User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

moontribe collective

knock knock,   who's there,  moontribe , 

moontribe who? you're not even listed on wikipedia
there is however a mono tribe -and if you have mono i'm not letting you in.

Petethefish (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I received your email, but will reply here for the purpose of transparency. The article was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia's proposed deletion process. I twas tagged for deletion by Renata3 (talk · contribs), who gave the reason: No assertion of notability. You may want to contact them if you have concerns about their reasoning.

Also, I am able to undelete the article for you as it was deleted using proposed deletion but understand that a formal deletion request may then be filed. Instead it may be a better idea to read Wikipedia's policy on inclusion and notability.

I second option would be to file a deletion review, this is where members of Wikipedia's community discuss a certain articles deletion and can make the decision to override it, or deem it correct.

Let me know if you have any further questions, Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I've taken to reading some of your logs and I don't know how you keep up. I'm following your recommendations; realizing that I'm in way over my head here, and won't be meddling in your business any time soon. However, it is clear that notability is certainly subjective. It would be easier if someone had noticed it's proposed deletion in time to weigh in on the issue. As of now, there seems to be some disagreement on whether to pursue it any further. Thanks again.Petethefish (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Tiptoety ^talk 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet

May have found another suspected sock of Pé de Chinelo. This guy here: Rolaye With Cheese. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you are right. The account has been Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 02:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And he's back at it. Look here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

THe user ExitDos, whom you gave away the rollback rights has already started misusing his powers. He deleted an image that comprehensively stated its sources. The guy has a personal grudge against my articles. I have been making concerted efforts to englihten the people by doing thorough research on various subjects. I dont want my articles to be victim of some egoistic person who misues his powers. Nefirious (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide me with a few diffs? Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hullo, This thread seems to touch on the same issues. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I am not seeing rollback even being used in there at all, they simply look like reverts. Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The answers

I like your answers to my questions and really appreciate that.--Caspian blue 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I thought your answer to my "addendum" was mega classy also. Best regards -- Samir 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

knock knock

knock knock who's there radio radio who? radio or not, here i come :-) Wifione (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

:O Tiptoety ^talk 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the Peter Griffins straight

Per User talk:Synergy#Keeping the Peter Griffins straight, I turn to you. As Petergriffin9901's mentor, it's important for me to know if there is actual evidence of him socking during his probation period. So far as I can see, these reports were merged based on name similarity alone. Was there any behavioural or checkuser information to support it?—Kww(talk) 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Question here for you, in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have answered. Tiptoety ^talk 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There's a follow-up question too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And another one here. Sorry to keep asking more (I think this will be the last one), and in particular I'm sorry to ask about this. It's just that access to CU isn't something we should take lightly, and it's better to ask outright than to sit around wondering. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

I will be taking a short break for personal reasons, and will not be able to quickly respond to questions or other matters relating to the elections. I will attempt to still log on at least once every day to check in though. Thanks for understanding, Tiptoety ^talk 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess you must not have a good answer to the latest question about your IP, User:63.105.27.175, which, it appears, you used to vandalize (among other things) your own userpage, leaving yourself an ominous sounding threat.[1]24.22.141.252 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Knock Knock

Knock Knock. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's there? Tiptoety ^talk 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've forgotten. I'll tell you if I remember. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 10:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser election

Thanks for your replies to my questions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009/CheckUser/Tiptoety. I understand your privacy concerns. I think your statements and Risker's comment will help to alleviate people's concerns. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, I hope people take the time to revisit the page to read over the comments made by Risker and myself. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety

Wow I love that picture! :) -- Luk ^talk 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it too. Tiptoety ^talk 19:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerking for Abd-WMC case?

Hi. Hersfold announced that he would be on vacation for the period August 2-11 and that other clerks should be used while he's away. Enric Naval pointed out on the evidence talk page that CU has identified User:Navy Physics Geek as a sock of banned User:Nrcprm2026. Please could his evidence be removed by another clerk? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done by MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Janaa

Hello admin Tiptoety,

You deleted my userpage. I am from the Dutch Wikipedia, but at that time User:Janaa was a nonexistent user. But now I am a existent user. So can you get my userpage back? Janaa (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Janaa (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Trunnion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User_talk:79.75.95.45 for list of possible other accounts of this blocked user.

