User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 35

I would be grateful if you could read this
Hi, I was considering being adopted but for now, I just wanted to ask you this question; in a beginer-friendly way, could you please explain to me how to get a background image on my user-page like you did? I would be very grateful if you could reply on my talk page to this:) -- UserGeorgieboy5082  talk  17:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of OTRS Volunteer Submission
Hi, Tiptoety! If I may ask, why did you remove my submission (username: At32296) from the OTRS volunteer page? My username was changed yesterday from 'At32296' to 'Alex T.' Hope to talk with you soon. Alex T. (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check your email for an explanation. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 20:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just about to write back and let you know that I read the email. Thanks, Tiptoey. I hope that I will one day be fit to be a part of OTRS. Any suggestions on how I may prepare myself to be a part of the OTRS team? Thanks again. Alex T. (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply more experience. Globally you only have around 200 edits. We like our OTRS volunteers to be well versed in all aspects of Wikipedia. Best, Tiptoety  talk 20:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your responses, Tiptoety! I will take this into consideration and reapply again in the future when I gain more experience. Best wishes to you and yours. Alex T. (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Very nice
Mass blocking... very interesting method. Let's block them all to be sure that Iaasi has no active account. Two of the four accounts from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi do not belong to me. Congratulations, consummate professionalism as usual! 79.117.150.76 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm...lets think this one through. Would such drastic measures (blocking sock accounts that match you in every technical aspect) need to be taken if you would stop socking? I think not. Additionally, if I were to "mass block" all the accounts that you share IPs with, I would have blocked a whole lot more. You're right though, this isn't an exact science. Guess that's a risk you run when you continue to sock, getting innocent users blocked. All the best, Tiptoety  talk 18:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is is a pity that the presumption of innocence is not respected here. The algorithm of blocking should be:
 * If (CheckUser information (X) == CheckUser information(sockmaster)) then
 * mark X as possible sock
 * //sooner or later:
 * If (User X is reported as disruptive/abusive) then
 * If (X is a possible sock) then
 * indef block X as sockpuppet
 * else
 * warn/ temporary block X
 * IF I were an admin, this is how I would proceed. Even if X is really a sock, if it makes only constructive edits, it means (s)he changed his/her behaviour and I would let continue editing if it is in readers' benefit 79.117.172.236 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Request
Could I get you to look at the following SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Juanmramirez2012. It's been sitting for a week, and a previous ANI thread on the same issue went stale two weeks ago. The same disruption by this person is continuing.  N419 BH  22:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it in more detail shortly, but I think Dennis hit the nail on the head. Tiptoety  talk 22:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Anime Mid-Atlantic
Hello, I noticed you were involved in an edit on the Anime Mid-Atlantic article, with user Animemidatlantic. I found something off site on the Anime Mid-Atlantic Facebook, Look for “Second rant.”, that I found concerning about their involvement on Wikipedia. I hope I have not broken any rules bringing this up, but the reason is I’m about to post a major revision to their Wikipedia page, trying to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, and I’m slightly concerned at this point. I’ve run into other problems with conventions editing their pages and understanding why or why not content can be used, cited, etc, so I’d appreciate if you could keep an eye on the article. Esw01407 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am keeping an eye on it. Note that there is no way that the Wikimedia Foundation will provide them with your IP address or any personal information. Best, Tiptoety  talk 00:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for semi-protecting Belieber. :D

LauraHale (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 

Need assistance, please
Would you please look at my request at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone beat me to it. Tiptoety  talk 04:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User page format
hello,

