User talk:Toddst1

edit count | edit summary usage

The contents of this page changes frequently. This is the version displayed at: November 23, 2024, 13:04 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailusa sock

• 98.111.181.133 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

It looks like he has an IP sock going around to all of the article and reinserting the links that he was spreading. Just check out the IP's contributions and you'll see that he's mirroring the edits that you reverted when blocking the account. ThemFromSpace 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you there, spaceman! Mole whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia_talk:Spam#How_to_deal_with_spam.3F, I did a range block on the 98.111.... IP's. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bataan Page

As you probably know, Bataan 09-10 and I have been blocked from editing because him and I were trying to delete the page to prevent vandalism from other accounts. We were deleting sections one at a time so we could leave some of the page up to draw people to our website so we can continue to bring information to the public who might be interested in finding information about our school. I would like to have the page kept up but shortened to only include the starting paragraphs and our schools url address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerecon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Diabolic rapper

Why is the article for Diabolic (rapper/emcee) is always flagged and removed? Diabolic is an established well known rapper in the underground community of Hip Hop. If Immortal Technique is allowed to have an article, so does Diabolic. The Wiki article had sufficient reliable sources. Please republish the article. This is not a form of blatant advertising for the artists. Many fans do ask about accessing to information about Diabolic and Wikipedia provides the most immediate way to channel information. Thank you. (Tbirrueta (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's a clue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabolic (rapper). Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

COI

Your sneaky little move did not go unnoticed. I will be setting up a review of your administrator position at the correct venue, as you obviously aren't fit for the duties. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I welcome an examination of my actions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. It looks like you're referring to removing your Rollback privileges. Nothing sneaky there. As I stated, you don't know what WP:Vandalism is. I'm sure you're aware that an administrator can grant (or revoke) rollback using their own judgment. Given the edit war - let's focus on System of a Down for the moment - and your lack of understanding of what WP:Vandalism is, that was appropriate. I apologize for having not alerted you to that explicitly. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware that perhaps my idea of vandalism is not the same as your interpretation of WP:Vandalism, however, I am happy to admit when I am pushing for a viewpoint, and to admit when I am tackling destructive editing (the latter of which I am doing), which I bunch together as "vandalism". It irks me that rather than dealing with the issue (an ignorant unconstructive IP), we are arguing the technical definition of vandalism. It should not be a challenge to get rid of an editor that is only causing problems, and it shouldn't be a problem even to edit war when you are countering an editor that you even admit is in the wrong (Ed Unitsky). I do know an admin can remove rollback rights, but I was under the impression that it is a COI for an admin to do that to an editor they are in a discussion with. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_Toddst1 a link as promised. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI. –xeno^talk 21:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor M A Gosney

The General Medical Council is currently attempting to edit a page that appears to have been deleted from the user. We appreciate that a large block of text was used from another website, yet the webmaster was using it as a model, and inadvertantly clicked 'save' rather than 'preview' when bringing the file in. The reason the page may have flagged as having large blocks from another site is because of a substantial list of papers and research material on the page, which must remain in the same format when placed on any page. Thus, it may appear to be a copy of text yet all it is is an identical list from another site; there is no other way of writing the text. If the page could be returned in its state, and advice given regarding the aforementioned, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmedicalcouncil (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are a General Medical Council, you'll know a bit more about IP Law and know exactly why I won't restore it. If not, then see your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how this is classified as IP law; all medical texts must be written in an identical format. Thus, anywhere where a book list of a council, body, or doctor is placed, it will be the same. Thus, we don't see how it can be written any other way. There is no need for you to be rude in your text; we respect why you've done it, but would like you to give us some advice on how we can get around an issue which we see as outside of our control. Then, if we can perhaps format the text in another way, it will not violate your "IP law"

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmedicalcouncil (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude. We get a lot of phonies here.

We need you to verify with the Wikimedia Foundation that you are the real copyright holder and understand the legal implications of putting your copyrighted work on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation has established specific licensing guidelines that we need to follow.

If you still wish to grant Wikipedia the rights to this material, follow the instructions here. It has all the info you need. Be sure you understand the rights to the text that you will be giving up. Then, you'll be granted what's called "an OTRS ticket" that shows Wikipedia has been granted the rights to the text and then you can post the material verbatim (provided the subject meets the other qualifications for articles on Wikipedia such as notability).

