Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Completely appropriate. I just had the idea that, since he appeared to be online, a slightly edgier warning might coax him to join in a discussion over at 3RR. Most likely that would not have worked, and your close is well-justified. It might be worthwhile to log your block in the WP:ARBMAC listing, for future reference, and since it seems possible that this editor will continue in the same vein in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you granted someone rollback access. Is that the only admin ability that can be granted separately, or were all the abilities split? I've been away for a year and I have no clue when it would have happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you can grant Rollbacker, Account Creator, and IP-exempt (all at once if you wish). Take a look here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's there? MascotGuy. MascotGuy who? Sorry, no answer because the little idiot has yet to edit a single talk page in four years. He has, however, created six new accounts. Oy vey. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And I highly doubt he will ever stop..... :-/ Tiptoety ^talk 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Relating to this Korlzor case, some obvious sockpuppet IP accounts have started again: see here or here. Maybe someone should put an eye out for this user, because he/she gets completely out of hand as last time? Regards,--HJensen, talk 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to recommened that you file another request for checkuser, just so that if he is evading his block we can get all the accounts he is using. Tiptoety ^talk 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock!
Who’s there?
Admin
Admin who?
Add minestrone – for flavour!

Knock knock!
Who’s there?
Admin
Admin who?
Admin who granted me rollback, silly!

Don’t worry, my reverts will be better than my Knock knock jokes ;) (they couldn’t be much worse) Paxse (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that actually goes in my top 5 best knock knock jokes that I have heard (on my talk page at least) :-) Tiptoety ^talk 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoety. I noticed you making a procedural edit to WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusino. Based on your experience, do you think this case should be withdrawn? I know this part of the world is rife with sockpuppets but I myself don't know of any other suspicions connecting Ragusino to other *named* accounts. (The CUs are unlikely to want to confirm any IPs). Just don't want me and Alasdair to be scolded for fishing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be closed seeing as it has been dealt with. I am going to let a CU make that call though. Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Tiptoety, in all the time I've known you, I've seen you as being very kind and patient with me and other users, even when you didn't have to be, which really means a lot to me. I think you deserve this. Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, how kind. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tip. You have e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Tiptoety ^talk 06:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I see you are willing to grant rollback permissions so could you please accept my request here? Thanks. ChunkyStyle (talk contribs) 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Tiptoety ^talk 06:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