could you shorten the table and image here? I tried and tried but could not achive my goal. Thanks.-- GoP T C N 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to move your userboxes to a subpage and transclude them. Once you do that I can fix it. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 05:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WinEuro
Do you think he's editing as a sockpuppeteer, as the IP 184.65.5.224 predates the username, with the former focused on more of a diverse topic range than the latter. Regardless, the user has already removed material on GB fan's talk page, and has continued to use the IP on the Windows Phone page after your notice. I look forward to hearing back from you on this, as I might end up opening up an SPI based on your response. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin. Yes, I would say that WinEuro for all intents and purposes can be considered the "sockmaster." That said, you must base any of your actions on behavioral evidence alone as I will not confirm or deny which IP addresses I discovered him using to edit. Best, Tiptoety  talk 05:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma
If the OTRS complaint argues that those not in fraternities are trying to expose that information, feel free to use me as an example otherwise. I self identify on my user page as a member of a fraternity (Alpha Phi Omega) and I'm on the National History and Archives committee for that fraternity. Thank you for your OTRS work.Naraht (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. You might be a good resource. If the customer continues to have issues with the article I might suggest they get a hold of you. Best, Tiptoety  talk 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any idea where I could get information on whether Wikimedia has ever removed an article about an otherwise notable organization based on a request from a member of the organization (or for that matter based on a request from the legal leadership of an organization). Also, it does sort of confirm how much the article should probably be locked based on someone wanting to completely delete the article on their organization rather than have those two words revealed.Naraht (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, OTRS does not delete an otherwise notable article simply because a member of the organization asks us to. As a matter of practice, and generally as a matter of OTRS policy we ask our respondents to adhere to all applicable on-wiki policies. As such, simply deleting an article because someone emails us and asks us to do so would be a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Are there exceptions to this? Yes. Some of those could be take down requests signed by a judge or extremely blatant BLP violations. For the legal side of things, generally the article is deleted by a member of WMF staff. Is there a list of articles deleted by staff? No. You'd have to go through the logs of some of the more active staff members who participate in such activites. Most notably would be User:Philippe (WMF). As far as protection goes, like I said before, OTRS strives to make customers aware of project policies and explain to them that we do not simply protect articles because they ask us to do so. Often times the exception to that are BLPs. Clear as mud? Tiptoety  talk 14:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, BLP doesn't apply to an organization, otherwise get a judge. :) I'll ask Philippe... For the protection, I meant the other way. Kappa Sigma has been semi- protected for relatively short times in the past over this issue, but Hattaras45(I think that's the name) did register and did get confirmed... I see that you are involved on the RFD page...

I don't want to bring this up in the AfD, but I'll say it here. One fear I have is that, if Kappa Sigma is deleted and SALTed, the vandals won't go away. The info will just start showing up at Kappa Sigma (fraternity) and other variant titles, ad nauseam. It will just be harder to track down because of the title shifts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the question is whether SALTing Kappa Sigma should actually that articles under alternate titles should be deleted. That would probably depend on how the Judges Order is written. And remember that the words in question *are* referenced. Describing the addition of referenced material as vandalism is sort of bending the definition.Naraht (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * C.Fred, you make an excellent point. I do not think the customer who emailed OTRS thought any of this out that far and just assumed that having the article deleted would end the problems. Tiptoety  talk 03:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And the truly fun thing is that if it is deleted and Salted (or even deleted), those yelling loudest to create a Wikipedia article would be the Kappa Sigma brothers.Naraht (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk
Hello, I read through the process for becoming a "clerk trainee". One of them was to require a current clerk and ask to be part of the trainee pool. Would you be willing to do this? Thanks! Keystoner idin (speak) 03:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I am actually not a clerk but instead a CheckUser. As such, you will need to leave a request at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks and a clerk will respond shortly. Best, Tiptoety  talk 03:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Block
Am I allowed to try to persuade the editors not to block me or am I supposed to be completely silent according to wikipedia policy while they debate whether or not to ban me?--RJR3333 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Tiptoety  talk 18:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser question
You blocked President Roosevelt?

On a serious note, I've got a Commons CU question. Last year, you ran a CU that revealed PeaceFrog71 and Elizabeth Blandra to be the same, so when I blocked the frog for edit warring the other day (see the "Stalking" section of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758), I told Elizabeth that any editing during the block would be construed as block evasion. She obeyed, but after the block was over, she began objecting to characterisation as a sockpuppet; see the bottom of User talk:PeaceFrog71. All this is to say: do I understand rightly that CU shows the same thing regardless of website? In other words, if I edit the same way here and at Commons with two accounts that are using the same IP address(es), would CU produce identical results? Since SUL results for the frog and Elizabeth are positive, I'd just like to be able to tell Elizabeth that CU's findings at Commons are ironclad strong here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If they edited from the same computer on the same IP address, then yes, the CheckUser data would be the same on both projects. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Need advice/help from neutral third party

