User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Sockpuppets of already-banned users?

What's the procedure for getting suspected (meaning "obvious") sockpuppets of an already blocked user blocked in turn? User:MissRD and User:MissRD394 are clearly sockpuppets of User:MRDU08. They're editing the same articles, re-adding the same content, and uploading the usual copyvio pics that originally landed the main account in trouble. I'm hoping there's some speedy way to do this!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In the future, the fastest way would be to file a sockpuppet investigation. But for right now, both the socks you listed above have been Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet another sock

Found another suspected sock of User:Pé de Chinelo. This guy here: BigTenPen. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk question

Do I discount abstain votes from the amount of arbs voting? If something needed 8 votes to pass, 2 people abstained, & it got 7, does that pass? The ones I'm currently writing about are located at User:hmwith/sandbox#Correct use of dispute resolution & User:hmwith/sandbox#Disengaging. I hope you're around. Let me know. Thanks, Toptoety. hmwithτ 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Figured it out. hmwithτ 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I was at work. Oh, and my username is Tiptoety. ;-0 Tiptoety ^talk 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Wozwoz

I'm just about to sign off for the night, but in response to your note... I got involved with Super Audio CD via an ANI thread a week or two ago, blocked a couple of POV warriors who were disrupting other editors, applied sprot, and have kept it on my watchlist since. It seems to be a bit of a magnet for pro-SACD fans, who clash with editors that are trying to clean up the article content.

1. I'm not sure about the socking - it's possible, but from what I've seen I'd guess not (I know of no CU to prove otherwise, anyway)
2. However, Wozwoz is being disruptive, tendentious and incivil on the talk page and in the article, per my note there. I have no issue whatsoever with your block (in fact, it's possibly overdue).

Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, Tiptoety ^talk 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect

In blocking Future Perfect (an editor I have respected for some time), you did not cite chapter and verse of where he was uncivil. That would be helpful. Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see the diff. I've looked over his contribs to the workshop since the 17 and did not find anything. . . R. Baley (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety logged the block at the case page. I've provided the diff and commented at Future Perfect's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

rossnixon --> Rossnixon

Thanks for deleting my mistyped user name. The correct one is Rossnixon, and now it's not showing up.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. As for the correct case, I am not sure why the bot did not pick it up. Either way, I have fixed the problem and it is on the mainpage now. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding your warning, I will do anything you want me to do. I will stay at 1RR on the ARS page and all ARS subpages, while this editor is blocked, is this okay? Tell me what I need to do, and I will do it. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ikip. Let me start by saying that 1RR would be good, but what would be even better would be spending more time at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron trying to gain consensus. Ultimately that is the only way to truly solve this dispute, as edit warring will only result in parties being blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have made a lot of mistakes in the past few months, mistakes which I wish I could take back. I don't know what to say, I am afraid I will say the wrong thing :(

I will do the 1RR.

I have developed a lot as an editor, believe it or not, but I see I have a long way to go.

Thanks a lot for your advice. Ikip (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Any other words of wisdom let me know. Nice to meet you for the first time. Ikip (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is okay to comment on AMIB talk page and clarify things, if not, please let me know. Ikip (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother New Zealand

Since you are familiar with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother New Zealand and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OMGOMG2009/Archive, could you block the new socks that have appeared at the AfD? Cunard (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Also I Semi-protected the AfD. Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cunard (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren using Wikipedia as a soapbox

