User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 26

Horn of Africa
Hello. I don't recommend you unblock Liban80, as the references he claims support his post actually don't really. Please review the discussion on the Horn of Africa article's talk page for the details. You'll quickly see that this particular editor doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to honesty. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also refer to this post. Middayexpress (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, is this legit? How can he unblock himself if he isn't an administrator? Or is that just a dummy post to fool visitors to his page? Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the unblock has been declined by another administrator. Tiptoety  talk 04:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This Is It (Michael Jackson)
There appears to be some issues with my edits on this page because of "a lack of creditability." I am not trying to engage an edit war at all on this page. I am merely adding information to this - but this individual is reverting my edits - finally calling it unreliable although I dispute otherwise. As a result to that, I have removed all the band members because none of this information is properly cited and sourced. Can you help provide feedback on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.123.108 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The best thing for you to do would be to start a discussion on the articles talk page. Also take a look at some of these dispute resolution techniques. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)
I had been dreading the imminent expiration of the original three months, so was pleasantly surprised to find this: .TVC 15 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Tiptoety  talk 06:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

John Galt
Disregard this. I thought it was vandalism, but it is not. Thanks. Ollie Garkey (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kite Man Says beware of powerlines
Hello to those who participate in WikiProject Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Dab Patrol and improvements to Maurice Lucas. For this week we have Oregon company FLIR Systems, and a maintenance type project with the FA Update Drive. For the later, pick any Oregon FA class article and read through it to make sure it is still up-to-date. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I like frogs. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem
Ever since I was blocked the tool bar on edit pages no longer works. Would you know why this is so?-- Will C  01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but is this still an issue? Tiptoety  talk 22:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WOW ...
I doubt that I could have even dreamed of a more influential support. It took me minutes to close my gaping mouth. Thank you Tiptoety, I promise to do my very best to never let you and the community down. The faith and trust humbles me, and I greatly appreciate your support. — Ched : ?  04:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ched, how kind. ;-) Anyways, you are welcome for the support. Now go do great things! :-) Tiptoety  talk 22:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery
This person has returned, 99.2.224.110 and is editing nearly exactly the same way as before with little to no positive communication,... example and lots incivility and accusatory statements. - Is it possible to topic ban this person?... for incessant conflict on this article Wage slavery? skip sievert (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could provide a few other diffs? But right now it looks as if they have laid the issue to rest. Tiptoety  talk 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

200.158.243.90
I think this might be a sockpuppet of User:Pé de Chinelo. The IP is making the exact same edits as the user (claiming Super Smash Bros. Brawl is a fighting action game and not a real fighting game) and just blanked the sockpuppet message on the users page.  TJ   Spyke   22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As it does not appear to be a static IP I have only Cheers,  Tiptoety  talk 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like your opinion on the following user:


The user doesn't appear to be a new user to me, with finding certain pages that only a seasoned editor would find, such as MediaWiki talk, and then asking about the Blacklist of Encyclopedia dramatica, and then starting an edit war soon after.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very obvious that they are a sock, of whom I am not sure. Most likely someone from ED. The first thing I would do would be to confront them about your suspicion and see what they have to say. If that does not produce anything constructive than opening an SPI case would be the next logical course of action. Let me know if you need anymore help, Tiptoety  talk 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read his reply. I don't buy it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with opening an SPI, is that I don't know who to file it under.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I am aware. Give me a bit and I will get back to you. Tiptoety  talk 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's comforting to know that you guys have nothing better to do than dig for dirt. As I have stated, find anything non-constructive in my edits and let me know please. InQuahogNeato (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, your edits here are nonconstructive seeing as you engaged in a edit war, and this comment is a bit out of line. Tiptoety  talk 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:EW
"assist in resolving a dispute"? It seems very clinical, I prefer the easily intuitive "cooling down". But if you think it's an issue and/or previous consensus doesn't like the phrase, fine, change it. Thanks for grasping the nettle and doing the merge BTW. What do you think of the Section Nutshell template? I'm kind of trying it out. Disembrangler (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is a bit clinical. That said, "cooling down" has never been well received, so I will change it. As for the Section Nutshell tag, I am on the wall about it. I was looking at it earlier and was not sure if it was a distraction or helped those who do not want to take the time to read the section. I say leave it up and see if it gets any comments. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rusty Trombone


