User talk:Spitfire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

February 2010 — June 2010

Re

WHat do you mean by this comment: sorry, looks like fishing to me. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at MuffledThud's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Greed

Hi, thanks for the message. I did have a look at the Moneysupermarket link, but it seems to be a price-comparison site much like the American MySimon, rather than a site with in-depth information about a company. In other words, it's more along the lines of a "trivial coverage" as per the guidelines at WP:CORP. Are there any other reliable sources that talk about the company in more detail? ... discospinster _talk 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

For this - Now if only great minds could remember how to type four tildes :) Gonzonoir (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haiti Airdrop, Jan 18

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:AirdropcloseJan18haiti edited.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

OMG, I am SO sorry for not noticing it myself earlier. plz, feel free to point out any future mistakes I make. ty much! have a fantastic day! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby

Curious as to why you delisted today's Scibaby case.[1] It had been endorsed for CU but there were no CU results listed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding sockpuppet categories

Hi Spitfire, I noticed you're active over at WP:SPI. I posted a question regarding sockpuppet categories on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, could you answer it if it's not too much trouble? Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 09:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered there, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What did I do?

I'm sorry but all I am doing is telling wikipedia about our company. --StarbucksCoffeeFreshForYou (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't care about how we give some of our money to coffee farmers... --StarbucksCoffeeFreshForYou (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a worker at the company. I just guess you like cups of coffee. --StarbucksCoffeeFreshForYou (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

hey

How do i become a monitor on wikipedia so that i too can edit pages from vandalism?

Igotrejectedtoday (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Igotrejectedtoday

Last question, how do i get the rollback rights?

Igotrejectedtoday (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Igotrejectedtoday

Merging SPI?

According to your edit summary here you were merging the SPI, but it looks like it just got deleted. What's up? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Shiny time

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your diligence at sockpuppet investigations and giving us IP ranges where it counts, making it much easier for admins to determine blocking. –MuZemike 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I already have an account

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.16.148 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Want to withdraw SPI

I'd like to withdraw [2]. As you say, this is stale, and Marburg72 is no longer editing. The Admin who granted Marburg72 RTV and deleted his talk page has restored it as the IP is obviously Marburg72, still editing, thus abrogating his RTV. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA Oakleaf

Hi Spitfire. Thanks for the heads up on Oakleaf. I didn't realise she was gone already. She was the largest ship in the fleet... Cheers. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Spitfire, it's great to see you again. Must admit I'm here mostly because I couldn't sleep... but Wikipedia's been increasingly on my mind lately. Mostly because I miss the people, damnable people. Anyway, hope you've been well.  :) FlyingToaster 15:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

conclusion of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive

I read the conclusion of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive case and I am offended that you may insinuate a Meatpuppetry case. I have NEVER communicated with anybody off wiki and I feel offended by even you mentioning that possibility. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note in my talk page. It clarified. Sorry for my frustration, it's that these people never stop. You want to bet that that's going to be their next move? Kind regards! sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I may have found another Bambifan sock...

I am SO tired of this kid. I just found User:Lmvp990766271 and I added it to the existing investigation. I tell you, I get a chill whenever I see any edit to a Disney-themed subject nowadays. Anyway, thanks for all your help. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Enjoy a picture of your namesake. This little bitty R/C airplane is the hairiest ride in my collection.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• 

Pharaway

User Mike Allen is posting in the wrong space - the accused space. He can not add comments on behalf of the accused. He has been told and keeps doing it. Maybe there needs to be a complaint filed? It does confuse the issues when he posts there. Pharaway (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SockPuppetry NickCT

For the record, I wasn't really looking for an apology from you. More from my accusors. I'm a litte miffed because I think this is a pretty obvious example of a "bad faith" sock puppetry accussation. Nobody, besides those of use who stood accussed, point that out. NickCT (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickCT (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marchwood Military Port

On February 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marchwood Military Port, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Time lag?

Hi, I was following this case with interest and check user was authorized five days ago and nothing has since happened, if there a back log? Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Buggzie

Hello Spitfire. I am just letting you know that I deleted Buggzie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing link

Hi, I notice you archived the Keepcalmandcayyon spi here but is there usually a link to the archived case put on the page? Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries, I was just looking at how to add it and it appeared as if by magic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Following Up

I updated the entry. I would like your feedback. Thanks, Jenn JPSumner (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)JPSumner

Thanks SpitFire! I'll work on sourcing... JPSumner 15:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)JPSumner

Premature archiving...

