User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 32

Stubes99
Hello. It seems the blocked user is back again.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.0.91.8. Is a range block possible? (Iaaasi (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I do not have time to look into a range block, but if I recall correctly I recommended against it last time the idea came up. Tiptoety  talk 01:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.0.91.88 He's so persevering. I wonder if he will ever stop (Iaaasi (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I might recommend reporting these directly to SPI in the future. That way more CheckUsers and admins can keep an eye on the situation, and hopefully the response time will be a little faster. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kalsermar continuing the work of sock puppets SwedishSven and Istochleukzonnaam
Maybe you could have a look into this. I know Kalsermar is not a new sock puppet in this complex, but he is continuing on this cross-wiki vandalism path. --Whaledad (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My reply there should speak for itself. The accusation of vandalism is something I think admins should really send a clear signal about because it is damaging the working relation of editors in this matter. A clearly thought out response to the issue at hand from Whaledad would be much more helpful.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

SwedishSven and Istochleukzonnaam
Just FYI: On his Dutch talk page Mr. SwedishSven has announced that he will return to EN-Wiki under a different name. --Whaledad (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not available at the moment to handle this in a timely manner. Please refer this to SPI. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lars Haeh
This user was blocked by you at what appears to be the exact same time that you blocked NickSoroka for obvious multiple sockpuppetry. Lars has only made five edits here in total, the last one being in August last year, and his name does not appear on Nick Soroka extensive list of socks. Am I missing something, or is he suffering collateral damage?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthony, could I ask you again to please place a hold on an unblock when you have questions? I just read that whole SPI, checked all the user's edits and looked for deleted contribs, only to find you already did all that, arrived at the same conclusion and came here to ask the blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of unblocking this user. I see that you have been editing infrequently recently, and have not yet responded to the request to comment. It seemed better not to leave the user waiting indefinitely. The account is not mentioned in the SPI, and there is no obvious connection between this account's editing and that of the sockpuppeteer and sockpuppets. If you do have good grounds, not evident to the rest of us, for viewing the account as a sockpuppet, then please reblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I simply don't have time to deal with wiki matters at the moment. I believe the CU data is stale here, and I really do not have time to do some digging so I am fine deferring to your judgment. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

JoeHazelton sock
May this be dispatched? Thanks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like took care of it already. Cheers,  Tiptoety  talk 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Mateko
Quick question — as far as I can remember, I've never before been involved in an SPI, so I'm not sure what you meant by "Unrelated". Does that mean "the rest of this comment is tangential to our discussion", or "the IPs are unrelated to each other", or something else? Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, the latter. The IPs are unrelated to one another, so "technically" speaking they are not socks. That said, CU evidence is not the end all be all. Let me know if you have any other questions, Tiptoety  talk 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the help. No other questions at this point.  Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Followup on Gtommy17
Followup question before I unblock.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:The Circle That Must Be Broken inventigation
I'm sure that he's one of the several sock puppeteers who has been menacing the Transformers articles the last year. Would it be wrong of me to start an investigation into him being Wiki Brah next? He might be him if he isn't Editor XXV. Mathewignash (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't have time to investigate the link at this very moment. But filing a new case on Wiki Brah suggesting they are also Editor XXV wouldn't hurt anything. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

JAT/Inter football fantasy socker
This lad (now well over 70 socks) has, at one time or another, given his full name, date of birth, home town and school. His last two accounts were created only yesterday, so I have left messages on their talk pages saying that if he carries on we shall write to his school, or his parents via the school, to tell them how much time he is wasting and ask them to put a stop to it. I might ask you in a week or two to run another checkuser to see whether that has actually stopped him. Do you know if there is any precedent for doing something like that? It's not as if we were outing him, he has outed himself. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, UGH! Now that I have got that off my chest, yes there is precedent. Matter of fact, it has been done a number of times regarding a number of different abusive users. I will say, that for the most part it has failed to work. Anyways, I should direct your attention to Abuse Reports. The users that volunteer there tend to be the experts on this matter. I am willing to assist with the CheckUser side of things, granted it falls withing the privacy policy, but I will not be directly involved in contacting anyone off-wiki. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