...and  Done Tiptoety ^talk 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think you overlooked one very important condition of the editing restrictions that Boodles agreed to. In the ANI discussion the problem arose with the idea that Piotrus works in tandem with others. In direct response to this issue you explicitly said that the third party revert must come from "Any random user, a third party if you may". It is a situation like this that the "neutral editor" was added to his 1rr restrictions. Indeed, a major part of the arbitration case concerns these two editors, Piotrus and Poeticbent, tag teaming. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I consider Poeticbent to be a third party. Tiptoety ^talk 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is this huge arbom case going on about these two editors tag-teaming. If he does not fit under the "non-real third party" which was explicitly excluded from the 1RR restriction, then who is!?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tiptoety. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here, Tiptoety. Poeticbent is hardly a "third party", but rather a long-time member of Wikiproject Poland who has been in the thick of these edit wars from the start. He also features in the sitting arbitrators workshop sections: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Poeticbent etc. I am strongly requesting that you re-consider this block. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, so by Boodlesthecat edit warring with him (Poeticbent) it just inflames the edit war. I think what needs to be taken out of this is that Boodlesthecat violated his restrictions, and has continued to edit war. While I in no way feel that Boodlesthecat is 100% responsible for the conflict, I do think that by him reverting any users multiple times, or reverting any type he is just continuing the edit war. At this time I feel that the block is sound. Tiptoety ^talk 03:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's being tag-teamed by involved editors, and that your 1RR rule was explicitly restricted to uninvolved editors, I think that the time served should suffice as a deterrent. While I don't object to the initial block, even though there was technically no violation, a 2 week block is extraordinary, particularly under these circumstances; I strongly recommend that you remove it at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I believe the issue here is more that Boodles was given a bright line rule of 1RR, he then reverted the removal of a tag twice. While I agree it looks fishy that Poetic would make such a large text removal, and has the hallmarks of a tag team, Boodles should have known better than to edit war. I would encourage those concerned about tag teaming to enter the evidence into the ongoing RFAR and remind Boodles that we are a team of 10,000 users, if he is faced with such a situation again, there are more than enough other users and noticeboards who can be brought in to handle the situation. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult for a volatile individual who is being provoked and tag-teamed to avoid tripping over a restriction that he technically didn't violate. While he should not be edit-warring (nor should Piotrus and Poeticbent), do you think a two week ban is reasonable under the circumstances? Or, like me, would you think the 1 day ban served would be warning enough? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This bright line 1RR was conditioned that the two reverts be of two different neutral users. This "neutral" condition was explicitly agreed upon by Tip due to this very situation - that one of the accused tag-teamers will come by and revert to the other tag teamers version, thus putting Boodles in a 1RR spot while the other will avoid this problem. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I just can't get over how an admin and another editor will agree on certain extreme and strict conditions, the editor abides by the conditions, yet the same admin blocks him anyway. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There Brewcrewer, is where we differ. I do feel that he violated his conditions. While Poeticbent may not be 100% neutral, it does not give Boody the right to continually revert. Tiptoety ^talk 05:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the restrictions as neutral being other than Piotrus. And in any event, an editor with a block log such as Boodles should know by now that edit warring over a tag will not be tolerated. That said, I think the block could be shortened to 1 week instead of the full two week term. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Tip: First of all he wasn't "continuously reverting". He removed an in-line tag and then over an hour later, after a bunch of intervening edits, he readded a sourced paragraph (^{which without the paragraph the whole article loses its NPOV and balance, but that's a different discussion for a different day}) that was removed sans any discussion. These two edits cannot, under any stretch, be considered "continuous". Regarding the neutral conditions, it was the very editors that are accused of tag-teaming (which are five at most) whom the neutral condition had in mind. Please read that September ANI discussion. It was this very situation that Boodles and Shabbaz were concerned about. It was this very situation that you agreed would not be considered an 1RR.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent} Brewcrewer I do agree with you there. The idea was to ensure that the 1RR restrictions were not gamed. Let me say this. 1) When I placed the block I was unaware that Poetic was involved so heavily in this dispute (and was completely unaware that he was considered to be one of the "tag team". 2) I feel that the block is still valid seeing as there is no hard evidence to prove that Poetic is in fact tag teaming, and in no way gamed the block. Boodles did violate 1RR. Having said that, I have done some thinking and see that this may be doing more harm then good. I do not want to give off the impression that blocks will be used in a manner to give better odds to one side of the dispute opposed to the other, but at the same time I feel that Boodles did in fact edit war and disruptive users need to be blocked. So, I am currently a bit stuck here (and am not afraid to admit it) but am not feeling comfortable unblocking but will allow if another admin sees fit (preferably other than Jay) to unblock as time served for edit warring. (I am going to paste this diff on ANI for other admins to review). Tiptoety ^talk 06:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tiptoety. Also, please understand, I'm not in any way condemning the fact that you blocked him, which I think was completely understandable given your own knowledge of the situation. My concerns rested on the length of the block, and the fact that Poeticbent was an involved editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this entire issue here and on AN/I. On the one hand Boodlesthecat was edit warring. On the other hand, so were his opponents, and it is not completely clear whether he broke his 1RR restriction or not. As Tiptoety has said he would not object if an uninvolved admin unblocked, and as Boodlesthecat has already been blocked for 3 days, and indicated he will be more careful in his editing, I am unblocking. I recommend that both sides in this be very careful about edit warring here. Khoikhoi 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See the note I just dropped on User talk:Del arte. I'll take care of the case rename and tag changes. Let anyone else know that you think should know. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know you granted User:NW's Public Sock Rollback permission who had like 7 edits and I had over 250, I think that is unfair. What do you have to say about this? MyAccount 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an alternative account of User:NuclearWarfare, who already has rollback, and can be trusted with it on a different account. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't matter that specific account did not "qualify" according to you turning me down.MyAccount 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand; User:NW's Public Sock is the same person as User:NuclearWarfare, an editor already has rollback. Giving him rollback on a different account is non-controversial. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is Controversial because that specific account isn't qualified I don't care if it's the same person I care about the actual account.MyAccount 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that point. If you had come to WP:PERM and said that your account was a non-disruptive sock of another account of yours that already had rollback I would grant that account rollback too. It has nothing to do with the account, but the person operating it. Instead of wasting your time here, go revert some vandalism so you can get rollback granted faster. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Howard2112 continues adding the fansite to Coldplay's article. His latest edit was today. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If your still doing adoption, would you mind adopting me? --Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tyler, I am sorry to inform you I am currently not adopting as I am far too busy with real life stuff and wiki-related duties. Tiptoety ^talk 05:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, do you know any other good editors(Preferably admins) that would be willing to adopt me? --Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 05:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Try User:Hersfold. Tiptoety ^talk 05:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

