

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review had a deadline of March 26. This violates the deadline. What should be done? Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Race and intelligence/Review

Not sure how to answer this, Evidence Deadline, my first instinct is that accepting incoming information has a dead line but, that deadline does not cover the response of the incoming information. IDK. In the interest of responding to an editor's query I will also post this message at Roger's talk for whom ever can respond first. thanx. Cheers Mlpearc (powwow) 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry just noticed you've been asked already :P Mlpearc (powwow) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks more like it is a response to evidence, not so much a submission. I would say let it stay, but leave the editor a note advising them of the deadline. That said, if Roger wants it removed that seems reasonable too. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

unblock on hold at User talk:Ronald Chien

User has posted an unblock request indicating that they are using a rotating IP and therefore the CU evidence reveals nothing more than a coincidence. Since there is nothing else presented for a reviewing admin to examine it is more or less impossible to review the request without more information regarding behavioral evidence, whose sock they are supposed to be, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have mentioned, if there is a WP:BEANS issue here feel free to email me. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Replied. Tiptoety talk 06:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Tiptoety. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ColourWolf block evasion using IP sock?

Hm, even a small range like 220.255.2.0/26 has a lot of legitimate traffic on it. As such, unless persistent abuse continues I would advise against a rangeblock, simply too much collateral damage. Tiptoety talk 02:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WebTV3

I was composing an unblock message and was edit-conflicted by WebTV3new (talk · contribs). Would you mind taking a look at that one to rule out proxies before I do anything else? Acroterion (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it's easy enough to reblock, I've unblocked, as I tend to agree that the user of a single very static IP is unlikely to start using proxies, but some checks on the latest sock would be a good idea to rule out good hand/bad hand activity, and to squelch the present disruption. I'm not sure if there are any active autoblocks on WebTV3's IP. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
What I think we have here is a small sockfarm that, for whatever reason, is impersonating WebTV3 (talk · contribs). The newest sock, WebTV3new, is in fact editing via an open proxy (which I have now blocked), making it impossible to confirm or deny much of anything. While I agree the unblock request was a little "left field", I also agree that (for now) unblocking is the right move. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, also neither WebTV3 or WebTV33 used open proxies. Tiptoety talk 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Good, that counts in WebTV3's favor. Seems like an odd choice for impersonating, but nothing much surprises me anymore. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi. I made a few tweaks to your user page. There should have been no changes to the look of the page.

All of the userbox code was apparently duplicated between User:Tiptoety and User:Tiptoety/UBX. I re-centralized that code. I also fixed up User:Tiptoety/UBX/User Wikipedian For and User:Tiptoety/UBX/admin since.

Let me know if you need anything else. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

MZM, would you mind giving me a hand with mine? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, done. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Me and my big mouth~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks MZM. Tiptoety talk 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lacie_Porilla

Hi Tiptoety, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I think you made a mistake with this deletion. It was requested per G3, which I don't think applies, and you deleted it per G8, but all of AfC project space in on talk (I think to avoid being indexed, but whatever the reason, it is there). Am I missing something, or was this a mistake? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about replying to another editor's comments, which were added after the first SPI was archived[3]. On the plus side, those comments helped to strengthen the SPI that I had already started working on, for the fourth IP in the 203.118.187.x range. Hopefully he doesn't make us SPI the remaining 252 in the IP range. BitterGrey (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of ATG