beobjectiveplease
Why was he allowed to continue immediately after his sockpuppet attacks ? Please provide details why would such details be private ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An unblock agreement was reached over email, as is done quite often. They agreed to edit using only one account and undergo "at will" CheckUser sweeps to ensure compliance. Should he violate those terms, or begin stalking / harassing you the account will be reblocked. Tiptoety  talk 17:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RB.
The reason abotu the anti vandalism is because It is hard to determine if it is vandalism or not. I do not want to mess up and get blocked. --Comppro (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, and respect that. My personal philosophy is "when in doubt, do not revert." You also might want to take a look at our policy on vandalism, as well as what is not vandalism. Tiptoety  talk 18:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser decline questioned
Please read WP:Help desk and comment there. An anon questioned the reason you declined a checkuser and was unable post here because this page is semiprotected. —teb728 t c 10:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Tiptoety  talk 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Phaseyour2
Hey. Got a question for you on that case: the two accounts I listed at the top, EventView871 and ItwasaMistake7 - are they totally unrelated to the others listed? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ack! Sorry, so many accounts to go through on that case. I will take another look sometime today. Tiptoety  talk 18:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
The reason why I wanted my page semi-protected was not really a user request, it was to prevent the IP vandal rubbing his dirty fingerprints in again. Although in this diff (it may have been moved by now) I did say temporary protection. Never mind, it'll do.--The Master of Mayhem (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but you wanted it in done in your userspace so my protection summary is applicable. It really doesn't matter if the log says "vandalism" or "user request", the page gets protected either way. As for the temporary, you did not list how long you wanted it protected for and per standard practice we just protect userpages indefinitely with the understanding that the user will request unprotection when they want it. Oh, and you are welcome. Yeesh. Tiptoety  talk 00:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding WP:PERM/A
Just a heads up, the minimum requirement for Autopatrolled was recently changed to around 50 new articles, per discussion at the VPP. Not that it would have mattered for your recent edit at WP:PERM/A, though. Nakon 07:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 18:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. I noticed your statement at Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and just thought I'll leave a small note that the recommended number of articles has been reduced to 50, not 70. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * /me points to the message above. :-) Tiptoety  talk 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't notice the message above. I had simply clicked on the new section link :) And yes, thanks for this. Sincerely.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account
Hi. If you don't mind, could you tell me what sockpuppet this account was linked too? — Mike  Allen   02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They were just part of a large sockfarm, there is no real clear "sockmaster." Some of the other accounts include, , and (along with many others). My guess is this is , but that's just a guess.  Tiptoety  talk 02:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was wondering if I ever interacted with one of their accounts, since SirCommoner randomly hit my user page.  But none of those accounts look familiar.  Strange people.... — Mike   Allen   03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Press Freedom Index‎ and Reporters Without Borders
Hey Tiptoety. Would you object to having the protections on these articles be extended? I protected the article for 2 weeks earlier for the same reason and I don't think 3 days will be enough considering that he/she came back pretty quickly. Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, do what you feel needs to be done. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk`
 * Cool. Thanks. Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GBbuster
The sock is now testing the waters as. Can you please block user creation on that IP?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like he's IP-hopping... Now he's User:JeffRUndo.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note also edit summary here. Can you please protect the pages he's editing?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, working on it. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If he reappears on other articles (probably under another IP), would you like me to let you know here, or should a new SPI be raised?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At SPI, just in case I'm not around. Tiptoety  talk 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given his/her/it's persistence, I've semi-protected the lot for a month. Hope you don't mind my doing so. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A month seems a tad long to me, but it's your call. Tiptoety  talk 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He's now back as User:Whitecab (a play on the username of JW Project editor BlackCab). Please add Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses to the list for protection...-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, but given his persistance so far, better safe than sorry, I think. Can always reduce it if it's desired. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV
There's a backlog of reports on this page that have not been addressed for 40 minutes now.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on it, I'm doing about 300 things at once. :-) Tiptoety  talk 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaboc-etc
Could you maybe put its IP 173.178.93.250 on ice for a little while also? Basically a troll, and the one who started the nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Zion Narrows
Awesome, breathtaking photo. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I quite enjoy it. Tiptoety  talk 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Restoring a personal attack
I was merely signing comments per WP:SIG. Since it was a specifically unprotected talk page established by the editor, I thought it was better if he would be able to review it himself. Obviously, the other editor whose changes I reverted (and who subsequently reverted my own change) did not agree, and I left it at that. --RoyalFool (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michoball
Hey. Just a quick heads-up: on that case, you listed Uceify3487 - but that's not an account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. ✅. Tiptoety  talk 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is only curiosity...
...but having spent some time counselling what I thought was a newbie, I would be interested to know the background to this, if there is anything you can tell me, by email if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not a newbie, but anyways ✅. Tiptoety  talk 04:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is related. I don't know (and don't want to know) the background, so feel free to reblock if necessary.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks. Dealt with. Tiptoety  talk 16:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also this one, brought to my attention at AN/I. Cheers.  lifebaka</i>++ 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My ArbCom case/evidence
There is so much material here, and so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation that it would be unfair to expect me to stick to the 1000 word limit, to enable me to give an adequate rebuttal; I would ask for a relaxation of the norms here, to allow the issues to be properly aired. If you propose to edit my input, I'd be glad if you would discuss it first. Thanks. Rodhull andemu  01:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually just thinking about this myself. I'm happy to allow you to go over the 1000 word limit but would ask that you place things into collapse boxes. Does that sound fair? Tiptoety  talk 04:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the proposal that the email exchanges be placed on a separate, linked, subpage, has some merit. My worry is that doing that tends to hide information away from view, and that is the last thing I would wish to achieve. It is of paramount importance in this case that the community has full, unfettered access to all the evidence, voluminous though it may turn out to be. That's only to be expected, however, when so much has been done so incorrectly, and full visibility should be encouraged. Rodhull  andemu  04:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'm afraid that as of right now some of your content is more threaded discussion than evidence. Please see my comment on the /Evidence talk page. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk
Hi there Tiptoety, I am interested in clerking, and I would like to know a little bit more about it. (I am not yet interested in becoming one, I just would like to learn a little bit about the procedures) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi PaoloNapolitano. Thanks for your interested in ArbCom clerking. The role of the clerks is to assist the Arbitrators in the maintenance of ArbCom matters so to speak. We are tasked with open cases, ensuring word count, length, and other guidelines are being followed as well as posting notices/announcements to WP:ACN. Most of our work is conducted on a mailing list, but some work is done at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. For more information, you may want to take a look here. Hope that helps, Tiptoety  talk 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Tiptoety, Thanks for giving me the rollback right. Thanks. --Ankit Maity 08:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Friend of yours?
I just indef'd. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who knows, they are editing from a library terminal. Thanks though, Tiptoety  talk 21:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