*Hersfold jabs Tiptoety with a stick - just kidding. Just so you know, I've talked it over with Tyler and we're going to try a sort of adoption/mentorship crossover thingie, basically making it up as we go along. Thanks for the recommendation! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Tiptoety. See my response at G2bambino's talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for not blocking me. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to register my objection to the one-sided action you took by placing a warning on my talk page. Your fellow admin at the 3RR Noticeboard found no violation. You have not addressed the points raised by me in the relevant thread on Admin Noticeboard/Incidents. Specifically,

• the discourtesy towards me evidenced by the actions of both roux and Laval in neglecting to duly notify me a total of three times.
• the two reverts by Laval, of my removal of the "essay" Template for evident self-contradiction with the AfD Template also placed by him.

You ask that I "refrain from continually reverting" but I never did so. Also, your imputation that I believe that I WP:OWN the Article is unfounded. I am not interfering with the AfD process, unless you count my comments there as interference. I have left the AfD Template untouched always.

An evenhanded response, in my opinion, would take my AN/I thread into account.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did take the ANI thread into account. Tiptoety ^talk 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat is currently listed on AIV, but seeing the messages on his/her talk page, I'm not sure whether to block for the apparent vandalism cited: the person listing Boodlesthecat is currently being investigated in a sockpuppet case, and I can see that Boodlesthecat has had some sort of editing restrictions. Since you blocked Boodlesthecat recently, I'm assuming that you know his/her situation: would you please block him/her, or if a block isn't warranted, remove him/her from the AIV listing so someone doesn't improperly issue a block? Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Defiantly not worth a vandalism block. Thanks for dropping me a line. Tiptoety ^talk 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to input into Someone else's note to you, but we are unsure how to contact you. Can you please help us retrieve our DION RAMBO's edit? We would greatly appreciate it. We didn't save the input, but we will take it and clean things up. Thank you sooo much. Fan of Talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan of talent (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tiptoety, sorry to bring this up again, but User:Howard2112 keeps adding the fansite link to Coldplay's article and still doesn't listen to the warnings left on his talkpage. I was wondering if you can do something about this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was not around the other day, if I had been, Howard2112 would have received indef block. Seeing as it is now stale, I am going to leave him unblocked and do my best to keep an eye on him. If he starts it up again, you know where to find me. Tiptoety ^talk 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You know it. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you previously blocked the above user for disruptive editing. Well he's at it again. He's mass changing Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and blind reverting people changing it back without going to talk. For example this series of reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&action=history

I realise this editor has a history of doing this and he had to be reverted in order to stop disruption to Wikipedia.213.202.143.233 (talk)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.143.233 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the tell-tale above is a sockpuppet for User:Wikipeire, who has been banned. All I have done is revert sockpuppet edits to display the correct name of the football team, which is unquestionably "Republic of Ireland". This also results from discussion on Talk:4 Associations Tournament. Mooretwin (talk)

I have blocked both of these editors for blatant edit-warring on the named article. I see an accusation that the IP editor is a sockpuppet, but nothing more than an accusation with no evidence and no pointers to evidence to back it up. The established editor has indulged in edit-warring before, and should know better. The blocks are for 24 hours. Please feel free to amend or discuss the block with me if you desire.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire does not list the ip address 213.202.143.233, and so I do not see why Mooretwin thinks it is certain that this ip address is a sockpuppet of Wikipéire.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, there is potential that the IP is Wikipéire. I am going to check this one out a bit more. (Possibly get a CU ran) Tiptoety ^talk 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin is quite right: this IP is  Likely to be Wikipeire. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You protected Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK). It has now been confirmed that the series will take place [1]. I think it is time for the article to be created. 12bigbrother12 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Until the show actually airs, I am not comfortable unprotecting. You can 1) request unprotection at WP:RFPP, 2) or take it through deletion review. Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety,

