User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 36

for your enjoyment?
Knock Knock!

Who’s there?

Thermos!

Thermos who?

Thermos be a better knock-knock joke than this!

Reply
Hi Tiptoety..! I left my comunication at my user talk, please read it, hope it helps, Thank you, Trinity Abbey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity Abbey (talk • contribs)

Help
Hello, My account Monicagellar_08 has been blocked. There definitely has been some sort of misunderstanding. I am an individual user and a well wisher of Wikipedia. I sincerely appreciate the good work you have put up. Yesterday I used a different system and next thing I know is that my account is blocked. Please help me out.
 * It doesn't appear that you are blocked. Tiptoety  talk 16:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Takes PDX 2013!
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, i by mistake rolled back your edits too while trying to remove the vandal edits. Hope you understand that was a mistake.  A m i t  웃  16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! Tiptoety  talk 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have information
I would like to help you with the sockpuppet case. Please send me an e-mail. Liangshan Yi (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Email sent. Tiptoety  talk 17:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rollback of moves
Hello. I am approaching you as a random admin since I saw you were active. There is a user at my talk page, Ionchari who made several moves of a page and now wants to have them "roll backed". I don't know whether that's possible. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Iselilja! It's possible to undo page moves, but not with the "rollback" tool. Instead, it is usually possible to simply move the pages back to their original title in the same way that they were moved away from it.  This will occasionally require an admin when the page at the original title has been edited after the move, but usually it is something that anyone can do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing was he moved the page back and forth between two titles. And now he wants those moves "undone", it appears. The page is Party of the Swedes. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can not "undo" a move. That said, you can just move it back to its original title. Tiptoety  talk 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

luri language lrc in iran
Hello so thanks I did steps in

https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translatewiki.net_languages#Enabling_a_new_language_for_localisation_at_translatewiki.net

and this is lrc portal

https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Portal:Lrc

and this is my basic request!! how can I translate a message in luri lrc?

and how can I add luri lrc in supported language in translatewiki same as english, arabic, germany and so on!!!!

I ask for enable luri lrc and it takes a long time could you help me?

please help me I need your urgent help so thanks for your help

Mogoeilor (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Query
You recently blocked an editor who has an agenda against me. I may be overly suspicious but a new user (Scoobydunk), who claims no familiarity with WP, is currently engaging in a an edit war with me but is showing an unusual knowledge of WP policies. His posts, including the abusive language used, are grammatically similar to the language used by that blocked user in his posts. I don't want to cause trouble for an innocent editor if I'm wrong as this is the only (evidence?) I have. What do I look for as more concrete evidence? Wayne (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify some of the inaccuracies WLRoss told you. I made changes to a wikipedia article resulting from research I did after seeing a reddit post. WLRoss was the one that engaged in the edit war by reverting every change I made. So I showed no agenda against WLRoss, yet it is clear he took issue with me. Since then, he's tried to get me blocked, tried to report me, and now is trying to solicit help from administrators instead of coming to a solution on the talk or discussion pages. He's also being disingenuous when he says "showing an unusual knowledge of WP policies" because he's the one that initially linked me and informed me of those policies in the talk discussion. Only since then have I familiarized myself with them and realized that he was the one in violation of many of those policies. "Knock Knock"...."Boo"...."need a tissue?"Scoobydunk (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WLRoss, I block a lot of users and do not keep track of who is involved in what dispute with who. Can you please be more specific regarding who/what we are talking about? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 15:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't bother naming names because I was not accusing anyone of anything, I was only asking for advice. The blocked editor is Phoenix and Winslow and the new editor is Scoobydunk. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt but it seems rather strange that Scoobydunk has now replied here making excuses and denying he has an agenda when I never accused him of having one, or even accused him of anything else of significance for that matter. I said Phoenix and Winslow had one. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I accept that you must be busy but I am still in need of advice on what to look for. Now that a third editor has joined the discussion the writing style used by Scoobydunk (extreme length of replies, methods used to support his view, language used when referring to other editors and the language used to discredit my arguments) has become almost identical to that of the blocked user so I want to knock the issue on the head if it is not him as it is difficult for me to assume good faith on his part. Wayne (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries WLRoss, the very last account activity Tiptoety had was declining a checkuser that your friend Dave had requested.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lionel Fanthorpe
Hi, I have been advised to contact OTRS regarding two images I uploaded on to the Lionel Fanthorpe article yesterday and which were speedliy deleted, although this one is currently still on the server. I have an email from Mr Fanthorpe giving permission for the use off the images, but I'm not sure who I'm supposed to forward the message to. You being an admin on OTRS seemed like a good one to ask. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Permissions@wikimedia.org works. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 20:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

IP range
You previously blocked a range that I noted as being disruptive. Would you mind weighing in on a request I made to have it blocked, again, at WP:ANI?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 00:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon in Vancouver, WA
''You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of WikiProjectOregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods
This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:
 * PDX Pods
 * Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! ''You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock investigation
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji.

