High School kid who pretends to be a cop up for CU?, ...and ArbCom asked him to stump??? Options

[the fieryangel]

The good sire Tarantino, who is currently away, has apparently discovered a very interesting situation involving Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) who has been asked by Arbcom to stand for the Check User elections. Since he is a clerk at Wikipedia Sockpuppet investigations, this might seem like a reasonable nomination. However it would seem that Mr. Tiptoety has a rather...how shall we say?....strong interest in law enforcement in general, sometimes to the point of pretending to be a police officer, even though he appears to be in High school (or at least, was at the time of his adminstration nom.):

# Strong support Seen this user around many times while doing vandalism reverts. I would like to see a police officer be an admin on Wikipedia. NHRHS2010 talk 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've always been curious, since it appears the user is still in high school (I could be wrong about that), in what capacity he serves as a police officer (this is per the userbox on his user page). Tiptoety, could you clarify that? Katr67 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment More than that, it would appear that this user is also an emergency responder - seems bizzare to be both, and still in high school (by the looks of things). Having said that, I would certainly like to hear why NHRHS2010 thinks that we need a police officer as an admin on Wikipedia. A police officer, in my opinion, won't necessarily make any better an admin than (for want of a better expression) a normal person. TheIslander 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If either of you have any evidence or proof that he is, indeed, a high school student, hadn't you best provide it here rather than simply making it seem as though Tiptoety is fabricating his identity? Otherwise it would seem you're derailing this RFA with non-issues that could sway people in their support or dissent. Thank you. Jeffpw 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I totally agree with Jeffpw that this does not seem to be helpful in terms of this RfA, it is hard to reconcile this diff [1] with the assertions of being a law enforcement officer. Normally the police don't get grounded by their parents ...... Pedro : Chat 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Quite right, Jeffpw, I should have cited what Pedro just has. Appologies. TheIslander 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I admit that dif is disconcerting. That said, it could have been a joke. Until Tiptoety is here to answer for himself, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was being playful when he put that on his page. Naturally, if it turns out he has misrepresented who he is, I will withdraw my support. Not for his age (I know other teen admins here who do a great job), but for the misrepresentation. Jeffpw 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i am a student in a high school, but also serve as an employee of the Police Bureau as a Law Enforcement Cadet. I looked for a userbox that would state that but was un-able to find, so i used the next best thing. A police cadet does the same things as a police offices, except they are under 21 which means no gun, and can not operate and emergency vehicle with lights and sirens. Take a look here: [2]. Cheers! Tiptoety 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Tiptoety. I was sure there must be some logical explanation for that. You seemed to have too strong an ethical code to have lied to the community. If you need help making a police cadet userbox, hit me up. It goes without saying you have my continued support for this nomination. Jeffpw 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, thank you Tiptoety for clearing that up. I figured it was something like that, judging by your interest in search and rescue. I in no way meant to imply that being in high school is a reason to oppose, nor was I saying you attempted to misrepresent yourself on purpose. It is bothersome to know, however, you don't know enough about wikicoding to perhaps "subst" the userbox and then change the text to more appropriately reflect your status. Katr67 15:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Echoed - thanks for clearing that up, Tiptoety. Having said that, I still wonder about the Emergency Responder box... TheIslander 16:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response - Thank you to everyone who understood the situation! I am glad that is cleared up, and have fixed the userbox issue on my userpage. On the topic of the first responder box, I am indeed a first responder (it stems from my work with Search and Rescue). Cheers! Tiptoety 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone's in any doubt, Tiptoey has always been clear on this and isn't trying to mislead anyone - see this conversation for example. — iridescent 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiptoey I'm concerned by this "A police cadet does the same things as a police offices" which I highly doubt. Without going through the DPSST I doubt you can arrest anyone as a cadet (other than citizens arrest) or issue citations. Is this correct? Aboutmovies 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this really relevant anymore to this RfA? It's been cleared up that he wasn't intentionally misleading anyone, if you wish to argue what a police cadet can and can not do, wouldn't it be better to use email, or a talk page instead? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No it has not been cleared up. This user has a history of misrepresentation (I don’t care if its intentional or not) including where in the oppose section someone pointed out this user did this which is far more troubling than the userbox issue. But Tiptoey says it was a misunderstanding, but says they are basically a cop minus a gun. I don’t think that’s true. Simply put, Tiptoey made a mistake, now he just needs own up to it completely. It’s the same thing as the copyvio issue. He’s trying to wriggle around it and make it seem not so bad, which is not owning up to the problem. Own up to the problem, reform, and come back to RFA in a few months. And I’m not sure why you think this was resolved. The only action in this thread of the RFA contributed by Tiptoey since their comment I quoted, is that he removed the user box, that doesn’t address the other claim of being a police officer made by this RFA candidate, which seems to continue when you make comments about cadets being cops minus a gun. Aboutmovies 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this RfA? That is what I am asking. How is the difference between being a cadet and an actual police officer relevant to this RfA? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's (possibly weakly) relevant 'cause it shows trust issues. There was confusion as to how a high school person could be a Police Officer, and Tiptoety cleared that up. However, since that things have surfaced where Tiptoety has claimed to be a Police Officer, yet he states here that he is not. There are definite honesty issues here, which is why this is being discussed. TheIslander 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because as many people have pointed out, can Tiptoey be trusted with the tools.?To analyze this you start with the editors trustworthiness. The above issues demonstrate their are issues with that trustworthiness. Note, its not that there is from a WikiPedia editing difference, anything relevant to cop vs. cadet. It has to do with Tiptoey's response to this issue of misrepresenting himself as a police officer, and then when called on it trying to mitigate it by saying, well I'm a cadet so the only difference is I don't have a gun so really its no big deal. Yes, it is a big deal. I don't know about you but I don't go around WikiPedia telling people/implying to others that I'm a lawyer, when really I'm a law student. First it's border line illegal (impersonating a law enforcement officer is usually illegal), and second what good does it do for the project? Look, we all make mistakes, but if you want to be an admin you better own up to those mistakes, whether that be copyvio issues or saying you are a cop when you are not. Notice below the person who added the info about the claim of being a cop is apparently a law enforcement person, so I'll take their word that their is serious issue and difference with cadet v. cop. Aboutmovies 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the response to this issue has been (at least to me) more of a trying to avoid responsibility That raises issues of trust, and that is obviously related to being an admin.