[3] - the last three socks have been added after the first CU and not yet been handled. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

response times are up by 15%

That they certainly appear to be. Keep up the good work! - Schrandit (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, thank you Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the help! Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 14:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding colours

Can you please tell me more colours if you can? I'm sure it is not only these few.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromised accounts

Hi. Regarding your decline, a checkuser of those IPs would probably lead to more compromised accounts - possibly an entire network of compromised accounts, of which only a small fraction are represented in that URL I found. Wknight94 ^talk 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Witness... Wknight94 ^talk 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jivesh boodhun

The addition of a new IP may make my original checkuser request justified, but I didn't want to be seen as edit-warring. [4].—Kww(talk) 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The expansion of range was the only reason for me renewing the request, as a checkuser can see a bit more than either of us in terms of how large of an expansion is justified. As for hardblock vs. softblock, I fully understand the difference. When a range is only used by one editor, hardblocking is always preferable, as it prevents him from going to his library or office and obtaining a user account. In this case, I suspect the smaller range is only used by one editor. Again, I can only suspect that: a checkuser can determine reliably if there are named editors using a range that would be negatively impacted. I know that you see Jivesh as a new problem, not a long-term one, but I've been dealing with him for 6 months, as his use of anonymous IPs has made it difficult to get action taken.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First, please take my continuing responses as a conversation, not a fight. Part of your "clerk in training" experience, if you will. Using WHOIS data to set a rangeblock is an extremely blunt instrument. An ISP may very well have a /16 allocated to it, but will typically subdivide it into much smaller chunks to manage internal regions. Any given DSLAM or dial-up router will have a much smaller range allocated to it. Taking this particular case as an example, it's obvious that something about the ISP's architecture tends to force Jivesh into 41.136.74.0/23. That's an extremely small range: 512 IP addresses. We can afford to play hardball with a range that size. Softblocking for periods in terms of months is reasonable, and hardblocking based on the range being exclusively used by one editor is possible. He's probably a dial-up user, based on how often his IP hops, but possibly DSL or cable. Today's exceptional IP may be just that: a static office, school, or library IP that should best be dealt with on an individual basis. With a /16, our choices are much more limited, as the collateral damage from even a long softblock starts to get unreasonable.

Philosophically, I tend to request checkuser more often than strictly necessary for precisely these kind of reasons. It lets us set ranges more precisely and accurately, and reduces our chances of false blocks. Denying them is no problem (and is a part of your role), but please understand that I don't request them blithely or out of ignorance.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Training

Hey Spitfire. I was wondering if you would be willing to train one of our new clerks, Aunt Entropy. Could you please see MuZemike's note on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks? It's perfectly fine if you are too busy to train him, so don't worry about declining if you have to. Best, NW (Talk) 11:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was a little confused by this. Are those pages not being used any longer? TNXMan 17:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser question

Reading the pages MuZemike linked to me, I came across this: "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing - a suspected sock-puppet's operator is often unknown until checked."

Okay, you can't just bring one guy and say "this user is suspicious" without a suspected sock, right? I honestly believed you had to have some evidence, like another suspected account. What is a "reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry" without a suspected sock? Knowing too much as a newbie? Not enough, because there are legitimate socks out there, and as long as they don't double !vote etc. they are within policy , and have no reason to be investigated. I honestly can't think of a reasonable suspicion of socking where you don't have a reasonable suspicion of a sock or sockmaster. What am I missing? Auntie E. (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse and ZZ

Spitfire, per this, can you remove or change that See also line I tacked on to the Mattisse case, as it will go redlinked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) When User:Laser brain/Sandbox gets moved, is it OK for me to update that in the archive, or do I need to ask one of you to do that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Or should we just choose a name and move it now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanx

If you ever need anything you got my number ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at your work Terrence C. Graves#Decorations. Mlpearc MESSAGE 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ready to start, let me know when

I done did my homework (read all the relevant pages regarding SPIs) and am ready for training. Let me know when is a good time for you. Thanks, Auntie E. (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed report

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe Hi Spitfire, this report has been confirmed, unambiguous. As the three accounts were active in disrupting multiple articles resulting resulting in full protection, I assume they are to be sanctioned? Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail, that part of the process was unknown to me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Following Up