User:Digwuren is using article talk pages as a forum to express his personal opinions: [1][2][3]. I have asked him to stop: [4], but it did not help: [5]. Could you please give him a warning and ask him to stop? Offliner (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Digwuren's comments are relevant to the two articles being discussed. I don't see how there are disruptive. Note that Offliner has a habit of block shopping[6], and recently received a block himself [7] after reporting somebody else for edit warring [8]. Martintg (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as shopping, one should note the tendency of Martintg and Digwuren to vote together on every issue. Oh, and for some more samples of Digwuren's contribution to Wikipedia – may I add to Offliner's points Digwuren's fine history of personally attacking users he finds a problem with with: 1, 2, 3, 4. And this guy's already a had a year-long block on account of his belligerent editing. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How are 1, 2 and 4 personal attacks? I guess three expresses some mild frustration but overall Offliner's complaining about something that mild seems, like his more general complaint, simply petty. This seems like a typical example of a "throw random stuff at someone and hope some of it sticks" tactic.radek (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that last comments by Digwuren (diffs by PasswordUsername) are on the subject of discussion, just as his other comments. Only this comment by Digwuren fell under definition of Wikipedia:FORUM, and I am going to revet it.Biophys (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I trust your judgment on this. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Digwuren appreciates having a bunch of friends come over, but 1, 2, 3, 4 are all personal attacks – compare with WP:AGF. In case you didn't notice (please do let me know that you did you not?), here 1 I am being attacked for making an edit as an "act of random violence" after Digwuren decides to go in after Biophys – did I not clearly explain my edit in the summary here? Try checking the context for these: very, very little is left for doubt from it. I could accept 4 might merely be an implied (not overt) attack, granted the context of previous accusations of editors being employed by the "Russian government's web brigades" (a claim which editors have been explicitly warned against for making in the past). Take that away and you still have a pattern of insults and disturbing comments. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who has been "personally attacked"? I do not see any names in diffs 1-4. He talks about content. All of that was legitimate discussion. In the last diff he discussed content of an article.Biophys (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PU, a personal attack needs a person that is being attacked. Take, for example your supposed personal attack [9]. What person is being attacked there? A phrase ("used in various senses") is being attacked to be sure, for being devoid of meaning, but that's a "phrase attack" not a "personal attack". Note that criticisms of comments made by other users are NOT personal attacks per se - they are disagreements. You seem to be confusing the two.radek (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read everything at Talk:Neo-Stalinism – there's a whole context to the discussion here where people lay out their points, only to have Digwuren come in with a polemical non-sequitur. If that's not exactly a personal attack on-the-mark, mea culpa: judging by the discussion as a whole, it fits perfectly into the bad faith category, regardless; however, I'll leave it to Tiptoety to make the call as to what kind of edit that (as well as all of Digwuren's other handiwork) falls under. Attacking other editors (as opposed to having differences with their edits), whether these editors are named or not, is not what Wikipedia was made for. If I am wrong, any sort of incivility is excused here. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This must be one of the lamest complaints I've read in a long time. First a complaint about "soap boxing", then it evolves into a complaint about a "personal attack against a user", and now morphing into a complaint the article talkpage discussion "fits perfectly into the bad faith category, regardless". You are apparently a newbie, having joined in April, 2009, but you ought know that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence could be considered in itself a personal attack against Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am making a point completely separate from Offliner's. Again, I have explained myself here: I suggest you stop misrepresenting my own quotes and stick, rather, to what I have written here as much as possible. Thanks for that little edit right now – I was about to ask you to reiterate what you were yourself telling me about personal attacks. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The diffs mentioned by PasswordUsername are also good examples of talk page abuse by Digwuren. This has been going on for a long time. [10] is especially outrageous:

A lot of funny conspiracy theories are going around regarding pecularities of Russian national interests. Some of them are rather hard to believe. But the plausibility of Internet brigades is significantly reinforced by the fact that a number of editors with well-known Russian connections keep attacking an article casting light onto the Internet brigades. If the Internet brigades' story were just an old wives' tale, it certainly wouldn't deserve such an attention, and instead of removing content from here, those people would actually watch out for this kind of vandalism, so it would be reverted a bit faster than in three hours' time. I guess Internet brigades' coverup is more important than ensuring the quality of an article about Russian economy. Very sad. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly accusing editors of working for the Russian state to censor articles. What next? Can someone please make this stop? Offliner (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember this one. Unfortunately, the point wasn't driven home immediately, so I had to raise it again. It paid off handsomely, when Illythr delivered formal thanks from the Wikipedia department of KGB. Good times, good times. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On the very same note, it should be noted that some users have been reprimanded for essentially the same accusations, not even going all that far back; to go by the arb.committee's decision, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation." That, at any rate, is just the least of it: the other diverse instances of misconduct by Digwuren provided here still stick out in all the more salient ways. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, sorry for not responding earlier. As of right now I am very busy in real life and only have time to make this one post and log off. Because of this, I have not (and will not) had time to review all of the evidence provided here. As such, I think a good place to continue this discussion would be at WP:AN/EW where a uninvolved administrator can decide the best course of action. Sorry I could not have been of more assistance, Tiptoety ^talk 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for protection

Could you please review my request for protection, on the Requests for protection page for the article Grand Finale (American Idol 8), massive vandalism (including things such as this) is causing major disruptions, and must be dealt with as soon as possible. Thanks so much. Gage (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind now. Gage (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for deleted page

Hello! Could you possibly userfy a copy of the article written for Consumer Cellular? I am trying to include this business as of interest as a low-tech cell phone provider, as well as for their involvement in the Portland community. Thank you!