 * Hi~! Please see Talk:Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12), there's a troublesome IP-hopping editor (whom I believed to be a possibly blocked/banned WP returnee but can't quite place the clue) producing nothing constructive (reverting thrice without consensus!) but heaps of animosity aimed at us regular editors, plus repetitiously raising contentious questions, which had been answered but IP continues to refuse to get the point. Best part was, the IP even followed me to User talk:The Bushranger/Archive13. FWIW, I know CU is no good unless we can link the IP's behaviour to that of some blocked/banned editor, so what would our next best course of action be likely? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * HI Dave. In this case I will encourage you to still file an SPI just do not request CheckUser (if you do not know who the master is just file it under one of the IPs). Provide a lot of really good evidence to support your claims and an administrator will review it and take the appropriate actions. On the other hand, you can always report the issue to WP:ANI (if you think the matter does not necessarily constitute socking and more just wiki-stalking and harassment). Best, Tiptoety  talk 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insightful info. But the thing is... these days I don't have much free time to do that (let alone file SPI) after replying to other editors and improving article pages, so will the simple act of me or the Admin asking you for help be acceptable or better? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be acceptable, but having a paper trail (an SPI) would be more preferable. Also, my time seems to always be at a premium these days and there is no guarantee I will get to messages left here in a timely manner. Best, Tiptoety  talk 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Would like more clarification here. Thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the request was already archived but I will reply here instead. Yes, I read the thread about your block and noted that it (the block) was reduced. The deciding factor was not that the block length was reduced but instead that it was still upheld. That coupled with your prior blocks for edit warring makes me uncomfortable granting you rollback at this time. By no means does this mean you can not request rollback again at a later date. Best, Tiptoety  talk 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser information on PhoenixMIX
Hello, Tiptoety. I see at Sockpuppet investigations/PhoenixMIX/Archive that you said that the accounts listed were "Both highly Likely". I don't know a lot about how checkuser works, and I wonder if you could tell me whether you also checked for other accounts, and if not whether you would be willing to do so. I had intended to put a request for such a check in the SPI, but had to go offline and didn't get a chance before the case was closed. Since one of the accounts has stated that he/she is in a position to use further sockpuupets, and intends to do so if blocked, sleeper accounts are a significant possibility. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesBWatson. To answer your question quickly: part of running a CheckUser results in a sleeper check whether intentional or not. Best, Tiptoety  talk 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

urgent: 82.132.244.13
I request that this IP is to be blocked due to harassment towards me on EggCentric's talk page. Thanks Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, what am I missing here? According to this IP's contributions they have made no edits. Tiptoety  talk 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, someone is vandalizing my talkpage, can you help me?
. Flayer (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Have a kitten :)

Wagner in Brazil (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 

Hi
I saw that you've blocked this disruptive IP for 3 months, could you also please semi-protect Mohammad Mosaddegh and 1953 Iranian coup d'état to prevent further disruption by this person? I suspect that this is a regular editor on these pages, using these IPs as a revert machine to bypass WP:CON and avoid the ongoing discussions. That's why a semi-protection on those pages, would prevent further abuse. It should be noted that another WP:SPA on the same articles, was using an IP and his account, to simultaneously comment on a related RFC, and when I confronted him about it, he claimed it was a mistake, and this all could be related to the other IP activities on the same pages, and might worth looking into. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, it does not appear that there has been any disruption on either of those article since I blocked the IP. I'm going to decline to protect the articles for now. Should there be any further disruption feel free to drop another note here or at WP:RFPP. Best, Tiptoety  talk 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove Rollback
To my account User:TheGoofyGolfer.
 * Note, this request is bogus. I am the real TheGoofyGolfer and I made no such request to have my Rollback privileges revoked. If you have any questions please feel free to leave them on my talk page. Sincerely, TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Tiptoety, pay this no mind. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: email to functionaries list
Thanks for the quick response and for the quicker action. It seemed to me to be such a pressing matter (and given the vandalism to WP:AN, hard to report) and such an obvious case of socking that I didn't want to wait for normal procedures. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Tiptoety  talk

Question
Aren't blocked notices meant to stay on your talk page till you are unblocked or it expires? I ask as McKhan has removed his. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of removing notices is that it is allowed. See WP:BLANKING. Best, Tiptoety  talk 00:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse Restarted
Hey Tiptoety, i thought to inform you about Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse which i have restarted in light of discovering a new sockpuppet. I have given all the information and details on the sockpuppet investigations page. I think you should have look at it. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

David Tsiskarishvili
Can you please restore all contribution of article David Tsiskarishvili on my own space. Thanks --Dark Eagle (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 15:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I meen all changes (history) what was done before both deletions --Dark Eagle (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Apologies. ✅. Tiptoety  talk 03:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks) --Dark Eagle (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Laura Kightlinger
I have a OTRS question for you about this article. There's been longterm edit warring regarding the date of birth of Kightlinger.