I disclosed my interests on my user page and added additional sources to the article. I contacted Tim Song on March 2. I have not heard back from him. JPSumner 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I really appreciate all of the assistance that you have provided. Until next time... JPSumner 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: The IP sock thing

Phew. You know, I'm really not sure. While the IP is being disruptive and WP:Duck enough to warrant being blocked, I'm not sure if it's as warranted to revise the block reason for the already indefinitely blocked "main" account. I suppose it doesn't necessarily hurt, since it seems pretty obvious and it doesn't exactly change the block duration. I'll go ahead and do that, but don't take my choice on this as hardline standard operating procedure, because I'm kinda "flying by night" here. - Vianello (Talk) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oop, wait, his block is temporary. I'm a little hesitant to bump it up to indefinite duration without more solid proof than this, but by my gut it seems fairly open and shut. - Vianello (Talk) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, wait, okay. You're just suggesting updating the duration. I gotcha now. That seems entirely reasonable. - Vianello (Talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're perfectly welcome. Sorry about the initial confusion. I'm not really sure why I came away with the misunderstanding that I did. But I suppose all's well that ends well! - Vianello (Talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Split

Spitfire, unless I'm reading incorrectly, this was a split (some accounts hers, some the other ... person). I think the results have to stay in both places ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looked again, and yes, it appears that you moved too much ... "Please note: Further review with additional checkusers has revealed that, while GetOutFrog, QuattroBajeena and Yzak Jule are all socks, they are actually Confirmed socks of Zengar Zombolt" ... but Talking image Always blue Chapter & verse and Apartadmit are now in the wrong place and marked wrong, those portions and evidence have to go back to the Mattisse page, those accounts retagged, unless I missed a step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, did the accounts get retagged correctly? I hope Mattisse isn't e-mailing clerks and confusing you ... that's troubling. If she is, I'm going to ask why her access to email isn't blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm just more concerned that she not be e-mailing clerks and confusing them ... I read those results as a split, and if I'm wrong, Risker and Alison need to reword there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Spitfire's Day!

User:Spitfire has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Spitfire's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Spitfire! Peace, Rlevse 00:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis sokpuppetry again?

About a month ago you were involved in the Draganparis sockpuppetry case [5]. It seems that the user has started discussing with himself again and in the same pages as he did before. Could you please check out the following accounts (two of them have actually a suspiciously similar name), whose only purpose seems to be giving support to his opinions?

See here [6], [7], [8] for the history of the accounts as well as here [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] for their modus operandi and phraseology used. As I see it, in the first investigation, the sock account was banned, Draganparis was not (his ban was about disruptive editing) and the case now is closed. I sincerely think that it should reopen should you rule that these accounts are or could indeed be his puppets. GK1973 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and please check this one out too... [14], a single contribution just before he stepped in... GK1973 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx GK1973 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add to also look for link between Maxkrueg 1, Maxkrueger1 and Draganparis.

Thx again GK1973 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change et al.

You won't have picked it up, but this page is semiprotected. Can you unprotect to allow me to file my evidence? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your post to my talk page. Notes to accused parties say that evidence should be filed on the SPI page. Can you alert an administrator to the problem and let me know their response? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've passed a note to Luna Santin asking him/her to unprotect. Please do not allow case to proceed to judgment till this is sorted. Thanks. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible

to protect the archived SPI request involving me because Daedalus969‎ keeps changging my comments. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Spitfire. SPI isn't really my area of expertise (I sail my adminship around ANI, AIV and UAA, RC and NP normally) but I was hoping to ask you: is an SPI worth submitting for accounts that have two edits, both deleted contributions, and no further activity? Also, is it worth doing one over a now-inactive account you suspect to have been missed in a previous SPI where the puppeteer was blocked anyway? The first I noted today from an ANI thread. The second I suspected years back - but recently revisited to find the puppeteer blocked for socking another account. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for your corrections to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlos Colombia. I've never filed one of these before, and when I did I was in a hurry, with a couple of kids hanging on me--so thanks for helping me clean up what I am afraid was a sloppy job. Drmies (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks !!

Thanks for moving my sockpuppet report - I was just staring at it thinking what to do--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

For fixing that poorly presented SPI of mine. RashersTierney (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

... and for fixing my tags. Been a while since I handled one of these. Orderinchaos 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome...