PS. I wrote in a famous Canadian sock puppet, Ed the Sock for Prime Minister over multiple elections when I lived in the other Vancouver.PDX sunshine (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - It can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help PDX sunshine (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IP talk page

Just protect already for abuse of unblock process, please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 01:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Idle question

What do you think it is that Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax‎ attracts so much vandalism? I think the article should at least be protected from editing besides auto-confirmed accounts, to weed out the type of vandalism that it gets.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, odd. Well, I have Semi-protected it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, now we have to ask. If they won't be coming here anymore, then where? I wonder if an abuse filter can be set up for this kind of thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can request one. Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I received an email

I assume your recent block of User:MarkRomero is related to the e-mail I received just a few minutes ago from this user, who apparently was under the impression that I'm an admin. I just wanted to check about one thing: User talk:MarkRomero redirects to User talk:Voltin, and the history of User talk:MarkRomero shows what seems to be a name change from MarkRomero to Voltin. I don't know if this means that Voltin needs to be blocked as well, of if somehow the name change has been spoofed. Just thought I'd let you know. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my blocking his account was in response to the emails. As for the account rename, that was more of a "hacked account" deal, and oddly enough Voltin is a innocent user victim to MarkRomero malicious ways. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought it looked dicey. Thanks for the info. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kyle again

Like all the name pages (Brian, Shawn, etc.), all the edits from IPs and new accounts are either vandalism or unconstructive. Your protection expired earlier this week. Would you consider reprotecting? Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Userfying of Cantr II

The page Cantr II was deleted quite a while ago due to a lack of importance and proper references. Could you please userfy the article for me? I would like to solve this pages' problem. Joshuamonkey (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - It can be found here. Tiptoety ^talk 02:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

XOXOXO - Oregon loves you, now love Oregon back!

Greetings to 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 Mary Alice Ford ‎ and the Waterfront Blues Festival, both saw some great improvements. In honor of the great weather, we have our Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive for this week’s collaboration. You can go out and take a picture, or search for a free one on the Internet, or in some cases remove an old request. See the bottom of this page for some links to a variety of free sources. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing my userpage

Why did you make this edit to my old user page? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I did it because Grawp managed to "zombie" the account using SUL and used the account to create multiple socks [11]. Tiptoety ^talk 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Knock knock

Who's there? An obstinate date-linker. (OK sorry, it's not funny. I never was a good joke-teller.)

Hi Tiptoety. I believe you have a passion for equitable Wikipedia-handling, and are opposed to possible violation of date-linking (and de-linking of course). You have in the past taken an interest in those who are perceived to flout date injunctions.

So, I'd like to bring this matter to your attention, to see what your thoughts may be, either way.

I'm not an admin, but I do a fair amount of quality-control on Wikipedia - maybe you've spotted 1 or 2 warnings I've issued in the past. We both know the system usually works very well, provided users are given fair and appropriate, escalating warnings, eventually being reported if they continue.

But it seems it can happen that the odd user is harder to rein in. Such is the case I fear with this user - would you say I've given them sufficient, clear warnings?

However, to my surprise, when I duly reported them, a single overseer apparently dismissed all my concerns in short shrift.

I think that, with your background, you too may have a contribution to make to what I had hoped might be a greater debate?

Equally, if I've missed some valid points of policy or protocol, I'd be grateful if you could point such things out to me, as you see fit. Thanks in advance for any time you could spare to this. Trafford09 (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there.

After looking over it, it would appear that between other users and yourself the IP in question has been issued more than enough warnings and should they continue to link/delink they should and will be blocked from editing. That said, they appear to have stopped, so it is possible that they chose to heed your warnings.

Let me know if they start up again, and I would be happy to step in.

Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to try my hand at being an SPI clerk

Would you be so kind as to take me on as a trainee? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi BQZip01, glad to see you are interested in helping out. Currently, I do not have enough time to take on a new trainee but would encourage you to post to the clerks' noticeboard and ask if there is anyone else available to take you. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Knock-Knock

Knock Knock!

Who's there?

Juliet.

Juliet who?

Juliet me in?

:-)

Hope that brightens your day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

:-) Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NiallJames acount blocked

Just fpund out you were the guy who locked my account when it got compromised... cheers.. Does that mean I cant have it back now? I mean you should be able to check ip logs or something to see that it wasn't me... Do I have to create a new account?

Cheers

Niall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.10.216 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You will need to email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and let them take it from here. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Mathematician

Hello. I posted mathematician at Requests for protection after seeing this vandalism from today, as well as a few before it. I would like to politely ask, "how recent is recent?" --Sushiflinger (Goldblattster) (talk!) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection is meant as a last measure to protect the article from imminent vandalism or disruption. As such, in order to implement article protection the vandalism should be as recent as a couple of hours. Tiptoety ^talk 23:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks you... --Sushiflinger (Goldblattster) (talk!) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Knock Knock!

