User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Unblock request[edit]

On Wikimedia my user ID is blocked may I know the reason??? IP address is, and the block ID is #31915. Humaliwalay (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm one of the unfortunate plagued by a service provider that uses shared IP addresses. My IP address is being blocked for a whole year. And I'm unable to upload anything although I'm signed in. My current IP address is and the block ID is #31915. Please unblock my user name as soon as possible! Best regards, Orionist (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything under that block ID. What does the block message say (ie: the reason it gives for your block)? Tiptoety talk 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason was "Open proxy or zombie". I don't know how to search for block ID, but when I searched for my IP address through the link you provided I got this:
"• 08:53, 10 January 2010, Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked (talk) (expires on 10 January 2011 at 08:53, account creation blocked) (Open proxy or zombie (more info))"
Now the weird thing is that 3 days ago I could circumvent the block by right-clicking on the edit link and opening in a new tap. Maybe this is a bug in the website's software or maybe the bug was that I got blocked while logged in, which maybe true because I made an edit today and was not blocked! So for the time being I'm not blocked, but I don't know if I'll still be tomorrow. So I hope you can look into it and see what's wrong. And many thanks in advance! Best regards, Orionist (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The IP does appear to still be some kind of proxy, as such I recommend finding another IP to edit from. Is this a shared IP address (internet cafe, etc) or is this what you use from your home? Tiptoety talk 17:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunately a shared IP address and it has something to do with my ISP's incompetence. Maybe they save money by using fewer addresses? I don't know. My point is despite the IP being blocked I should be able to edit as long as I'm logged in, right? That's why I thought this could be a bug. However, I've been able to edit ever since I contacted you the first time. So please don't let this thing waste more of your time. And I'll contact you if this problem happens again. Thanks a lot and best regards, Orionist (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this same issue comes to haunt me every now and then (it just did!). It usually goes away after I wait for five minutes or after several refreshes or opening in a new tab. I can live with it, but it certainly looks like a bug in MediaWiki. -- Orionisttalk 01:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews[edit]

Hi Tiptoety,

You may be interested in participating in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Promotional usernames[edit]

I know Wikipedia does not allow promotional usernames. But what's the policy of commons?

I found such users as User:Training AirMedia Learning --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently, there is no "set in stone" policy regarding usernames. That said, it is currently being worked on at Commons:Username policy. Until there is consensus to promote that to a guideline or policy, administrators just use common sense. You will see I already blocked the account you listed above as both its username and uploads were promotional in nature. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How about User:CanterburyPhoto. One of the few reasons I love working at English Wikipedia, where the policies are clear. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, for starters that was already discussed on the admins board where it was decided no action needed to be taken so I am not going to override the decision of my fellow admins. That said, the fundamental difference appears to be the users intentions. Unlike Training AirMedia Learning (talk · contribs) who is clearly here to spam the project, CanterburyPhoto (talk · contribs) appears to be more of a role account. Understand that role accounts are allowed on commons (granted, they must first be approved by OTRS). The reason for this, is that they can then upload files from a copyrighted source without having to submit a permission statement to OTRS every time they upload a new file. Does that make sense? Tiptoety talk 06:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so it works differently from Wikipedia in which role accounts are discouraged. I'm gonna keep an eye on them if they ever decide to come to Wikipedia also. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia and Commons are two very different project with two separate aims. Also, I never said role accounts were encouraged here, just accepted. The same thing can be said on, where there are a number of approved role accounts. Tiptoety talk 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

hiding revision on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems[edit]

Hi, I think you hid the wrong revision or not all revisions necessary. I assume you want the link to be deleted? Then all revisions between 1:36 and 9:06 of May 25 need to be hidden. Or am I missing something? Cheers, --NEURO  21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there were a number of revisions between the addition of the pastebin link and the removal. As such, I only suppressed those two specific diffs (as those are the ones that would be most commonly viewed). I am not sure it would be appropriate to suppress all the revisions in between. Tiptoety talk 21:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Commons policy on such things, but it seems a bit pointless to hide only those two revisions. Of course there are quite a lot revisions in between, but it's "just" a page in the Commons namespace and thus the individual contributions can still be assigned to the users who made them. --NEURO  13:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The email on pastebin was removed in the meantime, so no need to hide the other revisions. Or is pastebin archived or mirrored or anything like that? --Martin H. (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


I assigned the permission just the moment you declined the request. I wanted to do this on base of AGF, but however I can really understand your decission, so I undid my action. abf «Cabale!» 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Tiptoety talk 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New Admin[edit]

Thanks for your support.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr[edit]

I have requested oversight of these images as copyvios and apparent images of an identifiable minor. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for rights[edit]

I've made a request for rights, and I was wondering if you could take a look (as you were the most recent admin there). Jujutacular T · C 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disregard, the request has been responded to. Jujutacular T · C 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Timoc.jpg file[edit]

I am approaching you as a consequence of the Commons:Undeletion requests recommendation to try to reach an understanding with the administrator who has deleted the file.