Thanks. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For your amazing contributions fighting spam on the wiki! RP459 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI sock question

Hi. There's a combo situation at ANI, suspected copyright infringer with maybe some socking (and maybe not). I'm on the copyright side of things, but I do practically nothing with socks. If you get a chance, can you decide what if anything needs to be done about the sock side of things? It's always possible somebody else will weigh in, but I'm afraid it's quite likely to be a TLDR. :D It's here. If it's not a good time, please feel free to just tell me so (when you get back online), and I'll go poking around for somebody who has time to spare (when I get back online). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl. Actually right now is not a very good time, I will take a look if I get a second, but I am rather busy and do not see myself being online for the next couple of days. Sorry :-( Tiptoety ^talk 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will tap another friendly sock-familiar admin. :) Thanks for the quick response, and hope that things ease up for you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would like, you could pick an admin from the SPI clerks list. They are all fairly experienced with sock-related matters. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoot. Should have waited a minute. :) I asked User:Luk. If he doesn't have time, I will most definitely head there next. Of course, it's always possible that somebody will spontaneously wade in. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary case clerk need to cover Abd-WMC case

Hi there. You are listed as active at the clerks page. Would you be able to have a look here? I'm looking for one of the currently active clerks to look after the case for a few days until Hersfold is back? If one of the five clerks listed as active could volunteer, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

I'm looking for a template(s) like "List of the cast/character is too long, Please removed some inappropriate to make it shorter". It's something similar as described. I've searching for it and it seems negative... Peculator ^{T • C} 11:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete

Can you delete Talk:J Dilla/GA1? It seems to just be vandalism or something along the lines. The article had a GA template on it, but was never placed on WP:GAN it seems plus was never reviewed.--WillC 10:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MatthewCenance

Could you explain this block? I looked through the user's edit history and almost all of it seems to be messing around with the sandbox and/or other testing. Is there some larger context I'm missing? Mangojuice^talk 00:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a pretty good feeling he is a sock, based upon his deleted edits, specifically those to the IPs userpage, and VSS Monitoring, Inc (talk · contribs)'s userpage (whom was blocked no more than 24 hours ago). Tiptoety ^talk 00:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Albany, Western Australia

Hello,

You recently deleted List of people from Albany, Western Australia as an expired PROD. Unfortunately, the content from this article had been merged to another location (as stated in the prod nomination) and so the article shouldn't have been deleted. (I have restored it.)

When ever a merge is performed, a redirect has to be left behind (along with certain other steps outlined in Help:Merge) to allow for proper attribution.

As such, consider this a friendly reminder to read prod nominations (and also check the history) to be sure you aren't deleting something you shouldn't be. (Per the instructions, the deleting admin is supposed to make an independent judgment call about the article's validity.)

Thank you and have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am very well aware of all that, but thanks for the reminder. When I looked at the article, this is what I saw, which did not really indicate it had been merged to the other article. That said, thanks for fixing my mistake. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resignation?

So, did you resign as a clerk for sockpuppet investigations? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I did not resign, but am taking an indefinite break, so I am not really sure when I will be back. I could have added myself to the away list, but it is really intended for clerks who are on a period of temporary absence from clerking. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, though I would put myself in the "away" list if I was a clerk, even if I was taking an indefinite break from clerking. According to the Checkuser election statistics of August 2009, you have 67.6% support for the tool, Hersfold having 95.5%, J.delanoy having 97.7%, Bjweeks having 92.4%, and VirtualSteve having 67.3%. You and VirtualSteve are highlighted yellow, while the other three are highlighted green. Whether you'll get to be a checkuser or not, I don't know, since the results haven't been officially announced yet, and won't be announced later than August 17 according to the election page. It appears that you're taking a break in preparation to get the tools, or it is for some other reason? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not blind. I can read the results just as well as you can. As for my reasons for taking a step back, to be honest they are personal and none of your business. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, Mr. COTW

Howdy after a long message absence to those of WikiProject Oregon. To answer a common question, no you did not get removed from the COTW notification list, I was just too busy to send out the notification for the last change. So, thank you to all those who helped improve Central Oregon and Mount Jefferson, as well as those who added infoboxes and adopted a governor. For this edition of the COTW, we have partly by request and in honor of the return of college football, Duck football and Beaver football. If you are a fan of neither, maybe go back and work on a governor or add infoboxes this time around. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of Power

Sir, this user User:Exit2DOS2000 who has been given the rollback rights has been misusing his powers. He keeps deleting a picture that cites all the sources to prove its authenticity. Here is the article Malik Ambar.

