Misplaced Pages

Checkuser request updated

I've added a supplementary request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sinbad barron - could you please move it back into the active column? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbour protection

Hi Tiptoety,

since your unprotection one week ago, Attack_on_Pearl_Harbour has been subjected to 9 IP-user vandalism attacks. Any chance of re-protection? Jaimaster (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Tiptoety 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil language in edit summaries

User:Russavia is back after a block with comments like this: . It's comments like this that makes editors leave articles, which is probably also the meaning with them.Närking (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's totally ok to call people nutters apparently. Refer to Moreschi for comments on this. And yes, the comments are pure nuttery. And yes, it is OR. --Russavia 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

While I can think of a few words that could have been better used, I see nothing block worthy or really even worth a warning. I will note that a whole lot of small issues such as thing can lead to one big issue and I urge Russivia to take it slow and be careful to make sure he/she stays withing the boundaries of WP:CIVIL. Tiptoety 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be normal conversation language for Russavia but I doubt it is for most other editors. Närking (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

checkuser list

Unfortunately, it's a closed list: You can't send to it if you're not on it. I wish I could figure out how to configure IRC. Tried a couple of times, but failed each time. Thanks for your help though.Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. I guess I have seen it used before because I work with CheckUsers and assumed it was an open email. And anyways, I am currently on IRC and there are no active CheckUsers. Cheers, Tiptoety 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Booker Huffman and other articles

Hi, Tip, I've come across a number of articles of late when you've removed anon-only protection, but the IP vandalism has continued and I've had to reimpose it. Could I suggest that you watchlist the articles yourself so that you can decide whether unprotection was a good idea? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Sinbad barron

Because you are checkuser in this case I am interested to hear if his IP is from Belgrade, Serbia. If answer is yes there it will be OK to give data to checkuser Thatcher for new check. If answer is no then Balkan articles are having new puppeteer.....--Rjecina (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not a CheckUser, but instead a CheckUser clerk meaning I do a lot with RFCU's but am not able to run checks. You might try leaving a note with the CheckUser who processed the case. Tiptoety 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mooretwin

I'm afraid this new user is continuing aggressive POV editing, at Flag of Ireland and Irish nationality law. Is there anything that can be done? -- Evertype·✆ 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I left them a warning, if they persist I will block. Thanks, Tiptoety 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A confirmed sockpuppet

I have a policy question. If someone was confirmed by checkuser as a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user, can he continue editing? For example, User:Guyver85 is a confirmed sock of banned Top_Gun (talk · contribs), as follows from this report . As you can see, he simply stated: "no, I am not him" and continue editing. This is obviously him, as follows from the same problems, like copyright violations . Should he be blocked per existing rules? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd... I am not sure why he has not blocked fallowing that request for CheckUser. Per policy a sockpuppet of a indef blocked user is blocked themselves, but remember we do have such policies as ignore all rules and sometimes give users a second chance. In this case though, I think he should have been blocked...but seeing as the case was closed a while ago you might want to check with the CheckUser who performed the check to see if in fact they want the account to remain unblocked. If they don't and it was simply a mistake, I would be happy to perform the block myself. Cheers, Tiptoety 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullying threats

As you know, Piotrus and I are on 1RR. Would you mind looking in here regarding harrassing fact/page tagging and bullying threats by Piotrus? Thanks. Boodlesthecat 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do. At Żydokomuna, I have reverted Boody's once and I ceased, per 1RR. But he has been revert warring there, before and after my edit (he was at 3 reverts there yesterday), with incivil edit summaries - and in addition to edit warring, he claims that me and Tymek are spreading anti-semitic propaganda ("This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews"...as a justification of your own attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels"" and so on), now complaining here about bullying threads... Is his behavior acceptable in light of our 1RR restriction and our other editorial policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

Thank you! I'll be more visible after Yom Kippur and Succos have passed -- Avi (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday! Cheers, Tiptoety 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A 3RR case

