User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 →

Contents

Protection

Vandalism of my user and user talk page doesn't bother me that much, (I would rather they do it there, rather than an article) so at the current point unless in gets really bad, I don't think that I would need to have it semi'd. Thank you for your concern. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No problemo, let me know if you change your mind. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!

I NEED HELP!!! I need my page revived!!!! I will do anything!!!!!! User:east718 deleted it! I need help!Altenhofen (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That is because it was in your best interest. Might I recommend that you do what wikipedia is here for and, maybe, create some articles? Tiptoety talk 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator

I would like to become an account creator. Is this possible? I saw the conversation on the talk page for account creators, and I was wondering if I would be able to become one. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you do account creation work? Tiptoety talk 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done a little bit, not too much. In the future I would be willing to. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and checked you User Creation Log and did not find any evidence that you in fact have. Once you have created a few usernames through the account creation process (correctly) I would be willing to grant you accountcreator. Tiptoety talk 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Goldfish

Hey, nice work with protecting that vandalism! Do you mind shedding your zealot administrator stereotype and assuming good faith once in a while? Not every anonymous editor is a vandal you know. --78.149.122.209 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock :)

Who's there?
Brooke Shields.
Brooke Shields who?

Wow, that is actually almost depressing. :D Tiptoety talk 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I found it a clear cut above your typical knock knock joke. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and a large one at that. Thanks! Tiptoety talk 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:May 2008

Sorry - only just found out about WP:3RR probably violated it, "so I repent my sins" :) // Finns 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as long as you promise to no longer violate it, and stop edit warring (which might I add is also a block-able offense) then I will not block. But understand that if you continue to disrupt that article any more, you will have your keys taken away so to speak. Tiptoety talk 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also just found your request for Knock-knock jokes:

Knock-Knock Whos there? Tom Sawyer Tom Sawyer who? Tom saw yer underwear.

Sorry, that was awful :P // Finns 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 :P Tiptoety talk 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No! Not the keys, also User:Grant.Alpaugh wasn't warned I believe. :P // Finns 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes he was. He chose to remove the message though, no big deal. Tiptoety talk 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for sorting that out for me. // Finns 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I will try and keep an eye on the article, but if you find the edit war starting back up please let me know. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okey-dokey // Finns 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Salting

Understood on those two salted items. I've unsalted them. I've also immediately salted items which have a very high unliklihood of ever actually being titles, like "Bob Carter is so freakin gay". Can I presume that this is a good practice? Thanks for your input. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for doing that. And yes, SALT articles like "Bob Carter is so freakin gay" on the second recreation as that clearly is a WP:BLP violation. For other articles it may just be better to block the user who continually recreates them (if they have been warned properly). Thanks for being so receptive. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Premier League 2007-08

Please do not place false warnings under the 3rv rule, when no such number of reverts have been made within the requsite time period. the matter is being sorted on the talk page (see Talk:Premier League 2007-08). I expected more from an administrator. Jw2034 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong here. There is an active dispute regarding the article, and you jumped in and continued that edit war. WP:3RR clearly states that you do not have to actually make more than 3 reverts to be blocked for it, but instead be continualy making reverts in a manner that is disruptive or continues a edit war, which you reverts clearly did. I was simply leaving you a courtesy warning just in case you were unaware of the 3rr rule, so that you would not accidentally violate it, resulting in a block. I thank you for now taking your concerns to the talk page, where they belonged all along. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The active dispute has been resolved on the talk page, as of sometime yesterday. You are not only too late, your warnings are unconstructive. Please contribute to the arguement, rather than seeking technical issue. Again, i expected an administrator to note Revision history of Premier League 2007-08 and Talk:Premier League 2007-08 that this dispute has been resolved since 21:56, 20 May 2008 (quite some time before your unnecessary warning). please be more judicious in future. Jw2034 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contributing to the "argument" is not what a uninvolved administrator does, they try and stop a edit war not inflame it. And my opinion was to warn all the users involved in the edit war (which might I add is not a technical solution). Also, you clearly made a revert at 20:40 May 20th which was reverted later, and then you once again reverted that which then was reverted again. I simply came in after that and let you know that you may violate 3RR if you continue to revert, you were not blocked. I really am not seeing what the big deal is. Tiptoety talk 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue is the last edit I made was at 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC). You placed the warning on my talk page at 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC), long long after the arguement was concluded (properly, on the article talk page) and no further edits were made. Further, 2 of the so called reverts you mention were minor edits by a user supporting my arguement - one wasnt a revert at all. You intervention was a bit unnecessary, blunt and over-officious and most importantly very late! please be a little more judicious in future before firing off threats of bans. thanks, and good night. Jw2034 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was well aware that you had stopped reverting, I was simply informing you that if you continue there is a possibility of a block, nothing more. (I am not sure how many times I can say that). Also, it was not a threat, but a simple warning, the same warning every user receives when they are involved in a edit war. Tiptoety talk 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

QWERTY: Oregon COTW

Hello WikiProject Oregon participants, time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week we made some great improvements to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Oregon Ballot Measure 47 (1996), with a DYK for the forest. Great job everyone! This week we have another stub, George Lemuel Woods, one of only two governor stubs left, and should be an easy job getting it to Start class. Then, in honor of the long weekend, we have our second State Park Article Creation Drive. Lots of red links to turn blue, lots of opportunities for DYKs. Help if you can, even if it is only adding pictures of state parks. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. May the The Schwartz be with you. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Resolved.