Hi Tiptoety, I noticed you have recently blocked AndyTheGrump. I'm not quite sure why though - he hasn't received any warnings about editing the article he's been blocked for and made his last edit to it >24 hours ago. It doesn't look as if it is a preventative block to me. Have I missed something? SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in—is there context I'm not seeing for your block of AndyTheGrump? He appears to have made only two edits to the article during the last month (more than a week apart, and neither in the last 24 hours); he further seems to be willing to engage in discussion on the article talk page. Have you made an effort to contact him on- or off-wiki that isn't apparent here? I am wondering where the urgency was in this situation that required an immediate block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I'll reply on AndyTheGrump's talk page. Tiptoety talk 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As you state, slow edit warring is difficult to identify and it it even more difficult to accurately identify the responsible parties. Could you consider commuting this block to a warning, as I am certain that Andy, experienced editor that he is, was unaware that his actions constituted edit-warring.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, is it your intent to not respond further to queries regarding this block, or to participate further in its discussion? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I have a real life outside of Wikipedia, which consists of a real job. I happened to be at said job, which takes precedent over Wikipedia. Please, assume good faith. It is not like I didn't comment at all, or was editing other pages while not responding to queries. Please, put down the pitchfork. Tiptoety talk 01:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming bad faith; I was just wondering if it was your intent to continue to participate in the discussion. At the time, Andy's unblock request was still open, and I wanted to give you as much opportunity as possible to contribute. (Though now that you bring it up, why would you choose to place such blocks while you were at work and anticipating being busy for several hours? You could have avoided this whole mess if you had approached the involved editors on their talk pages during the day, and then applied any necessary blocks when you had more time available. Since the situation wasn't urgent and the whole purpose of the blocks was to get the intention of the parties, it might have been wise to be available to communicate with them.) There's no pitchfork here; I think you made a bad call and I hope that you learn from it, but I'm not jumping up and down screaming for your admin bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I was at home when I placed the block. For security purposes, I only edit via my home computer. Tiptoety talk 01:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That sort of misses the point of my comments, unless you were called in to work by surprise after you placed the blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I get it. Noted. Tiptoety talk 01:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Recall Criteria

You are listed as an admin open to recall. Are your criteria listed somewhere? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...I've never really thought that through. The usual means, whatever that might be? :-) Tiptoety talk 01:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why have you never really thought that through? Was it just an empty promise? Malleus Fatuorum 06:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all. The situation has just never come about. I'd be happy to submit to a RFC, or some form of reconfirmation RFA. Tiptoety talk 16:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you decided on your criteria yet? Hipocrite (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety 3, in reponse to a question regarding [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]]: "...like always will allow myself to go through i re-confirmation process at anytime that 3 admins or more think it would be in the best interest of the project". I'm a little confused as why an admin who is 'happy to submit to a RFC' should refuse to take part in a discussion about a bad decision on AN/I first. Carts and horses come to mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, so three admins it is. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Darkness

I've made a comment below your post at User talk:Darkness Shines#Notice of SPI restriction - I think there's a word missing. Also, there's an interesting comment from someone else below the latest unblock request. Whatever it means, it's more in your territory than mine... Peridon (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that one missing word changes the meaning of my message drastically. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Boring

I couldn't help but notice that notice at the top of this page... so I have to ask, what exactly do people do around here on talkpages that isn't boring? — Isarra ༆ 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI GraftonGirly/Docking-dave

I noticed that between the two groups there is an article overlap at Alston Moor (WesternOrientalgentleman:[4], DangerousDonkey:[5]) and Alston, Cumbria (a quick scan of the contributions of Docking-dave group and indirectly Animal-borne bomb attacks edit by DangerousDonkey:[6]). Almost everyone except Docking-dave has edited in an Alston-related topic. Jojalozzo 17:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Put this comment on the SPI page that way the reviewing admin can take a look at it when deciding what further action to take. My results are purely technical and do not take into consideration behavioral evidence. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If the following counts as fishing, please ignore. Two IP's that may be related to the Cumbria socking group.
94.2.22.199 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) Restored a reverted edit by WesternOrientalGentleman at Alston Moor here.
94.4.184.187 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) Posted info about this groups' unverifiable performer, Ricardo Worley, at Alston Moor. [7]
Jojalozzo 03:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I've protected the article in question for a little while. Hopefully that will work. Tiptoety talk 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander)