We don't accept copyrighted work outside of that process in order to protect the holders of copyright, both from others posting their words on Wikipedia, and from unknowingly signing away their rights.

I hope you understand that refusing all copyrighted work until we have real evidence that it's been released into the GDFL is the best way to make sure we aren't violating anyone's rights.

Either way, please do not recreate this page with that material until this issue is resolved.

I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, and thank you for apologising if you appeared rude (which, to us, you did a little). Essentially, the issue here is not the main body of text, but just one area we want to put at the bottom of this person's page, which states that she has contributed to a certain list of books, papers, articles, etc. Now, unfortunately the website that we got the original list from in the first place put the list on its page before we did! Thus, there were two things we could have done; firstly, we could have typed out each material contribution by this individual on the page, or secondly we could have copied it from a second source, saving us hours in doing so. We did the latter, and it has been flagged as copied from another source, but our problem is that even if we re-type the information by hand from a hand-written list (which we could make in a few hours) it will still be written in the EXACT same format as it would be were we to copy it from the website, because that is the format with which we are ultimately forced to write the information. Sorry if I'm not too good at explaining, but that is essentially the issue. I don't see how it is copyrighted information, when essentially it is a list of books, papers, etc.

To look at it another way, assume that I said 'Toddst1, tell me your ten favourite books, in a format such as (for example): author surname, author first name, book name, publishing house, publishing date, ISBN'

You would give me a list of ten books, and then I would think, 'well, I rather like his choice of books, I think I'll put them on my blog/webpage/wiki page, etc'. I would be entitled to copy your list onto my page if I so wished; after all, the works are not yours, it is merely you who has assembled the list.

Does it make sense now? I'm sorry if I come across a little confusing! But it is rather tricky to try and explain what I mean. If you look at the information above, I don't see how it is copyright infringement in any way? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmedicalcouncil (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so. We're just volunteers here and have some pretty specific policies we're supposed to follow. I'm sure there are several dozen other admins who would and will come to the same conclusion as I did. That being said, if you explain this to the OTRS people (who actually have paid legal council at their disposal), I'm sure the could sort it out. We mortal admins are not equipped to deal with these levels of nuance. You can point them to this discussion if it would be helpful. Best regards, Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your kudos! It's always nice to log on and see something like that, as opposed to a random editor lambasting me for deleting his article about that new religion he and his three friends made up last weekend....GJC 19:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob Levin

The info I removed from his talk page was comprised of nothing but condolences and one of the rules of discussion pages is that they are not to be used as a forum to express condolences, etc. for the subject of the discussion page. PCE (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

150.135.161.148

Since 150.135.161.148 is presently Personperson1234567, who is indefinitely blocked, I don't believe that the block notice at User talk:150.135.161.148 should declare “You have been temporarily blocked from editing for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.” He or she is welcome to make contributions only upon the lifting of the indefinite block.

I do acknowledge that the block applied to the IP number should not be indefinite, as it may be reässigned or otherwise become available to some innocent editor. —SlamDiego_←T 01:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Christodoulidesd

I noticed that you blocked this user as a sockpuppet due to the report left on WP:ANI by User:OutlawSpark. I'm not so sure that Christodoulidesd is a sockpuppet of User:Moviescore. The Moviescore account has been around since 2006. While their interests cross paths since MovieScore Media links to International Film Music Critics Association, I'm not so sure that they are sockpuppets. Moviescore is user name issue, though the account is relatively dormant. I'm actually more suspicious about the OutlawSpark account than either Christodoulidesd or Moviescore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose sock it is, but it's a sock of someone. People don't start with their first dozen edits on AFd if they're not socks. I'll take a look at OutlawSpark (talk · contribs)Toddst1 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think so. I think this is a case of some off-wiki thing driving people to an AfD (meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry). New editors show up on AfD all of the time. And Christodoulidesd is the same name as one of the members of the International Film Music Critics Association. My guess is that somebody pointed it out to him and he arrived in a huff (subsequently toned down at my request). Now OutlawSpark, on the other hand has all of the hallmarks of somebody's sockpuppet: first few edits on WP:ANI with a wild claim, SPI filing, WP:VP activity. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a sock. These people are both members of the International Film Music Critics Association, but if you check your ip logs, Moviescore is in Sweden and Christodoulidesd is in Greece. Both these people are prominent members of the online film music journalism community, and have been so for many, many years. I will personally vouch 100% for both these individials, and stake my entire Wikipedia reputation (which, if you check my user page and history is not insignificant) on the fact that these people are two different people. I know them personally. FYI, I asked some of my fellow IFMCA members to join the discussion, to help me find some reliable sources that would make a persuasive case for keeping the articles. I was making a concious effort to be mindful of WP:COI and contribute to the discussion in a non-emotional manner, but unfortunately Christodoulidesd got a little 'heated'. I apologize for that. But he's 100% NOT a sock, and I would be grayeful if you could un-ban him. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that would make them WP:Meatpuppets. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit I completely forgot about that policy, and would not have asked for help had I rembmered it. I apologize for that. However, I absolutely assure you it was done in WP:GOODFAITH to help me find some additional sources, and not to sway the argument by padding 'votes'. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry. I'll try to do better.