Notifying you due to your prior investigation of related case.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

New SPI on Monterrosa
Per this comment from you:, I'm letting you know that User:Monterrosa is using another IP sock. I filed a report here:. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 07:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Template help
Hi, Tiptoety, would you mind taking a look at Sockpuppet? The documentation says (and it makes sense as well) that the length parameter defaults to indefinitely. However, if you use "nbconfirmed", it does not. Indeed, when I use nbconfirmed, I can't even force it to say the account was blocked indefinitely. I looked at the code, and I can see why it doesn't work, but my template skills are minimal, which makes me reluctant to correct it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bbb23. Maybe I am confused, but you are wanting the nbconfirmed template to show a block expiration of indefinite? If that's the case you should just use . Tiptoety  talk 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When you use "confirmed", you don't get the CU part of the message. Perhaps that just isn't necessary, but it does make it easier for someone to tell at a glance that it was "confirmed" by a CU. The template documentation correctly explains this. Now if the intent was not to have indefinitely and the CU phrase in the same message, then the length= documentation box should be clarified. As an aside, I've rarely used nbconfirmed before; I always just used confirmed, so I never really ran across the apparent discrepancies. Not sure what even triggered the recent interest in nbconfirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this is intentional as the nbconfirmed template is to be used on confirmed socks that for whatever reason have not been blocked. Maybe the wording of the documentation needs to be changed slightly to more accurately reflect that. Also, if I remember correctly there was a push recently to eliminate all of the "per checkuser" templates in an attempt to add more consistency among them. You could always use Checked sockpuppet, though I'll note that one does not explicitly mention checkuser (it just has a picture of the CU icon). I stopped tagging socks a while ago, so I don't consider myself much of an expert. Tiptoety  talk 18:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, lucky you. The tagging and some of the inconsistencies in the templates irritate me. But I admit to being overly fussy about such things. I'll take a stab at clarifying the doc when I have a moment. Thanks for talking to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ginsuloft
Do you think might be Ginsuloft? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible. That said, they didn't show up in my recent CUs and really haven't made enough edits to say one way or another. Just an account to keep an eye on at this time. Tiptoety  talk 02:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. Tiptoety  talk 02:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Childish Name-Calling"
Then I suggest that others do the same and equally apply some genuine sense and accuracy in their edits. Plenty of people in various forms of media find their way to Wikipedia and will use information from here as fact in many cases. There are too many instances in which news media, automotive journalists/bloggers, automotive-related forum members, and general public will copy/take erroneous information in these Wikipedia articles as fact. Thus regurgitating it and heavily spreading that same misleading information around, which becomes almost solidly recognized as "undisputed" fact. It is disastrous trying to undo damage caused by misleading information on a wide-scale.

I cannot do this by myself, if I cannot depend on other users to also spot these errors and correct them as well. Trying to similarly insult me, by slyly referring to me as childish/immature does not resolve any problems either. It simply points out your own possible lack of maturity/incivility and lack of intentions to genuinely resolve any repetitively nonfactual/vandalous contributions, by only nitpicking at easy targets. I am plenty familiar with such guidelines, so I again suggest others take note as well. Good day.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:DIZwikwiki
Hi Tiptoety, I blocked this user earlier today based on the findings of Sockpuppet investigations/Evilkingzarkon. He's posted an unblock request claiming that he and the other editors are coworkers, does that make sense based on checkuser data? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also a similar unblock request on User talk:PrestonDorey, who was blocked in the same investigation. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten, yes, that would make sense based upon the data. That said, the IP is static and many share identical useragents so it is also possible that a number of them are being operated by the same employee. Tiptoety  talk 16:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for taking another look. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hello. Sorry for bothering, I have a question regarding what I consider a serious issue. It is regarding the issue you were involved in as well quite some time ago (as I have found out in researching this). In any case this question is more of a general nature for now. Anyway to the point, I have come up with the information that a certain user (I won't name anyone for now) is a sockuppupet of a known sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia. Now the user in question has been blocked previously for having a huge number of sockpuppets but has been then unblocked a year after the block under the pretense and belief he will "behave". That account seems to be largely inactive now for almost 5 years now, but it seems the user simply discarded his old account leaving it inactive and used and still uses now another account which has been created (and used) before and during that whole incident as well (it is created a year before the block) and somehow avoided detection. Now I am interested how should I proceed with this information and to whom should I report it? Thanks in advance. Shokatz (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Shokatz, what you are describing is the practice of creating a new account to avoid scrutiny and is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppety policy. The proper venue for reporting such a violation is WP:SPI. Tiptoety  talk 23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Escalation of OTRS responses
@Tiptoety,