I originally became aware of this issue when User:L&S-ESQS changed the date of birth claiming they were counsel for Ms. Kightlinger. As a result, I reverted and raised COI concerns on the user's talk page. Since then, this user as well as User:CPESQS and User:SCalEsq (who I presume are the same person) have continued to push this point.

I've since sourced all the dates all to RS, but these editors keep reverting, citing IMDB (obviously not a reliable source). Meanwhile, the date of graduation was cited to the University itself, but the revision pushed by the "council" makes unsourced claims that this date is incorrect. They also mentioned a prior OTRS case and I see that revisions where made by an OTRS admin citing otrs:2011061610000189.

I was just wondering whether this was an appropriate response? Is it really wikipedia's policy that if someone writes us an angry letter we'll put whatever they want into the article, regardless of whether there are RS to back it up or not? The dates as per my revision are reliably sourced, and the revisions pushed by the "council" aren't. If there are legal concerns then it would be much more appropriate to simply not list a date as opposed to making something up just because someone with a vested interest threatens legal action. We aren't here to push propaganda for others.

For further background, you can read more here where another site claims they've been threatened by Kightlinger's lawyer to change the date of birth and why they think the request is bogus. It seems like a pretty clear case of age fabrication to me. Ordinarily I'd just revert, but as I'm not clear about the legal implications I figured I should ask. TDL (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dropping a note here to acknowledge that I have seen this message. I am currently busy at the moment and need some time to review the OTRS ticket and the article history. Of note though, the OTRS respondent that made the edit is not an OTRS administrator, he is just an OTRS volunteer (and now a former OTRS volunteer). I'll do my best to get back to you with further soon. Best, Tiptoety  talk 05:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, there's no urgency on this. For the record, I'm not here to accuse User:Brandon of any wrongdoing.  I'd just like some clarity on how OTRS usually handles such situations.  It seems to me that adding unsourced content to a BLP, even if an alleged "council" to the subject insists it's true, is a very bad idea from both a legal and a journalistic perspective.  Unless there's evidence that this person really does represent the subject, we could be making our legal exposure worse by added unsourced content to a BLP just because some random person on the internet tells us it's true.  TDL (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For privacy reasons, I can not go much into detail regarding the OTRS ticket. What I can say is that the person who emailed OTRS is knowledgeable about the subject of the article, and generally we assume good faith and make appropriate changes to biographies of living people (in this case, I would recommend leaving the changes made by the OTRS agent). That said, Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources and if the content that currently appears on the article is in contrast to what is supplied in multiple reliable sources, we do not take the person's word who emailed OTRS as the gospel. Please note that unless ordered to do so by a binding court of law, legal threats do not dictate how we edit articles, and I should note that it does not appear that was the case here. As far as you are concerned, there is nothing legally binding saying you are not allowed to revert but that does not mean that a firm representing Laura Kightlinger could not attempt to sue you. Just use your best judgement here. Best, Tiptoety  talk 07:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the clarification. At the time the OTRS made the change there were no sources for the dob, so it was probably a reasonable response to AGF of the emailer and make the changes.  However, now that I've sourced the dob to a RS  this argument seems much less strong.  Also, the council insists that she attended university from 1986-89, but there are many reliable sources which state she graduated in 86, including the university itself numerous times (ie. ), so this claim is almost certainly bogus.  