...to stalk and review my BOLD edits on SPI that I make without your supervision, and trout me accordingly where I screw up. I have been reccing some (IMHO no-brainers) in the loooong queue of cases without CU and moving them to the admin queue. (No queue should have +30 cases in it.) PS: Hope you liked the section title as a nice change... :P Auntie E. (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on IRC, doing a great job. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

RG Sockpuppetry

This is not a case of an edit dispute. I provided clear evidence to the fact that RG was engaging in sockpuppetry. To refuse the case without running a Checkuser is to clearly promote disruptive and immature behavior. This user has been actively edit-warring under two accounts for two years. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Spitfire, is there any chance you would reconsider this close and allow a CU to investigate? It would certainly help me deal with the whole issue. Thanks for considering. Tan | 39 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken another look, and I don't disagree with your conclusions. Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Could you fix the clerk thing as it is currently in the awaiting review section but it doesn't have "approval". Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks for the heads up Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Query

I don't understand the close at Sockpuppet investigations/Rob lockett/Archive. Identified possible socks came back w/the result "likely". I don't see how from that we reach the conclusion you reached. Is there any way you, or someone else, can review this close with an eye to acting on the likely socks, as revealed by checkuser? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperHappyPerson

So, should these acounts be blocked, and if so, for how long? I agree with you. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#Spitfire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Mikeo (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mexeflote

On March 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mexeflote, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Hi. I realise you have a lot on your plate but is there any chance you could expedite a conclusion to this proposal given the attacks made against User:AssociateAffiliate today, including calling him "mental". There is no doubt that it is another visitation by Richard Daft and Co. Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spitfire. I appreciate your position. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How about the tag for User:65.96.66.80

This anon IP is another sockpuppet of the SPI you just closed on User:Gyppedagain. User:65.96.66.80 kicked off the festivities yesterday. --Morenooso (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the right template for a suspected IP talkpage? --Morenooso (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, Spitfire. Because of your good SPI work, you would make an excellent admin. Can I nominate you? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey NerdyScienceDude, I greatly appreciate the offer, but I'm afraid I will not be running for adminship at this time, for a variety of reasons. I'll try and get back to you if the situation develops. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that (please let know if you ever get nominated). BTW, what did you say to that anon IP (just kidding). Man, oh man, that IP went to town on you. I guess he has 24 hours to think about it and cool off. --Morenooso (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting me but. . .

. . .now I have fleas from your best buddy, the anon IP. --Morenooso (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I need a flea dip. I think your buddies came back for a visitDIFF. Would you mind if I pass your username on to this anon IP? --Morenooso (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what happened to you just prior to me. Are you sure you don't want your little buddy back? --Morenooso (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry

My apologies, I am new to this. anywhere you can guide me for help?

71.70.209.101 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Trainee Clerk

Hello Spitfire, i see that you are a clerk at WP:SPI, i would love to be a clerk trainee. Would you be interested in being my coach? Please leave a talkback template at my userpage so i know when you have replied. Thanks in advance, Dwayne was here! ^talk 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dwayne. I'm really sorry, but at this time, I do not think it would be appropriate for you to take on the responsibility of being a clerk at SPI, typically, we wish to see more involvement in the project from trainee clerks than you currently have, and furthermore to this, we also wish that trainees are in good standing with the community. It appears that you have recently been the subject of some controversy surrounding your rollback flag, in which you regrettably became entangled not only with two checkusers, but also one of our clerks; this doesn't exactly set a smooth foundation for you starting work at SPI. For these reasons, I'm going to have to decline to accept you as a trainee at this time. Please don't see this as disappointment, there are plenty of other areas in wikipedia that need help, and they will be more than happy to have you lending assistance there (page creation, new page patrol, recent changes patrol, etc). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply, i actually thought you were going to ignore me.But i agree with you 100%, i should wait. Dwayne was here! ^talk 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Placeholder

I was just about to change it all back but you have done it for me thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.224.77 (talk • contribs)