I am not quite sure if this is a sockpuppetry. Just looking at the edit history of Russavia (talk · contribs), one can tell that he edited non-stop during last 61 hours (from 05:22, 11 November 2008 to 18:20, 13 November 2008). Previuos time he edited non-stop 24 hours (from 08:21, 9 November 2008 to 08:26, 10 November 2008). And so on, and so on. He edits a lot on three very different and specific subjects (a) Russian aviation; (b) Russian foreign affairs; and (c) he follows my edits everywhere after his recent block. I have no idea who else is using his account (perhaps Miyokan?), but this seems to be a violation of policy. What would you recommend? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, just because he is very active does not imply sockpuppetry. Unless his edits are clearly disruptive, there is not really a whole lot that can be done. Tiptoety ^talk 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean that he allows his account to be used by several people (meatpuppets?). Is that allowed?Biophys (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no multiple people using one account is not allowed. But unless you have any way of proving that Russavia is allowing multiple people to use his account there is not much we can do. Tiptoety ^talk 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not editing 61 hours non-stop a proof? I mean a sufficient proof to ask checkuser to look at his IP addresses?Biophys (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be a bit odd, but not enough proof for a block. Also, a checkuser will for sure decline the request as {{fishing}}. Tiptoety ^talk 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is odd. Not sleeping for 61 hours seems to be a solid argument to me. As about disruptive behaviour, he is now debated at 3RR. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He took a 13 hour break between 7:46 and 20:37 on November 12, multiple breaks of between 1 and 3 hours, and didn't edit in the 17 hours before the start time you mentioned above (5:22 on the 11th). Useight (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He did edit, though, for 18 hours straight between 0:14 and 18:20 on the 13th. There are usually several minutes, though, between edits. It's feasible that the editor is someone ill or otherwise bedridden, someone on vacation, etc. Useight (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed this. But he obviously did not make any breaks between 20:37, 12 November 2008 and 20:38, 13 November 2008 which makes 24 hours. There are many other 24-hour periods like that. I could collect more information, but would that be enough for checkuser? Tiptoety said: no.Biophys (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Between those two times, you are definitely correct, that he didn't take any breaks. The longest time between edits was an hour and 47 minutes (with a few other spaces of 106 minutes, 88 minutes, and 54 minutes). Useight (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

←Well, that and that alone is not enough evidence for a CheckUser. But, that mixed with other evidence might be. Tiptoety ^talk 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look and indeed, this 24 hour edit time isn't an exception, more like a standard if you check the days before that too. Note that he was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Miyokan once, because they were both located in Australia and very pro-Putin. Maybe since Miyokan got indef'ed they started sharing an account? Or maybe someone else, because this pattern was already present before Miyokan got blocked. But maybe he's innocent. Only a brief checkuser could shed light on that. Grey Fox (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here in my role as a CheckUser. Tiptoety is quite right: the evidence provided here does not come close to justifying a CheckUser investigation. Unless there is credible evidence of some kind of abuse, this will always be called as "fishing". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoety. I have no objection if you modify the close of this case. WMC may care, but you could ask him. By the letter of the rules on edit warring, anything that ends the edit war is OK. If you think the protection is superfluous, you are welcome to undo that. It was my idea, not WMC's. Since WMC and I edit-conflicted on the close, the result may need work. The opinion of a third admin might be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Ed. I have Unprotected the article. Seeing as Biophys has now stated multiple times at AN3 that he will no longer edit war/revert, blocking him would also be punitive. I am not sure what to do with Russivia at this point. Tiptoety ^talk 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who filed the 3rr violation, and if you ask me you may unblock him, with or without the Litvinenko page protected. Grey Fox (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do feel that Russivia was edit warring and as such deserved a block. I just had some issues with other aspects surrounding the case. Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tippy, pls close this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ColourWolf_(3rd_nomination)#User:ColourWolf. Look like throw away accounts to me. See my comment there. — Rlevse • Talk •

