Tiptoety, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me. — JGHowestalk - 19 August 2008
Hi, Tip, I've come across a number of articles of late when you've removed anon-only protection, but the IP vandalism has continued and I've had to reimpose it. Could I suggest that you watchlist the articles yourself so that you can decide whether unprotection was a good idea? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user:Sinbad barron
Because you are checkuser in this case I am interested to hear if his IP is from Belgrade, Serbia. If answer is yes there it will be OK to give data to checkuser Thatcher for new check. If answer is no then Balkan articles are having new puppeteer.....--Rjecina (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a CheckUser, but instead a CheckUser clerk meaning I do a lot with RFCU's but am not able to run checks. You might try leaving a note with the CheckUser who processed the case. Tiptoetytalk21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a policy question. If someone was confirmed by checkuser as a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user, can he continue editing? For example, User:Guyver85 is a confirmed sock of banned Top_Gun (talk·contribs), as follows from this report
[1]. As you can see, he simply stated: "no, I am not him" and continue editing. This is obviously him, as follows from the same problems, like copyright violations [2]. Should he be blocked per existing rules? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd... I am not sure why he has not blocked fallowing that request for CheckUser. Per policy a sockpuppet of a indef blocked user is blocked themselves, but remember we do have such policies as ignore all rules and sometimes give users a second chance. In this case though, I think he should have been blocked...but seeing as the case was closed a while ago you might want to check with the CheckUser who performed the check to see if in fact they want the account to remain unblocked. If they don't and it was simply a mistake, I would be happy to perform the block myself. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NHRHS2010 (talk·contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention EdJohnston, this is a rather in depth conflict that requires a solution outside of conventionally blocking, but I am afraid blocking is currently the only option. I will take a look at the 3RR report. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety- I've just caught up on your recent actions. Firstly, rest assured I won't revert the template at this point; I think we're both aware that there's no vagueness to the stipulation: You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions by PriceofCanda (and vice-versa for him). Though there has been a lot of (sometimes regretful) commentary on talk pages, this 1RR bit has actually been a help. Now, you've peaked my interest by mentioning the "in depth" conflict, and the solution it requires; this is because, while I'm happier with the tighter restrictions placed uniquely on this case, I don't imagine them to be a permanent fixture, and have had a willing, but undirected, eye on the future. If there is a way to a more enduring resolution to this matter, I offer my ability and cooperation. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G2B, I've been somewhat involved with this as well, discussing with PoC through IRC on the various issues you two have had. He's been quite frustrated at times, as I'm sure you have been with him, over the difficulty you two have on agreeing on just about anything. I know you two have both attempted several steps in dispute resolution before; third opinions, I think PoC mentioned a MedCab case that failed once. I'd encourage you to go up the ladder a bit and open a joint RfC on this issue, as well as both of your conducts in these conflicts. This will invite other, uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation, and give you both some feedback and suggestions on what to do. I would highly encourage you both be open to this, and take any feedback given to you to heart. What advice you receive will likely be useful in other fields as well, where you're not both involved but are working in other areas. Even if this doesn't prove to be the most successful course of action (although hopefully it will be), it will act as a stepping stone to some of the more binding levels of dispute resolution, such as the Mediation Committee, and as the absolute last resort, ArbCom. I'm hoping both of you are open to this course of action, as allowing this dispute to continue will not help matters. PoC is, from what I've seen, a fine contributor, and his block today, while in my opinion appropriate, was unfortunate. Should this dispute continue, it is very possible that both of you will end up blocked at some point, probably indefinitely. I personally would hate to see that happen. If the two of you can work out some sort of agreement, even if it's to leave each other the hell alone (I've made such arrangements myself and they're working out quite well), then we can avoid the possibility of losing some good editors and get back to constructively working on the project. How does this sound to both of you? PoC, I know you can't reply here at the moment, but if you'd leave a note on your talk page, that would be great. Thank