Given that, the council's dob would make her 16-17 when graduating university which seems like a pretty dubious claim.  Personally I could care less what her dob is (I'd never even heard of her before seeing her wiki-article), but until there are RS which support the council's dates I think it is more appropriate that we follow the RS, not the council's advice.  TDL (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have warned the editor who believes IMDB to be a reliable source, if it continues, I'll protect the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I may well remove any trace of a perceived birth date. It doesn't actually enhance the article and seems to rely on the odd source, most of which can easily have copied each other.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While many of the sources are dubious, I think that the one I linked above from Contemporary Authors by Gale is pretty reliable. (As per its wiki-article, the American Library Association described this source as "one of the most distinguished reference titles published during the last 25 years".)  That being said, as I stated above I'm not opposed to removing the dob entirely if it's disputed.  TDL (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Rolandhelper
I'm opening new case as sockpuppet investigations in here.--TbaldieirnfiktrojanBM (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin AfD
Now that it looks like the article will be kept which primary source / secondary sources issues will be rooted out in time. Being a new user requesting this AfD, it seemed to be a really unusual format given how long it is. My question is that is it allowed to know what the content of that ticket (OTRS ticket# 2010031110064798) was about? I just wanted to ask before I go running off to OTRS/N and looking like a fool requesting this info. I'm not a volunteer of OTRS since I don't know the details of what OTRS does exactly. Thanks. ViriiK (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi ViriiK. Per the privacy policy all correspondence with OTRS is considered privileged and as is almost never publicly released without the subject's consent. Best, Tiptoety  talk 03:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Help
U have blocked my user name on commons.wikimedia.org stating abusing multiple accounts which is not true. Please unblock my username. As i could not edit my talk page on commons i am making the request here. Thank you! Shreyas.shridhar (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Shreyas.shridhar. Your account was blocked on Commons because CheckUser indicated that you are a sockpuppet of User:Sridhar1000. Please be patient while I review the evidence again. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have been asked to review the technical evidence at hand, and through reviewing the evidence both from a technical and behavioral standpoint, I have my doubts that your not a sockpuppet of this user. I have also confirmed that you are already abusing multiple accounts here on enwiki, so how can I believe that your not this sockmaster when the evidence says your likely see below related to this sock master? --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Checkuser can indicate a confirmation or just a likelihood. In this case, it appears to be a chance similarity of names. The contribution histories and editing patterns of both accounts do not suggest that they are the same user, at least to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, I see a strong similarity in the usernames. Tiptoety  talk 05:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The names are similar, but not identical - "shr..." as against "sr..." - and the name is common in the Indian subcontinent. I do not see any similarity in edits, but of course do not have access to checkuser data. I therefore say only: are you sure? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the "strong similarity" is probably no different from the countless accounts we have here beginning with User:JohnSmith____. I suspect that the "likely" checkuser result is due to a geolocation match (such as using the same ISP), not using the same IP address. There's no WP:DUCK situation here either.


