Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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 (HitBLUE)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. Tiptoety21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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|00:34, 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)
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, talk08:19, 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) :-) Tiptoety18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ragusino checkuser
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)
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)
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)
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. Tiptoety03:44, 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 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. MBisanz05:30, 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 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. Tiptoety05:48, 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. MBisanz05:51, 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 () 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). Tiptoety06:16, 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 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. Khoikhoi02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
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)
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.MyAccount00:52, 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. :-) Tiptoety02:59, 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. Tiptoety05:08, 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! Hersfold15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Elect the Best Financed, Least Offensive Person For the Job (aka Oregon COTW)
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)
Objection
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.
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)
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)
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)
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) Tiptoety19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You protected Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK). It has now been confirmed that the series will take place . I think it is time for the article to be created. 12bigbrother12 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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. Tiptoety19:56, 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. Tiptoety20:17, 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. Tiptoety20:48, 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 Korn22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
3RR case on Litvinenko
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. Tiptoety22:04, 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. Tiptoety22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Done 
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.