Thanks, Tiptoety, this is my second and last revert. I just hoped that user will not engage forth revert, and will first try to gain consensus on talk, and stop pov push, so i reverted per that. Also, i highly doubt that second revert can be regarded as edit war. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It takes more than one person to edit war. Understand, by engaging in even just two reverts when the last 10 edits were editors reverting one another is engaging in an edit war. Regardless, by leaving a waring on all the involved parties talk pages I'm hoping that I can convince everyone involved to take to the talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, i get it. Thanks. All best! --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Let me know if there is anything else I can to help. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, thank you for note about revert warring. But, can you please further examine edits of User:DIREKTOR whom I reverted: his block log history cannot be larger and his last comment on talk page where he said that he "will not allow to other users to take possession of this article" is example of edit-warring mentality and unwillingness to achieve compromise. On talk page, this user simply refuse to achieve compromise with others and he want to push view that "there was no Serbia". He also attacking me personally and accusing me for nationalism: "your nationalist-POV subsection switch". I know that my own behavior where I reverted this user was not the best one, but I do not know how to deal with user who ignore presented sources on talk page and who want to include into articles his personal views that are not supported by the sources. PANONIAN 17:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Dredging up block history mud to sling is an ad hominem. You have been riding a very fine line for the month or so regarding your conduct towards DIREKTOR; you really need to drop it and focus on the content, not the contributor. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you can protect article from editing for several days until compromise is achieved on talk page? PANONIAN 18:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I am going to hold off on protection for now as everyone involved has agreed to cease reverting and move to the talk page. That said, without a neutral party to mediate, I have a feeling discussion on the talk page is just going to go in circles. You might consider taking the issue to WP:AN/I or request a "third" opinion. Tiptoety talk 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried all that, but there was no help - this dispute lasts for years (you can check older versions of article talk page to see the history of all this). What this article need is indeed a neutral party to mediate (but also to impose solutions). The problem is that nobody wanted to do that so far. Perhaps you are interested in such mediation? PANONIAN 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I simply do not have the time, but I may know an editor who does and has a good record with mediation. I will drop him a note. Also, I'm going to review the page history a little bit closer and consider imposing some sanctions consistent with the remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Tiptoety talk 18:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do that. Any supervision and mediation is appreciated. PANONIAN 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, let me elaborate the core of the problem in short: I collected this list of sources related to the subject: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 - basically, it is list of sources that saying that name of the territory in question was "Serbia". DIREKTOR simply ignoring these sources and have position that "it was not Serbia" (while I did not saw that he presented any source that says that it was not Serbia). Due to such view, he wants to rename article to title "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", which is supported by only one google hit: [8] (My position is that this is violation of WP:COMMONNAME policy). Also, DIREKTOR want to include flag of Nazi Germany into infobox (My position is that there is no source that says that such flag was an official flag of the territory and therefore I see no reason for its inclusion there). That is short description of the basic dispute. PANONIAN 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the example of what I spoke about: here I introduced two sources that describing Serbia as country/state and asked DIREKTOR to say why these sources are describing Serbia like this if it was not a "country/state" (as he claim). He ignored the sources, refused to answer, and accused me for article disruption. I hope that you see what is problem here: DIREKTOR ignore sources and wants to implement his personal POV into article, and that POV is - "there was no Serbia". PANONIAN 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm the mediator that Tiptoety mentioned. I'll have a look over the article over the next day or two and we will go from there. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 10:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you're an OTRS administrator so I wonder if you could clarify something for me. I've read WP:NFC, WP:LOGOS, and WP:Logo Copyright/Trademark and I'm still confused. At Talk:New_York_Yacht_Club#Burgee_of_nyyc.svg it says:

This burgee is copyrighted by the NYCC and no permission is given for its use here. Please do not re-add. Permission must come in writing via the OTRS system. Per OTRS Ticket#2007120410011436. - JodyB talk 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I see that a subsequent image [9] has been deleted since then. This seems inconsistent with WP:LOGOS#Copyright-free logos where item 1 says "if the logo was first published before 1923, it can be assumed to be public domain." and item 3 says "a logo is not eligible for copyright if it consists entirely of simple geometric shapes". I realize it's still a trademark, however. As for fair use rationale, how is this any different than File:New_York_Jets_logo.svg for example? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mojoworker. There really is no difference between the Yacht Club logo and the Jets logo as far as fair use is concerned. The prime difference here is that the Yacht Club has asked for their logo to be removed, quite firmly, a number of times via OTRS. For legal purposes, it appears that the OTRS agent deemed it best delete the file from Wikipedia in order to avoid potential further action. If you are concerned that something was done in error or would like to see the file undeleted, please file a deletion review. Tiptoety talk 03:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I'll open a deletion review and see what discussion develops. It appears it may be an overzealous attempt at trademark enforcement. Mojoworker (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR

Can you please clarify something for me? User:PRODUCER removed sourced paragraph that I added to the article claiming that "it is copyvio". I think that it is not valid reason for removal since I used two sentences from two different sources. In another words, this is something that require my revert. However, since this article was placed under 1RR restrictions, please tell me under which terms (and after which time period) I can revert this? PANONIAN 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed one revert a day. As your first edit was simply adding the content that was removed by Producer, it does not count as a revert. This means you can revert Producer's edit without being blocked. That would be your only revert allowed for the next 24 hours. That said, be advised that pushing the envelope and reverting exactly once every single day goes against the spirit of the 1RR restriction and will likely result in a block. But, so far, I have yet to see you engage in any nonconstructive revert warring. Let me know if this doesn't clear things up, Tiptoety talk 18:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, thank you for clarification. PANONIAN 18:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Tiptoety. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— SupernovaExplosion Talk 11:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

[]User:PuppyOnTheRadio/Law]]

Felicitations and good tidings. This page was recently deleted as an "unambiguous copyright infringement". I asked the person who put the tag on it to show me the source where he obtained this from and was advised that it was "some Uncyclopedia userpage" but couldn't provide any further information. The information was given to me as not being covered by any copyright law (it came from an email to me originally) and I added it here as the basis of a WIP. I'm slightly concerned that it has been deleted without any real clarity as to where the copyright material was from - especially as it's quite likely that there is material in my user space here that will be the same as material on my user space there. Could you either direct me to where the copyright source apparently is, or alternately - if there is no copyright source for it - would you kindly restore the page? There is a stub article on dumb laws which has significant gaps in it - not so much in the examples, as there is no need for further examples as such - but in the derivation, continuation and enforcement of these laws. Having that list of examples gives me the opportunity to prove, disbunk or other expand on the phenomena, let alone looking at the meme ish nature that these have taken. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 23:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, it appeared to be a copyright violation copied from here. Please correct me if I missed something. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warrior at it again

Can you plz check this (Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)) disruptive edit warrior who got blocked 12 times in the last 3 months but again edit warring and vandalising. He keeps removing the image of that pretty Pashtun girl which has been there for over 5 yrs without any discussion. Why do we even allow such disruptive users to come just to mess things up and make people fight over stupid things?--182.177.122.22 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is something that you will need to take to WP:ANE or WP:AN/I. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles concerning Montenegro

Hello, I see that you are one of the Admins on Wikipedia and since I am new to Wikipedia and I am still figuring out how things work around here I would much appreciate a little help.The problem I have is with Serbian editors who are editing almost every article concerning Montenegro according to their version of history thus using Wikipedia as a tool for spreading their nationalistic propaganda.Montenegro is very small country and there are not many Montenegrins around here and when ocasionally some Montenegrin editor writes something here they drive him away by sheer numbers and by proclaiming his sources "nationalistic" and "POV" while they are in fact those who are using such sources that totally contradict and oppose official Montenegrin history(or to put it simple-they are using their superior numbers to steal our History and present it as if its theirs,Serbian history).Antidiscriminator,Panonian,White Walker,Pax Equilibrium are some of the most notable Serbian editors who do these things,but they are not alone.I would be very thankful if you would be so kind and explain me if Wikipedia supports this kind of behavior(using it as tool of nationalistic propaganda)and if not,where is the appropriate place for me to put in a complaint,because every sane discussion with them on this subject is fruitless(as we can see from their previous quarrels with Montenegrin editors)and as I already said they will just overpower me with their sheer numbers. Best Regards Montenegro in my heart (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC) p.s.they are not doing this with Montenegro only.