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoe, I would like to respectfully implore you to reconsider lifting the semi protection on Che Guevara. This futile process has been tried several times in the last year or so ... and every time it is met immediately with rampant vandalism. His life and legacy are too controversial for his article to be left without indefinite semi-protection. Today the entire article was blanked twice while being replaced with insults & vandalism that reflect extremely poorly on the entire project. I believe that others and I have worked too hard on the article, to have a situation where an anonymous IP address can negate all of that effort with a simple click (at a time where someone may be utilizing his article to find information on him). Please consider re-applying the semi protection which I believe was essential to establishing the foundation & stability of the articles quality as it currently stands. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2 days later ... and the only IP edits we have are moronic vandalism stating: "boob", "he still lives in Canada", "I saw him in Canada", "He had a whopping 23.5 inch penis", "-RACIST -MURDERER -THIEF -COWARD 100% ENEMY'", "we killed the commie bastard" etc. I can't understand for the life of me why any notable and quality article on wikipedia would go without semi protection, and certainly one of a polarizing figure. Should I go through the request for protection again, or would it be enough for you to simply revert your removal? Thanks & I hope this comes off respectfully as I appreciate the (often thankless) work you and other admins do. :o)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question for you: Is adding a username to a disambiguation page allowed as long as the name matches the disambiguation perfectly? This link here is an example of what I mean. I was reading WP:D on if it's allowed, but I didn't find where it said that. Thanks for your time. ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. It should only direct readers to articles. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know. ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)}

You have just blocked two innocent users whom you thought to be a sockpuppet of ColourWolf.

Just to let you know.

Thanks

Elemental of Truth (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the admins who was involved in my WP:3RR block case, I am alerting you that Biophys has entered evidence into an active arbcom case, which you can view here. The decision was made to block myself for WP:3RR, but only warn Biophys, even presented with evidence of breaches of WP:BLP and violation of WP:3RR. I have no idea who did or didn't make that decision, but this will now be asked about on the arbcom. It was mentioned at the above 3RR case that the decision is harmonious, and on my talk page that the discussion is a relic (for the record, I stand by all of my comments in that particular section). As one can now see, it is not harmonious, nor is it a relic. I was going to post a message on your talk page before the arbcom development asking as to why there is "one rule for some, and one rule for others" and enter into discussion that way, but given the arbcom development it is now necessary for me to address this, what has now become an issue, on the arbcom. Sorry about that, but I don't believe there is any other way, and do not perceive this as a revenge or anything of the like because it is not, I am actually trying to sort these problems out outside of resolution structures. Anyway, this is just a heads up to advise you that I will be entering into evidence at the arbcom the relevant 3RR case and everything thereafter, so you may wish to put it on your watchlist, and respond to it if and when appropriate. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the time being I am just going to watch the case and not comment. If I see a need for me to comment, I will do so. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in usurping Beano with a unified login, and have done so already in my preferences. There are some accounts, however, that are taken and blocked for being vandalism-only accounts as shown here. Am I able to usurp them? How do I go about doing this easily? I've made logins (Beano1 or Beano123) in those projects in hopes that I can usurp them individually.... ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way to fix those. A 'Crat on the project that has the blocked account will need to rename that account to some random username, allowing you to claim Beano. I am not sure where you need to go to request such a action be taken, but I assume Wikipedia:Changing username may be of some help. Tiptoety ^talk 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've recently come off a 24hr block from breaking 3RR on the About Last Night... (South Park) article. Looking to move on, is there anything you can suggest about the edit I wish to make? I would like to remove a blog entry, as it has been superceeded by a source that uses an actual interview with the show's writers.

I think this chappie has taken heart from a group of editors who had hounded me for a bit and would like to refuse any discussion for the sake of it. I just wish to trim down the South Park articles from the dearth of uncited or poorly cited materials they once had. I've worked my way through most of the articles (a fan with a bit too much free time perhaps) but I seem to be a bit stuck here.