I don't understand what the "final warning" was about on my talk page. There was clear consensus for inclusion on the talk page and we were just trying to figure out a wording that works for everyone. I think you are taking a little too much of a hard line stance. There was no malice or anything involved. The edit war has been over for more than a day. We were simply tweaking the wording of the consensus. Please be more careful when issuing warnings. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While there may be a consensus on the talk page, that does not mean you can edit war over the consensus. The wording should be decided on the talk page before the text is placed in the article. If this [1] [2] [3] [4] is not a edit war, I am not sure what is. All of those are exact reverts of each other, you should after the first revert have headed over the the talk page, or the usertalk of the editor you are have a disagreement with and come to a agreement on placing the reference or not. You should not continue to undo his addition of the source, and the same thing goes for him. Tiptoety talk 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point, but to characterise this as an edit war is a little overkill. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well after looking over the page history and your contributions to it, it is pretty clear you have engaged in a edit war on that article before, and it looks like you are just continuing to do so no matter what the dispute is over. Please tread more carefully in the future. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, those four edits can well be called an edit war. That's what it looks like to me. Jw2034 added a ref; Grant.Alpaugh deleted it; Jw2034 added it in again; Grant.Alpaugh deleted it again; and although there is discussion on the talk page, I didn't notice anything there along the lines of "OK, you can delete that ref I had added." Whether something is an "edit war" or not is a subjective call. If someone chooses to call something an "edit war" I wouldn't criticize them for using those words even if I wouldn't use the words in that situation myself. I hereby encourage both users, if they happen to read this, to rely more on talk page discussion rather than repetitive reverting. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. Jw2034 may have only reverted once, so I shouldn't have applied the phrase "repetitive reverting" to that user.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

You marked this resolved. What was/is the resolution? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bastique preformed a checkuser and got the location of the IP address. I email the information to Toddst1 who has since reported it to the local authorities. If you would like the IP address I would be more than happy to provide it to you via email. Tiptoety talk 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tiptoey. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. And thank you for reporting it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

The Real Life Barnstar
For your perseverence with the possible threat of violence from the West Virginia school today. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My user page

I think you've gone overboard on the locking of my userpage. Please reconsider before I take this further. Lugnuts (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome further discussion of my actions, and if the community feels they are inappropriate (as they do about yours) I will undo my actions. Best, Tiptoety talk 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety, this edit summary is rather offensive when addressed to someone, Lugnuts, that has started over 2800 articles, dontcha think? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I thought that too, but I thought people would jump on me (pot, ketle, black, etc...) ;-) I've reported Tiptoety for what I see as abuse of admin rights [5] Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone involved here needs to step away from the ledge, also known as the keyboard. Lugnuts, Tiptoety, Nakon, Keeper. Things are moving entirely too quickly and escalating too quickly for a Friday afternoon. Tiptoety, I'm inclined to unprotect. Your thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think unprotection is the correct course of action, then I will not oppose it. Tiptoety talk 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly say that this attempt at getting an RFC going is ridiculous. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've advised Lugnuts that an RfC is highly unlikely to be certified or accepted. Sorry 'bout all the drahmaz Tip....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In regards to my edit summary, I can see how you may see that as a personal attack, though that was not my intention at all. Understand that it was not directed at lugnut at all, but instead at everyone (including myself :D ). Everyone was making such a big deal out of all of this, and really it was being taken too far. Sorry if my edit summary came off rude as that was not my intention and like Keeper has said, it may have been in the heat of the moment. I hope that you (anyone offended) will except my apology. Tiptoety talk 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't think you should have reverted to your version and protected it. It's not fair to Lugnuts. Maxim(talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety, I'm glad you see the "other side" from Lugnuts perspective. I'm working with him/her to see if he/she will undo/cancel the RfC against you, as it is very likely an overreaction. Thank you for your levelheadedness in this particualar ridiculous situation. Have a good weekend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'll get that RFC thing closed. If I can figure out how to do so...! Lugnuts (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and...

Thank you for blocking the Cowboycaleb socks, and through the user list I have uncovered three as-of-yet unblocked sleeper accounts: User:Cowboycaleb1111, User:Cowboycaleb2222, and User:Cowboycaleb9999. If you could lay the pwnage on those as well, it would be much appreciated ;). Cheers, -The Hybrid- 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - All accounts blocked, I am going to try and see if I can wake up a checkuser to see if we can find any other sleepers. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you very much Tiptoety. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 06:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know if you find any other sleepers. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I know the IP range that he uses. Would providing you with this information help things along? Cheers, -The Hybrid- 06:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No, thats okay. If I need it, I will request it via email for privacy reasons. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, just checking. Peace, -The Hybrid- 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I spoke with a CU and it appears that you found all of them, good work! Tiptoety talk 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's cool! Hopefully he sticks with this predictable pattern. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will

I will and thankyou :)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
your a good person BJ (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi its me

Hi could yo please give me the page that was deleted? my wiki page called Master camouflage was redirected, or can you tell me how to find this redirected page. I was told that I had to recreate with a new headding but the new headding got redirected. The page redirected and the page deleted are: Master camouflage (redirected to crypsis) and Phyliidae and Extatosoma tiaratum was deleted, causing me to loose all the info on that page al together.