Ummm, I still don't get it, maybe it's how we are interpreting this section of the discussion, but Tiptoety states "I looked for a userbox that would state that but was un-able to find, so i used the next best thing." Also in this conversation he states that he is a cadet. So he couldn't find the correct userbox, that makes him untrustworthy? He made a mistake with adding content that was a copyvio. Mistakes happen, people are human. I dunno, this is just my 2 cents, but it seems like your consistent issue about this is very overbearing. He's made some mistakes, if you choose to oppose because of them that is your prerogative. But you seem to be making a big deal over the comment "A police cadet does the same things as a police offices, except they are under 21 which means no gun." What does that have to do with this RfA? I just don't get it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's relevant to this RFA or not, but in terms of the link above where Tiptoety says "I am a police officer" -- Tiptoety, please don't do that anymore. It's well-intentioned, but misleading. I don't think it reflects on your honesty or anything like that (particularly since you're kinda like a police officer), but it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons. That said, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the candidate on here, so I'm not expressing any opinion of the RFA (and from all accounts he seems like a good guy). --TheOtherBob 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No you don't seem to get it, its not about the userbox, its about his responses after the userbox part was "fixed" if you will. Note, again, there are two instances where it appears Tiptoey has represented he is a cop, the userbox, and far more troubling the Admin noticboard incident. Those are both mistakes, and the problem I have is Tiptoey's response to the community's concerns about the userbox, and more importantly the second incident. I asked a simple question, you have decided that you wanted to say its not relevant, all I want is a response from the candidate. Now if you really want to analyze the userbox, its not that he couldn't find the right userbox, its how he responded to the concern, oh its no big deal since a cadet is really just a cop without a gun. Well a private citizen is really just a cop without the authority, but if I misrepresent that I am a cop when I am not, then I get a free ticket to jail. So the problem I have is that Tiptoey was trying to downplay these misrepresentations, instead of owning up to the mistakes. Changing the userbox is the first step, but this comes across as very insincere when you try to downplay the problem. Aboutmovies 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aboutmovies's comment was below mine, but I'm pretty sure it responds to the one above mine. To be clear, I don't hold any opinion here other than that Tiptoety shouldn't claim to be a police officer until he is one. --TheOtherBob 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

From IP information gleaned from Wikipedia Watch and Sam Spade, which I won't go into here, it would appear that Tiptoety has a history of making claims about being a law enforcement officer on other sites.

Now, does Wikipedia really want a younger kid who has obviously has a law enforcement fetish to handle this type of serious information? I see red lights going off all over the place here and this person seems to me to be the very last person who should have access to CU tools on the English Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

And in passing, let's talk about Stifle.

Ignoring NPA policy. Protecting his user talkpage, via misdirection.
(He and A Nobody (T-C-L-K-R-D) have quite a twisted history.)

The old-time cabal likes him. Esp. Jayjg. And he hates Giano and Geogre.

And he seems to have it in for Peter Damian.
And anyone who participates on WR.

Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Legendary for punitive blocks to silence critics, and for blanking talkpages for same.
I've been going thru his logs, and I don't see any substantial article contributions.....
but he sure does enjoy marking pages as patrolled, blindly deleting "nonfree" images,
and sniping at people on their talkpages. In short, a classic robotic deletionist.

Humorless asshole. Might make a good police officer, given better supervision.
But for Wikipedia (where "supervision" is a joke), he's a poor match.

I'd post more links to his stupid, wikilawyering activities, but there are too many to list.
Go thru past Deletion Reviews for some examples.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 25th July 2009, 11:03pm

[EricBarbour]

Fieryangel: care to share more about Tiptoety's off-wiki activities?

(Cuz I keep coming up with bizarreness like this and this.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 25th July 2009, 11:29pm

[the fieryangel]

Fieryangel: care to share more about Tiptoety's off-wiki activities?

(Cuz I keep coming up with bizarreness like this and this.)

I can't do that here, but I can explain how Tarantino was able to find this: The IP information found on wikipedia-watch leads to what appears to be a real name, which also appears to be the name of an account which also edited Wikipedia. This name has posted on quite a few LE forums saying things which suggest that this person is not just a cadet, but a real police officer.

I suppose that anybody could find this out now, once you've got the IP off of the chat cache on WW...

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

This name has posted on quite a few LE forums saying things which suggest that this person is not just a cadet, but a real police officer.

Uh-oh ... Hold on.

You are saying he is a real police officer ... pretending to be a teenager to edit on the Wikipedia ... self-presenting to become an admin/checkuser ... and then having access to private personal information about other Wikipedia users?

So, how many more "law enforcement", "private investigators" or "intelligence operators" are lurking round the back end of the Pee-dia admins pages? By probability alone, there have got to be more than one. Well, OK, perhaps there is not much evidence of "intelligence" but you get what I am saying.

And the 'Village Pump People' sang ...

Young man, there's no need to feel down.
I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.
I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy.

Young man, there's a place you can go.
I said, young man, when you're short on your dough.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.

It's fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A,
It's fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A.

They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ...

Young man, are you listening to me?
I said, young man, who do you want to be?
I said, young man, you can make real your dreams.
But you've got to know this one thing!

No man does it all by himself.
I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf,
And just go there, to the Wik-i-Pedi-A.
I'm sure they can help you today.

They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ...

Its fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A,
Its fun to edit at the Wik-i-Pedi-A.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 26th July 2009, 2:40pm

[Somey]

Uh-oh ... Hold on.

You are saying he is a real police officer ... pretending to be a teenager to edit on the Wikipedia ... self-presenting to become an admin/checkuser ... and then having access to private personal information about other Wikipedia users?

That's not what I got out of it - it sounds more like a teenager pretending to be a police officer (not a cadet), as opposed to the other way around.

The specific post in question appears to have been made to a website operated by a group that "offers young people (ages 14-21) an opportunity to not only learn about law enforcement, but also serve their community." The person presumably believed to be Tiptoety posted this, from a city quite a long way away from the group in question:

Great site, I am hoping our unit will be able to get something like this up and running. It looks like you guys have a lot of fun!

So, it boils down to how you interpret the words "our unit," and either way, this is hardly proof that Tiptoety is anything in particular.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with wanting to pursue a career in Law Enforcement, as long as one doesn't seriously misrepresent himself or herself in the process.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

From, Tiptoety here ...

Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement ...

I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question) ...

Do local police departments in the US really care about wiki-wars ... or is he just trying to score do-gooder points on his cadet record?

Yes, I know, "if I did nothing wrong I would have nothing to fear" but isn't this all becoming a bit Orwellian? Give the guy a red sash and sign him up for the Junior Anti-Sex League.

If Checkusers and admins are off taking private information, sharing it with others according to their whim, and reporting individuals to the Police state, shouldn't it all be transparent, accountable and recorded somewhere?

I mean, who is he to judge who gets what? Is there no policy on this?

[Kelly Martin]

Do local police departments in the US really care about wiki-wars ... or is he just trying to score do-gooder points on his cadet record?

There are very few situations where it would be reasonable to release checkuser information to law enforcement. Most of the cases where one might be tempted to are likely to be petty drama situations where dogoody types can be coopted into magnifying drama by the posting of ambiguous threats to do harm to oneself or another.

It's far more likely for checkuser information to be of interest in a civil suit (typically defamation or copyright infringement), in which case the plaintiff can just request it directly from the Foundation (and this happens more than you probably realize, since such requests are not generally discussed publicly and may be granted without even creating entry in the checkuser log as the developers can pull the relevant data directly from the database without a log).