Hi,

This is in pursuance of discussion with Phillipe (WMF).

India Against Corruption had sent 2 email complaints titled as "URGENT: Complaint of inaccurate and defamatory information about India Against Corruption" to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" on 18.Dec.2013 and 28.Dec.2013. These were responded to (through email) by OTRS volunteer "Cindy Ashley-Nelson" on 19.Dec.2013 and 4.Jan.2014. The OTRS response was essentially that Wikipedia has no "centralised authority" to control article content, and suggested Dispute Resolution via WP:DR.

Accordingly, "IAC" (as an IP) immediately engaged in substantial dialog with the Wikipedia community to get the libelous information about IAC and living persons removed or corrected from India Against Corruption. It has always been the stand of "IAC" that having a WP:COI we would not edit the article directly. Finally, a WP:RFM was made by "IAC" which the all disputants agreed to [] and which was closed yesterday [] for the reason that the other parties chose not to participate (after IAC had defined its issues, seriously challenged the quality of the present in-article sources and provided its own reliable counter sources),.

As the other editor User:Sitush, and sole contributor of the disputed text, dropped out from mediation once the bulleted issues (with sources) were supplied by us in the course of mediation, we believe that there is now a prima-facie case established for the article India Against Corruption to be "stubbed" to a few acceptable sentences which can be used thereafter to re-build the article with high-quality sources. By way of example, we cite which was similarly redacted to refer to our organisation exclusively.

The Wikipedia policies we rely on are BLP, defamation/libel, privacy, factual accuracy etc. We are equally concerned that only high quality sources meeting WP:V, WP:RS are used for a WP:NPOV article for "India Against Corruption" for which name we hold the exclusive legal rights to use.

Accordingly, we request you, as an OTRS-Admin and Sysop, to kindly "stub" article India Against Corruption in furtherance of our referred email complaints. We also mention that we have not received any OTRS "ticket number" for our email complaints.

If any further inputs are required from us, we shall provide them. We believe that our interaction with the Wikipedia user community has been exhausted, and we are to proceed further under administrative processes of WP/WMF.