Thanks!

BJ (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Master camouflage has never been deleted, but instead redirected, that page can be found here. Other than that, I am not sure what you are requesting. Do you need a page undeleted, or do you just need the content of that deleted page. Also what page exactly are you needing. It may just be easier to contact the admin that deleted the page. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It clearly says: : master camouflage (redirected to crypsis) BJ (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but just becasue it is redirected does not mean it was deleted. You are more than welcome to check the logs for that page, but you will find it was never deleted. Tiptoety talk 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[6]

I think people were assuming based on comments Enigma message 06:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

K, then I will transclude it for him (as he probably does not know how to do it on his own) Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re RfA

Hello, Tiptoety. I'm just replying here to the threads about the vote on my RfA that got moved to the talk page. I don't want to encourage the posting of joke votes, and I appreciate your consideration of my feelings in moving the vote. However, I wasn't offended by the vote but found it amusing, and I would have preferred, if the vote was to be discounted, that it be done by some combination of putting a comment beneath it, indenting it or striking it out, rather than removing it from the page. If removing it, it would have been helpful to leave a pointer such as "joke vote has been moved to talk page", as was done with the question that was moved to the talk page. (12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) As it was, while very busy with my RfA I was left wondering where the vote had gone and whether any other votes had been deleted, and didn't have time to investigate until I happened to see it on the talk page a couple of days later. It seems to me that the action of moving the vote was more of a cause of wikidrama than the vote itself.(01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)) However, there was no harm done beyond a certain amount of wikidrama, and again I appreciate your consideration. By the way, all who participated in my RfA are invited to read the messages at Thank you for participating in my RfA. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread my actions completely. First off, removing the !vote and placing it on the talk page was to avoid drama, not create more (and to be honest find it rather offensive to be accused of trying to create drama). Instead of leaving it on the RfA mainpage to be read and ultimatly allowing others to continue to post would only further the drama that was not meant to be there in the first place, and if I would have placed a link from the RfA mainpage to the talk page, it would have read pretty much like “To continue in the drama fest, click here” and "drama" would have only continued in the talk page. Understand that my intention, whether the candidate does not mind at all was that simply !voting for the heck of it, and stating that you may remove it is completely un-expectable. And after asking if she would remove it, I did so myself. I hoped that it would limit any more !votes like that, which can in fact hurt newer or less confident candidates. RfA is not a place to play around, or at least not in the way that user went about it. Also, understand I would never remove a !vote from an RfA, or any content for that matter, and always move it to the talk page. Tiptoety talk 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I struck out part of my message above, which was misunderstood and was unnecessarily critical anyway. See my reply at User talk:Coppertwig#RE: RfA.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety, it was a mistake for me to have criticized your good-faith action which didn't violate any policy or guideline AFAIK, which you did with the intention of helping me and which may have actually helped me. Will you forgive me? Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please understand that the comments you made earlier on my talk were made in good faith too, and for that reason there is really no apology needed though it is greatly appreciated. I say we move on, and put this all behind us. So yes, I accept your apology. Cheers :) Tiptoety talk 14:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Now let's do a knock-knock joke! 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
C: Knock, knock!
T: Who's there?
C: Meat.
T: Meat who?
C: Certainly: you're welcome to tag along, Tiptoety. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 :D Thanks for the laugh! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. (See also Moonriddengirl! (archive)).

C – Knock, knock!
K Who's there?
C – Hull a ball.
K Hull a ball who?
C – Yes, it is rather noisy around here, isn't it? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! You all are having far too much fun in here! :P Tiptoety talk 17:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Laughter is healthy. We need to get more serious about not being serious. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur! Hehehe ... thanks for the laughs! Tiptoety talk 00:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL!☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I love jokes! My turn! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Johnny's teacher asks, "What do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?" Little Johnny replies, "A teacher."