My reply can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

per TP header ...

• Knock - Knock — Ched :  ?  09:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Who's there? Tiptoety ^talk 16:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Emma — Ched :  ?  18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Emma who? Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Emma no givea da crapola no moea." Sorry for the lousy accent. More to the point, sorry you've had a couple crappy weeks buddy. Don't pay it no nevermind. You're one of the best we have here - and there's plenty of folks that'll back me up on that! Hope things get better quickly for ya. Cheers. ;-) — Ched :  ?  23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• /me chuckles. Thanks for noticing Ched. All that said, I will probably be limiting my time here significantly. Tiptoety ^talk 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• understood. And thanks to you for all the help you've given me here. Best of luck in all you do, and I look forward to seeing you here and there when time and inclination permits. — Ched :  ?  23:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Tiptoety! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 18, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 18, 2009}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 00:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Goramon

Well, that was fast. I wasn't even done formatting it before you blocked. Impressive efficiency. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All I needed was a link to the article in question, and well the rest is history. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Undo

I'd be inclined to use the undo feature moreso if there was some form of giving the user more room to type in the edit summary. I find that even with the preferences feature to add 50 characters, undoing edits by IP addresses which can take up to 134 characters of the edit summary (and users with fairly long usernames make hat worse) hinders the purpose of allowing the edit summary to not be automated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to leave the automatic undo summary. You can remove that and write your own: "Undid edit by User:X because...". Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Though this may be a bit off-topic of a post, at Arbitration Enforcement, you stated that if you weren't "somewhat involved", that you would block both of us yourself. I asked you why you would block Ryulong, but you did not respond. My guess is that you would block me for violating the probation, though no response for that is needed. I am still awaiting an answer about your wish that Ryulong was blocked. Could you please respond? You can either respond here, or at the Arbitration Enforcement request—your choice. Thanks! Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of his continued misuse of the rollback tool. Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I have no argument against. I'm glad that Viridae took it away, exactly for that reason. If Ryulong can not use rollback appropriately after alternatives have been repeatedly pointed to him, then I think there's no other choice but to topic ban him from rollback—not being allowed to request the rollback permission, have rollback, or use rollback. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, with such a blatant misuse like this, I am sure that if I took it to WP:ANI, that he would lose the rollback tool without any single warning, regard to the history, or who's filing the complaint. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I would have left the AfD on Janet Allison run the full time, to get a wider exchange of views and decrease the likelihood of a deletion review. The result may be the same, but there is a case to be made that the subject has a claim to significant international attention and relevance to national policy. . People who would defend the article need a chance to get there. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know what you would have done, DGG; and suggests that the best thing for the project was for Ty to handle it. That article did not need to exist in its current form for any amount of time. It was a blatant policy violation. Extreme inclusionist views or not, there was no justifiable reason to leave that shameful mess in public reach. Lara 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lara, I am not an extreme inclusionist (although I do have some wikifriends who might be so described), and this has nothing to do with inclusionism in general. We are talking about BLP. The discussion was closed under BLP, not the general rules about notability, which were met perfectly well under the GNG. You said there it did not meet WP:BLP, and I invite you to specify exactly why. There were excellent sources; there was international coverage over a period of time; that was matter of permanent interest beyond the immediate news value; there was no harm to any individual. There was a series of continuing events over a period. With which of these do you disagree? What exactly was shameful? What was unfit for public reading? If it's too shameful to even explain here, you can email me. the criterion for BLP violation is not "it's obvious to me" which is exactly = in value to "I don't like it". Can you to discuss the issue in specific terms? DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a clear 100% violation of BLP1E. It was written like a Wikinews article, it gave nothing but the basic details of the matter, and "there was no harm to any individual" is highly debatable. The potential for harm was surely there, as I noted in the AFD. The simple fact of the matter is that it was a poorly written BLP that was in complete violation of policy. Lara 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that merely asserting something doesn't make it true, right? DGG challenged you to explain why it is a BLP violation and your response was "it is 100% clear that it is one." Clearly that statement is false, as if it was 100% clear DGG would not be asking you why you think it is one. So can you actually explain your position or not? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(place-holder post). I tend to agree with DGG on 99% of the AfD discussions, but agree with the decision to delete on this. My rationale would have been "snow", "common sense", "harm", unable to be NPOV, and the BLP1E arguments. I am reluctant to discuss some of my reasoning on-wiki here due to my personal circumstances and the fact that I edit under my real name. I would like to see further discussion on this however. — Ched :  ?  05:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are mischaracterizing DGG's position. He was not arguing that the article should have been closed as keep. He was arguign that the article should not have been speedy deleted, because those who might argue in favor of keep deserved the full seven days to express their opinion. Those of us wikipedia contributors who are not administrators deserve to see the wikipedia's administrators exercise their authority in an open and transparent manner. It seems from this thread that this article was not slanderous, so I am concerned to see the emergency authorization in the BLP policy intended to remove slander used to speedy close this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. I was not attempting to "characterize" DGG's position on anything here. I prefer others to speak for themselves, and I don't try to make assumptions on their thoughts. I merely stated that I often agree with him in regards to AfD discussions. I then explained my point of view. I found the article in question to be detrimental to the person in question, the "legal" ruling is/was controversial, and I don't see any value in keeping the article. As a top-10 website, I believe we have certain unwritten obligations to act in a responsible manner, and I believe that the deletion of the article did just that. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I should not have to explain BLP1E to seasoned editors who participate in AFD on a regular basis. When a BLP is about a person who is notable for precisely one thing, how am I to explain how that's a BLP violation? It just is. I can bust out some construction paper and crayons and try to draw it out, but there's not really any way to explain how is violated BLP1E past noting, again, as is 100% clear for anyone who read the article, that it was a single event claim to notability. It was also negative in nature. For example (since my comments in the AFD itself are apparently irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, I'll go with something new), the "known for" field of the infobox said "Controversially convicted sex offender". Beautiful. This isn't the sex offender's database. It was not a biography either, it was news report on her case. If people want to read about her case, there are news hits in Google for it. If someone wants to read a biography about her, they'll be shit out of luck because one doesn't exist, and one did not exist before Ty deleted this article. Lara 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that BLP1E doesn't apply to every article about a person famous for one thing, right? Most notable people are, in fact, famous for only one thing. Thus, it is not unreasonable to ask that you explain why you think it should apply to a given case. (Although, I do agree this article as written was a strong candidate for the clause that isn't the point.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DRV may be a more appropriate venue at this point. Tiptoety ^talk 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Toiréasa Ferris

At last, thank you for PP on this article the vandalism and personal attacks against myself have been ongoing for quiet a while now and it is good that the article is now protected for a while. BigDunc 08:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Someting about the block of user:Ragusino

Good morning, I would know something more about the block of user Ragusino. I have followed some articles on en.Wikipedia because we have had different vandalism in it.wikipedia (I am sysop of it.wikipedia). Ragusino seemed to have a different vision to that of Direktor but not so bad considering some concerns.

The position of Ragusino seemed to be correct and I have asked some justifications in the talk page of Talk:House_of_Kabužić/Caboga because the concerns of Ragusino are also my concerns considering that in the header of page we can read the coat of army of the house (taken from a croatian book) and the name is Caboga and any historical book reports the name of Caboga (which is not the italian name but the dalmatian name and dalmatian was the official language of Republic of Ragusa until XVIII century).

Reading at the block of Ragusino I don't understand the justification for his block because the check user has not displayed any "clear" proof for his sockpuppeteer. It seemed to me that a war edit has been in favor of one part instead of investigate in detail the problem.

In my opinion the difference of vision should be solved in another way considering that the other part is strongly oriented in a vision not shared by a big part of the historical literature.

What I understand is that Ragusino=Cristian.Bilicic but it's only a suspect.

I would suggest a more detailed investigation not only by check user side but also a more "neutral" resolution of conflict.