None of the sources indicated is copyrighted. The file was initially deleted as a derivative work of a copyrighted work. However, nobody has indicated what copyrighted source was the source of this derivative work. I am willing to provide additional information, but deleting a file on the basis of inaccurate statements is totally incorrect.

I would appreciate your response on what is wrong and spefically which is the copyrighted source used which justifies this decision.Afil (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the file was not because of its copyright status, but because of the reason I gave in my closing rational at the deletion request which you yourself filed.
I did so on the basis that there was already consensus to support deletion, and you reuploaded anyways. The proper course of action would be to file an undeletion request (without uploading the file again). But please understand that just because consensus does not agree with you does not make it wrong.
Lastly, on the issue of copyright. Just because it does not clearly state it is copyrighted, does not necessarily make it so.
Yours, Tiptoety talk 00:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a question[edit]

Also, I heard you get blocked for evading blocks. Do you get blocked when evading the block when in a hotel in Las Vegas? 21:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not be dense. Yes, of course you do. Are you stating you are evading a block? Tiptoety talk 21:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Railway line 192 (Czech Republic)[edit]

Hallo. Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Category:Railway line 192 (Czech Republic). --ŠJů (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for caring. Geagea (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

my recent rights addition[edit]

I have left a message on User:Docu's page. You have always played fair with me, do you think I am somehow out of line?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not look into the merits of Docu's concerns. I was merely passing by and suggesting the issue be take to a broader venue. If you like, when I find some time I can look into it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

You blocked me, and I can't really find a reason why. You claim "vandalism" and yet I see no reverts for "Vandalism" in my contributions. Explain yourself.

You are no longer blocked, so it really does not matter. The reason you were blocked though was because you made some vandalism edits to a users userpage. The only reason you cannot find them in your contributions is because they were filtered out by the abuse filter. Tiptoety talk 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claims are completely suspect, champ. I don't believe that any vandalism took place.

Take a look for yourself...champ. Tiptoety talk 04:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Per email[edit]

'nother one I think. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. That is him. Tiptoety talk 03:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


I think you have deleted this file by mistake. It wasn't included in the mass DR, and it was long time in use in several language versions of the WP, including featured article w:ru:Хентай in ru-wiki. Trycatch (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is actually listed at the DR, under the section "Some more:". Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting, it was added today by Rlevse. In any case, it was heavily in use, and it was added to the DR only towards the end of discussion and without any announce to other users. Trycatch (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"In use" is not enough to allow for an out of scope and problematic image. It was also only "in use" in 5 articles, which is not heavy when the same user repeatedly added the same image, i.e. his own image. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong, any file in use in the main space is automatically in scope of Commons, see COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project. I don't want to research other projects usage, but in ru-wiki the file was added by the main author of the featured article: [1]. Trycatch (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2 more[edit]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_User:Midnight68 ... I found and deleted 2 more. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture verification[edit]

Hi there. Would highly appreciate it if you could find time to please verify and follow up this picture on wikimedia-commons. I received the email permission from the owner of the picture with his statement of permission and the license, and forwarded it to today, August 12 2010. Thank you. Best regards. Amsaim (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cicavica = Stanovc socking[edit]

Hi, it's been brought to my attention over at en-wiki that Cicavica (talk · contribs) is an apparent sock of recently indef-blocked Stanovc (talk · contribs) (remember the copyvio case from a week or two ago). Could you take care of him? Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence makes it obvious, but from a technical standpoint it is Likely. Regardless, I blocked the account and deleted their uploads. Nothing else found on the IP. Tiptoety talk 05:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Also blocked on en-wiki. Fut.Perf. 13:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Now at Bletaja (talk · contribs). Developing quickly into a serial nuisance. Fut.Perf. 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Same thing, Likely. I blocked and deleted. If this keeps up I will look into some range blocks. Also, we may want to start a request for CheckUser case page for the purpose of documentation. Tiptoety talk 03:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection notice[edit]