OOO... thats a good one, and a true one at that. I have to try that one some time. Thanks for the laugh KOS! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Please see my explanation for my actions here. And also, I encourage you to investigate all my edits to wikipedia. I do contributions to wikipedia in all ranges. Since I am a refugee from Lachin, due to Nagorno-Karabakh war, I read very often Azerbaijan/Lachin related articles and it is natural sometimes to be involved in editing those articles in a constructive way (one may not expect but it is fact which you can check). But now seems some Armenian editors want to push me into edit war. Please take this into account. Thank you. --Gulmammad (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiptoety, I request from you to take into account my explanations here and return back the rollback tool. --Gulmammad (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I will return your rollback rights if you promise to only use it in clear cases of vandalism and never in a situation that may be construed as a content dispute. Tiptoety talk 05:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As I have told many times, my purpose wasn't to use the rollback for the edit war, I did it because I believed it was vandalism. Besides, since it was the first time, I ought to be have been warned before removing the rollback. Finally, of course, the above is what I have been trying to do and in the future will be more careful with use of the rollback. Thank you. --Gulmammad (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand that you thought you were reverting vandalism, but unfortunately you were not. In regards to a warning, you clearly received one here and continued to revert after that warning. Also on the RFR page it clearly states: “Before using Rollback: It is strongly recommended that editors with Rollback read Wikipedia:Rollback feature before using the tool. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed.” I will be happy to give you rollback back if you agree to be more careful next time. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is absolutely not true, I didn't revert anything after this warning using the rollback tool. And also, when I got the right of using the rollback I tried it here New admin school and read all instructions. I have already given many explanations for my actions, and of course, in the future I will be more careful when I use the rollback tool. Cheers, --Gulmammad (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes it is. Either way I have granted you your rollback rights back with the understanding you will be more careful with the tool in the future. Tiptoety talk 20:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
mmm...I can't see how "it is" :(
But as you said, either way thank you very much!
Now I'm thinking "Do I need the rollback tool anymore?." I could have done a lot of useful edits instead of fighting to get the tool back :)
--Gulmammad (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. :P If you ever want the tool removed for non-controversial purposes you can just ask I would be happy to remove it. Who knows maybe it will free up some time do do other things, and just get rid of some stress. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Joke

What do UFO's and smart blondes have in common? Buddha24 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont know, you tell me. :D Tiptoety talk 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You always hear about them, but never see them.. Buddha24 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 :D Tiptoety talk 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SimpsonsFan08

Resolved.

Hi there. I just noticed this user at the help desk. A note at the top of the page states that he's been blocked by the ArbCom for sockpuppetry. Is this another of User:SimpsonsFan08's sockpuppets? I thought I'd alert you as I think you're a clerk there. If it's not the same I apologise, but it just looked fishy to me. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir, that is User:SimpsonsFan08 though under a new start and acting in good faith. He made a request via the Unblock-en-l mailing list. The agreement was to allow him to create a new account and make it publicly know who he is so that it does not appear to be an abusive sock, the account will be closely monitored and blocked quickly if any abuse is found. Let me know if you have any other questions, or would like me to forward you the unblock email. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, I thought it probably was. SimpsonsFan08 was unblocked about half an hour ago by Jpgordon (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), per a statement by Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and SF's promise never to abuse multiple accounts again, but you probably knew that. :) Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war (?)

Hi, this is again me. Just to bring to your attention that here is a call for edit war by a user who tried to put limitations on my editing. I'd like to see your action to this situation as well. Thank you. --Gulmammad (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. looks more like an editor notifying another editor that their name has been mentioned at WP:ANI (which is completely fine). Maybe I am missing something, but will you please show me the part where he calls for this user to edit war against you? Tiptoety talk 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Just I don't want to be aggressive but the discussion is on my edits in provided links and there are claims to put me under supervised editing or something like that. Anyway, you know better...
--Gulmammad (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I understand what you are saying. I do not think his intention was to canvass the user to go to the ANI thread simply to support placing you on supervised editing (which I do not think you need to be placed on). I will keep my eye on the situation though, Cheers. Tiptoety talk 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Gulmammad, I notify people when I mention them at WP:ANI and this is the reason I notified user:Meowy that I mentioned him at WP:ANI. I also notified you when I mentioned you at WP:ANI.
Tiptoety, I leave it at the discretion of the admins as to whether supervised editing is required from Gulmammad but I would recommend it based on the number of unexplained reverts. Would you be kind as to respond at your convenience at the thread in question as to why you don't think Gulmammad needs to be put on supervised editing? Some of his reverts have been very disruptive.
For example:
Revision as of 18:18, 24 May 2008 edit summary: are you looking for a place to put armenian related information?. That seems like an edit summary that would inflame the situation and is battling along ethnic lines. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Understand the reason that I said I did not see a reason to place Gulmammad on supervised editing is becasue I am un-familiar with the Arbitration case along with what is classified as disruptive reverts and what is not. I guess seeing as he has only made a few reverts that may have violated policy placing him on supervised editing may be a to harsh, but instead we should assume good faith and attempt to discuss this with the editor first. (Might I recommend that you talk to someone who knows a bit more than me in relation to the ArbCom case). Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....

for spending all that time looking at my edits. I'm glad that you couldn't find much wrong and that you supported my RFA in the end! Thanks very much.--Slp1 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I need assistance. User:Small-town hero has moved lots of pages with articles about windmills, with a rationale of disabiguation not needed. He has also moved two article to have List titles when they are not lists. I tried to move one back but it won't move. The reason the windmill articles are in the style of (mill name, loction) is that it conforms with the Manual of Style on names - in a similar way to church articles (name of church, location). The articles I need moved back are List of windmills in the Channel Islands. List of windmills in the Isle of Man (these are not lists, but stand alone articles), Wray Common Mill, Hurt Wood Mill, Shiremark Mill, Stembridge Mill, Lower Green Mill, Boardman’s Windmill. Would you please sort this? I've left a message on the users talk page explaining why the articles need to be named as they were. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first off you can move the articles by clicking the "move" tab at the top of the articles that you want to move. Then you go to the second are where you can type in text and place the name of the article you want to move it to. But note, that this is considered to be a content dispute and as such you may only move the articl 3 times in a 24 hour period otherwise you will be blocked for violating WP:3RR, also take note of WP:EDITWAR that sates that you should not engage in continual revertering or moving of content but instead discuss your dispute with the user you are having an issue with. For that reason I will not move the articles back, and wait and see what the reply is from the user that moved them and I encourage you to do the same. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait. I don't wan't to get into an edit war, but there was a good reason that these articles were created as they were. Disambiguation will be needed in many cases in the future - see New Mill for an example of why. I can only create one article at a time, and there are a good few hundred if we just stick to surviving windmills in the UK, let alone starting on European windmills. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
After discussion with Small-town hero, I've moved all the articles except Boardman's, which the software won't allow me to move. would appreciate it if you could sort this one please. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, glad to hear a little discussion worked. In regards to the Boardman's article, it looks like you have already moved it, is that the correct name you want? If it is not, what do you want it moved to? Tiptoety talk 19:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Puppet master of User:CyberAnth and Citizendium