I'm certain that the new user below the IP is that of my IP stalker, who's location geolocates to New York. This IP user was informally banned for stalking/off-wiki harassment of myself, the link to the discussion which you can find at User:Daedalus969/207.237.33.36. The page is now deleted, but I'm sure you can view it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from the deleted user subpage that there are a list of administrators who helped resolve this issue before. Seeing as they are more familiar with the specifics, I think it would be best that you contacted one of them. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/mia/1143295553.html --MZMcBride (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I only grouped it under this title as it is what one of the SPIs is wrongly grouped under. I think  is more related to Grawp than it is 207...   I don't know what to do should he ever come back.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE
Could you please warn the following user against violating the policy of what wikipedia is not, in regards to this edit, in which the user re-instates unencyclopedic material which is in the form of a game guide. You agreed with me on before, on this, on IRC. I would now like some help in it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need a warning Daedalus969 needs clarification on what a Guide is. Its not the edit or the article that I care about, its the principal...WP:NOT is revering to manuals or guides, walk through's, ect. What were discussing here is a summary, which in essence is the EXACT opposite of a step by step guide Aspensti (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Daedalus969 here. The edit in question inserts material which is in the form of a guide. While I agree it is not a guide, the way in which it is written and the content itself is very similar to one and goes against WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. The best course of action would be to remove it until a discussion can take place on the articles talk page. What I do not want to see is an edit war over the material. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I will take the writing in question and move it to the talk page where we can discuss the proper way to write it in the article.Aspensti (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901
You are familiar with both players, so you might have a strong opinion on this probation offer. On a secondary note, you might consider deleting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoety%27s_anus_is_str%C4%97tched_by_%C4%A0rawp%27s_massive_%C4%8Bock. this page]. I'd tag it for speedy, but it's protected.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kww. I am currently taking a short wikibreak, so I will comment about the above user later. As for the talk page, I have deleted it. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi, I hope I am not disturbing you again. Mwalla is back again. They appear to be continuing their behaviour of following editors who were involved in their initial ban around and then when they see the potential to cause an argument they create a sockpuppet and do their usual. They saw a dispute with an editor and Sceptical Chymist on duloxetine page, created a sockpuppet, made a complaint of page ownership for that page and paroxetine and encouraged the user to "do something about it" or words to that effect. This has now resulted in a NPOV investigation which will now involve editors going to war and having to explain that the refs were faked or abused by Mwalla to dispute FDA etc etc, basically he has caused more drama. My request is that a checkuser be done on this account,User:Fndlytrucker and whatever IP is showing up is blocked. I could post on the admin noticeboard but as he has managed to turn at least one regular contributer against me, ThuranX I would rather go directly to you and avoid drawing more people into this. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am currently on a short break, but will deal with this matter tomorrow. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Take your time and enjoy your break. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Some behavioural evidence, if you look how the sockpuppet signed their name, they manually typed their username but then also signed it with the four dashes. This was a common practice that Mwalla did, manually signing and wiki server signing. See here. User_talk:Blurpeace-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the sock and requested a CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for resolving this issue for me. I really appreciate it. I see that the ip was also blocked for 3 months. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility issue
Still feeling like problems with personal attacking with the I.P. address in this area of the article. Even the title of the section seems over the top for a discussion page This user consistently shows a pattern of attacking others on this article, in my opinion. - skip sievert (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see this warning. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. skip sievert (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:24.59.74.228
You probably had a reason for the block, but neither the User's Talk page nor the block log explain why they were blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the reason is given in the users block log, the part about the abuse filter. The edits I am referring to can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't I see those edits when I look at the User's User Contributions page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been filtered by the Abuse Filter. For more information, take a peak here. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I need help with respect to reporting a user
Hi Tiptoey, I'm not that well versed with Wikipedia's technical forms and feel completely at a loss on how to report a user Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makrandjoshi). I am writing to you because I saw your name in one of the places where I was involved.

Within one day of my editing his work at a particular page, he reported me for being a sock puppet. I believe that he did the same because I reported the various not-reputed third party links he had put up (I have copied my message to him below). Now I do wish to report him to your committee for attempting to accuse me of being a sock puppet in bad faith simply because I am correcting his work. The problem is, I do not know how to do this as I am not able to make head or tail of the ChkUsr form. Can you please help me in this? Thanks Wifione (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What you will want to do is file a SPI case. To do so go here and read over the instructions. Now, if you want a CheckUser to be involved you will need to provided sufficiant evidence to justify one being ran. For valid reasons for requesting a CheckUser please see here. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---<<<Copy of my email to Makrand Joshi Hi! I'm taken aback at the accusation within a day of my changing something that was not supposed to be seen this way. Dear Makrand, the only reason I changed the tax evasion and plagiarism stuff was because I did think that the plagiarim stuff didn't seem controversy! It's a plain statement of BusinessWeek to which IIPM has replied giving details of from where they have the copyright. With reference to the tax evasion part that I took out, when I saw the government link you had provided, it did not mention any detail of the tax being evaded. You seemed to have drawn a conjecture based on the government link you've provided. I do request you to see the government link again and if you have a problem, feel free to discuss the same and the plagiarism issue which I really don't think is a controversy. Anyways I also have to say that despite what you are saying, I still haven't found any proof of JAM or careers360 being reputed third party sources. I think being 'reputed' is essential for a magazine or a newspaper. I do not know on what parameter are you considering JAM magazine reputed or Careers 360. I would look forward to your comments. YOu have given a link of some 'totalpoint' website to prove that careers360 is a magazine that was launched in April 2009. There are two issues. First of all April 2009 means the magazine is only 3 months old. I fail to see how it has become reputed in 3 to 4 months. Secondly, the link you have given of totalpoint is of a trade and media buying website which simply collates information and even totalpoint is not a reputed news magazine.

I simply have deleted details that do not seem to come from reputed newspaper or magazine. I do know that there are many reputed newspapers including CNN, BBC, WashingtonPost and even BusinessWeek that have existed for years.