 * There's more evidence in Shreyas.shridhar's favor than against. The contribution history and editing patterns clearly do not suggest that the accounts are the same, and the contributions have not been disruptive (rather a good contributor, as far as I can tell). Therefore, I recommend assuming good faith and unblocking this user. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Anthony: No, I am not sure. I'm inclined to unblock the account on Commons, but will leave the decision to unblock him here up to DQ. Tiptoety  talk 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gave a second look to the data that I saw, and this actually does not appear to be our sockmaster per technical evidence, one number in the data tripped me. It is ✅ though that &  are related, and there is no doubt in my mind because of time overlaps with CU data, and no difference in the data. My Recommendation, and what I'm doing here on enwiki, is that the user be unblocked, and then local administrators can determine anything that needs to happen in regards to the new data I have provided here in this post. I will note that this is definitely not an edit that a new user makes, so I suspect more socking is going on that the naked CU eye can see. The other behavioral evidence I considered yesterday was the lack of edit summary use, though that appears to be irrelevant per what I have said above. Sorry for the confusion that I caused. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

← Shreyas.shridhar, I have unblocked you on commons. Best, Tiptoety  talk 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tiptoey. -- Shreyas.shridhar (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Heavy Handed
I note the above. You have a somewhat heavy-handed and lofty attitude. Sort of uncomfortably passive aggressive. Bit too quick to fire off too? Or am I being unfair? Orbiston (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly think your being a little unfair to Tiptoety. Of course I can't see the CU evidence on commons, but with the data I saw on enwiki, my first step would have been the same Tiptoety did. You need to understand Checkuser isn't perfect, and yes, it will cause mistakes in certain cases, but it's not because we are being overly harsh. Now Tiptoety was polite in his response, and even gave the benefit of the doubt for a second review of the data, and to ask a second opinion. If you find that heavy handed and a lofty attitude, then heck I must have it too. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But please don't take this single example in isolation. Look at Tiptoety's history. The tone is off. Anyway, you sound most reasonable. Wish there were more like you on the block. Orbiston (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Sheodred talk page
I'm seeing a lot of reverting by Sheodred on his talk page. Have you considered revoking access - perhaps I'm over reacting, but if he aint requesting unblock he isn't permitted to use it as a forum/soapbox. Furthermore there was an IP who reverted MuZemike's comment there. I've blocked that IP already - not sure if Sheodred was socking from there (on a different continent to his other IPs) but it's highly unusual for an IP to stumble into this issue out of the blue--Cailil  talk 15:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Further disruption by Sheodred using his usual IP range and abuse of CSD templates on his user and user talk pages. I've blocked the IP, & semi-protected the pages for a week. I think this is enough for revoking talk page access but will leave it you unless it continues-Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Cailil. Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment and have revoked his ability to edit the talk page. I would highly recommend that other people stop commenting there and just leave him be. Leaving comments will only inflame the situation. As for the IPs, I will not in my role as a CheckUser comment on the connection between them and Sheodred. Best, Tiptoety  talk 21:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Jprg1966  (talk)  07:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Tiptoety! I'am user:Doncsecz. This is not my sockpuppet, the User:Stubes99, i have only an puppet, i'am not sockpuppet-master! 81.183.39.173 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety see also the message on my talk page, and my reply. (Can you also please confirm that what I said is correct?). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Doncsecz, please appeal your block via your main account following the directions on the block template/Callanecc's talk page. Tiptoety  talk 02:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tiptoety,


 * I left a message on DeltaQuad's talk page about Doncsecz's case: User_talk:DeltaQuad

In my opinion, it is unlikely that Doncsecz is Stubes99. Of course Doncsecz is free to appeal it. However, if the blocking administrators (in this case, you and DeltaQuad) do not give their consent to lifting\shortening his block, the probability of the happenstance that Doncsecz can successfully appeal it is zero as the reason for his indef-block is sockpuppetting. And of course Doncsecz indeed began sockpuppetting for which he deserves a block. I would like to ask you and DeltaQuad to consider shortening his block to one month in light of what I wrote on DeltaQuad's talk page.--Nmate (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You was blocked my page, but with false accusation. And you can not moderate the blocking? IP-identification is done? I'am not indentical with Stubes99. Stubes is a Hungarian troll and better speak English. My primary theme in the Wikipedia is not Hungary, but the Slovenes. 81.183.31.203 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply here. Also Doncsecz, you can edit your talk page from your account while blocked. Please refrain from continuing to use IPs to edit. Tiptoety  talk 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have only an sockpuppet. Therefore my blocks is inhability. Only a year could be. 81.183.7.158 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your checkuser check at Sockpuppet investigations/Micky02car. I was aware that I had given rather a giant list of accounts, and that it would be a big job for someone, but it seemed that leaving some out might result in missing important information. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi JamesBWatson. You're welcome. While you are right that the list of users to check was large, the case you submitted was well prepared and is the exact type of case that CheckUser is there for. The reason that I give so in depth results is that a lot of users are not familiar with the inner workings of the CheckUser tool (especially those that file maybe one or two SPI cases a year). Because of this, I like to explain why my results are the way they are as well as the limitations of the tool so that those making decisions can make informed ones. As for this case in particular, I think you made the right call (this is with my admin-hat on only). Best, Tiptoety  talk 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sonderbro
Hi Tiptoety, I've left you a comment at Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro. A sleeper check could still be warranted there, couldn't it? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Tiptoety  talk 21:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification. Jafeluv (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So Doncsecz isn't Stubes99..
Hello Tiptoety,

DeltaQuad admitted to having made a mistake when he told that Doncsecz was Stubes99. Furthermore, he also told that "Tiptoety can move it around as needed/reblock/retag/whatever as needed". I think that there is now a new case, so would you be so kind as to consider shortening Doncsecz's block? If it was up to me, I would be replacing Doncsecz's indef-block with a time-limited-one, say , for a duration of one month. But of course the decision is yours. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Reduced to two weeks. Feel free to change the sock tags around. Tiptoety  talk 05:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rolandhelper is back
Before you leave, see his SPI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UTTAM KUMAR GOUDA
Apparently he didn't get your message, or mine.Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

High comedy
Two snare drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff.