Resolved. Please see this RFCU, Tiptoety talk 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an editor from Citizendium with Sysop responsibilities and tools who has made disparaging statements about Wikipedia to the media (a simple Google search will reveal comments to AP reporters) while abusing the anonymity of Wikipedia to use socks to build consensus on his pet projects. He also has generated a way to get his original research on the Trinity United Church of Christ inserted( difs and links provided below. [7] is the first edit to Citizendium on Trinity page by User:Stephen_Ewen ( please follow link to Citizendium: [8] first place User:CyberAnth shows up and his sock puppets making edits consistent with the Citizendium article.[9] shows gnu release from Citizendium on the 8th of May.On the 9th of may at 0102 he added this to Wikipedia : [10] after creating the essay [11]with a March date . At 0849 he added the same to Citizendium. [12] a [13] shows his edit to the shared alma mater the Harriet Wilkes Honors College shred by Ewenss and Stephen Ewen.[14] are the credentials of User: Ewenss. The same credentials shared by User: Stephen_Ewen with his Citizendium account [15]. Die4Dixie (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow . . . . um... a WP:SSP may be the better way to go here. I am more than willing to check out these accusations, but unless I find good hard evidence I will not be able block until further investigation is done. Tiptoety talk 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Drum roll.... Ewenss is SSewen backwards. Might stand for .... Stephen _Ewen, but kinda like in a code! The Stephen_ Ewen account has not been used in some time, and Ewen reports on citizendium that he got a new computer since the date of his last edit under that name here, so i don't know if the IP adress would be different. Add this little edit into the mix, considering Stephen Ewen's very poublic and vocal criticisms of Wikipedia [[16]]Die4Dixie (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm... I got the whole username thing, I mean they are pretty darn close. I think that you may have enough evidence to file a WP:RFCU and see what happens, but if like you said, he changed IP addresses WP:SSP may be the better way to go. I will take a closer look into this later. Thanks for brining it to my attention. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ktr101

I edit conflicted with you closing this RFA. You just beat me to the punch. Useight (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for helping me get out of that debature on my talk page and would like to award you with:

The Special Barnstar
for a well apreciated act of kindness and for being a member of the party against the blocking on my talk page. BJ (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome, but understand I was not "against" the blocking administrator, and in fact I agreed with his block. I unblocked on the basis that you were apologetic and I felt that you had learned from you mistake and will (hopefully) not make it again. As such please understand I have stuck my neck out for you and my name is permanently attached to my action, and for that reason I hope that will act appropriately and live up the agreements of your unblock. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia has become

I liked that picture on your page. It made me laugh 8) Bit Lordy (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 :P I like it very much too... Tiptoety talk 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just realized...

that you were talking to my duplicate. :P And yeah, I know, it was a mistake to block... meh. Didn't think of it at the time, sadly. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 :P Dherr...stupid me! Tiptoety talk 14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war looming on Ukrainians of Brazil

Hello, I just wanting to give you warning. As per my comments here: [17] I will remove some unsourced statements tomorrow. The other party, Opinoso, who has a histroy of being blocked for abusive behavior, has threatend to engage in an edit war and has already descended into insults and I am anticipating unpleasantness. I don't wish to commit "3r" this time and letting you know. The context is that after I created an article on Ukrainians in Brazil he added numerous non-Ukrainians (I know that I don't own it, but it explains my attachment to it and the desire for it to be free of inaccuracies), stating that because they were from territories that are now Ukraine according to him they must be Ukrainians. If you read the article you can see that these new people he added have nothing to do with the subject. Their ancestors lived in Ukraine but did not think of themselves as Ukrainians, and identified themselves as Jews, Russians or Russian Jews. They ddin't settle in Brazil where the UKrainians settled and didn't mix with the Ukrainian community (why should they have, since they never thought of themsevles as Ukrainians). And because they left decades before Ukraine was independent they wre not Ukrainian citizens - they were citizens of the Russian Empire.