Edit

Tiptoety, I think you misinterpreted one of Peacemaker's edits as a revert of a part of my own post. This is certainly not the case, since it was done with my approval and consent. The user only posted one, partial revert in a 24 hour period. Being, in addition to this, a new user, relatively unfamiliar with policy, he should not be sanctioned for a single revert.

On a related note, I would to add a completely new infobox template into the article replacing the current one (per recommendations from WikiProject Former Countries). Since the previous discussion centered on a similar issue, that (in contrast to the above) could be interpreted as a "revert". 1 revert. I feel I must ask in advance: will I get blocked as well if I proceed? -- Director (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi DIREKTOR. Will you please link to where you consented to this revert being performed? Tiptoety talk 22:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There's no explicit consent, but since the translations were not sourced, I have absolutely no objection to them being removed. Peacemaker understood I would have no objections from previous interaction, i.e. my consent is implied. The point of my edit was to merge the two translations of the same term that were being listed in the lead as separate titles. The translations are a minor point, they're already included elsewhere, and I have no objections to them being removed by Peacemaker. Think of it as my own self-revert.
I'm serious though, I'm not trying to make a point. Could I be blocked for introducing a new infobox over there? It is indeed a 1RR, but, as I know from experience, that's not a strict requirement for an admin to be able to introduce sanctions. Anyway, I'll go through with the edit, please bear in mind I have no intention of breaking 1RR. Regards -- Director (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Nazi Germany

Hi again. User:DIREKTOR just replaced infobox in the Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) without consensus on the talk page about that. His new infobox is highly controversial because of the two reasons: 1. name of that new infobox is "Infobox former subdivision", which is not appropriate since Serbia was not subdivision of anything (and DIREKTOR also does not denying that: [10] - quote: "PANONIAN, noone is contending that the territory was annexed by Germany, or that it was a part of Germany, or its subdivision, or anything of the sort."), 2. He added to the article flag and coat of arms of Nazi Germany, while these were not symbols of the territory (and page about used new infobox says that usage of flag is optional and that usage of flag within article is connected with common name of the territory in whose article this infobox is used. In another words, infobox guideline says that even usage of flag that was actual flag of any territory in whose article this infobox is used is fully optional and does not say that flag of foreign country should be used in that infobox. It would be futile that I revert DIREKTOR, since he would certainly revert again and we would not achieve anything instead to be both blocked by you. However, what DIREKTOR done here is clearly an example of "disinfobox": http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes (or infobox with inaccurate data). Since discussion on the talk page with this user proved futile as well and since user rejected mediation about this issue that I proposed, I want to ask you to give me advice how can I legally proceed my case here? In another words, in which page of Wikipedia I should ask for opinion, help and interpretation of guidelines regarding the usage of flag of Nazi Germany within that article? PANONIAN 18:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

on a related issue, Tiptoety, can I suggest you consider 1R on the forks Government of National Salvation (Serbia), Military Administration in Serbia and Commissioner Administration? This thing is like a virus. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI Tiptoety, I did indeed offer to mediate the dispute between the parties, but they declined. Not much I could do, I'm afraid. Steven Zhang Talk 10:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
PANONIAN, consider WP:3O or WP:DRN. Simply put, I do not have time to mediate or attempt to resolve this dispute on my own. Peacemaker67, I will take a look at those pages. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoety, I have restored the status quo ante on the 'flag in the infobox' issue until consensus is reached on the talk page. Just saying. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Consider that your one revert for the next 24 hours. Thanks for dropping a note, Tiptoety talk 04:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A Serbia-related article is one of the topics at WP:AE#PANONIAN

Hello Tiptoety. Recently you placed Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) under a 1RR per DIGWUREN. Since you've been following the edits of this article, perhaps you have some reflections you might want to share at WP:AE#PANONIAN. I confess that the debate on this article seems unlikely to converge unless *something* is done. I've gradually been losing patience with one of the sides, since it's hard to see any reason other than nationalism for being quite so persistent. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I would like to be able to make use of Huggle and its more advanced features than Twinkle or STiki that I currently use.Ankh.Morpork 15:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See here. MrLittleIrish (talk) 申 16:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature and other problems