Thank you

--Ilario (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at. My block was based upon the users misuses of multiple accounts, which was confirmed via a CheckUser. Tiptoety ^talk 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (5). Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety, check your email please.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

When should articles be speedy deleted under BLP?

The Janet Allison article has been speedy deleted as a violation of BLP.

I agree with the article creator that BLP1E is one the most problematic clauses in the wikipedia policies. I have no problem authorizing administrators to take extreme action to remove slanderous material. Truly slanderous material is a genuine emergency. That part of the BLP policy is solid.

But I question whether the emergency authorization to delete on sight should apply to concerns over "one event" biographies. "One event" biographies are not emergencies. If they are neutrally written, they don't damage anyone. I see no value in allowing them to be deleted on sight.

Unfortunately, I find, there are some wikipedia contributors who represent themselves as concerned over the subject of articles they represent as BLP1e, whose later comments reveal their initial position was an insincere one, and that they had no concern the subject of the article, and were merely using the BLP1e clause to suppress discussion of a topic they didn't care for -- classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

IMO the "one event" clauses should be removed from the BLP, and placed in some policy or guideline that does not authorize deletion on sight, without prior warning or discussion. I wrote a couple of essays in response to another administrator exceeding reasonable interpretations of what BLP authorized: "False Geber" and what a biography should contain and The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked....

Several years ago one wag claimed that the Tony Blair article should be deleted, as a BLPe1 violation, and redirected to the George W. Bush article -- because no one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported the Bush war policy. This joke illustrates a serious weakness to the BLP1e interpretations. What is a "one event"? It is not defined and is interpreted in wildly divergent ways depending on the political agenda of the interpreter.

I know nothing of the Allison case, beyond what is written in the {{afd}}. But it seems to me that she is, at minimum, a 2 event person. (1) Listed as a sexual offender; (2) then profiled in the Economist.

I suggest that, unless you truly think emergency deletion was justified because the article was irredeemably slanderous, the {{afd}} discussion should run its full course.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have no problem authorizing administrators to take extreme action to remove slanderous material." You have no problem authorizing administrators' actions? Fascinating wording you use there. Dismissing arguments as IDONTLIKEIT is becoming all too common. And the idea of moving 1E into a guide is a monumentally bad idea. This article is a good example of why. Your claim that she's notable for two events makes no sense whatsoever. When 2 is because of 1, 2 is not a separate claim to notability. It's still all about 1. The close was good. No one should have a one-event article masking as a biography wherein they're noted as being known as a "controversially convicted sex offender". Do people not have better things to do than fight for such garbage to stay on the project? Lara 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233

I know that sometimes you block him directly without a report, so I'm just pointing this out so that the wires don't get crossed.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Tiptoety! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTW/UBX|<first day of this weekly cycle>|<last day of this weekly cycle>}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsettling parallels

I'm not sure what to make of the parallels between Julian3676's final struggle and my parolee's unblock request. I'm inclined to believe that Julian3676 simply noticed that the request was successful and decided to copy it word for word (including my parole offer to Petergriffin9901, also copied verbatim), but it's probably worth having another set of eyes look at it.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a CheckUser take a look before I protected disabled talk page editing, and came to find he had been doing the same thing on many other talk pages (posting the same unblock request). Because of this, I thought it was appropriate to put an end to the silliness. Tiptoety ^talk 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about motion?

Please see Carcharoth's message on my talk page. I had assumed, as I think everyone had, that the restrictions would be narrowed for me WRT Remedy 9.3, as for the other parties, without a widening of my restrictions. This is the gist of NYB's comments. Can you let me know: I'm very confused. Tony (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony. This was my mistake, I apologize for any confusion it may have caused you. That said, I think I correct it. Also, please see this thread. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly unfair block and admins taking sides

Hi Tiptoety,

I see you are very active on the incident boards and there was recently an incident here [3] which I reported with all the evidence needed and I also explained the situation to you, yet a senior admin took sides against me and even blocked me when there was clear evidence against the other user and I had done nothing wrong, In fact a number of 'Indian' editors shad been canvassing against me, including with that administrator that blocked me, such as here [4] and this can be easily verified. I would appreciate it if you could help or advise me on this matter. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