Knock Knock!

Who's there?

Nobel.

Nobel who?

Nobel, that's why I knocked!

You like? --Sushiflinger (Goldblattster) (talk!) 00:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:-D Tiptoety ^talk 00:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Block of user page Semper discipulus?

Hiya,

could you tell me why you replaced the redirect on the user page of the account Semper discipulus with a block? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Semper_discipulus&action=history) It used to be my old user page (I changed my name to Semper discens recently), and I'd naturally prefer to have people redirected to my new one. If there's no good reason for the block, please be so kind to revert it.

Cheers,

--Semper discens (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That account was zombied by a vandal known as Grawp and was used to send mass spam emails. Please see the block log: (status) 02:37, 22 May 2009 Rootology (talk | contribs | block) blocked Semper discipulus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion: Spamming those Joker emails) (unblock | change block) Tiptoety ^talk 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How was he able to do that? Does that mean that he knows my password (and if so how? I assume / hope not by guessing ...)?

--Semper discens (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey articles

Since the socking problem has gotten so bad, and you normally deal with these things, I'm bringing your attention to this ANI discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Image syntax vandalism

I believe I found where it is spilling into, see here. I believe the same should be applied.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Das Ansehnlisch

Hey Tiptoety, long time since no see. Listen, User:Das Ansehnlisch is creating song articles, that a while back received consensus to be redirected to the song's album; Here are the discussions for the song's "What If" and "White Shadows"; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Shadows. A couple of users and I have reverted the user's edits, but he/she continues to undo them. Also, the user is tampering with redirects such as Clocks and Don't panic, redirecting them to the songs "Clocks" and "Don't Panic". I've reverted his/her edits, but I know the user will just revert me. I was wondering if you can look into this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Heya ThinkBlue! Just wanted to drop a note saying that I have seen your message, but will not likely have any time this weekend to look into it and respond. If it is urgent, you should probably look for another administrator, but if it can wait I would be happy to look into it on Monday. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiya back. :) Oh, well if you're busy, then I'll just ask another admin to look at it. It is urgent cause the user is just going out of his/her way of creating these articles and not going by consensus. I thought I should let you know, since you're an admin. Its fine, everyone's busy. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision

Hi Tiptoety. I noticed you were listed as one of the clerks in this case. I was included and proposed for sanctions in the case on 18 May and I have some comments and concerns around this that I would like taken into consideration before the case is closed. See User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite#Favor and also User:John/ArbcomAppeal and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#John. Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I will be away this weekend, but will do my best to keep an eye on things. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. --John (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Hey, can you move Talk:The Fox and the Hound (film)/Archive 1 to Talk:The Fox and the Hound/Archive 1 to match the article's renaming? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Let me know if you would like the redirect deleted as well. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing is linking to is, so should be fine to delete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it has been done. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi. I have a question about the ANI thread you closed. How do you read 6 to 5 as a consensus, in the middle of ongoing discussion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi GTBacchus, let me start by saying that I appreciate all the work you did in reference to DougsTech and I applaud you for stepping up and jumping into an area most others wouldn't. Now as for your question. First, I don't really agree that the "ongoing discussion" was producing anything productive at that point. The same arguments were being made over and over, and it was beginning to spiral into a big circle. As for the consensus, remember that it is not all about counting votes, but weighing the arguments as well. Other than yourself, I did not see anyone flat out supporting deletion of Doug's talk page. While I agree there were some that were on the border about it, the overall consensus appeared to be exactly what happened. As for a "head count" it appears that users Friday, Baseball Bugs, Timmeh!, Nakon, roux, Tanthalas39 all appeared to not support deleting the talk page under RTV. Hope that helps, Tiptoety ^talk 14:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I understand why you'd see it as circular. I was still making points that seemed new to me, but I was clearly the only one caring to keep making those points. If you point out to me that consensus isn't about counting votes.... heh. Grandpa already knows how to suck eggs, if you're familiar with that saying. I learned, at the tail end of that discussion, that when it comes to editors who have really upset the community, we don't care so much about logic as we do about our pride, because the logic was missing on the "consensus" side. It's not surprising. I'm not trying to keep the discussion going at this point. You haven't done anything that I see as wrong; I'm just a bit sad about our community standards. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe you would like to discuss your last point a bit more? I would hate to be the one to add to your "sadness about our communities standards." I would be interested to hear from you as to what I could have done differently. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When I try to step back from it and identify arguments for and against deleting that talk page, I think I see this: The argument for deletion is that it doesn't hurt us to grant a request to someone we're already running off the site, and it's decent to do so. The argument against is (a) that we don't have to comply with the request, (b) since he was rude to us, why be decent to him, and (c) that keeping the talk page around can help Wikipedians identify him if he comes back.