Any suggestions? Alastairward (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• My first suggestion is to start a thread on the articles talk page, and then leave a message on the other involved parties talk pages stating that you wish to make X change, and would like their comments on the matter (but remember to keep in mind WP:CANVASS). Then, just wait. If no one comments on the articles talk, or your talk then there is no reason to not make the change. BUT if they do comment, wait until there is a clear consensus before making the change.
• On the flip side, remember to be bold, and make changes that seem obvious, or clearly remove something that should not be there. That said, if that edit (your edit) is reverted (Even just once) go to the talk page and sort out the issue there. What ever you do, do not revert again until consensus is clear.
• If you find consensus is just too hard to come by, request a third opinion.

Tiptoety ^talk 20:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety, I saw one problem with Template:Click. As I see it, it should display the "title" attribute of the template as a tooltip. You can see at the "Examples" section that it's actually showing the "link" attribute. Here's the problem: {{{title|{{{link}}}}}} and I think it should be: {{{title|{{{title}}}}}} Correct me if I'm wrong. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I am no template expert so to be quite honest I have no idea if you are right or wrong. Try posting to the templates talk page using {{editprotected}}. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock!

Who's there?

{{talkback}}

{{talkback}} who?

(okay, not funny, but I won't quit my day job)--otherlleft (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

Sock Puppets still live.....Vandalism started again....Please Protect [IIPM][2] page...

Immediate Protection needed.....

Regards BIGBANGBOOM

It was just a confused user, I have left them a message. No protection is needed. Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

Again Sock Puppets Tampering theIIPM Page.....lets keep it protected for some more time...I Hope by X-MAS we will be able get rid of them by Protecting.....

Please Protect

Regards BIGBANGBOOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked, protection is not needed. Tiptoety ^talk 04:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NajiimP shows that he's got at least 3 more accounts. Hence, I declined his unblock request. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, dude, did you even read my comment? Also, you are aware that admins can not decline unblock requests for users they have blocked right? Please see here for the relevant policy. Tiptoety ^talk 06:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

See the history page and you can see more n more number of SOCK Puppets..... I feel you should take some action....Protect the IIPM page....stop Vandlism....

Please Take some action on Urgent basis...

Regards BIGBANGBOOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. and Semi-protected Tiptoety ^talk 15:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You be interested in User_talk:MBisanz#could_you_find_a_neutral_election_aide? MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tiptoety for granting my rollback permission! I noticed you emphasized 'clear' cases of vandalism, I just wanted to see if there were any edits I made that were not vandalism that should not have been reverted? Thanks again! --mrdempsey 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. And after looking over your contribs real fast I did not see any questionable reverts. The note I left at WP:PERM is just a generic message I leave every user I grant rollback to. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have dragged myself over 3RR on the article The Jeffersons (South Park episode). I thought I was ok as I was changing one bit of information three times and then another bit the once, but rereading the policy, I think I may be in trouble. I reverted my own last edit, is that acceptable? Alastairward (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That is fine. I have also left a message with the other party in hopes to get them to move to the talk page. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Alastairward (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely bad form and abusive to close a discussion you are involved in, especially when you go ahead and give your friend the last word unchallenged. Seeing as how this is a discussion about admin abuse, and you have already threatened people against standard procedure, this looks extremely bad and must be remedied immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the account has been unblocked, I really see no point to the thread at this point. But I will not edit war over the archive template. Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest regardless if you see the point, especially when your action appears as an abuse of authority. Now, you can fix things quite easily and let someone else, who is not involved, perform the action. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You really like to throw around "abuse of authority" don't you? Tiptoety ^talk 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do yourself no favors to misquote me, especially when that modifier "appears" is right there for everyone to see. Now, why would you do such a seemingly uncivil thing and ignore removing appearances of a conflict of interest instead of just remedying your mistake? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that administrators do Ottava, no point in getting upset about it. Just the way it is here. Who in their right mind would allow children to be in charge of an encyclopedia? Wikipedia has the administrators it deserves, but sadly not the administrators that it needs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, maybe if you would actually open your eyes and stop screaming admin abuse every time you do not get your way you would see that I reverted my closure of the thread as asked. Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There are none so blind as those who will not see. What do you want, a medal for undoing what you ought not to have done in the first place? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