I've semi-protected your talk page for a month due to the persistent vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


I think they are using dial up IPs so a month's block is likely to be pointless. --Herby talk thyme 07:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but, I have often found that he uses the same IP for a few weeks before moving onto another. The likelihood of that IP being used by someone other than him is pretty low. That said, feel free to make changes as you feel appropriate. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Maybe can you please have a look here? Thanks, --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiptoety talk 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, maybe something here as well. User:Everyyearisciaras is likely stale for CU however since you're an enwiki CU you might want to evaluate that thread. Thanks, --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Tiptoety talk 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

block of User:Thehelpinghand[edit]

As a non-admin over here I can't see deleted contribs, but I thought he had pretty much gone away already. The only reason I'm bringing it up is in case he asks to be unblocked at en.WP, as he was told that he should try contributing to other projects if he ever wanted to get unblocked. "Go away" is not going to be a very helpful explanation of what got him blocked over here, if you could clarify that it would be great. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He came into the commons IRC channel, threatened to continue to vandalize, harassed a number of users, and engaged in just all around disruptive behavior. You are right though, I could make the block entry more "informative" if you like...though, Thehelpinghand is well aware what it is about. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's all I needed, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! Tiptoety talk 07:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


FYI: Wantstime2 (talk · contribs)

Talk to User:Mattbuck Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's Grawp. Tiptoety talk 03:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Grawp? Too smart for him, surely? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Fyi even more unwelcome nonsense: Happyanger (talk · contribs) Chould very well be oversighted too imo Hekerui (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible case of vandalism[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to inform you of a possible vandalism in the next files (in the summary section):

I wanted to remove it by myself, but I found no problematic revision in history of file, which is a sort of enigma for me. Regards, --Archangel (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See comment above. Should be dealt with now. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Tiptoey. I am here to ask you to please unblock Midnight68 (talk · contribs). As far as I can tell, the evidence against this user has always been tenuous at best, and an indefinite block seems wholly unwarranted. Since his/her block, he/she has provided material that proves to my satisfaction that the images in question were created relatively recently and not pirated from other sources, despite how they may look. I consulted with Lar, who agrees that we should at least return to assuming Midnight68's good faith. What do you think? Powers (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there LtPowers. For starters, I am not sure I would call the evidence "tenuous", and note that Midnight68 (talk · contribs) has been blocked on a number of other projects for similar disruption. I should also note that the block is not simply based upon the fact that many of Midnight68's uploads were questionable and per Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 seen as trolling and disruptive to the scope of Commons. Part of the reason for the block was Midnight68's veil attacks, as seen here (it should be noted that the userboxes have been destroyed in the deletions, so the content is not shown but many were sexual in nature and demeaning to women). While I will not wheel war with you or Lar, I would not support an unblock. That is just my one opinion though. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The block on Simple is directly correlated with the block on en, and you're the one who performed the block on meta, so it seems like it's just the two issues. One here, for questionable uploads, and one on en for mysterious reasons known only to the ArbCom. My point is that since the basis for the block -- and for the accusations of trolling and disruption -- was the suspected copyright violations, then the new evidence should (at a minimum) result in a re-evaluation of the reasons for the block. I'm certainly not going to unblock him unilaterally, but if he did indeed draw those images himself, it seems as if his skill would be useful to the project and I would hate to lose it due to a misunderstanding. Powers (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure the images he is claiming to have drawn are "useful" to the project, instead they have brought it into disrepute. Tiptoety talk 17:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Disrepute? How? Powers (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The user is banned under what Sue Gardner has stated as "common sense" for the protection of the WMF projects. The user has been proven to indulge in inappropriate practices of a sort that is potentially dangerous for our child editors and for the community as a whole, and evidence of this can be found on multiple projects. This user has provided no positives but has a huge history of potentially causing harm that cannot be repaired. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Powers, please also take note of the discussion that took place here, on where many of the same concerns that got Midnight68 blocked for from this and other projects was brought up. Tiptoety talk 18:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that the link reveals copyright problems with images that were original on Commons and reuploaded elsewhere also claiming to be his "original" work. Such practices at Commons are a bannable offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You blocked my account on the English Wikipedia. Why???[edit]