Argument (a) I grant, but I don't care. If we're not obliged in either direction, I'd choose the magnanimity of granting the request over the negligible value (per my reply below to (c)) of not doing so. As for (b), I don't believe in treating people any less well on account of how they've treated others. I think that's what the golden rule is about, and I don't believe that 2, or any number of wrongs make a right. I see argument (b) as the argument for revenge, and I want no part of it.

Finally, argument (c) I find disappointing for two reasons. First of all, the argument basically boils down to the advantage of letting non-admins as well as admins have access to those pages to aid in sock-puppet detection. I don't think we should be encouraging people to spend their time here that way. Secondly, if he does come back, he might be up to the same tricks, in which case we'll recognize him, talk page or not (not to mention that we'd undelete it as soon as the suspicion is raised). If he comes back different, then he's welcome back, and we don't need to encourage anyone to play forensics and try to detect him if he's putting the past behind him.

Thus, the community standards with which I'm unhappy are two: First, we don't value magnanimity as highly as we value tit-for-tat, and "punishing" those we deem to have "sinned". However much I deplore his attitude and words towards Ryulong, I don't believe he was ever trolling the community, so I don't see him as a sinner so much as a not-particularly-diplomatic user with an unpopular point of view.

Secondly, I'm sorry that we place so much value in playing cloak-and-dagger, rather than just working on the project. The only disruption this guy caused was to ruffle a lot of feathers around RFA, and then to lash out cruelly against someone for whom he'd been carrying a grudge, which was to his mind perfectly righteous comeuppance for Ryulong's abuses. I don't agree with that attitude, but I don't see that as indef block material either, nor even that he was a very disruptive editor.

His RFA "disruption" is quite easily avoided by simply developing more professional community standards, and should never have been the cause of the lynching we've witnessed here. If it wasn't ultimately the primary cause, then an indef block is greatly out-of-proportion to the personal attacks on Ryulong.

As for the ANI thread, I was sorry that it was cut off in a way that three replies I was composing were lost (one, I posted anyway), and I was sorry because I saw the argument against deletion unraveling in front of me, and Baseball Bugs (alone) urging a quick closure, as if to cut me off. I doubt he meant it that way.

The others who had argued for granting RTV hadn't specifically extended that to the talk page as well, so perhaps I was the only one with that viewpoint. On the other hand, nobody who had argued for granting RTV was given a chance to reply. After a half-dozen of us argued for magnanimity, another half-dozen showed up, said "nonsense, nothing to see here", and then the thread closed.

So, if there's anything I think you could have done differently, it would be to refrain from closing a discussion where one side has only just entered to make a point, and most participants on the opposing side hadn't had a chance to clarify their views. We have no idea how Lady of Shallot, A Nobody or Gwen Gale felt about deleting the talk page, nor still less what anyone but those dozen editors thinks. The thread that Friday pointed to, defending his stance, revealed even less consensus for the maintenance of a permanent pillory, and nothing more in the way of substantive arguments.

I think that consensus has been violated, and I think our community has just made the world a little worse, by sending someone away with a gesture of contempt, rather than being something bigger than that. I'm sorry that I failed to prevent it, but I'm not going to blame or hold a grudge against anyone. Everyone is clearly acting in good faith, simply with ethical views that diverge from mine. Hence, my sadness.

Thanks for asking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Nice response, (and yes, I read it all) it certainly made me look and the situation differently.

I, like you, noted the hostility towards DougsTech in that thread. In fact it was one of the reasons I wanted to thread closed when it was. To me, it seemed that everyone who had something to say had said it (as I noted above in regards to the whole spiraling into circles thing) and that the thread was turning into a venue for revenge along with a discussion about WP:RTV itself which would have been far better suited at WT:RTV (matter of fact, that discussion may still be a good one to have). I agree with you that such things as RTV should not be used as a tool for revenge and should not be held above any users head. While I personally have no opinion one way or the other (about blanking the talk page or deleting it), I do feel that it vanishing should be a right available to all users.