←Nope, was not asking for a medal. Just saying that there really is no longer a point to this discussion as the request has been carried out. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to say I am alive and well. Secondly I would like to apologise for joking about suicide. It was in very bad taste but I want to reassure you that it was only a joke and I beg you not to contact my local police department as it would cause huge embarrassment for my family as you can imagine. I can see what a fool I was to mention such a thing and sorry if you were understandably worried. Please can this be deleted now to save me further embarrassment and to stop other editors from getting in touch with the police. Thanks Ponty Pirate Cant log in I am on a WIKIBREAK. 78.145.184.187 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your unprotection of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. The edit war will not end until the warring parties come to the talk page. It got indef protected until that happens; please respect that and restore the indef protection as soon as you see evidence of whitewashing. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, edit wariers will be blocked and the page will be reprotected if it starts up again. Tiptoety ^talk 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whitewashing and sock-puppeting has started again. Please put an indef-full protect again Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I have noticed you to be one of the constructive editors on that article and for users like yourself I would like to keep the page unlocked. I have been (please check all the socks block logs) blocking accounts rather liberally that have been disrupting the page, and they are being reverted rather quickly. From what I see, it is working. If you still would like the page protected please file a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to warn you. Please respect the consensus of the article editors, and other administrators before you, and restore the indefinite block on the article. The vandalism is getting out of hand. Those who want to make substantive changes have refused to discuss them, and until that discussion happens, there is no reason to unlock the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my user page "beasley23803". May I ask why? Also if I had made any mmistakes or violated something, could you just have told me so that I could edit it and correct any wrong doing. Can I please have my page restored, you can delete any of the content that was against the rules, I just want my page back. I'm new too this stuff and it took me a while to do. Whatever I did wrong was not intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beasley23803 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I told you why, it violated Wikipedia's policies on social networking sites. Also, you can recreate your page, just do not include any info that may be construed as "myspacey". Tiptoety ^talk 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least explain to me what were the myspacey parts? I want to create my page again using the same information, but how can I, if I don't know which parts to exclude.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beasley23803 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have banned one of my ips (201.31.242.162) for alledgedly participating in an edit war. However i have not broken any rules, nor have i reverted any edition more than 2 times.

If the reason of the ban were my editions on the article Badger, i would like you to review the history logs on the mentioned page since the other editions i did were made after Tony Fox started to discuss the issue propperly with me, as it can be clearly seen on the edit logs, and they are not reverts, but actually new editions with requested references and removal of unsourced content.

I kindly wait a response.

-201.52.4.144 (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would you please state a reason for why have i been banned for violating 3RR when i clearly did not? -201.52.4.144 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for granting me with rollback permissions. All the Best. Marek.69 ^talk 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry, you don't know me, but I noticed that you had recently dealt with Str1977 (talk · contribs). I don't know what to make of him, and am wary/weary of getting into a long drawn out argument on a page that has been stable for a very long time (after it had been rewritten by a gentleman from the garment industry). Could you please look at Talk:Pajamas and perhaps help out in dispute resolution there? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, while I would like to help I currently do not have the time to adequately investigate this incident. I am working on a few other things at the moment, along with real life work. Might I recommend WP:DISPUTE. Cheers! Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock. Who's there? Tiptoety. Tiptoety who? Tiptoety making your watchlist look horrible by messing up page moves.

Glad you got it fixed quickly. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

/me slaps self. Yep, I defiantly made a boo-boo, but I got a band-aid on it fast. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for spelling your name wrongly three times there. I've corrected it. /me slaps self. --GraemeL ^(talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not here to complain, just to remind you that these are the double redirects and transclusions that now need fixing. I'd do it myself but, not being sure if the move will stick or not and figuring you'd be best placed to judge whether it is likely to, I thought it would be best to mention it to you. I'll fix them in 24 hours if you don't, however. CIreland (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was in the middle of working on them and got distracted. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI. I have started a discussion over unblocking the above user, who has been blocked since July by you. Please come to ANI and give your input on the matter. Thank you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tiptoety, could you move the conversation between me and Occidentalist (talk · contribs) to the talk page from its RFCU page on the sockpuppeter? I think it is too long and irrelevant to needed information for checkuser to look at. I don't know I'm allowed to move it by myself, even though I filed the report. Along with it, I think a brief note on the blocking admin, and the sockpuppeter's self-confession"I created the account User:Documentingabuse solely to file an tag team report" should be added. Could you do that for me? Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me permission to use rollback. Keep up the good work. Willking1979 (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. I'd like to help out with CU clerking. I'm reading through WP:RFCU/C; is there anything else I should know? Anything I should be aware of before I dive in? //roux   09:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since its listing as in the outstanding cases on November 15 by MBisanz, it appears to have vanished. What's up? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been archived. Tiptoety ^talk 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the checkuser wasn't run? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you took action in the past and are familiar with this case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1RR_violation_report. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