...

*ba-dum tsh*

Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion?
I think that, whom you blocked for 24 hours not long ago, is evading as User:106.67.21.191. They've note actually begun warring again but they have attempted to refactor Akashasr's borderline PA at Talk:Jat and their phrasing and contributions elsewhere are similar in style and general interest. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like extended Akashasr's block. Thanks for bringing this to my attention,  Tiptoety  talk 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just came here to let you know about DB's action. Sorry about the confusion - I noticed the time stamp at top right here and thought you'd most likely not be around. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Tiptoety  talk 01:27, 3 December 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 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 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. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

--SouthernNights (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wahhabi
Thanks for doing the check on that group. I was waiting to see if they would make any edits similar to. If the results are not stale would it be possible to see if the new group match with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Organometalic1 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Organometalic1. It says a checkuser was done but I can't find Sockpuppet investigations/Organometalic1. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi CambridgeBayWeather. Looking through the CheckUser-Log, it does not appear that anyone actually performed a check on any of the Organometalic1 socks. Additionally, all of the accounts are currently stale making me of little help. That said, if you feel strongly about the behavioral evidence (which I personally feel is pretty strong), you can just change the sock tags yourself. Let me know if I can be of any more assistance, Tiptoety  talk 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I suspected they were probably stale. Also given the last edit made before protection I'm sure they are Organometalic1.


 * Knock! Knock!
 * Who's there?
 * Ice!
 * Ice who?
 * Ice the b'y that builds the boat
 * And ice the b'y that sails her
 * CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit-thon: Saturday, February 9, 2013
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New Joehazelton sock
Hello, based on the user's contributions, I suspect User: Pleasant pete to be a sock of User:Joehazelton. Would you like to do the honors, or shall I file a sockpuppetry case? Thanks! &mdash; goethean 19:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that looks like him and CheckUser agrees. I have no issues with you reporting socks here, just be aware that my response might not always be timely and that filing an SPI might help other CheckUsers in the future by providing them with additional documentation. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The last time I filed a case, it took a long time to get looked at. That's why I came here. Thanks for your help. &mdash; goethean 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, since you asked for it...

 * Knock, knock.
 * Who's there?
 * JamesBWatson.
 * JamesBWatson who?
 * JamesBWatson who's come to apologise. See my talk page.


 * JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Molvi
I'm a bit confused. What do I have to do now to stop this? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All we are saying is that CheckUser can not help you. That is not to say that blocks or page protection will not help. If you wait a bit longer an administrator should be along to process the SPI case. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a SPI case
Hi, Tiptoety. Is there a reason why this case isn't getting closed? The connection is only getting more obvious with time, but I didn't think adding more evidence was necessary. There has been no further communication on the page. Thanks. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 01:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 19:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports and games deletion
I bit of an over-site - Can you to take a look at Portal talk:Sports.Moxy (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

New Joehazelton sock
Hi, I was wondering if you could nip this in the bud. Thanks! &mdash; goethean 14:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Sorry for the delay. Best, Tiptoety  talk 15:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I ARE SERIOUS CAT.

May puppies fly before pigs do. (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Revision deletion request
Policy seems to be to find an editor willing to make revision deletion requests. You've made revision deletions, so.... A user, Hjm 2004241 (talk), added a grossly inappropriate image to the article Abomination (Bible). I've rolled back the edit and posted a "one and only" warning on the user's talk page, but I would like to both hide the user's edit and, if possible, get the image deleted from Wikipedia (not sure how to do that, either.) Thank you for looking into these matters. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi TechBear. There is no need to apply revision deletion to this edit as the file in question has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons leaving little trace of it anywhere. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though. 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hi, this request concerns a user who you've previously blocked. Any advice you could give about how to procveed would be appreciated.  Sandstein  18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Risen from the dead?
Unless I am mistaken, it looks like an article you deleted on Newcastle Grammar, here, has been resurrected as Newcastle Grammar School. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum
There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins.  It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which ).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Portland "Wiknic" 2013!
Hope you are able to attend! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson
I just wanted to draw your attention to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson. It involves an apparent good hand/bad hand account across Commons and English Wikipedia, and you the only one that can run checkuser on both.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Sorry about the delay. Tiptoety  talk 07:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Suresh 5 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied. Tiptoety  talk 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
You failed to credit the source when you created the page Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement, which violated my and others' copyrights.