As for cutting off the conversation before other parties had a chance to reply, I have to ask how long you would have liked to wait for them? Do you know they would have commented? Should we allow the thread to continue the way it was heading? Those questions asked, I would like you to know that it was not my intent to shut down one side of the argument, but instead to put to rest something that was unproductive and really should have not been at AN/I in the first place, we have WP:BOLD and WP:IAR for a reason.

As for consensus, I do not feel it had been violated. While you may disagree with the reason that other side of the dispute has given it does not make the consensus invalid.

Lastly, "...and I think our community has just made the world a little worse, by sending someone away with a gesture of contempt, rather than being something bigger than that." ← Could not agree more.

Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, that nothing productive was going to result from that thread. I think my long post above is even somewhat inconsistent on that point, reflecting that I've still got regret and resignation mingled in my thoughts about it. I don't need to criticize anyone at this point. I see that you were throwing a fire blanket over something that was smoldering with little chance of any more light being generated, only smoke. Good call, I reckon.

Take care, and cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in like this but I had to say that I agree with both of you. Great conversation by the way. Take care. Dr.K. logos 02:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and say ...

Thank you. I appreciate your help. — Ched :  ?  16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Old account

I tried, but it was blocked by the software due to being too similar to a doppleganger I had already created. Maybe that means 4chan won't be able to make it either. --causa sui ^talk 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like your fine then. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New Scubadiver99 sockpuppet

Based on contributions and the proposal left on my talk page Farmhouse00 (talk · contribs) is a new and blatant sockpuppet of User:Scubadiver99, although I'm not ruling the slim possibility of an incredibly pointless impersonation. Either way, a block is probably called for. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion...

Does this person strike you as incredibly similar to our old acquaintance Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord)? The contribution history seems very similar to me, with similar patterns (unreferenced psychoanalysis of fictional characters, adding categories related to such, concern over List of fictional narcissists, etc.). Also he identifies as being from Chester, England, and all of JOM's previous IPs trace to the same general area (Manchester, Liverpool, & Chester, which are adjacent to each other). There's enough of a similarity here for me to consider opening up a SPI, but I thought I'd ask for second opinions first. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is more than enough evidence to open a SPI case. Tiptoety ^talk 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. Comments are welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you blocked him, do you think it'd be appropriate to block him from editing his own user & talk pages as well (basically ban him)? He's using his talk page to continue blustering about the sock case, more or less trolling for attention. Leaving him a forum for this is really only feeding the troll IMO. In the past his YourLord talk page was full-protected to keep him from using it as a chat space after his blocking, and of course he still has his other account talk pages from which to make unblock requests. There's no reason to leave him yet another forum for pretending not to be a puppeteer. It was made quite plain to him at User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus (which he's still able to edit) that his only options from here are AN and ArbCom, as he's now gone through 3 sockpuppets. Hence I don't see how any good comes of allowing him to still edit the Dominus Noster user & talk pages. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I made the block, it would not be appropriate of me to disable his talk paged editing, as such you can request it be done at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

why did you revert my changes, the wikipedia community needs to know that Ward is a stalker and dangerous. Hamsterboy69 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because your edits are inappropriate and are bordering on personal attacks. Tiptoety ^talk 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Poking the bear on Hamsterboy

Sorry, my brain cell must have flatlined. I thought that was an old block. Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Tiptoety ^talk 17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Balkanian`s word

Hello Tiptoety. Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 19:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting there, I have left another comment. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Joke

As requested:

“ A guy walks into a doctor's office with a duck on his head. The doctor asks, "Can I help you?" The duck says, "Yeah, get this guy off my ass." ”

Source. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:O Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Can you please delete File:ITunes.png for me? It contains my name. Thanks! --Wireless Keyboard ^Click! _Clack! 21:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, Oregon COTW

Hello to members of the WikiProject o' Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, we added a lot of pictures. For this edition we have by request Mr. Maurice Lucas of the Blazers, and a maintenance type project with the Dab Patrol. For the later, pick any Oregon disambiguation page (mainly common city names) and use the "What links here" feature to find any stray incoming links and direct them to the correct article. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Peace out! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have removed motion prematurely

Hi Tiptoety, please see this, thanks. Paul August ☎ 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 22:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've replied. Please reply there. Paul August ☎ 02:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I have responded there. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Macedonia 2" implementation notes