HRA1924 HRA1924 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety, I happened to see this discussion. You might find it instructive to look at the closing comment by the mediator Sunray, which was addressed to the person now using the account User:HRA1924: "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/India_Against_Corruption&diff=prev&oldid=597005092 IAC has not provided clear evidence (accompanied by diffs) to document a case... You have now come to the end of the road for dispute resolution for content disputes. I see nothing more to be done with your claims.]" EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There was substantial discussion between IAC and Sunray - from the time Sunray stated IAC had failed to provide clear evidence ... to the time Sunray said IAC has come to the end of dispute resolution. Sunray thereafter finally closed / archived  the mediation only for the reason that other parties chose not to participate (so it was not about evidence). So for Edjohnston to imply that the mediation failed because IAC couldn't provide clear evidence is false. The problem is that  the evidence IAC provides is "not clear" to average/ordinary Wikipedia editors/Admins for "competence" reasons. Admin:DESiegel who was a party, and who is interested in legal topics (wisely) opted to stay out of the mediation discussions entirely. For instance, User:Sitush the sole author of the disputed text had repeatedly expressed that he (and other Wikipedia editors) were not competent WP:CIR to interpret court judgments (which we linked to) which were the primary sources for the secondary sources (media reporting) he was citing for the bogus claim that "Team Anna" was synonymous with "India Against Corruption" - and which constitutes the core of the dispute. We say the authentic primary sources we submitted (linked directly from the official website of the concerned High Court) flatly contradicted what was reported in sections of the media. We further say that Sitush refused to discuss or acknowledge other media sources we provided for the same incident (Anna Hazare's fast on 27 Dec. 2011 at MMRDA, Mumbai). The continued refusal of User:Sitush to engage on this core issue once IAC began providing counter sources to his is not conducive to dispute resolution and is a behavioral issue exemplifying the battleground approach of some WP editors - including why they should be banned for their disruptive edits. We also say that Sunray had clearly mentioned that the issues IAC had submitted were suitable for further dispute resolution . There is also the question of WP:BLPPRIMARY and how primary sources can be used to contradict skewed/distorted secondary reporting of the primary by Wikipedia Community. If the Community is precluded (by WP:CIR or otherwise) from considering authentic and unimpeachable primary sources which affected / defamed article subjects cite / tender in their favour, the entire WP:DR process is exposed as a sham and not at all suitable for defamed article subjects . Finally, if the term evidence is used, we say that this must refer to legal evidence which can be submitted to a court of law (ie. primary sources) and not secondary ("hearsay") reporting of it. We ask you to consider if a High Court of India would rely for evidence on its own judgment(s) (which do not need to be proved) or on skewed / false reporting of it by sections the media (which need to be proved) to decide this issue. Under India's law (Indian Evidence Act 1872)  every court / authority is required to take "judicial presumption /notice " of a judgement of a "court of record" (like the High Courts are) given under its seal. HRA1924 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary evidence used to contradict claims about IAC
It is now self-evident the WP:DR process has no mechanism to consider primary evidence tendered by affected persons to contradict in-article secondary sources (for them to get false text deleted or corrected). For instance which grievance process of Wikimedia has persons "competent" to interpret primary evidence ? Is there any process of Wikimedia which can interpret a primary source like this wherein the Parliament of India has acknowledged that "we" appeared before the Parliamentary Committee as "India Against Corruption" to tender "evidence". If "Team Anna" is really the same as "India Against Corruption" then why does this official primary source where all key members of Team Anna appeared before the same Parliamentary Committee to tender their evidence not conflate Team Anna (described in the report as (i) "Civil Society led by Shri Anna Hazare" p.3, (ii) "Team Anna" p.5, (iii) "team headed by Shri Anna Hazare" p.11, (iv) "The Anna Hazare Lokpal Bill" p.12, (v) "team headed by Shri Anna Hazare" p.28, (vi) "several witnesses including team Anna" p.41, (vii) "Team Anna" p.97, and so on) with "India Against Corruption" which is not mentioned anywhere in the official report or used by "Team Anna" either (a) to refer to themselves or (b) in connection with Lokpal Bill ? On what authentic (ie. primary) basis does Wikipedia thereby defame the officially recognised "India Against Corruption" by linking IAC with the demand for Jan Lokpal Bill submitted to Parliament by Team Anna ? Is there anybody in Wikipedia competent to evaluate primary evidence (being the audited accounts of the Public Cause Research Foundation) which show that IAC's Core Committee "hired" /"contracted" PCRF to take up new activity namely "India Against Corruption" and which is mentioned in these secondary sources, , but which IAC name was instead misused by PCRF (for a short period till 6.Feb.2011) to agitate for their Lokpal campaign which they later conducted as "Team Anna" (wef. 5 Apr.2011)? Why are there not enough neutral and competent editors from India at Wikipedia so as to prevent such defamations to article subjects from India on the "English" Wikipedia, after all India has the 2nd highest number of English speakers globally ? HRA1924 (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * HRA1924, I dropped out of the process (with a request to be pinged if anything actually developed) when it became clear that you were just going round in circles and ignoring the explanations made by numerous uninvolved people over eight months or more regarding policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MEAT, WP:GNG etc. In particular, I noted that you seemed to have issues that fall in the scope of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. You still seem to have those issues and, which is worse, you are still bandying around chilling legal phrases despite being told about WP:NLT on numerous occasions. I'm going to say no more here. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive830. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Sitush: You had every opportunity to participate in the mediation. You opted out when the issues we defined (along with our sources) cornered you and your disruptive edits. Your opting out and your unwillingness to defend your edits during the ultimate formal DR process under the supervision of a nominated Wikipedia Administrator now places the WMF in an unenviable situation with respect to the present article's content. Nothing you say now has any legal force. Phillipe(WMF) has suggested we approach an OTRS-Admin, this thread is in furtherance of that suggestion. Sysop:Tiptoety does not need your input. Yes, we could be banned for using role accounts, privacy protection schemes to hide our IP etc - and "Tiptoety" has access to all the tools (incl. CU privileges) for the purpose, that will only make WMF's task vis-vis IAC's grievance redressal more difficult. We suggest (without prejudice) that you personally stub the IAC article to something we can both live with, and avoid placing that burden on Tiptoety or WMF. HRA1924 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