Question on SPI

Hi and thank you for your comment. As it is my first SPI on WP:en (I'm from WP:fr), could I ask for your opinion on what to do next? Would you think I should request a CU in order to know whether this is sockpuppetry or not, i.e. meatpuppetry then? Or would you think it's not necessary? Sardur (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, no need to answer, an admin already acted. In any case, thanks again! Sardur (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm always hesitating, because there are some differences between WP:en and WP:fr, though I was almost sure of it - and anyway, for the record . Thanks for your answer! Sardur (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Miss Beastly as obvious sockpuppet

Whenever a newly created account appears, and with their one and only edit shows familiarity with obscure Wikipedia processes like CFD, and tries to provoke an editor with whom they're in some sort of disagreement, the chances are, conservatively, about 99.999% that they're a sockpuppet. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, always welcome to open an investigation...but not to unilaterally make such drastic removals of 40 articles from a category. Especially when your recent attempt to delete the category was a unanimous failure. Isn't that right, Spit? MissBeastly (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Thanks for your advice on the IRC. Per our conversation there and HW's edit here, it seems that's he's acting pretty unilaterally.

Please advise. (PS- Here are the diffs of the category removals...a skim of them shows while some of the edits might be valid, many of them should not have been done.)

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

Sorry for the long list. MissBeastly (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in getting too involved in this matter, just wanted to offer you a third opinion. Ultimately the matter needs to be resolved between the two of you or via wider community input. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lila Cheney 336 SPI

Thanks for dropping Shirik (talk · contribs) a note about the filter. I was wondering if the filter might be useful in this case. Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Splounce"

Looks like your prod and my csd overlapped. I've reverted the csd for now. However, did you see the references provided? "fuck-you-wikipedia.html"? Seems like obvious hoax/vandalism to me, and hence a good candidate for speedy deletion... Thparkth (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an academic question now anyway - cheers! Thparkth (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hooon SPI

Thanks again for looking at this. It does seem a little backwards compared to most other sockpuppet situations, since the user is just hopping from one IP to another after the main account got blocked. Fortunately, his M.O. is pretty simplistic (make edits without explanation, blank talk page when other editors leave warnings). I agree that a rangeblock would create too much collateral damage right now. That said, in your experience, what is the best way to handle this type of user?

All things considered, I'm wondering if we have a potential language barrier here. The IPs geolocate to Hong Kong, and most of the edits are simply moving things around and deleting other things, with relatively little new content added or existing text content (i.e., not templates, infoboxes, etc.) being changed. While such actions don't excuse bad behavior (it should be reasonably expected that you understand the language on the wiki you're editing), perhaps said user just doesn't know that what he's doing is disruptive. Oh well.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably the only thing that can be done with such editors is to play whack-a-mole with their IPs as they come up; range blocking isn't feasible, and the articles edited are too many to think about protecting them en masse (although Elockid (talk · contribs) has indicated that some may be protected if the users continues to target them). I do see your point about the possible language barrier, however, the fact that the editor has on numerous occasions blanked their talk page upon receiving warnings says to me that they probably aren't willing to listen to advise and are aware that their edits are not appreciated, although I may be wrong with that evaluation.

As you said: "oh well". Such editors are a nuisance, but there unfortunately is not currently a particularly efficient way to stop them, only the diligence of users such as yourself can help us to prevent them.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another mole needs to be whacked. I reported this sock earlier, but I wasn't aware that when using Twinkle, it assumes that you're reporting from the master puppet's account, not from one of the puppeteer's socks. So if you could take a look at that when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it very much (and will pay closer attention to how Twinkle works for SPIs in the future). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's all been sorted out by Elockid (talk · contribs), kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid question for you

Saw your userpage change and have a stupid question: suppose you are going back and forth with an editor who is being dense about doing the right thing in reversing an error. You put WP:DICK on that user's talkpage. Would a subsequent editor think you were WP:CIVIL with the editor in question saying you called him a dick? --Morenooso (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Typically I'd recommend against citing m:dick against a specific editor, as it's likely to cause the situation to become worse, rather than better. Normally even if the user is "being a dick", telling them that they're doing so isn't constructive to getting the dispute sorted out. A better course of action to take is to politely discuss things over with the other editor, keeping two key points in mind:

1. Firstly, always remember to assume good faith with the other user, even though it may seem to you their edits are nonconstructive, the chances are that the other editor feels that they are constructive. Best thing to do is discuss the matter over and try to come to a compromise, if possible. Also, bear in mind that no one is going to like being told that their edits aren't wanted, so try and tackle the matter with due sensitivity and prudence.
2. Secondly, remember to comment on content and not contributor, it is vital that you make sure that you don't comment on the other user them-self, but that you instead focus on the content issue at hand (from this line of argument citing m:dick would probably not be appropriate).