I showed numerous precedents of famous Poles, Russians and Jews who are not listed as Ukrainians on their wiklipedia articles for similar reasons - neither ethnic or self-identified Ukrainians, nor Ukrainian citizens. He dismissed my attempts at reasoning as "common sense" and stated that "common sense" is wrong. He also began an edit war which I also participated in. After trying to explain things to him (it got heated) I eventually decided to just stick to the rules. I asked him to just supply any reference that actually stated that these people were "Ukrainians" - interpretations of what it means to be a Ukrainian or not can qualify as original research. So I just asked for a source describing each of those people as "Ukrainian." I gave him a few days, rather than just start editing. He hasn't produced any sources, and if he doesn't I will remove the names. Could you please keep an eye on him for misbehavior? Thanks....Faustian (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the previous edit war and am going to block anyone who starts it back up again. I understand your frustration with the insertion of what you feel to be non-notable uncorrected information, but you must also understand that there are better ways of going about solving that problem than edit warring and I see that you have tried those and hope you continue to do so before starting to make possibly controversial edits to the article itself. If things get to a point where discussion on the article talk page is no longer working you can always request unofficial mediation of the situation in hopes of getting some third parties involved in the dispute. I will do as you ask and keep an eye on the situation, but please understand I am just as willing to block you for edit warring as I am him, and hope you keep that in mind as you proceed. Best of luck. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I will make the relevent edit per WP:NOR, "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source " by hiding, not removing, information that is not attributable to a reliable source. It can then be unhidden as soon as a source is found. I think that this is the most decent thing to do. The article is "Ukrainians in Brazil" and I will be looking for a source stating that the person in question is indeed a Ukrainian. Drawing conclusions from a fact such as a person being born in territory that would decades after their birth be part of Ukraine equalling being a Ukrainian (despite never considering themselves to be Ukrainian, and never having Ukrainian citizenship) constitutes original research. For this reason the source ought to state, "so-and-so is Ukrainian" rather than merely "born in Ukraine". Rudyard Kipling was born in India, but is not listed as an Indian writer but an English one after all, and numerous Poles, Jews, and Russians born in Ukraine are not listed as Ukrainians either. Until a specific claim is sourced specifically, it doesn't belong in the article. I hope that nobody will be allowed to get away with breaking the rules here. Thanks again for your help and for your time!Faustian (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, that sounds like a wonderful way to handle the situation (granted that no edit war starts because of it). Also, I can see an issue possibly popping up in regards to if a source that is used in the article being reliable or not, and often sources found on the internet are not. If this becomes an issue where Opinoso inserts a person into the article citing a possibly reliable source and will refuse to remove it after a discussion you can bring to issue up to reliable source noticeboard where a group of editors will discuss and analyze the source to determine its reliability. I hope that that process will not be necessary, but I thought I would let you know that it is there if you need it. I will try and keep my eye on the situation once you choose to remove the people from the articles (via hidden text) and try and do my best (as I am very unfamiliar with the topic) to keep things as civil and accurate as possible. Like you, I hope that no one will get away with breaking the rules and hope that I can hold that true. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 04:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change. Let's see what happens. If I'm reverted I will revert again but will stop short of breaking the 3R rule. I agree with you on sources - message boards or wikipedia echoes won't count. I suspect that the other editor will just offer his opinion and revert rather than find a source. regards Faustian (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, make sure that you state that have done so on the article talk page as to attempt to keep discussion moving. I must also warn you that just because you do not make more than 4 reverts in a 24 hour period you can still be blocked for edit warring, so tread carefully. Also, I recommend stating that you will remove the hidden content from the article all together in a period of X amount of days, giving the other editor plenty of time to find reputable sources for the people they have included in the article. Tiptoety talk 14:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems Opinoso is at it again. He has so far kept away from the Ukrainians in Brazil article but is reverting sourced material in the article about one of those alleged Ukrainians in Brazil, Clarice Lispector, by removing sourced material: [18] and adding an unreferenced claim (he also removed a link someone else had added after my edit). I've reverted him once but will not go into 3R.Faustian (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Nrog

Hiya - the above was blocked by you as a sock of User:You have sat through 1 spin - the sock notice refers to a checkuser, but I cannot see that there has been one. I see you blocked a number of socks at 4.00 ish UTC this morning, but can't track down what checkuser case they related to. Any pointers? GBT/C 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, he has had quite a few sleeper accounts sitting around for years. Actually the Checkuser request was not done on-wiki but instead through an external source (ie email, IRC, ect...) I would be happy to track down the CU and have them post their results here if you would like. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No need...! GBT/C 10:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

X marks the WPOR COTW spot

Guten Tag WikiProject Oregon team members! Great job last week with the Collaboration of the Week, we improved George Lemuel Woods and added eleven new state park articles. This past week we also surpassed the 6000 article mark as a project. The weather may suck, but WPORE is not. For this week we have by request Music of Oregon and Phil Knight. Both need some help, and with Knight we might be able to improve it to GA standards. Once again, to opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Astral

Seems to be the master account. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, did not see that until my second read of the RFCU (was not very clear). I unblocked for the time being, as it does appear he has some constructive contributions. Tiptoety talk 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AC