Hi Tiptoety. Thanks for attending to my comment about updates here. However there are still a couple of issues, please see my new comment there. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety, please see this. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, you are on top of it. :-) Do you ever sleep? Anyways, thank you again. Tiptoety ^talk 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you know? I'm a bot. Oh and here's another update. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you're catching up with me. Paul August ☎ 19:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying. :-) Now the next thing is going to be closing this case, you will surely have to watch over my shoulder there as this one is rather big. Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be watching ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes R7.1 is clearly preferred over R7.1. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean preferred over R7? Tiptoety ^talk 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry, R7.1 is preferred over R7! Paul August ☎ 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might want to take a look at User:Tiptoety/Sandbox and make sure everything is correct. Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some fixes there. You might also want to consistently use either "abstain(s)" or "abstention(s)" every where, and check your spelling. Paul August ☎ 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

O_O Per a discussion on the mailing list, I have closed the case. Would you mind making the changes to the case page itself? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you made them yourself. Paul August ☎ 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave for work. I can do them soon though, Tiptoety ^talk 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that critical that they be done instantly. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I've now fixed the count problems. Looks like NYB has fixed the spelling errors and as well as some other things, and Coren has added some missing text. You should double check all of these to make sure they were done correctly. Paul August ☎ 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:USEDfan

Hi, if you have the time could you look at this and give me your opinion on the best way to proceed. USEDfan was indef blocked around a year ago, and since then has created more than two dozen sock puppets (most of which were confirmed by checkuser). His actual master account is User:Xotheusedguyox but he is better known by his sock puppet User:USEDfan. Last month User:Felix 12 22 was blocked as a sock puppet of USEDfan, and just recently User:Hardtosay11 turned up and the accounts very first edits were restoring all of USEDfan's latest socks edits, the edits of the Felix account. My question is do I make a new report, add it to one of the previous ones, or what? This new account is making the exact same edits on the exact same articles, and solely edits The Used related articles like all the rest of them. Do you think the new account could be blocked per WP:DUCK? A checkuser has cleared out his sock farm more than once, most recently by Raul654, so I believe a checkuser could be useful even if this new sock is obvious. Thank you for your time. Landon1980 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For documentation reasons, it would be best for you to file a new report. To do do so go to WP:SPI and open a sockpuppet investigation (the one without a CheckUser request). File the case under USEDfan and we will go from there. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. So your thinking a checkuser isn't necessary? Landon1980 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be useful, but often times a request for one is declined because the account could so easily be blocked per WP:DUCK. Tiptoety ^talk 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was thinking. I was just hoping they would/could clear out his sock drawer again. Although I didn't know if that was a valid request reason. FisherQueen may very well block per wp duck as soon as she starts editing again, as she dealt with the last one and some of the others. If she doesn't I'll do exactly what you suggested. Thank you for taking the time to help me, and I do appreciate it. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A done deal now I suppose. You know, I wish there were more options available to us. This whole blocking sock puppets just isn't very effective. Everything has been tried regarding this user, and the only way to stop him is try some type of rehabilitation, or to hard block his IP (both of which have been done more than once). The articles have been semi-protected several times as well, but he just creates a bunch of socks and lets them sit until they are auto-confirmed. The sad part is at times his edits can be helpful, but the minute someone disagrees with him all hell breaks loose, and that is where the problem lies. Anyways, sorry for ranting on your talk page. Thank you for your help. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome, let me know if there is anything else I can do in the future to help. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, we're not getting anywhere with this

Because you've ignored me, I'm going to have to take my case to an admin and if I get my way (which I usually do), you will be reprimanded for your lack of cooperation. --81.154.74.32 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy-pasting mistake on Macedonia 2 arbitration decision's page

Hello Tiptoety,

First of all, thank you for all the thankless work you undertook during the arbitration proceedings. I've noticed that you have made a minor mistake while copy-pasting results to the Macedonia 2 arbitration decision's page. On Remedy 25.3, you forgot to copy the part that says:

Upon regaining his administrator access, Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area. Should Future Perfect at Sunrise violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction.

I hope it's not too big of a trouble to fix ;) --Radjenef (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about... User:Coren fixed it ([12]) from what I can see. --Radjenef (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let me know if you catch any more mistakes. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerking

Hey Tipt. User:BQZip01 expressed an interest in SPI clerking and received a response that didn't seem to me to be very helpful. Someone who deals with SPI reports suggested you're someone who is experienced in this area. I'd appreciate it if you could offer some guidance and direction. Perhaps they've already gotten input elsewhere, it's been a while now, but I think the original discussion is still on their userpage. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChildofMidnight,

BQZip01 and I actually discussed SPI clerking earlier and I pointed him to the SPI clerks notice board, where one of our current clerks explained that currently we do not have the man power to take him/her on. That said, the discussion was a while ago, and we have recently promoted a few trainees to full clerk status and as such, we may have some more room.