User:Waltermelon —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

User:Brianwazere

Just come across this guy; do you think it was a little excessive to block after two reverts and then extend to five days for some relatively mild incivility? I would ask that you consider shortening the block. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get two: [1],[2],[3],[4]. I got a lovely email in addition to the talk page rant which included a threat. That was the reason I extended the block and removed talk and email privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I've raised it here on ANI. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've no idea how I managed to find only two. It might be worth cutting a day or two off it, perhaps, but I'll leave that up to you. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

I noticed you blocked 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 month for block evasion. The original IP used by this editor, which is currently blocked for 24 hours, is 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Do you suppose you could lengthen the block on that IP to match? The editor has been nothing but disruptive and unresponsive throughout and this post indicates that he has no intention of following community standards. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The 99.151.xxx IP caught my eye as I was reading the noticeboards. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. The ISP, geolocation and disruptive editing style all appear to be similar. If it is the same editor, then you are in for prolonged frustrating battles to which there is no easy blocking solution. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Paulmch sock

I see that ten days a year ago you blocked Paulmch (talk · contribs), and since then we've had Paulmchisback (talk · contribs). There has now appeared Paulmchisbackagain (talk · contribs). I have blocked indef and put {{sockpuppet|Paulmch|blocked}} on his user page - do I need to do anything else? Is there any point opening an SPI case for such a quacking case? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, you would file a Wp:SPI but it looks like John was on top of it already. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hounding?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Toddst1, may I ask you why you think I'm hounding him? Because I made one edit to one page that I noticed in his edit history? The other three on which we have engaged in the last few days are all related to each other and I got the first in a manner wholly unrelated to Cirt -- New England Institute of Religious Research. The other two pages are linked to that one ... or I should say the one directly Twisted Scriptures and the third Midwest Book Review linked to that page. He followed me to this third page and the the RS/N. Of course I think nothing of that since its all part of a related dispute stemming from the first page. But then again I'm no accusing him of stalking me either. Have you reviewed the entire situation carefully? I'm just wondering. I don't want to hound anyone, and this is all in my general area of interest to begin with. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still wondering about hounding

Toddst1, above you told me to "see ANI" in regards to my question about hounding, but there, like here, the question has gone unanswered. I take warnings like this seriously because if they have merit I need to re-evaluate my behavior, but if they are based on a mistaken interpretation these types of warnings have unfortunate and unfair consequences down the road if not cleared up. You may say "it's just a warning", but we both know that in disputes people tend to drag these warnings up to gain advantage (e.g. "you've been warned about hounding Cirt before"). I have a clean block log and I've never been warned by an uninvolved admin before for anything remotely more serious than approaching 3RR. I don't blame you for looking at this on the face, seeing several talk page disputes between Cirt and myself going on simultaneously, possibly coming across Cirt's or KC's accusations of stalking and then coming to this conclusion. However, I'm asking you to please re-evaluate the situation. Here's a relevant timeline (and I am going to leave out interactions with KC since it is Cirt you've warned me about hounding):