email
*** in fact ***   ( contact )  07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hielmann SPI
Just left you a note on Sockpuppet investigations/Hielmann. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifists Block
Hi, I see you blocked LP and recorded it at Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist but he was actually in violation of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2 (Yeh they have two arbcom cases!) though on a related point I think he may have violated the first case here! G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 03:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Another fan of yours
Hello Tiptoety, a user uncovered defamatory remarks targeted towards you on images he was viewing on wapedia; please see here. I'm at a loss as to how to remove them, and those remarks aren't present on their corresponding Commons files. I thought I'd let you know since you're being targeted. Regards, Airplaneman   ✈  19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is pretty common. I'll take a look and see what I can do. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 03:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Knock knock
Knock knock....  Sy  n 13:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's there? Tiptoety  talk 03:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Evan.  Sy  n 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Evan who? Tiptoety  talk 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

AbhisheksinghWIKI
Please see User talk:AbhisheksinghWIKI. This user has told me via email that they have been trying to appeal this block. I do not understand why talk page access was disabled in this case because it usually makes note of this in the block summary. Perhaps you could comment on the matter. Many thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at this as well. @Martin - there is a block function from the checkuser form that allows for quick blocking of multiple accounts. Unfortunately, it disables talk page access without telling the person doing the blocking (and it's not noted in the log, either). I believe there is a bugzilla request open about it, which I found out about the hard way. :( @Tiptoety - I'd like to send you an email about this unblock request, if you have a moment. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My reply can be found here. Sorry for the delay. Tiptoety  talk 05:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Email
Sent you one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI
Hello Tiptoety,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually just reading over it. I'm not sure if I will comment or not, but thanks. Tiptoety  talk 16:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and a picture comment
Thank you for approving my File mover permission request. Also, cool owl picture on your user page.--Rockfang (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Happy editing, Tiptoety  talk 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail
<b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