You blocked my acount on English Wikipedia by eror (I am nearly sure that is was for a tragic error, but the effect for my is the same) or by an arbitrary act. I was always a serious contributor of allo Wikipedia projects. Without any reason you blocked my account arbitrarily. I am a Sysop of the Esperanto-Wikipedia and I did never any thing in the English Wikipedia which would justify blocking my account. You accused my to have multiple accounts, what is a big lie! did If this is a mistake please undo and apologize. If it was by intention your administrator rights should be taken away from you!! So I hope that this was an error. Please undo also al the changes you made on my profile page. If you would have consulted it, you should have seen, that it was absolutely OK. You can also see that I am a serious contributor as I uploaded more than 2000 pictures of Switzerland to Commons. DidiWeidmann (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I tryed in the meantime to find out more about the reasons of the block of my account on English Wikipedia. I write you here, because it is not possible for the reason of the block on the English Wikipedia. I could not find any explenation of the link between me and this vandals. Phone # removed by -mattbuck (Talk) I can only swear that I have nothin to do with any vandalism against Wikipedia. Please have a look on all the pictures I uploaded to Wikipedia. Und just for information: On the Esperanto-Vikipedio I created about 1500 articles (non of the a stumb and not one contested) and did about 50'000 edits there. On all the Wikiprojects toghether I did more then 80000 edits. Nearly non of those edits have ever been reverted. There makes no sense to bring me even only in conection with any vandalism. I fight vandalsim as administrator of the Esperanto-Vikipedio. Never I would destroy articles or make any stupid or vandalistic edits. Is that not evident that I have no reason to to anything against the Wikipedia. Please unblock me English account. Thank you very much.DidiWeidmann (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Tiptoety indefblocked a user with 80k+ edits because of match of dynamic IP-address with some throwaway vandal? Wow. Just... wow. Trycatch (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Trycatch, please do not make an assumption before you know the facts. This "thrwaway vandal" has created a number of accounts. Additionally, CU evidence was, and still is very strong. A single IP used by both DidiWeidmann and the many of the socks, on one of the sockmasters most popular IP ranges. And both accounts had the exact same useragent. That is hard to explain. That said, I am not opposed to assuming good faith (please see my post here). Any further comments should be made on, seeing as this matter has nothing to do with commons. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 02:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to see this[edit]

take a look at this bot![edit]

Looking at old pictures of Haifa, I came across one with nasty vandalism...uploaded by a bot, more than half a year ago.. look at

It is programmed so that only a few of the uploads gives bad contributions: bad:,_Mt._Carmel,_from_Mountains_of_Gallilee,_by_Lloyd_(fl._187-).jpg fine:,_Mt._Carmel,_from_Mountains_of_Gallilee,_by_Lloyd_(fl._187-).png

I just checked a few, like File:The_pool,_with_the_old_man,_by_White,_Franklin,_1813-1870.jpg,_by_White,_Franklin,_1813-1870.jpg,_from_Robert_N._Dennis_collection_of_stereoscopic_views.jpg

There must be lots more...sorry, I do not know anything about bots.

Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Contact User:Dcoetzee, as he is the bots operator. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I did! But it is all gone.....without any edits to the files!! But then I noticed the message above; the vandalism I saw was the same, i.e. "Tiptoety is a convicted ___...." in red I guess the vandalism was not in the bot..but in the templates used by the bot! Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Check the history, may need some cleaning, check the log for the obvious info, unprotect probably (but I'll leave fprot for now I think). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably a few accounts to be locked too - they aren't very bright really. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Oversighted, thanks. I'm gonna leave the protection for now. I'm heading out on a weeks worth of vacation, so I won't be watching. :-) Thanks, Tiptoety talk 18:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

* * * :) * * *[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! I wish You all the best in New year!
--George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Same to you! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rights usage question[edit]

Thank you for the filemover rights. Once you assigned them, I decided to try it out and went to a file I had marked for moving. Reading what was on my screen, it sounded as though the software would automatically adjust the pages linking to the file. Did I interpret this correctly? If not, what is the best way to both move a file and make sure all pages that link to it get properly updated?

Sorry for the noob question. But it's best to learn to do things correctly from the start. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The software will not automatically adjusting the linking of a file. You will need to follow the directions listed here (specifically where it talks about non-admins). Tiptoety talk 02:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems that the software has automatically put my request under "Image replace requests". So it appears to be up for review and out of my hands. Did I miss anything, or am I good? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, if it did that then you are fine. I'm not exactly sure how the process works for non-admins. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Now we both know.  :-) Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hi Tiptoety. This is to let you know that I sent you an email regarding my recent application for the filemover right at Commons which hopefully explains the situation. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:User_Tiptoety has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rehman 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2 unblock requests[edit]

Hi. I'm requesting that two prior accounts of mine be unblocked; User:Jack Merridew and user:Gold Hat. There is no doubt at all that I'm the same user. See w:User talk:Jack Merridew#unblockoldid

You don't seem very active here, so I expect others to handle this.