Worse, you make it difficult to find the diffs, e.g. to AGK's "net negative" personal attack. Please fix the page history.

Thanks! <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, there is a clerks' procedure when it comes to opening a case and archiving motions (carried or failed). For your first point, all non-party statements get moved to the case talk page (the details are here). For your second point, here are the procedures we follow.
 * If all cut-and-paste moves for archival purposes (and such) are violations of copyrights, archival bots should not even be running under that same umbrella. Your argument cannot be applicable to pages that gather many archives (any of the AN related noticeboards, for example) and by the same token cannot be applied here. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Email
INeverCry (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuba
Hi Tiptoety! It's been over five years since you semi-protected the Cuba article. Perhaps it's time to try unprotection and see if the IPs can behave.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 20:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In case problems arise, pending changes could be an alternative to semi-protection.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thomasfan5034
We seem to have a bit of a conundrum with Sockpuppet investigations/Thomasfan5034. You blocked User:PrestonLong2468 as a sock of User:Thomasfan5044, which was the first block linking the Preston and Thomas names, but I can't see why. I'm sure the reason was valid, I'm just having trouble finding the links. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, hm. I had forgotten blocking that account. Looking over the CheckUser-Log, it appears the block was based on technical evidence. Tiptoety  talk 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This all seems familiar to me but because all this dates back to early last year, I'm sure we've all forgotten a lot. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Haldrik
...came off his block and immediately started up the exactt same behavior again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox
I am trying to do the responsible thing here.

The article used to be called “Norse Dwarves”. Before User:Bloodofox tried to change the article, its content has been in its neutral form, for years. Bloodofox attempts to radically alter the content of the article, by DELETING (censoring) academic data in order to impose his own nonscholarly POV. Bloodofox deletes citations from numerous scholars, including wellknown scholars in the field of Norse mythology. For example, scholars know well the Dvergr as they occur in the Eddas and early Sagas appear to be of normal human height. (This Dvergr is not small. This is unsurprising since the Norse Alfr, Elf, is also of normal human size. Not small.) Numerous scholars point out the full human size of the Dvergr in the Norse texts. Yet for some inexplicable reason, this fact seems to drive Bloodofox insane, and he persistently wars to remove the academic and historical data and citations. This is just one example of Bloodofox abusing his role as an editor. There are others.

Most recently, without concensus, without discussion, and without warning, Bloodofox ***MOVED*** the article, Norse Dwarves, to a new name, Dwarf (Norse mythology). This is after he already failed to get a consensus to merge Norse Dwarves to an other of his “personal” articles whose content he hopes to conform to his personal nonscholarly POV. Again, the purpose of the disruptive behavior by Bloodofox to try remove the neutrality of the article.

Editors must protect the neutral content from the nonneutral nonscholarly POV censorship by Bloodofox.

Haldrik (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you discuss this on the article's talk page (remember, comment on the content not on the contributor) and request a third opinion. Additionally, with request to moving the article, file a request for move and get consensus there. Thanks for bringing this up here instead of continually reverting, but still be aware further edit warring (by any party) will be met with a block. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain why Bloodofox (who has an extensive history of edit warring) doesnt need to make discussions on the talk page before massive deletions on August 1. Also, why Bloodofox doesnt need to make discussions on the talk page to get a consensus before ***MOVING*** the entire article to a new address, for the purpose of pushing his own personal POV. These massive changes require discussion, before being implemented. If Bloodofox is your sockpuppet, I could understand why you are turning a blind eye to his behavior. But I assume you are not. Seriously, please explain why Bloodofox can make singlehanded edit changes - even Move the article to a new address ... while you stay silent. Haldrik (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Murder of Timothy Brenton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Timothy Brenton 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 Articles for deletion/Murder of Timothy Brenton 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 notice from the top of the article. Transcendence (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC

luri language lrc

hello friend my name is mohammad mogoei and i want to create a luri wikipedia luri language is in iran that belong to lur people in south western of iran i create home page and other pages but unfortunately after this language accepted for iligiblity this vote is given '''Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them''' i want to know what reason is for this problem and i can fix it this page is request page for lurish or lori language

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Lurish

and then request for luri language what kind of problem do reqeust for luri language have?

Mogoeilor (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)