But I do hope that accusing a fellow editor for being a sockpuppet within a day of her editing is not a display of your discontent at someone removing your third party sourced content from not reputed websites, which are still not confirmed news magazines. In good faith, I request you to kindly not take this as a personal attack. I am reporting you in a day or two when I get time for this issue, that you have branded me as a sock puppet simply because of your personal sources have been removed. Thanks,Wifione (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be useful
As someone with deep knowledge of the background of the dispute between me and G2bambino/Miesianiacal, your input would be appreciated here. I have asked only you because you were even-handed throughout the entire issue, Nixeagle appears to have not contributed in a few weeks, and anyone else I can think of would be partisan to one side or the other (or could reasonably be accused of such). → ROUX   ₪  20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your commentary. → ROUX   ₪  04:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Boz rates the day a Perfect Ten
Greetings and salutations to members of WikiProject Oregon. We hear bye announce another Collaboration Of The Week. Thanks to anyone who participated in updating any FA articles and for the improvements on FLIR Systems. This week we have two requests: former Blazer Sidney Wicks, and a key historical event with Oregon land fraud scandal. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Page restore favor
Hi, I came to your page from the Bloomex sockpuppetry investigation and noticed your offer to restore deleted pages - would you mind restoring Gee and haw to my user space? It was exiled to Wiktionary, then eventually deleted. I was rather fond of one of the early versions. Thanks much, CliffC (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - It can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ScienceGolfFanatic
Hi Tip. CU is needed in that case due to persistent block evasion and the sheer number of socks over the past week. There are obviously more and the drawer needs to be cleared out. → ROUX   ₪  03:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, then you need to add RFCU to the case page. If you need help, let me know. Tiptoety  talk 03:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't file this version; I assumed the queue mixup was due to the poor bot huddling in the ICU. Perhaps it needs some chicken soup? ;) → ROUX   ₪  03:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. It needs more than chicken soup, it needs an entire operation... I am not even sure it is going to live. :-S Tiptoety  talk 03:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ and I'll send the poor dear a get-well card. → ROUX   ₪  03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 evading block?
is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppeting. One of his previous socks was. He has also evaded block through IPs such as Special:Contributions/213.221.0.102. Now it seems that he may be back as.

Muscovite99 mainly edited articles related to the orthodox religion and Vladimir Putin. The same goes for Phanar. Phanar has edited Putinism, Russian orthodox church, Herman Simm, etc. All those articles were edited by Muscovite99 as well. He also edits Bulgarian Exarchate, which was also edited by Muscovite99 as Special:Contributions/213.221.0.102. Phanar also made these edits to Vladimir Putin, removing similar economic info that was aggressively removed by Muscovite99 from the article Putinism. The Phanar account was created only a few days after Muscovite99 got his last block. It seems almost certain to me that Phanar is indeed Muscovite99.

However, I wouldn't like to file a SPI report myself, because I get constantly attacked by a group of editors every time I report anything. Could you please take a look at this and see if you think an SPI report would be justified, and file the report for me? I can provide more diffs and evidence if needed. Offliner (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. If you would like, you could just provide me whatever evidence you wanted here and I can deal with it without a SPI case, or I can file the SPI case for you. Whatever works best for you. Tiptoety  talk 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is Muscovite99 removing a sentence from Putinism: . Here is Phanar removing the exact same sentence from Vladimir Putin: . This edit summary strongly implies that Phanar has knowledge of Russian (Muscovite99 was from Moscow, per the geolocation of his IPs): . Offliner (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, if you could provide me with a number of more diffs that would be helpful as I can not make a block on that alone, or the fact that they simply edit the same topics. After looking over this a bit, I am thinking that a CheckUser may be needed. Tiptoety  talk 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that CheckUser would be the best solution. Do you think this evidence is enough for the request to be accepted? I also think this IP is Muscovite99 as well Special:Contributions/62.118.179.115. The connection between Muscovite99 and some of his IPs was established in this WP:AN thread: . Offliner (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, based upon that single piece of evidence alone, no. But if you could find a few other similar edits (I will start looking now too), then I would say there would be enough evidence to justify running one. Tiptoety  talk 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Phanar continued editing Bulgarian Exarchate immediately from where Muscovite99's previous IP left: . Phanar also reinserted the text "Putin was reported to have publicly said in December 2005..." to Putinism. The same text was inserted by Muscovite99's previous IP before: . Offliner (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest Offliner open an SPI, as suggested on this other admin's page . The diffs presented so far aren't convincing (lots of Russians are critical of Putin), as is the geo-location to Moscow (ranked one of the largest cities in the world). --Martintg (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to agree with Martintg here. Should you wish to not open an SPI case because of retaliation, I suggest you email your claims/evidence to the functionaries mailing list at  and explain your situation. Otherwise, I am thinking that you opening the case and me commenting would be the best course of action.  Tiptoety  talk 00:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Muscovite99. Offliner (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what I meant in my first post: . Do you think comments like are we going to suspect all those who critically edit Vladimir Putin, Putinism of being socks of Muscovite99? are helpful? Sounds like a personal attack to me. Also, do you think that the current evidence is enough for CheckUser approval, as I wouldn't want to waste any more time looking for more if it isn't necessary. Offliner (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attack? Sheesh, it was a general rhetorical question directed to the SPI investigator pointing out that edits critical of Putin isn't really conclusive because it would be rather common. In fact I would probably remove this too, given what I just read this morning, --Martintg (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with being critical of Vladimir Putin. Phanar made the exact same edits as Muscovite99. And yes, your comment was indeed harassment. Offliner (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I really should only submit reports anonymously from now on, as this same group of users (which includes Martintg) has now flooded every single report I have filed about anything in the last 6 months to attack me and disagree with whatever I'm trying to say. This stalking has to stop. Offliner (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is simply not true, looking at your contributions to Wikipedia space, there hasn't that many instances where I whave been involved in the same threads as you. The are only a small handful of those where our interests coincide. But the majority of cases I have not been involved, including the following threads on: Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * This issue, Wikipedia, ArbCom and RS
 * Is CDI a reliable source
 * Reliability of Ulf Brunnbauer, Michael G. Esch, and Holm Sundhausen

In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates

The following threads on Village pump (miscellaneous)
 * Results of the Wikipedia research
 * Source code written by editors

WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

WikiProject Computing/Assessment

AfD discussions
 * Articles for deletion/Sergei Markedonov
 * Articles for deletion/Henry Plater-Zyberk
 * Articles for deletion/Project Koussar
 * Articles for deletion/Michael Wines

It must be said that making un-substantiated accusations against others is in fact a form of personal attack itself. --Martintg (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's hard to find a thread initiated by me, where you would not have commented. Now please stop wasting my time. Offliner (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * So? All these are in my circle of interest and I have a legitimate reason for commenting on those cases. Here are some additional threads where our paths haven't crossed:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * User:Muscovite99 evading block
 * Users continually re-inserting LINKVIO links


 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 * 2009 Moldova civil unrest


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * Svante Cornell


 * WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
 * Russia All Regions Trade & Investment Guide
 * You claimed that I flooded "every single report I have filed about anything in the last 6 months to attack me and disagree with whatever I'm trying to say". You also claimed I am "harassing you". The evidence shows this clearly not the case, you should withdraw these unfounded accusations. --Martintg (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I said: as this same group of users (which includes Martintg) has now flooded every single report I have filed about anything in the last 6 months to attack me and disagree with whatever I'm trying to say. If my memory doesn't fail me, this is indeed correct. Note that AfD discussions are not "reports." The two reports you mentioned (User:Muscovite99 evading block, Users continually re-inserting LINKVIO links) were not started by me. Offliner (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I said making un-substantiated accusations against others is in fact an explicit form of personal attack itself. You have not filed many reports, but those that you have file involved situations and users I was familiar with, and I made reasonable and justified comments. Attempting to conflate this into evidence of "harassment" and "personal attacks" could be construed by those observing this thread as evidence as of a battleground mentality. --Martintg (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← Alright, that is enough. My talk page is not a battle ground, so please stop treating it as one. Throwing accusations at one another accomplishes nothing and only adds fuel to a long standing fire. If either of you really feel these issues need to be addressed, please try a noticeboard but keep the drama off my talk page please. I will say this though: Offliner, calm down a bit and try and see things from Martintg eyes. He and you both edit similar topics, and thus interact a fair amount. I am not sure I would call his edits "stalking". And Martintg, you do the same. Look at things from Offliner's eyes, I think you will understand how he could think he was being stalked. If he showed up to dispute every (I am not saying you do, I have not really looked) report you filed, you would be frustrated too. Anyways, I will comment on the SPI case and add a CheckUser request should I deem it necessary. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please review the report as I have posted more evidence. Phanar edits from an IP that was used by Muscovite99 earlier to evade a block.. If editing from the exact same IP as the sockmaster does not justify at least a CheckUser, then what does? (I think the previous evidence was already very clear, BTW). Offliner (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will look over it as soon as I have some time. Tiptoety  talk 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to endorse a CheckUser request now, judging by the new evidence. Tiptoety  talk 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please do this? Or are you waiting for something? Offliner (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am waiting on you to request one, that way I can endorse it. ;-) Tiptoety  talk 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? The report is right here: . All you need to do is to endorse it for CheckUser. Offliner (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you are confused. You need to add RFCU to the case page. Let me know if you need help doing that. Tiptoety talk 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I thought that was the clerk's job. Offliner (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, anyone can add the RFCU template, but only clerks can endorse. Also, you are missing a code letter. Please choose one from Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters and place it in the RFCU template... like this:

Help again
Dear Tiptoety, thanks for the previous links with respect to reporting user Makrand Joshi. I wanted your help again in kindly telling me how to request for the removal of a notice that comes on my user page, which says that my user profile is supected by an editor to be a sock puppet of Mrinal Pandey... I presume that if the case is closed, there could be some template I can use to request for that notice to be removed. It'll be wonderful if you can let me on to that... Thanks Wifione (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can simply remove the template from your userpage on your own. Tiptoety  talk 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And if possible, can you also help me on another issue. In the findings of the investigation against my profile, it was said that it is 'possible' that I am a sock puppet. I just wished to find out the reasons that based on just one series of edits the same has been said as 'possible'. Also, I noticed that against 'possible', a line was written - "same ISP than some previous sockpuppets" I wanted to know whether this is true or not; that my ISP is the same as some previous sockpuppets, and whether that would be enough reason to term this case as a possible case of sock puppetry. I wanted to request you to guide me to the right forum to find out the reasons, if this is not the correct place. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You will need to contact the Checkuser who preformed the check on their talk page, much like you did here. They will be able to answer all those type of questions for you. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux
Tiptoety - I'm sorry that we seemingly always interact under these circumstances, and I'd like to make this as quick and painless as possible for all involved, so I'll get straight to the point: could you please gently remind Roux that WP:NPA and WP:AGF still apply to both he and I? I was able to tolerate the initial accusations, as I was confident they'd be found by others to be unfounded, but, despite my never engaging him unless he came to me first, nor ever speaking a word - judgemental or otherwise - about him to others, the campaign hasn't ceased, and he's committing a sublte but consistent assault on my character at every given opportunity. Here I'm a POV pusher with mal-intent. Here I'm a hopelessly incurable miscreant. Here I'm insane. I created this new user name to start afresh, so I'd like to nip this in the bud before it gets to "that" point again. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a POV pusher, that is without doubt. Incurable, yes; your behaviour has been the same for four years. It is your behaviour that is insane. As for starting afresh.. that would have required you to actually make a change. You didn't, you merely changed your name. Case in point: honesty would be a good start, and not--just once would be nice--twisting my words. → ROUX   ₪  04:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you were turning over a new leaf, is there then a good reason why you refused a polite request to stay away? Not a wikilawyering one. A good reason that somehow indicates you are actually any different now than you have been for the past 4 years. → ROUX   ₪  05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

← I am saddened by the fact that we are going backwards here, and to be honest I have almost given up on trying to resolve this conflict. I am going to be blunt with both of you here, please do not take it the wrong way...I like you both as people, but it is time for some tough love.