You may wish to see this. CU is required to prevent this user from damaging the encyclopedia.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I failed my request for CheckUser access. If there is something for me to do simply as an administrator, let me know. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Roll back for User:Acad ronin

Thanks. It is nice to be a "trusted user". I will try to keep in mind that I should only use the button for clear cases of vandalism. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. I did not grant you rollback rights but autoreviewer rights. Please read Wikipedia:Autoreviewer for more information. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Careless reading. Not a problem. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Knock Knock

Knock Knock. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's there? Tiptoety ^talk 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Me. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Process question re arbitration remedies

Pure curiosity only, so apologies in advance if I end up being one of a stream of people knocking at your door today, but I'm genuinely wondering. I noticed that the remedies in the date delinking case were updated based on the revisions that were passed recently. I'm just wondering if there's a usual way that the case page is updated for something like this? It appears that you overwrote the new remedies on top of the old ones, with the original date and vote totals remaining in place — as a result, without checking the history, it looks as though that were the original remedy. In a different remedy revised earlier, the new remedy was entered with the current date and vote total, and the original remedy was placed into a collapse box. It's probably as simple as different clerks, different approaches, but I guess I was a little surprised there's no defined process for something like this. Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mlaffs. Good question by the way, I did sit for a few minutes before enacting and closing to motion trying to decide how I was going to go about doing it. Like you said, there is really not "defined process" that clerks must follow when archiving a motion, as each motion is so very different. That said, there is a kind of SOP, or unwritten process which guides us when closing motions. Because of this, each clerk has there own slight variation on how they do things.

In this specific case, I decided not to place the old remedies in collapse boxes because of how the motion was written (note the section I placed in bold below):

All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".

While on the other hand, the John amendment (the one what was placed in collapse boxes) was written like this:

The ruling restricting User:John, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#John_restricted, is vacated and replaced with "John (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates."

Note the differences in the wording here, and I think you will understand why I went about it the way I did. That said, it may be a good idea to add something like "Amended by a X to X motion on ~~~~~" below each amended remedy, just for clarity's sake. Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Perfectly logical explanation when you put it that way. I'd agree though — for the sake of transparency, adding an explanatory note like that would be a great idea. Thanks again, Mlaffs (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety. I hope you don't mind, but I've fixed a few minor things that I think you missed out here or didn't need to do (see here and here). Like Mlaffs, I noticed that your wording replacements, rather than posting the new wordings alongside or below the old ones, make it look like the original votes and timestamps apply to the new wording - you said above you were considering changing that to make it clearer. Maybe you could ask Brad (who wrote the amendment) what he thinks would be the best way to handle that? The other thing I noticed is that the wording of the motion (which is on the talk page) should possibly be on the case page somewhere as well? I'm not sure about that, but some recent arbitration enforcement postings were focusing on the third point of the motion (about civility and efficiency). The final point, which I didn't just dive in and fix, was this remedy, which was left unchanged. Was that a clerical error or an intentional interpretation of the motion? I've left Tony a note about this last point, and directed him here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth. I have no issues with your fixes, and appreciate you doing them. As for the issue of the timestamps, I am open to fixing it how ever the committee would like me to. I will send NYB an email about it. In regards to Tony, that was simply a mistake on my part, one I have fixed. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm travelling this weekend with limited wiki-time, but will take a look at this tomorrow night or Monday when I'm home. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tiptoety. I have explained a bit further to Tony here, but I'll step back and let you and Brad sort this out now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety, did Brad ever get back to you about this? Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autoreviewer

Thank you for the honor. - Xufanc (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mwalla is back on 3 socks in as many days

Hi sorry to trouble you. It appears Mwalla is back yet again. User:Neurofish, User:Abcdohrayme and User talk:Punctuallylate are sockpuppeteering and edit warring on paroxetine article again. I guess one of his ip blocks must have expired, some of them were only blocked for 3 or was it 6 months initially. I am hoping that you can do a sockpuppet check.