		The RfA Barnstar
		Tiptoety, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Thanks for uploading Image:Eugene Police Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Tiptoety ^talk 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back :) // roux   editor review17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, why thank you. (I will have your answer for you within the next few days) :) Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no rush. I see you're on IRC.. I'll say hi there. // roux   editor review17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. While I understand that this is routine housekeeping, do you have a link to the discussion thread? Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My response can be found here Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[3] That idiot created a mess with user talk pages. I just found one which was basically vandalism. 96.232.11.55 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He is already blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but maybe you can delete the junk pages? 96.232.11.55 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that everything that can be deleted has. If you find a page(s) that need to be deleted feel free to tag it as such using WP:CSD. Tiptoety ^talk 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for granting me rollback! I promise you won't regret it =] Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Have fun! Tiptoety ^talk 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there was already a discussion the talk page actually, under the Spanish Empire section. I tried pointing this out to User:Mines32 twice, once when he was reverting the entire page to an older version (which resulted in him getting blocked for a day after I brought it up at ANI), and after he was unblocked which got met with the "I don't care" statement on his talk page.

Only reason I went ahead with a revert of the IP entry rather than going to 3RR with it was I was already in the middle of something and forgot to bring it up there once done. My apologies >_<'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My response can be found here Tiptoety ^talk 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is regarding the page IIPM whose protection you removed. I don't know if you have been following the page for long, so just a few points FYI. The major point that the white-washers are working on is getting the Controversy section deleted, even though it is properly cited with valid references from major indian and foreign newspapers. They also want any other negatives deleted. And a lot of the fawning stuff they add about IIPM is either with cites to their own website, or then random press releases put out by the school that appear not in newspapers, but in press-release-collection websites. The whole purpose is to purge any negative mention of IIPM in google searches, and since wikipedia has a high google rank, they keep doing so. If you want to be convinced of IIPM's ceaseless whitewashing strategy above and beyond just wikipedia, go to http://blogsearch.google.com and enter IIPM. See how many splogs (spam blogs) pop up. And these splogs are created every hour or so, as you can see. No amount of semi-protection or even short term protection will work. The people whom I suspect to be IIPM employees, will just go back to creating spam blogs, and whenever the protection is lifted, return to wiki and start whitewashing again.
The only thing that can work, with such a concerted whitewash campaign, is a long term (if not indefinite) editlock, with changes to the page being made only after consensus on the talk page. You may choose to not put an indefinite editlock, and that's your opinion. But just thought I'd let you know about the context. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot reverted the semi-protect, and the sock-puppets are back. Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is because the protection expired. It would have made no difference anyways seeing as the socks were auto-confirmed. Either way, they have been blocked and I am going to be contacting a CheckUser. If any non auto-confirmed socks start vandalizing I will re-protect the page. Also, you can file a request at WP:RFPP if you see a need. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on. You honestly don't think I was teasing? lol But you did save that link, that has to say something. :P I was expecting something faarrr worse. Lord knows I may have said something bad. Well, I don't know. Its hard to keep up sometimes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you did mean it all in good fun, and I just got caught up in the moment and took it as a "attack." I guess if I was to say that someone is threatening another because they are not getting their way, it would be directed as a attack. Either way, if you say it was a joke I will believe you. (And I did not save the link, I had to go digging.) Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You went digging for me? I feel honored, in a kinda creepy way. :P But if I meant it to be real, I would have clearly put it in wiki brackets. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They’ve got a new nick and a new variable IP. See the latest additions at [4] Edward321 (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is to file a request for CheckUser. Tiptoety ^talk 06:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)