Miesianiacal: I have to agree with Roux about this being an issue. Once again you are fighting to add information for which you have no sources and for which it does not appear there is much consensus. This is the same type of editing behavior that got you in this situation to begin with. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, based upon facts which are supported by sources, not your personal POV playground (I am just calling it as I see it).

Roux: The comments linked to above by Miesianiacal are exactly what got you in trouble before too. This is not only Miesianiacal's doing, and to be honest you too have not changed that much. Remember that this bridge goes both ways, and not only Miesianiacal has to play nice.

/me sighs... Tiptoety talk 17:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that he (again) has deliberately misconstrued my words, the only possible objection above is to the labeling of his talkpage behaviour as 'insanity'. Everything else--POV pushing (you yourself said it!), refusing to provide sources, wikilawyering, arguing in circles, and complete inability to change a single thing about his behaviour in four years--is borne out by the evidence. This lack of any change in behaviour is precisely why I had to leave those two articles recently, because there is no indication whatsoever that it'll turn out differently. This is entirely Miesianiacal's doing; had he simply acceded to a polite request in order to avoid any issues, none of this would have had to be brought up. I think we all know why he didn't. → ROUX   ₪  17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will agree that Miesianiacal has shown some of the same behavior that led to this issue before, making you feel a need to leave. Anyways, I feel as if we are not accomplishing much here. How about we all stop beating a dead horse, and move on to editing some articles. And please, for the sanity of all involved...stay away from one another. Tiptoety  talk 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was staying away from him. He didn't stay away from me. Oh well. Again, for some reason, four years of his behaviour is ignored, his effects on other editors, ignored. His outright lies, ignored. Sigh. → ROUX   ₪  18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not ignored his behavior, I think my comments above say as much. All I am asking is that you both stay away from each other. I have never said that you initiated him, please do not read too much into my comments. Tiptoety  talk 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Staying away from him has not been a problem for me. It has resulted in far less wikistress. Unfortunately due to that I have now had to again leave articles I very much wanted to work on. I notice no such sacrifice on his part. He got what he wanted, here. I said 'ignored' because if it weren't ignored something would be done. The community as a whole has a severe blind spot when it comes to editors like this; so long as they have the appearance of staying (roughly) within the bare bones of what is required, nothing is done about them, and when someone does try to do something they make the whole experience so profoundly unpleasant that people see the history and give up before they try. I'm sure you could think of a few others this applies to. → ROUX   ₪  18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough on your observations of the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Though I did actually have some sources for my argument and was defending an earler reached consensus against someone who was pushing their personal POV via reverts and without supporting references, I admit that, in re-reading the back-and-forth, I got caught up in a fast-paced, heated debate and didn't handle myself as best as I could have. My apologies, in general.
 * I should also say here that I've never believed it to be possible for Roux and I to completely avoid one another - Wikipedia is a closed community, and his and my interests do have the occasional overlap. However, I do think that editors can still maintain a distance, if they so choose to, even if they may sometimes make an edit to the same page. An avoidance of personal interaction, though, isn't a licence for either editor to speak about the other in subtly slanderous tones; Roux is well aware I can read his unfounded and highly negative generalisations about me. As this could be construed as a form of baiting, I can't see how it benefits the "truce" (I'm not sure what else to call it) in any way what-so-ever, and hence I requested that you guide Roux to cease and desist. You have done so (though I'm not sure he listened), and, with fingers crossed and a hope that we'll not have to meet like this again, my thanks to you for that. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that I have not made a single unfounded comment about your editing, no problem then. Any chance you'll actually do the decent thing and allow me to edit those articles without stress? By which I mean committing to staying away from them? Stalking my edits is, by the way, prima facie evidence of wikistalking. → ROUX   ₪  19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, had you actually changed, your response would have been "I may not agree, but I see that I have caused you stress in the past and as an act of good faith I will stay away." Instead, you disclaimed respnsibility and accused me of article ownership. This is a change in your behaviour how, exactly? → ROUX   ₪  19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you blocked the above user for abusing multiple accounts. Having interacted with Caulde I find it unlikely that he would move-vandalise pages in the style of Grawp and I think it's more likely that his account has been compromised somehow. As such, could the block log be changed to explain that rather than just "abusing multiple accounts"? Also Caulde has had several name changes and his other accounts may need blocking. More details can be provided if necessary. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the history around his account(s). After speaking with a few CheckUsers (some of which are very well aware of the history here too, we have come to the conclusion that he is in fact socking. As such, I have sent an email to the functionaries mailing list. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. I don't fully understand how an account can become compromised or whether it would be able to identify through checkusers so I'll defer to their judgement. In that case I can only express my disappointment in someone who was a good content editor (playing a significant role in at least one FL and GA off the top of my head) and once trusted by the community to such an extent that he was made an administrator. Thanks for your time, Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3RR and EW
Though I certainly don't doubt your good faith, you have previously expressed opinion on the matter which was the same as the position your "close" favoured. This is quite common on wikipedia, and is no outrage, but subsequently there should be no attempt to make a big deal of one party "reversing" this "closure" on the basis that it was "neutral". Nor in this case to say my judgment of consensus is less good-faithed than your own, as we are both in exactly the same position. Do you agree? Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Deacon. Let me start by saying that I was not involved in the discussion itself. That said you are correct that I have involved myself in other discussion relating to edit warring and 3RR procedure, I am not really sure that makes me "involved". Also, I am curious why you are asking this as I am not accusing you of taking action in a situation you are involved, nor does the fact that you reverted even bother me that much. I simply saw a discussion taking place on a page I had on my watchlist, after following the discussion for some time I saw what appeared to be strong consensus to support the merger and as such I carried it out. If the fact that I placed archive templates around part of the discussion bothered you, I greatly apologize. I meant nothing malicious by it, it was instead an attempt to better organize the discussion (which is in line with my OCD tendencies :-P ) by clearing indicating the discussion in which I was citing, and that further comments (whether those be in regards to my closure, or further discussion) should take place below that. What it was not was an attempt to shut down the discussion, or prevent opposition for my action. Hope that clears things up a bit,  Tiptoety  talk 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, being uninvolved is not the same as being experienced to enough cast one's vote as a close [which is how it appears], it means having no opinion. You know where you have opinions, and you don't need me to point out diffs where you've previously expressed the opinion [which I can]. You'll have noticed that some users were making much of your "neutral" status to undermine my actions reversing the merge. I'm here because you didn't point out why they were wrong and seem rather to be going along with it. Let me get it straight ... I have no problem with your original action; I only have a problem casting your action in a certain light. Hope you don't misunderstand me on this point. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, maybe I am reading into this all wrong. I never said I did not participate in other discussions relating to 3RR/Edit war procedures, nor have I ever said I agreed with one person or another (in reference to saying you are not uninvolved). What I have said is I could care less that you reverted my action. Like I said before, I saw something on my watchlist that appeared to need someone (and yes, I feel I was uninvolved enough) to step up, be bold, and conclude the discussion. I was that person, and so I implemented the change. I have no real vested interest in it and should you or others not be happy with the change, that's fine, take it to the talk page again.