I know you said no to admin coaching me but I am just intereseted, anychance you could give me some more of your really hard questions ? :D. If you wouldn't mind then please tell me! I dont mind if they have been used before on some past RFA's (not telling me which ones) but anything to help me along would be really nice. I should be active for a little while longer tonight so I will be awaiting your response. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 :D Really hard questions eh? Well I guess I have a little free time. Give me 20 minutes or so to whip up a couple... Tiptoety talk 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ill make you a section on my AC page :>. Feel free to add anything there that you think I can do to make me better / to help me (you know what I mean) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
p.s. (try to keep it tidy please ^^) or try to tip toe around :D (well you are asking for jokes - well it was quite lame) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me to post the questions there as well, or just on your talk? Tiptoety talk 23:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just on that page please :P ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will ask you again or something when I would like you to check them ^^ ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I will just add the page to my watchlist. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rights Thanks

(User rights log); 23:37 . . Tiptoety (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Travellingcari from rollbacker, sysop to sysop (Redundant) Well I don't quite get what you did but since it appears to fix something that was broken, thanks TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin flag allows you to have rollback, thus making having the "rollbacker" flag rather redundant. It is just done in a attempt to clean up some of the user rights lists. You are welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More rollback abuse by user:Gulmammad

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

Please respond here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on ANI. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


MP Image

There's a reason why, but I'm at work and can't find the link. Cascading protection still leaves it exposed in some way. --Stephen 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okey Dokey, sounds like you know more than me then. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:ACC

Hey Tiptoety, I've recently shown an interest in the WP:ACC project and made my first account today (view logs). I was wondering whether you could assign me usercreation rights so I can create more than the 6 accounts. If you require more action of me in the WP:ACC department to establish trust, then that's OK, I'll happily continue the way I am. Regards ——Ryan | t • c 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Tiptoety talk 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

842U/Packa unblock

Hi, Tiptoety. Just FYI, over here, we're talking about your recent unblock of 842U (talk · contribs) / Packa (talk · contribs). I don't mean to question your authority, but I am a little surprised that this willful, wanton, repeated puppetmaster's indef block was reduced to around 8 days or so. Question: Have this user's second(?) batch of puppets been rounded up and shut down? Thanks for your time. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason that the one account of his was unblocked, was do to the fact that the user did in fact have good contributions to the project, and per WP:AGF we should recognize those constructive edits while also enforcing Wikipedias sockpuppetry policies. After a long discussion with 842U, he promised that he would never again abuse multiple accounts and would by no means try to sway consensus in a manner that he did. Understand that if a long standing constructive user was blocked for vandalism it would not be indefinite, and same thing goes for a long standing user who did not abuse multiple accounts in a malicious way. Did he violate a policy? Yes, but not to an extent that it caused so much damage to wikipedia that it justifies a indef block, and there for he should get a second chance. As for the current WP:SSP case, until it is resolved I can not block those accounts, so have the been shut down? Not to my knowledge. Understand that if 842U is found to still be abusing other accounts after his unblock was done, he will be blocked indefinably. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Any idea why the current SP case is dragging on so long w/no action? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
One further question- Is it not difficult to assume good faith when 842U/Packa's "apology" and promise not to do it again didn't include any mention of his three additional socks that've just been blocked? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but understand none of those accounts were created after he was unblocked, meaning that he has not violated the terms of his unblock. Also, why would you expect him to mention the WP:SSP case? Should that not be my job when determining whether or not to unblock? And just becuase his sock accounts have been blocked does not mean his main account needs to be. Let me know if you have any further questions, and if you feel that my decision was incorrect I welcome a review of my decision at WP:AN. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do understand that none of those accounts was created after his unblock. I would absolutely expect him to mention the WP:SSP case if he were sincere in his regret for having deliberately broken the rules, and if he genuinely intended not to do it again: "I'm sorry I broke the rules. I won't do it again. I understand that all my sock accounts are being blocked...in case you didn't find them all, here's a list of the phony usernames I created." He kept silent about the accounts you didn't happen to find, which suggests to me he was more sorry he got caught than sorry he broke the rules. Given that, I do find it challenging to share your assumption of his good faith. I'm not an administrator, so it's not my call to make, and I'm not sure I want to make a federal case (or a WP:AN case) out of it but yes, for what it's worth, I feel you were far too fast to give this deliberately and multiply abusive user a free pass based on nothing but his half-apology containing lies of omission. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Your complaints are duly noted, and I thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. One thing I do hope that you see is how many positive contributions this user has made to the project, and come to find that those far outweigh him using multiple accounts in a attempt to sway consensus (which in my mind, he could have been doing far worse things with all those accounts). I think one thing that you should look at are other incidents where long standing users have been found to abuse more than one account, and take note of the common precedent of giving them a second chance. Why should we do any different with this user? If he abuses this second chance I will pull the plug for good, and you can hold me to that. Like before I always am willing to hear second opinions/review of my actions. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You make good points, and I agree with you regarding this user's positive contributions and precedent for second chances. I suppose I'm having difficulty believing this to have been a one-time transgression. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess, and hope for the best. Thanks for taking the time to discuss the matter with me. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Accountcreator

I am interested in the accountcreator flag. If is not too much to ask that is. Rgoodermote  19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way. I have only created 2 account so far. I wanted to let you know. Just in case there is some sort of max I have to create to gain trust. Rgoodermote  20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Tiptoety talk 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Happy editing. Rgoodermote  21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pending trouble on Ukrainians of Brazil