Hey Tiptoety, in regards to this, I think there's more loose here than a signature. Please see this. I'm also watching a Stephen King movie as I'm writing this, but it's weird. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree there are more issues than just the signature, but I'm not exactly sure what steps to take to correct them. Tiptoety talk 05:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, join

You are invited to join, as you are related to the subject. Per this. I would propose to place this user under 1RR, and not all article around him, per reported thing, and per his edit warring history. That i continued into third, forth reversion, and into edit war, he would follow me, and revert me as much as needed, and with every passing comment. I just had to check that. Please, help! --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, i am asking for help again! These are blatant violations. Please, come, and help. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WebTV3

Can you look at the IP that 's been editing WebTV3 (talk · contribs)'s userpage and similar articles to see if it's him editing while blocked and logged out? Given the impersonation attempts, I'm reluctant to take further action (I've blocked the IP) without some form of confirmation. If he is evading his block, it's pretty much all over for him as far as I'm concerned. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There really isn't anything I can do here, per the privacy policy and all. Tiptoety talk 05:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was fairly sure that was the case but thought I'd ask. WebTV3's block will expire today and we'll see how they do. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions, Tiptoety. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I left a note at SPI, but essentially I've been boning up for a request in a few weeks, and now would be fine as well. I'm pretty comfortable with many of the basic tech aspects due to a couple decades of having part of my job description include networking and Linux administration, so familiar with IPs and such. Will be happy to answer any questions on my previous technical experience if you or the clerk team are interested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Tiptoety talk 21:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

Hi, could you take a look at this situation? I've gone way over 3RR, but I threw caution to the wind as a group from off-wiki are using Wikipedia to accuse the subject of this BLP of attempted murder. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am just about to walk out the door for a few hours. If someone else does not beat me to it, I will take a look when I get home. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Block of SunLover77