 * I hope we can all see this is not that big of a deal, and move on to actually solving the real problem here: the merger. Pointing fingers at each other (and I am talking about the ANI thread in general) all day is not going to help anything. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoety
The reason why I'm contacting you is because I have started a soc puppet investigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy#Report_date_July_2_2009.2C_20:06_.28UTC.29

A while back I started one and I don't think it was ever checked by anyone, maybe I did something wrong, but I don't care about that anymore, I just want to make sure that an administrator takes a look at this new one. Thank you in advance. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been listed here, and administrator/clerk will tend to it shortly. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now added a letter, not really sure if F was the correct one, but its a pretty complicated case.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the investigation because it has now been 5 days since I filed it. Thank you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Phanar's edits
Do you think Phanar's edits should be reverted now that it's clear that he was Muscovite99? I think leaving the edits be would probably only encourage Muscovite99 to create yet another sock. Offliner (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can do that if you like. Tiptoety  talk 17:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoety Too
Creationist32 vs. Calton Thanks. I appreciate not removing the account. It's a long story and certainly, partly my fault. However, perhaps you could organize some gentle anger management for Mr. Calton too. There was no need for personal abuse. I didn't stoop to it and I find it hard to believe that it's something Wikipedia wants to promote? Can I remove the Sockpuppetry chat from my pages now or do you do that? (Creationist32 (talk) 5:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)).


 * You can remove the discussion from your talk page as you like. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West
The SPI case got closed as I was typing a comment: "The previously mentioned habit of putting brackets around the signature, used by both and  is also shared by, as can be seen here. There's another idiosyncratic use of language which I thought was obvious, but I'd rather not give that one away unless necessary, given the number of sockpuppets and length of time this has been going on. If needed, I will email it, but just take a look at the contribution histories and it is openly visible." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. Either way I already blocked those accounts. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alex West is vehemently denying the connection between the accounts, and is requesting an unblock, claiming he has been caught up in a misunderstanding of some sort. Is there any chance of getting a checkuser to confirm so we can decline his unblock request with an exclamation point?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked a CheckUser you comment. Thank you Jayron32, Tiptoety  talk 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification (thanks)
I was watching that, thanks. I am many things ..but on wikipedia I have one account...and I am proud of that... I am ..Off2riorob.. I actually am in the camp that would like to see all regular users identity registered. Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Same problem
Does not seem to have really gotten better despite multiple warning. Wage slavery editor 99.2.224.110 seems bent on owning and reverting any and all comers that are trying to n.p.o.v. the article, and doing it in a negative aggressive manner. Recent discussion was also here, which got some other people to arrive and try to untangle things as to neutrality issues. - skip sievert (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is becoming quite a pain, as such I have blocked for 48 hours. Tiptoety  talk 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A sincere request to you
Dear Tiptoety,