Hello Tiptoety. A case has been filed at AN3 involving User:PrinceOfCanada and User:G2bambino. Since you were involved in setting up a 1RR deal for these editors you might be the best person to look at it. I see the last block was for one week and if diplomacy isn't working then a longer block may be in prospect. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention EdJohnston, this is a rather in depth conflict that requires a solution outside of conventionally blocking, but I am afraid blocking is currently the only option. I will take a look at the 3RR report. Cheers, Tiptoety 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety- I've just caught up on your recent actions. Firstly, rest assured I won't revert the template at this point; I think we're both aware that there's no vagueness to the stipulation: You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions by PriceofCanda (and vice-versa for him). Though there has been a lot of (sometimes regretful) commentary on talk pages, this 1RR bit has actually been a help. Now, you've peaked my interest by mentioning the "in depth" conflict, and the solution it requires; this is because, while I'm happier with the tighter restrictions placed uniquely on this case, I don't imagine them to be a permanent fixture, and have had a willing, but undirected, eye on the future. If there is a way to a more enduring resolution to this matter, I offer my ability and cooperation. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

G2B, I've been somewhat involved with this as well, discussing with PoC through IRC on the various issues you two have had. He's been quite frustrated at times, as I'm sure you have been with him, over the difficulty you two have on agreeing on just about anything. I know you two have both attempted several steps in dispute resolution before; third opinions, I think PoC mentioned a MedCab case that failed once. I'd encourage you to go up the ladder a bit and open a joint RfC on this issue, as well as both of your conducts in these conflicts. This will invite other, uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation, and give you both some feedback and suggestions on what to do. I would highly encourage you both be open to this, and take any feedback given to you to heart. What advice you receive will likely be useful in other fields as well, where you're not both involved but are working in other areas. Even if this doesn't prove to be the most successful course of action (although hopefully it will be), it will act as a stepping stone to some of the more binding levels of dispute resolution, such as the Mediation Committee, and as the absolute last resort, ArbCom. I'm hoping both of you are open to this course of action, as allowing this dispute to continue will not help matters. PoC is, from what I've seen, a fine contributor, and his block today, while in my opinion appropriate, was unfortunate. Should this dispute continue, it is very possible that both of you will end up blocked at some point, probably indefinitely. I personally would hate to see that happen. If the two of you can work out some sort of agreement, even if it's to leave each other the hell alone (I've made such arrangements myself and they're working out quite well), then we can avoid the possibility of losing some good editors and get back to constructively working on the project. How does this sound to both of you? PoC, I know you can't reply here at the moment, but if you'd leave a note on your talk page, that would be great. Thank you. Hersfold 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent words of advice by Hersfold, and G2B I really hope you take them to heart (as well as PoC). I feel that at this point in time the two most important things for you to do is stay away from one another and open a RfC. Tiptoety 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those certainly are good guiding words, and the steps to take in content dispute resolution are clear (and also tried; not just the MedCab (which was actually mostly successful), but also an RfC and a 3O). However, when I read your words, Tiptoety, I interpreted "in depth conflict" as that which seems to be going on above, yet also throughout, the various content disputes; namely, that which arises pretty much any time PoC and I end up anywhere near each other for more than a couple of edits. I know it's generally recommended that we keep things impersonal here, but I sense that, because the various flare ups happen around multiple and completely different content issues, the overreaching issues here are, in fact, personal. Ignoring each other would be a beautifully simple solution, if it weren't for the fact that we seem to haunt all the same articles; ironically, because we share similar interests. I could open an RfCU on PoC, but, somehow, I'd rather not; they always seem to end up as ineffective character assassinations. However, if it would ultimately be beneficial, I'd be behind such a move. It doesn't presently seem that PoC is terribly open to any kind of RfC, but is there such a thing as a joint RfCU; I mean, as in two users mutually requesting comments on themselves? Just a thought. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PS - I'll put your talkpage on my watch list, Tiptoety; but, if you'd like conversation to not take place on your talk, I'm happy to host it at mine. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)