In short, citing m:dick is generally nonconstructive and best should not be done, although I don't think that it is in violation of WP:CIVIL if you do cite it, so long as you don't make a point of citing it often, and that you show proper caution when doing so. Finally, remember, no such thing as a stupid question!

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that "you" is used as a subject pronoun in this reply. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess you're right. I don't use it often but it came up with one editor who was really being dense. At that point, it was nonconstructive as you point out. --Morenooso (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has difficult days, and it's often hard to "keep our cool" when we do. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arnold Frutkin

On April 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arnold Frutkin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unendingfear.
Message added 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless work at SPI. You more than deserve this. Tim Song (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I know that you said you don't want to run now, but when/if you do run for adminship, here's another co-nom if you want it. Tim Song (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tim, greatly appreciated. I don't list barnstars on my user page (mostly because I have hardly any >_<) but I still love receiving them, so thanks a lot. And thanks for the offer of an adminship nom, means a lot (although I won't be running at least for a fair while, I'll try and get back to you if I decide to.) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I add a barnstar²? Seriously, you do great work at SPI and I'd be happy to support a future RfA. TNXMan 13:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tnxman. Messages like this mean a lot to me (as far as building my cabal goes, that is ). Kindest regards, and as ever thanks for your work at SPI, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Miamiboyzinhere SPI

Thanks for looking at this and making the correction. I wasn't really sure how this would be presented, because both Averette and Miamiboyzinhere were active at the same time, with Averette appearing to use Miamiboyz to do his dirty work. Still, I think it's high time this issue of good-hand/bad-hand got resolved. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the closure

[56]An admin reviewed it at the ani and said that it looks potentially duckish: [57]

Can some admin please first take a look at the behaviour and then please explain how its possible that the NT account contacted ACs sock? How could that have been a coincidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Muzemike's comment here. That CU came back unrelated is not something that can just be brushed off. It appears that no admin is willing to take action on this case and one has decided that it should be closed. I suggest that you take up any further concerns with MuZemike (talk · contribs). Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

CU request fix

Thanks for cleaning up the entry. I've noticed that there are a couple of pages that have that issue; the interface complains if you do not add an edit summary/section title, but that same summary ends up having to be deleted in order to keep the page properly formatted. This only seems to happen with some of the automated entries, such as for CU requests. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just the way the inputbox is put together, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Just wanted to say thanks for your help with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hardcore4646‎. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI- MK5384

Please note that the comment by OR at the bottom of the page, is also, not germane to the SPI case.Mk5384 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved into the collapse box. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We might want to move all of that to the talk page. And, no, I don't think MK calling me "clueless" is relevant- it looks like a personal attack to be quite honest. -OberRanks (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fine just in the collapse box. When I asked if you felt a comment was relevant I was asking in regard to the comment moved with this edit. The comment made by Mk5384 about you being clueless was clearly inappropriate to the SPI page, and has been removed. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, how can you revert me, whilst giving him the last word? Jesus Christ; you too? I see; you're trying to bait me into reverting it. Ok; I'll play along.Mk5384 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks apologizing for his actions is perfectly acceptable, you calling him clueless is not. Any further irrelevant comments that are added to the page will be removed, regardless of whether they are made by you, or OberRanks. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire, please review what I wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mk5384 with regards to bringing in material from a five year old closed account unrelated to this investigation. -OberRanks (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IPs and checkusers