Please protect my account and interests on WP. I am a new user, and I am an American. I did not move to the USA from another country in the recent past. Please assume good faith in my account. Please read [Help Newcomers]. I request you to help me and protect me. Please also guide me. I respect all editors and I admire some. I use words like Please, If, I believe, Sincerely in my posts. These are very polite words. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, alright. I am not sure what you are talking about. If it is the SPI case, I declined to take any action against your account. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am planning to leave WP for good in order to focus on my professional endeavors. I am planning to clear all the posts in my talk page after some days an I need to first take care of my family commitments. Thanks also for your sensible way of thinking. I will continue to be a humble and proud American :-). Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LuisGomez111
Hi Tiptoey, I was around the edges of the blocking of this user. I recently looked at the edit history for the article that got Luis blocked Paella and I see a pattern of accounts that were started after his block that worked on the article during November, December and January. About 15 accounts that have edited this page seem suspicious. The most dominate account is User:Moby-Dick3000 that seems to be continuing Luis's editing/control of the Paella article. I'm not sure if it's him using all these accounts as socks and I was wondering if you could take a look. If you need it, I have a list of the User Names that seem suspicious Thank you Shinerunner (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but instead of listing the accounts here would you mind filing an SPI case? I will deal with it there. Tiptoety  talk 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with filing I just wasn't sure if I'm correct in my assessment. Thanks Shinerunner (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I filed the case report. I just hope I'm not wasting anyone's time with my concerns. Thank you for the help. Shinerunner (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorsed the case for CheckUser attention. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, I haven't looked at the Paella article since Luis's block. Tonight, when I saw what was going on, alarm bells began to ring.Shinerunner (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Interestedinfairness
In the sockpuppet investigation concerning this user, you noted that he is already blocked. The block however, is only for edit-warring, not the sockpuppetry. Shouldn't his block be lengthened in this case? The fact that this user has been disruptive in Balkans-related areas, and especially Kosovo, an article under probation, makes block evasion particularly disruptive in this case. Regards, Athenean (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops, looks like I missed that. As such, I have indef blocked the user. Tiptoety  talk 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Prodego has unblocked Interestedinfairness because he asked him to do so. Could you please check this out? Also, there is another suspected sockpuppet of Interestedinfairness: . Thanks, -- Cin é ma C 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Prodego and I discussed this prior to him taking the action, and I stated that I had no issues with unblocking Interestedinfairness should Prodego deem that a suitable course of action. As for the other account, please re-file an SPI case. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarysky
What do you think of merging WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermeko and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarysky? In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the two cases are one and the same.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good course of action. Let me know if you would like help in doing so. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

dodona
i believe that you may justly reconsider my ban because i am very bed and arrogantly treated by Future Perfect at Sunrise and other users that have clan to protect and impose certain outlook of Greek and Albanian related subjects therefore  forcing me to play socket puppet to express my views. After all I am banned for years now without any major reason because I never committed any form of vandalism… Thank you dodona

Wage slavery
Sorry to bring this up again (Wage slavery). Reason does not seem to work or pointing out guidelines. That person immediately started doing exactly as they did previously, replete with the same edits even, and the same hectoring tone and assuming possession of the article. Several people have reverted this person previously. This editor is also making false presentation of edits by others on the talk page, and generally does not seem to understand that consensus does not agree as to edits made by them - Their edit summaries are not accurate and focus on editors, as does talk page edits also. The o.r. edits being made by this editor are glaring and despite an attempt by all parties to suggest better presentation, it just does not seem to be having a good effect. skip sievert (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging by my growing involvement, and the IPs accusation that I am no longer a neutral party it may be a good idea to take this to AN/I and get a pair of fresh eyes to take a look at it. I am thinking that having another admin step in may help to resolve these issues faster too. Tiptoety  talk 04:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Arindamp
Heya :)

Can you have a look at this unblock request? On one hand I don't think the edit they made marks them as an obvious sockpuppet but on the other hand you never told them you were taking them for a sock of User:Mrinal Pandey, so I am very suspicious ( this time). Thanks! -- Luk  talk 06:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Luk, my reason for the block was primarily based upon this edit which is in line with some other edits by Mrinal Pandey socks, you will also note it was reverted by another admin prior to my block. Like any of my admin actions, you are more than welcome to undo it should you feel that is the best course of action. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ow I wouldn't daaaaare ^^ More seriously though, I let your guts decide since I am not familiar with this sockmaster at all. -- Luk  talk 12:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Central Texas
Hello! I'd like to inquire about the WP:PROD deletion of Central Texas. There are articles for East Texas, North Texas, Northeast Texas, South Texas, Southeast Texas, and West Texas -- and I just can't seem to fathom why anyone (besides a vandal) would have considered flagging this article for uncontroversial deletion. Thanks in advance. —  C M B J  07:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was tagged by . They used the following rational: "There is no neutral reference cited that defines any meaning of "Central Texas", there are many uncited assertions in this article, and these citation problems have remained unaddressed since reported over 15 months ago."  Tiptoety  talk 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. In any event, I would still consider the deletion of an article about an established region to be controversial enough to warrant AfD -- even if there are editorial issues at hand. Just from a quick Google excursion, I managed to find several reliable sources (City of Austin, Window on State Government, Austin Diocese, Envision Central Texas, Burleson County, Travis County, Handbook of Texas Online) that should be sufficient for basic compliance with WP:N. Would you be willing to undelete the article? —  C M B J   19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I have undeleted it. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have consulted me first. There is no neutral, reliable, authoritative definition of "Central Texas," and certainly nothing near as specific as the article claims. Please restore the deletion. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PROD, especially this. Really, any PROD deletion can be overturned (as is the nature of PROD). For a more "set in stone" deletion you may try WP:AFD. Tiptoety  talk 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Could you please perform the uncontroversial deletion of File:Nintendo Freddy Krueger.PNG. Thank you  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   22:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Knock, knock...
I iz there. :) Seriously: Thank you for the RFCU on the returning vandal.  I'm OK now, but that individual or individuals have singled me out for a long time and it's becoming tedious.  No more name-calling, I promise.  He or they show up, I block them and request the RFCU.  Thanks again.  I just enjoyed a real cookie, so have a cybernetic version.  Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * No need to thank me. ;-) And I can understand where you are coming from, but know that every once and a while we all need to have some sense knocked back into us. :-)