← Hello all. Just placing a note to say that I have seen this thread, but have not had a chance to read it all/review all the links. I am currently very busy with some professional training and may not be able to respond for a few days. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

HRA1924 unblock request
HRA1924 is seeking an unblock in order to contact you, as they say they have not succeeded via email. They suggest you are in the process of addressing the issues they have raised at User talk:HRA1924 and above. Given past experience it is possible the unblock request will simply lead to a repeat of the legal threats and tendentious editing that led to the block. Or you may in fact be addressing their issues via OTRS or other off-wiki means. Either way your views would be welcome on the unblock request at the user's talkpage. Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The user has emailed me, I have seen the email. I just have not responded to it yet. Tiptoety  talk 16:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

←For everyone's information. I have responded to this user's email. Tiptoety talk 17:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tony Ortega
The link to the ticket goes to the disambig. Do you have the correct link? Are we allowed to indicate on the Ortega article the fact that he was married and is now separated, considering this fact has now been verified by him personally (and the fact of his marriage having been reported in one of his past interviews)? Laval (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I incorrectly linked to the ticket. Here is the correct link 2014022810009703, which goes to OTRS. And yes, you can add the fact that he is divorced. For personal privacy, it is probably best that we don't include her name though. Best, Tiptoety  talk 07:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Curtis Marsh Jr.
Brsugaa (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You responded to my edit to my son Curtis Marsh Jr.'s page, not sure I understand. My son was born at Humana West Hill Hospital, in West Hills CA, not Los Angeles. I also did not see his Sister M'haganee, so I added that. I also added Curtis was raised by his mother, which is me Trayci Gibson. Not sure what part of that is a conflict. It was also very difficult to respond. I am not sure if you will her this. Thank you, Trayci Gibson User name: Brsugaa

Question regarding article creation for company called 'Enplug'
Hi Tiptoety, I was going to create an article about the digital billboard company 'Enplug', but I saw that you repeatedly deleted them in the past few weeks.

May I recreate an article on this subject if it does not violate the stated rules? P.S. I was told on the page to first contact the deleting administrator before making a move. Please let me know when you have the chance. Much Appreciated & Best. (LionKing4Dayz (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC))

CU question
...here. BMK (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Gerald L K Smith
A reference to an ADL report on Anna M. Rosenberg is incorrectly cited as being on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Please put the correction back in. 12.149.136.11 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I think you are mistaken, I did not remove any references. You can see my edit here which simply removes a peacock term that is not supported by reliable sources. Best, Tiptoety  talk 19:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You
Hope you have great week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupclr (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

B01010100
He's agreed to pack in the edit-warring behaviour, and since you weren't around but seemed to approve I've removed the block. Hope that's okay; let me know if not. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tiptoety  talk 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except I forgot to, y'know, actually remove the block... Yunshui 雲 水  12:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, it's all good. Tiptoety  talk 02:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/201.102.151.150
Another account from Special:Contributions/Higo1 did the same pattern, same edits of dance-pop. 183.171.177.210 (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another contributor Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162, can you please block for one week? 183.171.176.174 (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162
Special:Contributions/Higo1 has another IP address Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162, he did genre warring again. Can you please block him? 183.171.179.159 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tiptoety  talk 14:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser clarification needed or my head will spin off its axle and blood will go everywhere
Ok, so this person was genre warring. They were reported as a potential sock-user with one other account. You said Likely but not Yes. Regardless of this, they both got blocked as socks. Now the lovely IP address above on your page, and also on my page, is hopping about saying that IP addresses are this same person. I have no way whatsoever of confirming this.

Do I come to someone such as your good self? Am I allowed to block 'likely' sockpuppets, or do I have to wait for confirmation? Can I put a sock-puppet ban notice on Andrewbf's user page so the next person who wanders in like I have gets a sense of what the heck is going on?