I think that in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtsao you are interpreting the restrictions on IP checkusers in a novel and overly strict way. This would defeat the whole purpose of the {{checkip}} functionality. A checkuser is not supposed to tell us what IP a named account is editing from (i.e., if I ask "Is John a sock of George?", a checkuser should never answer "Of course, because they are both editing from 97.97.97.97"), but there is nothing at all wrong with asking whether an individual IP is a given editor. Declining because the evidence isn't strong enough, or because the evidence is so strong that WP:DUCK applies is legitimate, but it isn't reasonable to decline just because the checked party is an IP.—Kww(talk) 14:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mostly what I said was per m:CheckUser policy#Information release, Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure and Wikipedia:CheckUser#Guidance given to CheckUsers, the second of these links states: "It is undesirable to link an IP to a named account". I have also observed that checkusers often decline cases like this themselves, see for instance here or here. If you have any further concerns about this you're welcome to ask and I'll try and address them, or you can ask a checkuser about it. In anycase, thanks for your help around SPI. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd say the account and the IP are quite clearly related per these edit summaries: [58] [59] [60], a very strange way of writing an undo edit summary. Also per the supportive nature in which the IP is being used. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right that Deskana has been declining on that basis, but I don't think you will find another that agrees. I commented on the case. If you strongly feel that checkuser is inappropriate, I'll go ahead and block, but I would feel more comfortable with technical evidence to back me up.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say that per the privacy policy having a checkuser look at that case is probably not a good idea, I'd also say that the link between the IP and the user is fairly duckish, and probably warrants a block. I'm happy to ask a checkuser or another clerk to give a second opinion if you wish. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask for a fourth opinion. I'll be away from my computer for a few hours. and will look again after that.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fourth opinion kindly offered by Tim Song (talk · contribs) here. Hope that is all okay. Thanks again for your help at SPI, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw, and won't raise a fuss, although I maintain that such cases have routinely been offered to and processed by checkusers in the past, and doing so helps avoid false blocking.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your concurrence with regard to this case. I guess if the problem really needs to be concluded it'll have to be brought up with the WMF. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: oh, and you were right about the 3rr thing, of course. My mistake. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh ho, what's this?

Did you report on your own case? Or is it just one of your many socks? ;) Seriously, this name thing could be a problem, especially if you do make a run for admin, as it can be confusing and problematic, especially for your poor lookalikes. Not everyone remembers if there are numbers after your name or not... It seems they are both at least somewhat active, especially the first, so you have a conundrum on your hands. Auntie E. (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we have been confused quite a few times on IRC (myself and Spitfire19, that is), however, I don't really mind all that much, the entire situation is moderately amusing, and I don't think it's causing too much confusion. Besides, both the accounts have been here longer than me, so if it came to user renaming I might be the one to get the boot, so to speak. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

I edited that to elaborate on why it's likely they are a fake account just before you moved and locked it :/ (I was writing, there was no reply when I started only after I clicked save) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You really think they're a sockpuppet of Deb (talk · contribs), an admin who has been with the project since 2002? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

no, there's a bunch of people who revert whenever any mention of nationalism gets put back in... that's just an example of how open they are about what they are doing --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and should not be used to investigate concerns of meatpuppetry or tag teaming. As I said, please take your concerns up with the users directly, SPI is only for dealing with concerns over violations of sockpuppetry policies. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an account solely created to revert by someone that is obviously already involved in those articles or is watching my edits (someone who's brand new wouldn't act that way I think)... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Case

Left a comment here: [61]

The re-opening of the case was more then 2 weeks ago. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fred C. Koch follow-up

Hi there Spitfire, thanks for the help with the Fred C. Koch article. I did actually modify your revision; there was more than one lawsuit and while 15 years was the total time of litigation, there are more twists and turns which deserve more detail, including a bribed judge who ruled against Winkler-Koch and a special Circuit Court set up by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve that matter. I do plan to get to that before long, though in the meantime I think it best to keep it more general. And all that is covered in The Science of Success so I think that's best as the only source here for now. Thanks again! NMS Bill (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! It's complicated enough I even botched my explanation for making the change in the Edit summary myself. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I did just notice you had put back the reference to the Exiled / Alternet column. I'm totally with you about more sources being better; since the relevant section of the column explicitly attributes its own source for that information to Hoovers[62] company record services, I'm inclined to change the reference to Hoovers. Are you OK with that? (Plus, I have just changed my regrettable typo ("follpw-up") in the subject line of this section.) NMS Bill (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point -- although it's not entirely offline: there is a page for it, but only the full article is available to subscribers of the service. Meanwhile, WP:OFFLINE reminds me I can use the quote= parameter in the citation to include that particular sentence, so I have done just that. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Very kind words, Spitfire. Much of what I learned over the past year has been influenced by you. I appreciate all the assistance Tiderolls 14:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI / Bugs

Thanks, but it was my typo here that caused that. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, uhm, after I made my edit (editcountitis? What editcountitis? >_>). Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: next time just put {{discussion top}} at the top of AN/I, and don't bother closing it with {{discussion bottom}}. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, that'd do it! :D —DoRD (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Dhall10067 and his socks

There is a complication. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk · contribs) alerted me to this message saying that Douglas wanted to use Douglaseivindhallgerber (talk · contribs) and had scrambled all his other passwords. So I have transferred Dhall10067's temporary block to that account and indef-blocked Dhall10067 and also the newly-declared Semasa (talk · contribs).