you. Hersfold(t/a/c)02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent words of advice by Hersfold, and G2B I really hope you take them to heart (as well as PoC). I feel that at this point in time the two most important things for you to do is stay away from one another and open a RfC. Tiptoetytalk03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those certainly are good guiding words, and the steps to take in content dispute resolution are clear (and also tried; not just the MedCab (which was actually mostly successful), but also an RfC and a 3O). However, when I read your words, Tiptoety, I interpreted "in depth conflict" as that which seems to be going on above, yet also throughout, the various content disputes; namely, that which arises pretty much any time PoC and I end up anywhere near each other for more than a couple of edits. I know it's generally recommended that we keep things impersonal here, but I sense that, because the various flare ups happen around multiple and completely different content issues, the overreaching issues here are, in fact, personal. Ignoring each other would be a beautifully simple solution, if it weren't for the fact that we seem to haunt all the same articles; ironically, because we share similar interests. I could open an RfCU on PoC, but, somehow, I'd rather not; they always seem to end up as ineffective character assassinations. However, if it would ultimately be beneficial, I'd be behind such a move. It doesn't presently seem that PoC is terribly open to any kind of RfC, but is there such a thing as a joint RfCU; I mean, as in two users mutually requesting comments on themselves? Just a thought. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'll put your talkpage on my watch list, Tiptoety; but, if you'd like conversation to not take place on your talk, I'm happy to host it at mine. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety, I feel that I must speak up here -- while I don't think your block was wrong in principle, I think the way that this situation has been handled is not optimal. A two week block is quite harsh, considering the muddled circumstances; I think a one week block would have been more appropriate. Further, while I am not opposed to PoC sitting out his block, I must protest the fact that G2 did not receive a block as well. He clearly also violated the restrictions as pointed out on east's talk page, and the reasoning of "it's too late" is a bit of a cop-out, I feel. GlassCobra11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GlassCobra here. In the end, G2 and PoC both violated their restriction. PoC at least has the excuse that he didn't think his first action (a partial revert) counted. G2 has no such excuse: he reverted two different editors one after the other on the same page. (BTW, the violation was right there on the same template, involving the same edits -- the edit PoC first partially reverted was itself a revert of another user.) East declined to block G2 as the violation is now old. You are the admin most familiar with this situation, and East has taken his stand on how to resolve the disparity. I think it's up to you to address this. Mangojuicetalk12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/me Slaps self. It appears I made a mistake, and as such I have unblocked PoC (much to my dislike) Maybe one of you would like to attempt to work on some dispute resolution with those two seeing as I feel my efforts are failing. Tiptoetytalk14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did indeed make two reverts; however, the 1RR restriction on myself is only in regards to Canadian monarchy articles, and PoC's edits, not to other pages or other editors. Now, though I was technically within my bounds there, having later read MangoJuice's comments to PoC on reverting and entitlement, I realise that the same applies to myself, and would have applied earlier. That second revert was a kneejerk retaliation to a move that was purposefully irritating, and, though technically allowed, was just a continuation of a dispute, rather than an effort to seek resolution. Anyway, I hope that clears things up. --G2bambino (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PoC block
Hi. I am mediating a dispute in which PoC is a party. As such I need him (in the interests of Wikipedia) to comment on possible solutions as they come up. Whilst I do not ask for you to unblock him, I wish to inform you that it is my intention to allow him to respond (to this dispute) via his talk page and copy, verbatim, his replies to Talk:Commonwealth realm. If you would prefer that I do not do this, please let me know at my talk page. Thanks! :-) fr33kman-s-04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was monitoring the stuff regarding PrinceofCanada. Whew, tough call. I think you did the right thing, unblocking on technicality. If it happens again, you can honestly say you have given them every chance in the world (and some from outer space, as well). Kudos, dude. - Arcayne(cast a spell)14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it was a tough call, and I was reluctant to make it but seeing as it was my mistake I could not fault PoC for it. Thanks for the words of confidence. Tiptoetytalk18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there Tiptoety! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!