Your assistance would be most welcome. I am confused. The world is a frightening place. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Panyd,


 * For starters, you do have a way of confirming the IP's accusations. As you can see from the previously blocked IPs, they geolcate to Mexico and they both are hosted by the ISP "Uninet S.A. de C.V." So, one could deduce that an IP is Andrewbf if they 1) are editing in a similar manner and 2) geolocate to Mexico and are using the ISP mentioned above.


 * Secondly, if you are uncomfortable with making the decision yourself, you are always welcome to message me, or even better file a new SPI and let a user familiar with sockpuppetry investigations make the scary decision for you. That said, I think you are intelligent enough to come to the same conclusion I would. You are 100% allowed and encouraged to use your community appointed administrator tools to block socks, and do not need approval or confirmation from me or any other CheckUser to do so when evidence exists to support a block. See WP:Blocking.


 * As far as CheckUser is concerned, I cannot reveal a technical connection between the account Andrewbf and an IP address per the Privacy Policy.


 * Yes you can place a sock tag on the user's userpage. You are also welcome to tag IP talk pages. Consider reviewing applicable templates here.


 * I hope I have prevented your head from falling off. I would hate to have the blood of another on my hands. Also, watch out behind you, I'd hate for you to be scared by your own shadow. Best, Tiptoety  talk 02:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As my loving husband is a CheckUser I stay as clear of it as I possibly can (you can imagine how much fun it was when he was on ArbCom!). Of my many and varied functions I've never been presented with that and I panicked a little bit. I appreciate it. No blood spilt...this time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you're going to similarly warn...
User:009o9 and the anonymous IP user, correct? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's taking me a little bit of time to wade through the article's history. I've warned and blocked the IP as they have continued to edit war and violated the 1RR sanctions after being warned on their talk page.  Tiptoety  talk 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I apologize for violating the restriction. None of us ever dropped into a full-scale revert war so I felt like everyone was at least being reasonable, but I should have followed the letter of the law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I noted that you all didn't seem to be "warring" with each other so I felt that a gentle reminder was more appropriate. I understand that this is a controversial article. A one size fits all approach isn't the best way to "police" it. Best, Tiptoety  talk 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
Good evening. In July of last year (when I was editing under the name Hot Stop) you took away rollback permission following an edit war I had on The Great Gatsby (2013 film). I'm not here to contest the decision because I know I was out of line then. But I would like the permission back and was wondering if you had any thoughts on that. Thanks.  Calidum   03:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Calidum. Looking over your contributions, I have granted you rollback rights again. I appreciate that you gave it a reasonable amount of time before re-requesting rollback, and clearly learned from your earlier mistake. Happy editing, Tiptoety  talk 11:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate it.  Calidum   16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user QuackGuru: Traditional Chinese Medicine
Greetings! I couldn't help noticing that you have given a warning to user QuackGuru editwarring the alternative medicine articles:.

Unfortunately, the user has continued the very same behaviour even despite of the warning. User QuackGuru has also received a warning from administrator EdJohnston on April 4th, almost one month before your most recent warning but still the same pattern keeps repeating:

There is at the moment discussion going on about the users disruptive editing behaviour at two alternative medicine articles: Traditional Chinese medicine (talk) and Chiropractic (talk). According to user DVMt, QuackGuru has also been banned earlier for the very editwarring of alternative medicine articles.

Could you please look into this matter? In my humble opinion, the user has been already been warned enough many times but he is still continuing the same behaviour. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

edit war policy revisited (Bundy standoff)
Hi Tiptoety. Your question "why aren't you friendly" on my page deserves a reply. The Edit warring policy states in its first sentence: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion." (My bold highlights.) You cited two of my edits in one day, which in your estimation broke the 1RR policy for the Bundy Standoff page. However, I ask you please to remark that one of the two reversions you cited was originally not mine. I deem your question to me to be inappropriate. I am friendly towards those who show good will in return, and towards strangers. I am unfriendly to those who censor my contributions with aberrant justification. Does that answer your question? 66.225.161.37 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a question, it was a statement. Tiptoety  talk 15:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * well, you phrased it as a question. Be more assertive if you mean to state something.  Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.161.37 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [[File:Rainbow trout.png]] for good measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.161.37 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Murphy
You are incorrect about what I did on this entry. I reverted nothing. I added nothing.

I made a modest edit to re-phrase material that was already there. I added details to a few citations.