Hi. I see that you blocked SunLover77 today with the reason "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bamanh27". I have reviewed that SPI page, the archived SPI and the ANI thread. I appreciate that there is evidence on Elance that SunLover77 and Bamanh27 may be the same editor, and that this editor may be engaged in "paid editing". I also acknowledge that the Wikipedia logs from ten months ago suggest that this editor may have engaged in sock puppetry then. What I don't see, and please bear with me here as I'm not an expert in sockpuppet investigations, is what the abuse of multiple accounts was at the point when you blocked. Could you please explain your reasoning a little for my benefit? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bovlb. From looking over the archive it appeared that three other socks had already been blocked. What this meant to me is that SunLover77 was created to continue to avoid scrutiny and evade the blocks already put in place. As for why the original blocks were made, you will need to contact the blocking administrator, HelloAnnyong. Best, Tiptoety talk 01:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bovlb. It is believed that all of the accounts were - and continue to constitute - efforts by an individual to evade scrutiny from a main account. Remember: blocks are to enforce sanctions against an individual. Hope that clarifies it for you. WilliamH (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Let me just set out the facts in my own words so that we can be sure I haven't missed anything. Ten months ago, three accounts were indef'd because they were believed to be socks of Bamanh27 on behavioural grounds (removing COI tags and voicing "independent" support), but the Bamanh27 account was neither blocked nor warned. The Bamanh27 account has not edited since the socks were blocked; this may have been the result of an autoblock, but perhaps not as the checkuser evidence was that all four of these accounts were unrelated so presumably have different IP addresses. SunLover77 started editing a few days ago, and is linked to Bamanh27 because the same Elance contractor[11] was apparently awarded jobs to create articles actually created by Bamanh27 and SunLover77. SunLover77 exhibits familiarity with Wikipedia and can create well-formatted and referenced articles, albeit of marginal notability. The Bamanh27 and SunLover77 accounts were not used in concert to create the illusion of broader support. The "sockmaster" was not blocked ten months ago, so presumably there was no intention at the time to block the user, only the sock accounts. The user was not given a single account restriction and may even be unaware of the sock blocks.
So if we assume that the Elance evidence is reliable, then an unblocked user has abandoned an account last used ten months ago and created another. This is barely "use of multiple accounts". Where is the abuse of multiple accounts? Where is the block evasion? I can see that the creation of a new account may well be an attempt to evade scrutiny, but it could just as well be a forgotten password. Sorry to be dense, but this is nagging at me. Can you help me out, please? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I have the same concerns as Bovlb, but I am also curious about why Bamanh27 was not blocked as the master sock? The Elance evidence shows that Bamanh27 was the contractor's earliest known account, and all the related socks are blocked, so why not the master? If the editor is in fact confused about why he's been blocked (or maybe forgotten his password? Although that's a lot of forgotten passwords), wouldn't blocking the main account send home the point that he should stop creating new accounts to evade the blocks? LawrenceDuncan (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked Bamanh27 indefinitely as a sock. You guys still don't understand. We're arguing that Bamanh27 is a sock, not the master. There is evidence in the CU logs to suggest that. Thus the very existence of these accounts is an individual evading scrutiny, and a violation of WP:SOCK.
I have seen one article created by an Elance sockpuppeteer which ostensibly is OK, with apparently reliable sources. But google their text and they simply point back to press releases - the sockpuppeteer simply chose instances of said text on websites which would appear most like reliable sources. Why did I come to that conclusion? Because another reference was perfectly given to The Guardian, a British newspaper, except once you actually looked at said article, it wasn't the article they were citing, but a press release in the comments section of the article. I remember that said article was created in a single edit - given the user's competency, it was impossible to conclude anything other than that they were simplying lying to the community, lying to Wikipedia, in order to pass the article off. As I said on the ANI thread, these guys' first goal is that pay-cheque, and for them, harming Wikipedia is fair game to get it. WilliamH (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. There seem to be a number of separate issues here.
Socking to suggest broad support
Ten months ago, DME2010, Cottreda and Pcola30 all chimed in to support the Laura Stack article. Notwithstanding the checkuser finding that they were unrelated, the behavioural evidence suggests that they were at least meatpuppets.
Socking to evade scrutiny
I think the suggestion here is that there's an unrevealed master account and the editor does not want to associate paid editing activities with it, presumably in case it's blocked as a result.
Block evasion
Rightly or wrongly, Bamanh27 was not blocked and received no warning about using multiple accounts.
Content issues
Creating articles of marginal notability. I'm not sure whether the story about misleading Guardian sources above is supposed to refer to this editor or an unrelated one.
The thing that worries me about all this is the appearance that, as soon as paid editing is involved, we lower the threshold for evidence, stop assuming good faith, don't discuss issues with the editor, and issue indefinite blocks for things that other editors get away with daily. This gives the impression that we're blocking editors merely for being paid editors. Bovlb (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I'm afraid I'm still not entirely satisfied, so I've taken the discussion to a wider audience. Sorry. Bovlb (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you investige this account?

Hello Tiptoety,


Could you investige as to whether User:MuEEEE is Iaaasi ,or isn't? Since the previous case is still open, I can't request for a new sockpuppet investigation for Iaaasi. But it is just suspicious that a new user who had previously no any edit on Wikipedia, appears out of the blue to revert me twice.--Nmate (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mate, I reverted you because you fail to understand that verifiability is a main principle of Wikipedia. You need to add sources when you add some information, capish? MuEEEE (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have never seen such a weird thing as this. At this point I am 100% sure that MuEEEE is Iaaasi, but this is hardly a wholesome behavioral pattern. It is something that needs to be treated...--Nmate (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You are right, verifiability was always a weird thing for you and the concept is still foreign to you. But it is true that it is something that needs to be treated, namely your obsession with User:Iaaasi MuEEEE (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

← Confirmed and blocked. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Xn4

Could you take a look at Talk:British_Raj#Is_Moonraker_the_same_as_banned_editor_Xn4.3F? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now clarified the common themes a little more in that same thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Will one of you open an SPI case please? Once that's done I'll take a look. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Done here. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Dropping a note here to say that I have seen the case and am doing some behind the scenes follow up work that I will post at the SPI shortly (a few more days probably). Tiptoety talk 05:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_34&oldid=1144525865"