In regards to the message left on BQZip01's talk page, I am not sure Ohana has it right. Not to sound like I am tooting my own horn, but I created the SPI clerk process and it was not intended to be used as a status symbol, nor were the requirements meant to be the same as those of RFA. Really, any interested user should be able to serve as a clerk trainee, as long as they have a clean block log, are in good standing, and are knowledgeable of Wikipedia's core policies. That said, in order to become a full clerk, one must be approved by the CheckUsers as a whole. That is about the only time when a user is truly evaluated. All of that said, Ohana certainly does not have to take BQZip01 on as a trainee, but there may be plenty of other users who are willing and I encourage him to keep trying.

Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One formal detail

The WP:ARBMAC2 decision, in FoF#4, refers at one point to my "MOSMAC2" page, using the WP: redirect WP:MOSMAC2 for what is in reality a user space page at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/MOSMAC2. The WP: redirect has now been re-used to point to the new Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. To avoid misunderstandings, could you perhaps edit the decision page to pipe the link directly to the page that was actually meant? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will discuss it with the Arbitrators. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed - Tiptoety ^talk 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arab

I did not violate the 3RR rule, because when I reached the maximum of changes I could in one day, I tried to compromise by replacing one of the disputed photos with another rather than completely rv all photos. I think you should be warning the other parties instead, since they simply rv everything over and over. As for the talk page, I already put the link to my argument in the rv summary. The other party, on the other hand, has constantly failed to provide any reason for their unsupported rv. Of course not to mention the lack of civility in their rv summaries by calling my edits vandalism! --Lanternix (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lanternix (talk) edits are against common consensus. I reverted his initial edit stating my reason (which was that an Egyptian identity didn't preclude an Arab one). Instead of him discussing the issue on the talk page, he undid my revert. I suggested taking it to the talk page but he wouldn't. Other users reverted his edits but to no avail. He just wouldn't discuss the matter. After he was warned for the 3RR violation, he went and did a new revert on the page. That's 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. Xevorim (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the last changes are not reverts but rather new changes to the page. You and FFQ are the ones who are simply reverting all edits, including those aimed at reaching a compromise. And you are the one asking for a discussion, and thus the burden of initiating this discussion falls on you not on me. If you begin a discussion on the talk page, I will surely respond there. Not to mention that 2 editors do not by any means make "common consensus"! --Lanternix (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BRD, the burden of discussion falls upon you. By the way, you didn't even aim to reach a compromise! Uploading an alternative photo isn't compromise!

And OK...Not "common consensus", change that to "previous consensus". That doesn't change a thing. The burden of discussion still falls upon you. Xevorim (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the burden of discussion falls upon you because you are the one asking for it. There was no previous consensus. The story is that some user - out of good faith but ignorance - added photos of Egyptians, including Copts, to the article, while it is clearly stated in so many different places that Egyptians are not Arabs, and certainly not the Copts! So all I did was rv this addition. You have hundreds of photos of other people you could add to the article who truly fall under the nomenclature "Arab". Meriam Georges and Mohamed Abdu do not. --Lanternix (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

← Enough! My talk page is not here to serve as the two of yous personal battle ground. Secondly, each of you needs to stop calling the kettle black and take a look at your own actions and not the actions of the other party. Both of you are/were involved in a edit war regardless of who is right.

Now Lanternix, the reason I warned you was so that you were aware you could be blocked if you continued to revert. It was done out of kindness as I could have easily blocked you for edit warring and been done with it. The reason I did not warn the other party is because he/she was clearly aware of WP:3RR (as they opened a WP:AN/EW thread and linked to 3RR in their edit summary) and had they continued to edit war, they would have been blocked too. So please, stop saying everything is unfair simply because you are told you are wrong. Stop wasting time arguing here, and go find something productive to do...like solve this current content dispute. Tiptoety ^talk 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hajnal Ban Pic

I don't know how to use the talk function and am wondering if this the correct way of doing it? I have a problem. The Hajnal Ban pic has been removed from her site again, this time from the bot. It has been deleted altogether. The history shows you may know something about that? Can you help me get it back up? You said that you checked it out and sent Hajnal an email to say you would let it through. I am confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propertysouth (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been moved to the Wikimedia Commons, and can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is really tricky. How do we get it from the commons to back to the page? IS there a process I can read or follow? Do I have to 'tag it'. Its all a bit confusing but i am trying to learn.--Propertysouth (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you want it on commons. That allows it to be used on all Wikimedia projects. To use it in an article, simply link to the file name that it is under on commons. Does that make sense? Tiptoety ^talk 23:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)