You should read edits more carefully before lecturing someone else. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on Jimmy's talk page
Hi. Jimmy has opened a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164 and some have suggested OTRS could play a role in one or more of the proposals. Would you be interested in commenting? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow
Back in September 2013 you left this notice, one of P&W favorite topics was Ugg boots. would you be able to offer some guidance at this discussion as to how they should proceed please. Gnangarra 12:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnangarra. I commented on the thread, suggesting that an SPI be re-opened. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy vanishing
You just deleted  Sockpuppet_investigations/AnkhMorpork/Archive.

What a coincidence! Did you realise it was mentioned in connection with an ongoing WP:AE? See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Huldra. I was not aware that this user was currently being discussed at Arbitration Enforcement, nor was I aware that the now deleted SPI was specifically mentioned/linked to. From speaking with AnkhMorpork, they are no longer active on Wikimedia and have no intention on continuing to edit. Given that the SPI appeared, somewhat frivolous and only supported the fact that AnkhMorpork was not socking, I saw no reason not to fulfill their reasonable request to delete it per WP:VANISH. The administrator(s) reviewing the Arbitration Enforcement request can view the deleted content, and un-delete it if they like. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 15:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety, fine, I understand you did a good-faith delete. I have no problem with that. But this SPI was 2 years ago...then suddenly, out of the blue you get a request to delete it 24 hours after (unknown to you) it was mentioned at WP:AE? Now, that could have be a coincidence,  somehow  I would not bet my life on it. Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests,  your comments would be appreciated. Also, I think both Sockpuppet_investigations/Kipa_Aduma,_Esq. and Sockpuppet_investigations/AmirSurfLera should be reopened. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Horvitz socks
There's been an update. Could you see if there's a correlation with the newest sock/master who's made himself known?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Found a positive match this time because he reuploaded one of the photos to the commons and restored its usage on the article, twice.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

174.236.99.0
Hey, this is Don't Feed the Zords or whichever extensive sockpuppeteer likes to edit war with me over fucking Power Rangers episode lists. Can you lock down the range that I posted in various places regarding his recent edits?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look into it. The block is in place on that IP for now, which should solve the problem for a little bit. Tiptoety  talk 04:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He's already hopped to .— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The range is just too busy for me to perform a range-block. What range were you suggesting? I've blocked the new IP. Tiptoety  talk 04:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ANd now he's at 174.236.101.155. There's probaly soe way to narrow this down now that he's used like 8 IPs over the past day.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The calculator linked on mw:Help:Range blocks suggests 174.236.64.0/18.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the range I tried. That is a large, very busy mobile range. It's shared amongst numerous legit users including admins. Tiptoety  talk 04:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But how many of them are not logged in?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tons. Tiptoety  talk 04:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what happens every single time though. He edits from his phone and just keeps resetting his settings to get a new IP and attempt to paint me as in the wrong after I discover the ruse. The /16 has been blocked in the past.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And as you saw he's already on 174.236.68.112 now.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the /18 for 12 hours. Tiptoety  talk 04:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. How should we deal with this when he inevitably comes back? Should something go up on ANI just in case?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you like. Is there an SPI case that you can add this to? Tiptoety  talk 04:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There was one for the sockmaster .— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

He's back as, which I had suspected was a sock last year.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

GoRight, sockpuppetry, and magic wiki pixie dust
Would you mind being just a tad more explicit about the limitations of your Checkuser of GoRight in your WP:AN comment? I fear that your post inadvertently overstates the robustness of the CU finding. When you wrote "While it shows no recent socking..." it isn't quite correct. While I know that experienced administrators will recognize that your CU finding doesn't deal with technical tricks like the use of open proxies, the broader Wikipedia community has a tendency to treat CU as magic wiki pixie dust, and presume a certain infallibility to Checkuser pronouncements.

In point of fact, GoRight's sockpuppets were never caught (or identifiable) through CU, as he always used open proxies; Checkuser findings are actually pretty much useless for this user, unless he has somehow grown less technically competent in the intervening years. (See also Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight/Archive.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All good points. Yes, I'll expand my comment. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 17:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. Tiptoety  talk 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page
Please stop editing my personal TALK space with nonsensical notices. I erased it for a good reason. That I have LOG RECORDS that RESOLVED the ISSUE. Can we please settle this with mature civilized discourse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs)
 * The talk page does not belong to you, it is hosted on Wikimedia servers and is subject to the same policies as every other page. All I have done is remove personal attacks against other editors, which is prohibited by policy. I'm happy to engage in discourse about the issues at hand, but posting personal attacks on other editors is doing anything but. Tiptoety  talk 21:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SergiSmiler
Something's gonna happen on Your Love (Nicole Scherzinger song), he/she added Daily Mail as unreliable source, as I know he/she did not see a Wikiproject Albums/Sources. 183.171.162.152 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