I'm sorry to bother again with this page. Could you please send a warning to Opinoso (talk)? He is threatening further disruptions of the article: [19]. hanks!Faustian (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I do not see any "threat" of disruption, but instead a editor stating that he feels the title of the article is incorrect (understand I am not going to pick sides and say who is right and who is wrong, not my job) and is doing no more than you did when you said: "In 3 weeks I will remove the no-Ukrainians from this article unless reliable sources are found to support them being in fact Ukrainian". What this looks to me is an issue much in need of more opinions, because you two simply arguing back and fourth is not going to get anywhere. So, my recommendation is to file a non-formal request for mediation and get some more discussion going on. Tiptoety talk 22:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I will do so. In the mean time, this guy has become abusive and begun making edits and trying to start an edit war, basically refusing to make edits based on sources but just making his interpretations. I think that I'm being quite reasonable by asking for sources for any edits - it's exactly what I have done.Faustian (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here it goes again. I made my fourth revert and will stop (sorry for going overboard by an edit!). He has already made four and will probably continue. In addition to making reverts without meaningful discussion Opinoso is engaging in abuse ("You won't find this racist source", "Faustian, wake up. This is 21st century, not 18th", "19th century Nazi view", etc.). I find this unacceptable. I am backing up all of my assertions with reliable sources and he is not. Whether you have an opinion about who is right or not, shouldn't edits based on sources be placed on a different level than those not based on sources but on opinion? That editor has already been warned for his abuse. Isn't that unacceptable also? Sorry, I'm getting frustrated.Faustian (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Opinoso just made his fifth revert.Faustian (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And, on the talk page of the related topic of Clarice Lispector Opinoso wrote "Of course, Nazi people only see her as a Jew, whose family has been "lost" in Ukraine for 1,000 years. That's why they killed 6 million Jews, even though they have been in Europe for centuries....But this is a view for insane people." which is clearly abuse.Faustian (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, understand that it takes two to edit war, and blocking only him for violating 3RR when you both did would be seen as a unjust block. So, this is what I recommend: take the 3RR vio to WP:AN3 and report him there (but be warned, you may be blocked as well), make that request for mediation, and you are more than welcome to issue him warnings for 3RR, it does not need to come from a admin. Next time if I am offline and you require immediate attention, try using a notice board or contacting a administrator at WP:ACTIVE. I will personaly leave him a note stating that any further violation of 3RR will result in a block, but unsertand that warning goes for you too. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Someone created a compromise version which is acceptable (to me, at least) and hopefully further steps won't be necessary. The other editor is quiet, for now...Faustian (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Great! I am so glad to hear that, and hope that it stays that way. Just in case you are wondering, I did warn the other party involved stating that any further disruption will result in a block [20]. Best of luck! Tiptoety talk 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious Question

You recently Full Move Protected a page. Why didn't you just semi protect the page as the Grawp editor(s) aren't auto confirmed yet? Or did I miss something there :P. Just curious. Thanks, Dusticomplain/compliment 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While those two Gwarp accounts were not autoconfirmed, he certianly does have a good amount of sleeper accounts that are. Also, I really see no need at all to move that page without a large discussion/consensus first, and if that situation comes up you can always request unprotection. Hope that answers your questions. Tiptoety talk 23:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Also, would you consider being my Admin Coach. Nothing against my current admin coach, it just seems like when I'm on he isn't. What do ya think? Dusticomplain/compliment 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have already said no to one other user this week and am going to have to say the same to you. Please understand that it has nothing to do with you as I have seen nothing but great contributions from you thus far, but more to do with me and my already busing wiki schedule and my very busy real life schedule. I would be happy to answer questions on my talk page from time to time, but do not have the time I like to commit to those type of things. Also, if you are having issues with you current coaches schedule then maybe you should speak with him about it and maybe he can ask another admin to co-coach with him, just a thought. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks :D Happy Editing, Dusticomplain/compliment 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


User talk:ColonelPhillip

Do you feel this user was adequately warned before being blocked for vandalism? Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Same question as to other editor User talk:Agut who vandalized same article. Why not a final warning before an indefinite block? Edison (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you miss the one vandal edit by an IP editor to the article [21]? Edison (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Or the numerous vandal edits by this IP?[22]Edison (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(EC)As for the first one, his edits were clear WP:BLP violations and vandalism and I am sure that he is a sock account being used to vandalize this article (I just do not have any way to prove it, and thus blocked only for 24 hours). As for User talk:Agut, that account is clearly a SPA that is student of the school he vandalized and for that reason do not see any reason for a warning. If you feel my actions were incorrect, I (like I hope you do of mine) will trust your judgement if you feel it appropriate to unblock, and always welcome review of my actions. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The thing about IP's is they are commonly shared (unlike that of a account), and I am not willing to block them without a proper level of warnings. Tiptoety talk 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I like to see a final (or only) level 4 warning before a final vandal edit before a block. This school seems to have one or more unhappy campers. I issued several warnings and was watching for any additional vandalism before blocking, and your blocks seemed premature if somewhat deserved. I say give'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Up to you if you wish to unblock ColonelPhillipor make the block of Agut time-limited. RegardsEdison (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)