--Barong (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gnangarra. Sorry for my delayed response, real life is overwhelming right now. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup. Hope we're good; the Gold Hat one was just a misunderstanding, fueled, no doubt, by my 'conflation' edits re the accounts.
are looking much more dignified ;)
Best re RL, Barong (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, we're good. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 03:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Recreating deleted content, user already blocked by you[edit]

Again recreated...a permanent block will be sufficient..User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_22#Re-creating_deleted_content.2C_action_need_to_be_taken..... New content available as File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was undeleted by an admin by belief in false claims by the uploader..i put a new DR in place..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Account blocked: Mary Thompson[edit]

I set up the Mary Thompson account quite some time ago, when I was in the process of setting up my account to work as a Wikipedia editor. Mary Thompson is the name of one of my great aunts but, in the end, I decided not to use it. When I read your decision, I had forgotten that, in haste, I had used her name originally. Anyway, there was no intent to deceive or break any Wiki rules. To be honest, I had to look up the definition of a sockpuppet. Anyway, it would be fine if someone deletes the Mary Thompson account. I had absolutely no intention of using it, as evidenced, I believe, by its lack of use, to date. Please accept my humble apologies for any confusion. Thank you for your work, time, and attention to this matter. If you have any other questions or concerns, regarding this matter, I would be happy to address them. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Blandra, duly noted. I blocked the other two accounts, but purposefully left your current account unblocked to allow you to continue to edit. Should you have any questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing, Tiptoety talk 19:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Tiptoety, Thank you for your response. I've been trying to reconstruct what happened with the other account and the IP address. To the best of my recollection this is what transpired.
For several years, I've been involved in collaborative efforts with others working in the areas of harassment and stalking. One of these individuals was aware that I was planning to post some FOIA documents to Wikimedia, in order to clarify an open-ended point on the stalking page on Wikipedia. When I communicated the aforementioned point to him, I did so in a strictly collaborative manner. He checked Wikimedia for the files and, when he saw that the files were being proposed for deletion, he weighed in with a comment, which was displayed without any identifying user or IP information. He decided to set up an account but, as an attorney, was busy preparing response documents for a case in which he's been involved -- according to "Ruhrfisch's" commments, PeaceFrog71 apparently hasn't done any editing, to date. Here's where things went wrong, from my vantage point.
PeaceFrog71 was in a hurry and phoned me (he's in a city 300 miles away), asking if I would post the comments in his stead. Having worked with him for several years, I didn't give it a second thought. I can't remember now, if he later asked me to post his second comment, as well..., but the IP address would answer that question (and maybe it did). Being new to Wikimedia/Wikipedia, I wasn't aware of the complexities and rules surrounding many of the processes that are in place but, in retrospect, posting his comment/s was a significant misstep, as evidenced by where things stand today. Anyway, after his first or second comment -- after he'd said what he wanted to say, in order to make his points -- that was it.
Regarding my posting of his comment or comments, I felt that I was acting in a secretarial fashion, to use a loaded, but apt term. I had no desire to tip the balance in my favor -- though I was grateful for his honest input. I've since done a bit of reading on Wikipedia and have a much better understanding of what's permitted and what's not. Having said this, I would not knowingly have acted as a "sock puppeteer."
Cutting to the chase, my concern, at this point, relates to the implications of the decision to confirm "sock puppetry." How might this decision impact the decision regarding deletion of the Wikimedia Commons files which I've uploaded? Is there anything that I can do to appeal this decision? (Please forgive this lengthy comment, but I feel that I'm in the position of defending my integrity. :-) ) In the meantime, I'm licking wounds, and moving forward. Thank you again for permitting me to continue editing. I'm grateful. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is is that those accounts are "confirmed" sockpuppets of yours, regardless of if that was your intention. Being that your account was left unblocked and you are still able to edit I would not worry too much about the possible repercussions of such a result at the request for CheckUser. Continue to edit as you were doing before, just remembering to stick to one account and you will be fine. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Tiptoety, While I'm pleased to be able to continue editing, as I've said, I'm also appropriately chagrined. Thank you (again) for your insights and guidance on this matter. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)