I am not sure now how to tag all these various accounts. Can I ask you to do that? I noticed you changed the tag I put on the ...gerber account from {{blockedsockpuppet}} to {{sock}} - was that because the sock had not been formally check-usered? I reckoned it was so blatant a DUCK that it didn't need classifying as a suspected sock; but I'm not that familiar with this area. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To sum up: Tim Song has kindly moved Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhall10067/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhall10067 to make Douglaseivindhallgerber the master account, and the accounts Douglaseivindhall and Dhall10067 have been retagged as socks of Douglaseivindhallgerber, who has had their tag removed. Also, just as a note, as you guessed above tags that sort accounts into the category "sockpuppets of x" are only used when a checkuser has confirmed the link, and other tags are used when the link is decided by an admin. This doesn't necessarily mean to say "admins might be wrong, checkusers will always be right"; both methods of determining whether socking is going on have their flaws. However, it's just a way of sorting the accounts into "checked" and "unchecked". Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hodg

Just to say thanks for moving this to the right place. JRPG (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mexefloat

Mexefloat

I said I would try and look back on this, and finally got around to it.

The citations could be improved; I changed one - the Jane's one.

The units of measure would be better with template:covert.

I'm not sure about the facts re. the maxi; I think that the source might be wrong; The most common types of raft are:20.22 × 7.42 m which can carry one Class 60 tank or three 4,000 kg trucks38.4 × 7.42 m which can carry two Class 60 tanks or six 4,000 kg trucks38.4 × 12.9 m (Maxi-MEXEFLOTE) which has a maximum capacity of 198,000 kg and can carry three Class 60 tanks or equivalent vehicles

Seems odd to me that the maxi is 150 times larger than the normal one?

The "Further reading" book could have date, isbn, publisher.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussed on IRC, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Support MOTD

Hello, Motto of the Day is currently running out of mottos and therefore we would appreciate your support in this project. Please suggest new mottos or support for others at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review. If you have any ideas for mottos on a special date or anniversary, or you are interested in what other ones of thdse there are please see Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. Thank you for your time. Simply south (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving an SPI

Hi. Sorry to have mucked up the archiving of the Arnold Reisman SPI, which you fixed. Question: Was it OK for me, a non-admin, to archive it (assuming I had done it correctly), since I filed the report and no one else contributed to it? My purpose really was to do my bit to unclog the back-up from SPI by removing a report that was, essentially, moot, but I don't want to stray into admin-only territory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, no worries about my fixing of the case, that's mostly what clerks are here to do. Technically speaking only clerks(/trainee clerks) should archive cases. This is to ensure that accounts are tagged correctly and that everything is in order before the case is archived (and to make sure that the case is archived in the correct manner). Anyone can recommend a case for archiving, by placing {{SPIclose}} on the case page. Obviously in this particular case it wasn't really an issue that you archived the page, and the thought is appreciated (to unclog the back-up at SPI), on principle though, it's probably best if other users who are not clerks refrain from archiving cases. Once a case is tagged with {{SPIclose}} it doesn't normally take too long for it to be archived, and it prevents mistakes from happening. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask me. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks, that's clear and makes a lot of sense. I'll try to remember {{SPIclose}} for the future. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your help around SPI. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Powell

[Warning: boilerplate] You participated in the AfD for "Ricky Powell", an AfD that resulted in its deletion. It has since been re-created. I discovered this today and (as suggested here by WereSpielChequers) restored the deleted versions and am notifying all the participants of the AfD -- or anyway all who were logged in with user IDs that they still seem to be using. If you think the article doesn't meet WP standards you may to nominate it for deletion a second time. Indeed, if you think it is a blatant re-creation of the deleted article you may nominate it for speedy deletion (or speedily delete it yourself). Please don't reply here; I shall not be watching this page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock case

I have another one to discuss in-depth with you. Please contact me on IRC when you can.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)