BCD/DFtZ
Check out this screed (and continued use of the collective "we").— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've disabled their talk page access. Tiptoety  talk 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * he really has nothing better to do.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I keep finding more of them (they keep making themselves known at the AN thread about himself), and they keep remaking the stupid Dino Charge page. Got a case up at Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Email
I respect your message and does not want to violate your privacy/ or policy but have to remind you and notify you for the email we sent it to you. The template is available for this purpose. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin wiki123 (talk • contribs)
 * I've replied. Best, Tiptoety  talk 17:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Inidian maninian
He/she did editing three times with IPs Special:Contributions/189.217.129.209 and Special:Contributions/189.217.157.17 (same as 29 characters added). Though we undid it. 183.171.165.86 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm sorry, but I deal with a lot of socks/disruptive users. Can you please refresh my memory, who is this? Is there an SPI case you can link to? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 01:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Technophant
The previous edit under the other account deleted reliably sourced text and added some unreliably sourced text. According to this comment he thinks "I recognized that at some time I would want to return to acupuncture after a reliable source for my proposed edits were found." Rather than finding reliable sources Technophant deleted reliably sourced text again and added unreliably sourced text. He then added unreliably sourced text again. He believes the sources he added are reliable when they were against MEDRS. He also violated 3RR on two separate articles. See Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive251. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive251. There was also an ANI discussion. See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive848. The topic ban was on July 21. Stillwaterising deleted the connection to the other account, and he rejoined the WikiProject Medicine on July 23. He then unjoined the project with the other account on July 24. I would of commented on his talk page about this but he banned me from his talk page. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Stubes99 again?
Would you have a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99. Looks like Stubes99 again. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Tiptoety  talk 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Friend
First of all, what a wonderful picture of an owl that is. Secondly, I apologise for my outburst but I was very annoyed by the fact I was accused of vandalism when I was trying to improve the article by adding extra information. I am not vandalising the article I am improving it. Again, sorry for my outburst but I was extremely annoyed by this punk mugging me off. Thisismyusername V (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Page protection
Hey Tiptoety, thanks for protecting Odd Future. However, do you not think that the protection period should be longer than a week? It has been protected over five times in the last two years and its most recent protection period (of a year), just ended last month when the vandalism returned. STATic message me!   03:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

SALT
Greetings Tiptoety! I remembered you've semi-protected Requests for adminship/McAusten‎, well it's back up again, you may want to salt it again this time set it to full protection. Also, the user is blocked & locked globally so an RfA is not in the views and lastly the user Pippi the Clown may be a possible sock. Best, ///Euro Car  GT  01:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for the note! Tiptoety  talk 02:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Block
Hi Tipotety (nice nick by the way)

I have been blocked – the whole range of addresses was blocked for sockpuppetry – at 178.164.128.17 but I don't know how far the block goes (I would guess it would be #FF.#FF.#FF.00). I usually sign in but occasionally forget when I correct a spelling error etc, so 178.164.... is definitely me (Hungarian: Digi is the provider, the sock investigation is correct that far) but obviously not me as I sign in or even anonymously I tend to sign my posts as "SimonTrew editing as IP" if I am on the train or whatever and cannot sign in under my nick (which is my name in real life). We share a connection with our family next door, but they wouldn't sock either: I guess the sock is down the street or something. I don't sock. I edit and improve, little by little: but lately I have edited anonymously under the IP because I was being abused. If that solves the problem of the mysterious IP I would be happy, but I don't think it is me.

Hope that helps.

Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Monkap is my wife. We have translated and edited many many articles on the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and that kind of stuff. There is absolutely no need for me to sock but it is fair that she has her identity just as i have mine, and come from the same computer because we happen to live together as husband and wife. I give you in good faith Bachelor griller. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for the information. It would appear that I made the rangeblocks anon-only meaning that they should not affect your ability to edit from your account, please let me know if this is not the case and it is affecting your ability to edit. As far as the IP goes, yes, you may not be able to via your IP, I hope this isn't a problem? You are not blocked directly. Best, Tiptoety  talk 02:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)