 * Oh, and thanks for the cookie! Tiptoety  talk 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I just had a thought.  We haven't seen either ClaimJumperPete nor PWeeHurman in quite a long time...and suddenly, we get one of each.  Two "long lost" socks in three days is probably no coinkydink.  Would it be useful to compare the IP ranges of the two?  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is a but suspicious, but I think that such a request might be declined as fishing seeing as there is little evidence to support the two being same. Regardless, the Checkuser that runs the checks may just stumble upon the technical evidence that supports your theory. We will just have to wait and see. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You bet. BTW, the anti-abuse bot has just blocked a slew of Grawp attacks, including a recent one against me. I've always suspected that most of the PWee socks are just Grawp copycats and this may just bear it out. It simply doesn't seem like coincidence. Gawd, do I need a serious break. :( Talk to you soon.  Thanks again for all your good work.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve System
Thanks for protecting the article. A few times I can handle, but it was starting to become a game for the IP, I think. Appreciate it! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ericmaas and Dani_zee
At first, I declined unblock requests from these two because the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Ericmaas/Archive seemed compelling. However, see the most recent explanation at User talk:Dani zee. Something about his explanation seems compelling to me; I also notice that no checkuser was run on the two accounts. Could we re-open the sock investigation and run a checkuser here to either confirm or deny Dani_zee's explanation? Thanks! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 04:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was commenting there as you were leaving your note here. As for the accusations of socking, really, a CheckUser would have been declined as unnecessary seeing as the socking was rather obvious. That said, let me see if I can get one to comment on the users talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment on WT:SPI under the header for this case? Nathan  T 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mazda Axela
Dear Tiptoety,

I must say I feel a bit steamrolled by your definition of "consensus". I do hope you took the time to acquaint yourself with the discussion and points raised. As I believe my points were valid and were unduely disregarded, I would like to file a move review, but I can't find a suitable Wikispace page. Is there no revision procedure for WP:MOVE and I am under the delusion there was? Can I only file a back-move request, which I believe would be a total hassle?

I hope you could help me as an admin. Thank you in advance.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge there is no "move review" process. That said, you are more than welcome to bring your concerns up on the articles talk page where those familiar with the topic will address your concerns. Hope that helps, Tiptoety  talk 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very prompt reply. I would like to address the process though, and as the closing admin, you are the one I would like to address the most of my concerns to. Namely, could you be so kind and explain why my opposition was disregarded and you've assumed a consensus in spite of it? Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Mainly, I saw that your argument centered around what is written here: WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. I noted that it is not a policy, nor even a guideline but instead a "communal" agreement amongst those who participate in that specific wiki-project, and while I understand that accounts for something the consensus of the community at large overrides that of the wikiprojects, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety, I believe you have missed my concern whether "Mazda3" is indeed a common name. This is the name used in Mazda marketing (sometimes inconsistently), in other sources "Mazda 3" is even more common, and "Mazda Mazda3" and "Mazda MAZDA3" are also popular. I do believe this should have been sorted out before the move. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I did not miss it, I was just not aware that was what you were talking about. I thought you were referring to the move in general. The reason that Mazda3 was chosen over Mazda 3 was because there was more support for that name than the other. While google hits alone should not determine the name there are far greater hits for that of Mazda3 than the other, along with the fact that Mazda uses it quite often. That coupled with the support for using Mazda3 is why I chose to move the page there. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro hoaxer
It looks like they are back, see Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain. I suspect there are additional hidden socks considering they have used 2 different variable IPs before. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have endorsed it for Checkuser attention. Tiptoety  talk 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hot outside, so stay inside working on the Oregon COTW!
Hello to WikiProject Oregon folks, and get ready for another Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on the land fraud scandal and Mr. Wicks. This week we have one by request, Central Oregon, and a gnomish task, the Great Infobox Drive of '09. For the infobox drive, just find some articles without infoboxes and add one. People and companies are two prime areas as many do not have infoboxes, yet infoboxes exist for those areas. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but
...I thought you were recused on the Ryulong case. Did you forget about the recusal? I thought clerks were prohibited from using their clerkship in cases they're recused from. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did forget (how embarrassing), and did not even realize until another clerk alerted me. As such, I have sent an email to the clerks list asking for a review of my actions. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tiptoety  talk 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess I should act as though the mentorship is still running. And by the way, I've also made mention of this on the ArbCom Noticeboard talk page. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the motion is still enacted. So please, do not revert me. Give me a few minutes to sort this out please. :-) Tiptoety  talk 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is no question that the motion is enacted; that (basically) everyone forgot Tip had originally recused does not invalidate this straightforward notification and archival. Clerk recusal is mostly important in cases where discretion is involved (for instance, when enforcing decorum on case pages).  While this motion close would normally have been done by some other clerk, it was still done correctly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't suggest that it should happen again, right? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have already stated, I will try my hardest to ensure this type of mistake does not happen again. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Thank you. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen
Please can you investigate the identity of ? The account was created right after got blocked, and the user has the same behavioral footprint: trivial insertions to several articles before concentrating on Fethullah Gülen. The only edit so far is a malformed infobox tweak, but I suspect the user is merely testing the waters. Thank you. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of this is the same as that of Adoniscik. Can you have a look? Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the account. Next time, I am thinking it would be a good idea to get a Checkuser involved, maybe we can block some of his IPs. Tiptoety  talk 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)