Editors on talk page alledge that he is misrepresenting sources. Edit warring using socks,[5], [6], [7]. A brand new editor but yet knows about "NPOV", sounds like an experienced editor.[8] Mass deletes lots of referenced text with first edit from that account to the article.[9] If you scroll through the contribs you will see same type of behaviour typing to multiple editors trying to recruit people to join his team.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you filed an SPI? Tiptoety is not a checkuser. –xeno^talk 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Literaturegeek placed a template on my talk page without making any attempt to contact me directly. I view this as an insult and an abuse of her account. I removed the template. Do not put it back. Neurofish (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

Yes Xeno, I have filed an SPI here, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am currently on a wiki-break, so I can't be of much help. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Very Prestigious Award

		The "'Random idiot user who Spongefrog doesn't hate for some reason' of the 2½-day period" Award
		Congratulations! For your friendliness, usefulness, contributions, existence, not being an idiot, as an apology for my bad knock-knock joke, and to make your talk page a little more interesting, I award you with this, soon to be prestigious, award: The "RIUWSDHFSROT2½DP" Award, for August 31½, 2009. Feel honored! Or else! Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll be glad to know, I've been stalking this page for days! This is not a randomly selected award, like so many other award systems, so you'll be glad to hear it's worth 6⅝ barnstars!

P.S. This is not vandalism, however much it may resemble it. But feel free to remove it if you hold this sort of thing with contempt, Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Print

Just one bit of small print... This is nothing like "WOT..." award system, it is completely different from WOTD, it is in no way affiliated with WOTD, we have not even heard of WOTD. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is there a digwuren noticeboard or something similar? I have a case...Faustian (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Insert profound knowledge and wisdom here with wacky side effects

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon. First, thank you to all those who helped improve the Ducks and Beavers football teams. Second, now on with the countdown. For this edition of the COTW, we have by request Portland Hempstalk Festival and Munson Valley Historic District. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

More of User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

May I suggest that in this case
you did not go far enough.
(I just got married <so> BTW I like your glasses.)
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Above editor now blocked for 24 hours for harassment, if you haven't seen this on ANI or WQA. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection of your talk page

When your user page is under semi-protection, new users and unregistered users cannot contact you about your use of systop tools. This is a problem [10]. To avoid this, you can add a link at the top of your talk page to an unprotected userspace page where unconfirmed and anonymous editors can reach you. Thanks, causa sui× 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye summer, hello Dolly!

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, it is time for another Collaboration of the Week. First, thanks to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Portland Hempstalk Festival and the Munson Valley Historic District articles. This week we have by request Rasheed Wallace and the Oregon Zoo. The later should have lots of recent news with the new/old exhibit opening. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dolly? I've been listening to that all day. I blame it on Wall-E. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fetullah Gülen - Again

Can you have a look at User:Icaz who recently reset the Gulen to the Philscirel version and has only made edits stating that admins make the Gulen unstable on Admin noticeboard Special:Contributions/Icaz. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, BlackKite has already blocked Icaz as sockpuppet of Philscirel. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking for subpages

Just a note, when you deleted User talk:Dewlaylomo last May, you missed a subpage User talk:Dewlaylomo/ban; don't forget to check. Cheers.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey ...

I see ya out there lurkin ... get back to work! ;-) — Ched :  ?  03:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merry Columbus Day 2 all and 2 all a goodnite, beware of large windstorms bearing gifts

Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, time to uncork a fine wine as it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Oregon Zoo, the Rasheed Wallace, Willamette Bridges, and the Vanport articles. This week we have by request Jim Paxson and Films shot in Oregon. The later can easily be improved just by adding some sources. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And with Halloween fast approaching, remember that pennies really suck as a “treat” and you can expect toilet paper and or eggs on your residence for your “trick”. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please comment

I noticed that you created Template:CheckedSockpuppet-nb earlier this year. We are discussing the abundance of sockpuppet tags at WT:SPI. Please comment.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro family

I'd appreciate another set of eyes on this page. User:Jky52 has been repeatedly been deleting sourced, but negative info about the Barbaro family. [11] [12] [13] while incorrectly dismissing a nonfiction source, claiming it's novel. [14] I added 5 new additional English and Italian sources. Jky52 blanked them again. [15] Edward321 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Old sock, new socks

Hi. I noticed you were involved in closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Montreux69/Archive, and the same socks there seem to have cropped up again in new places. Rightly or wrongly, the place with the most information now seems to be an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strutt_Family_Trust. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if anything seems familiar to you. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.