1. I notice the entry for New England Institute for Religious Research in the "cults" info box, which is placed on several entries and which I look over now and then because it is in one of my areas of interest (which is also one of Cirt's and our opposed views have clashed in this area several times in the past). Being unfamiliar with this organization I went to the entry where I found an ongoing dispute between two editors on the talk page.
2. Reading over the entry, particularly in light of the dispute, it was my opinion that notability was not established for this organization so I posted this. Now it is simply a fact that Cirt created this entry, and that he was one of the two editors in the already ongoing dispute, but so what? Like I said this is an overlapping area of interest for both of us and we don't agree. I'd be happy to flesh that out for you if you so desire. Needless to say a discussion started on that entry.
3. Rereading the NEIRR entry made me link to Twisted Scriptures since it is the only blue linked book entry in a handful of books used in the NEIRR entry because they list NEIRR as a resource within them.
4. I determined that the notability of this book was dubious as well and posted this and then I removed what looked pretty much like a positive publishers blurb highlighted unconventionally in the reception section of the entry. Cirt had not been active on this page since September, but quickly appeared on the talk page to look into the matter and then argue notability with me. Cirt created this entry around the time he created the other one, and I find it completely logical that he would defend its notability.
5. Discussion of the quotebox that I removed led to a discussion of the use of a review article attributed to Midwest Book Review vis-a-vis a blurb posted on Amazon.com at the book's listing. It is important to note here that my worries were over the nature and use of this source and never about the authenticity of the blurb's contents as authored by the [[Midwest Book Review].
6. In the meantime I brought that issue up along with two other source issues at the RS/N, but that discussion didn't go anywhere (and that is not the RS/N discussion leading to this situation).
7. Days later an OTRS response from the MBR came in stating that the review on Amazon was indeed authored by them and was accurate. They supplied a citation directly to the organization as well.
8. This fact, along with the fact that no one on the RS/N had responded regarding the MBR prompted me to evaluate our entry on them and place a notability tag on it since it appeared to fail WP:ORG.
9. I also started a second discussion at the RS/N about this source specifically since the last attempt to get input failed. I posted a notice about this new discussion on Talk:Twisted Scriptures.
10. Cirt followed me to the Midwest Book Review entry and started editing/improving the entry. Again I find this entirely logical given the overarching dispute and chain of events (and would never call this stalking or harassment), but as a point of fact he had never edited this entry or its talk page in the past.
11. Discussions on the talk page began during his editing regarding whether or not the entry fails WP:ORG along with some other sourcing issues.
12. At one point during the second RS/N discussion Cirt took it upon himself to restructure one of my contributions calling it "linkspam". When I reverted his change, KC decided to collapse these comments and warn me as detailed at AN/I.

In the midst of this timeline a related event occurred. As I usually do when I'm engaged in a content dispute with an editor, particularly when it spans more than one related entry and venue already, I checked Cirt's contribution history more than once during this time. It is the easiest way to see if additional forums are being engaged on the topic being debated and admittedly it is also a matter of curiosity if thinks the other editor is making generally questionable content contributions in the area of interest. I believe this is all completely common practice, even the latter part (see for instance open communications at various content related noticeboards when particular editors are editing multiple related pages in ways other editors find troubling). So I noticed an edit he made to an entry within the general topic of our overlapping interests, NRMs and opposition to them, and I had a look at the entry. Cirt's edit there removed a PROD notice, but at the same time it also removed a notability tag which had been in place for years without anyone adding any reliable sources to establish notability in the meanitime. I restored the tag. When Cirt discovered this he came to my talk page to insinuate that I was stalking him, based upon this one edit. My initial response was complete annoyance because he had been commenting on my behavior in our earlier dispute and acted in a generally aggressive manner towards me then, something he apologized for to some extent or another on my talk page prior to this. My second response was also written in a rather aggravated state, but nevertheless I openly admitted to him that I found this entry in his contribution history and suggested he take it to AN/I if he really thought I was stalking him.

I fail to see how any of this falls under WP:HOUND which is most generally described as -- ... the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Do I have a history of following Cirt around to various pages? Do I have a history of ever doing this to anyone? I certainly did not follow him anywhere in this instance, save a single edit to fix a mistake he made within our overlapping area of interest. This is simply a large content dispute with interrelated entries falling within a general area that two editors have a history of interest and opposing views in. There is also an immense irony in User:KillerChihuahua suggesting that I'm stalking anyone since she showed up after me in both of the venues we engaged in -- at the initial entry, NEIRR, and at the RS/N. She had never before edited NEIRR or its talk page, and according to her contribution history the last time she edited the RS/N prior to responding to my question there was on August 12th as part of a now long archived discussion. It is also notable that the RS/N discussion is not linked to on the NEIRR page, since it involved Twisted Scriptures and not NEIRR. I'm not going to suggest that I know anything about KC's motivations, but at least appreciate these facts when you consider her accusations or insinuations about my behavior towards Cirt or her.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)