173.178.93.250
You blocked on March 4 for abusing multiple accounts. (S)he has returned for more trolling. Can you block this editor? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, he's blocked now. Goodvac (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

split-secocnd too late ...
what are we doing with this now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh, let it run it's course. You can always note that the nominator has been indef blocked if you like. Tiptoety  talk 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keeps going: Special:Contributions/Ali_Hasibi -- WP:DUCK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Blocked. If more pop up, file an SPI as I am heading off to work. Tiptoety  talk 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of PSOILFHJFHFDF
Regarding the block of : Was it the apparent pattern of harassment carrying over from another Wiki that was the abusive edit leading to his block, or was there something else in play? I didn't see any warnings or other socks (other than one not-logged-in edit), but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Feel free to reply via email if you feel it's inappropriate to discuss the situation on a talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, never mind. His last few talk page comments (which got reverted) show he's not here to edit constructively. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Toronto Pearson International Airport's pending changes status
The pending changes (PC) was applied on March 18, 2011 on this article. As you probably saw on the protection screen, the message says "...The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC...". Since the article did not have any PC applied during the trial, it is against community consensus to add it to the article in the first place. Therefore, I removed it as it did not reflect the community's decision on the usage of pending changes on pages not protected during the trial. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, yes, but the poll also states "It can be removed from pages where it is causing problems, and added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits[...]. Seeing as I only added to the page for a month, I did not see my action as violating the results of the poll. That said, I'll just leave it as is. Tiptoety  talk 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can semi-protect the page. That should prevent IP disruption. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Tiptoety  talk 02:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Semi-protected for a month. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have asked specifically for pending changes, but semi-protection works and I accept the decision. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Giornorosso IP still not blocked?
Any reason why is not blocked? Here's the IP starting an edit war which is then continued minutes later by Giornorosso sockpuppet Lootsucker, just as an example. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Tiptoety  talk 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but why only for a week? It doesn't appear to be a shared IP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it continues after the block expires then I will go ahead and reblock. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main account was blocked for overtly racist edits. Then sockpuppets were created by the same user (including some with offensive names like User:Killtheniggur). I do not know why the IP was not blocked as a matter of course. Now you are saying that a week-long block is sufficient for a racist and trolling user who has shown that they will continue their activities. What am I missing here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that as a rhetorical question - I appear to be missing something. Can you explain why the IP is only blocked for a week? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know about the discussion that has been happening here while you have been on your wikibreak. If it is still open when you return, please join in. If not, please let me know when you return. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

← I'm back. Is there still something you need to discuss? Tiptoety talk 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I'm still looking for a straight answer to a simple question. The archived ANI discussion is here - perhaps you could give it a read? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to be back. Sorry I left rather unexpectedly. The link you provided looks like it directs to the wrong AN/I thread, that said I had read the other one (at least most of it I think).I guess my response is the same as before. We very very rarely block IPs for extended period of times, with few exceptions like open proxies or tor. That said, it looks like another checkuser has extended my block, so it would appear this issue is moot. Tiptoety  talk 05:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I've fixed the link. The IP being blocked now does not mean that questions about why it was not blocked are automatically rendered moot. There appears to be something peculiar about the handling of this particular user and/or IP. Please take a read through the ANI discussion so we can avoid rehashing weak and easily disproven arguments like the rarity of long blocks on IPs. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:PSOILFHJFHFDF
Hello, User:PSOILFHJFHFDF has over 214 confirmed socks and growing in Wikipedia Persian, As those users could be easily transferred to wikipedia English I am wondering if you there is a way to perhaps add them to his list of users or refer to them in the category?! you can find list of his confirmed socks in Wikipedia Persian here. thanks   Rmzadeh  ►  03:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am having a hard time navigating over there. Are any of those socks registered on en.wiki? Tiptoety  talk 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:JAVAD MEHRABIAN, User:Ali Hasibi, User:Asjdirkfjhvciocui, User:KIOKOSHIN 2001918 are all registered on both lists, not sure of the rest of the user name in that list are registered in Wikipedia English or not.  Rmzadeh  ►  16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Lanternix sock?
I didn't realize you indef'd him some months ago (I'm not following these dramaz closely). I saw that Special:Contributions/Truth will prevail 200 pushes the same exact themes that Lanternix did. "descendants of ancient Egyptians", "In an attempt to justify the massacre" etc. See Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll
Hey. Sorry, I just need a little clarification - is Wayne Paine part of the confirmed, or is it unrelated? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's confirmed. I should have blocked. Tiptoety  talk 04:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hello Tiptoety, we haven't been in contact for a long time :) I have question: may I use pictures from Tanjug in Wikipedia (free use)?  Alex discussion 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what pictures you are talking about. Tiptoety  talk 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This one  Alex discussion 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks copyrighted. Tiptoety  talk 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)