Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Thank'ee
...for deleting my U1 page. As a token of appreciaion, have a joke I made up in elementary school:
What do you call a pirate's disagreement?
...
An ARRRgument!
I really don't understand your declining protection for Ethnic groups in Central America. It was vandalized at 13:42 today, less than 2 hours after its semi-protection expired. Prior to that, it has been vandalized by anonymous IPs at 03:45, 28 April 2008, 02:30, 28 April 2008, 20:51, 27 April 2008, 20:45, 27 April 2008, 00:15, 25 April 2008 (newly created user, specifically created to perform this vandalism), 23:54, 24 April 2008 (ditto), 06:07, 22 April 2008 (ditto), 02:04, 22 April 2008, etc. There hasn't been a valid edit to the article at all since December 2007. The last 300 edits have been doing and undoing the exact same piece of vandalism. One article is bad enough, but spread across the four:
(Ethnic groups in Central America, Demographics of Honduras, Honduras, Afro-Latin American ), that's a lot of vandalism to fight individually.Kww (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was simply do to the fact that there was only one disruptive edit since the protection has expired, and being that there is no justification to protect the article. Who knows, maybe the protection made some of the regular disruptive IP's move on and away from vandalizing the article in question, and until there is enough evidence to prove otherwise the article will remain unprotected. If you think my actions are not the right ones, you are more than welcome to relist your request at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk18:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I guess I was unaware that all the vandalism to those articles came is all from a sock farm. I am talking with the admin who protected the articles. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your comments there. Editor652 and his sock drawer seem to have a personal obsession with this topic, not a desire to vandalize Wikipedia in general. He edits articles about South American airports as well, and, so far as I can tell, does so responsibly and accurately. The historical background is that the Honduran government is guilty of census underreporting, and has tweaked the definition of "black" so that not many citizens will qualify. That puts us into a WP:V problem, because we suspect the "true" number is higher than the "verifiable" number. Multiple editors have tried to find a reliable number that is larger than the 150K quoted in the article, and worked constructively with Editor652 when he edited in that persona. None of us could find a source, even though we could understand his point. Ultimately, he began just inserting personal best guesses into the article, and got blocked for it. He resurrected himself as Honduran72, MTA25, MTA254, various anonymous IPs, and continued. That means he is now blocked for block evasion, and, whether he is personally right or wrong, can't edit.Kww (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I was unaware about the history behind all of this, and it substantially changes my opinion in regards the my declining protection. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more question ... did you not see that the four reports were grouped together? My original report was
I notice that you declined the first three and didn't process the fourth. How could I have written the report better so that it would have been taken care of at RFPP?Kww (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice they where grouped together, though I did notice that the vandalism appeared to be the same on all three of the articles I looked at. Maybe you should have grouped them together under one heading, then in the reason for request just say: "I am also request protection of these articles as well as they are being vandalized by the same abusive account as this one (reffering to the original article you are request protection for). Then list the other articles you are request protection for. I do not think there is a need for each of them to have their own heading, and actually I have seen it done the way I just described multiple times. Hope that helps, Tiptoetytalk22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Locking CoM
I think my comment of the request for protection request was caught up in your edit:
I would prefer that before such protection be placed, that the article be set back to the consensus page. The user used his 3RR for the fourth day in a row before gaming the system by asking RPP to lock his version in place. If it is to be locked, I would ask that we not reward this behavior, and dispute lock it into the previous version.
WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll
Hello there Tiptoety,
We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.
If the problem was communication with the user wouldn't it be simple enough to bypass the titleblacklist and create their talkpage for them?--VectorPotential Talk00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, I went ahead and cleaned up the mess you made
Whew! Thanks. Back when we were dealing with the template I removed well over 100 of Calton's taggings of non-indef blocked users (out of well over 500 user pages he'd tagged). What a pain it was. Did you use a particular tool by the way? When I did it, I used AWB to find and edit but had to manually check the block status in my regular browser. Is there any automated tool that allows checking block status?--Doug.(talk • contribs)00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeper accounts are usually created (in great numbers) by a troll or a sockpuppetter for the sole purpose of not being used until either (1)their main account or IP has besomed blocked, or more common (2)until the account has been auto-confirmed allowing them to edit semi-protected pages. Often sleeper accounts will go unused for years. Hope that helps, Tiptoetytalk02:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
Thanks. Yeah, I've learned that lesson. Unfortunately, the blocklog doesn't include commentary as that last block was done for fairness of the situation, even though the reverts were in good faith. I had two Admins actively discussing whether I should get it. I since decided not to put myself in that position again. I realize how easily even a simple "undo" button can be abused, so I'll probably go light on the "rollback" feature. Thanks again for the extra vote of confidence, I'll try not to let anyone down. BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it's been a while and I've had a long night. I see you went ahead and resolved it and blocked for the legal threat. Thanks again. ZsinjTalk05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiptoey. Sorry about the duplicate vote at the above RfA. I assure you it was pure carelessness with no malicious intent. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I in no way thought you intentions where by any means malicious, and instead I thought you just made a simple mistake and one I have made myself. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings once again from the Collaboration of the Week at WikiProject Oregon. Thank you to those who helped out with the last set of articles. This week we have the lone Stub class article left in the Top importance classification, Flag of Oregon, and by request, Detroit Lake. Help where you can, if you can. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Barnstar of National Merit
I am awarding you thing barnstar for all of the hard work you dedicate to Wikipedia. I knew that I made an excellent decision when I put in my co-nomination for your RfA, because I knew that you would do an amazing job as an administrator. You have proved me to be correct! I honestly see you all over the place, doing good things and making wise decisions with everything you do. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! KingiMatthew200801:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that his edits so far constitute vandalism, they were all made within the last hour. It seems a little premature to call it a vandalism-only account and slap it with an indefinite block. We should only do that after we've blocked him more than once and he's demonstrated that he won't shape up. I'm commuting his sentence. — Gwalla | Talk23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that there are edits this user has made that you are unable to see because they are deleted, those pages are clear vandalism. There should be no reason that we extend this user our good faith and blocking as a vandalism-only account without blocking for a shorter period of time first is perfectly fine and is done quite often. Tiptoetytalk23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only see three items in his deleted contributions, all of which were also made on that same day. Are you saying that he has made other vandal edits in the past that are not showing up under deleted contributions for some reason? At any rate, it may be a moot point since he doesn't seem to have returned after his 3-hour block was up. — Gwalla | Talk20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel stupid, I was totally unaware that you are a admin. :P Sorry that I said there was edits you are unable to see. */me feels really stupid right now*. I do have to say though that not every user needs to be given gradual blocks, and when a account is clearly being used for vandalism then it should be blocked as one. Either way the user has not returned as we will never know if they do have any attention of contributing constructively. Tiptoetytalk22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for protecting the Kodomo no Jikan article. I came across it last night when I was checking over the new users, as I sometimes do, and that thing was turning into one HELL of a nightmare. I don't condone that show or its subject matter, but the vandalism was becoming beyond stupid. I recommend, however, a longer protection than just 72 hours... Just a thought! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that does not mean you can just blank half of the article. If you feel that there is an issue with the section than take it up on the articles talk page, and when you do choose to remove the duplicate information make sure to say why you are removing that content in the edit summary. Tiptoetytalk02:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what the user says, he is a supporter just attempting a joke. So he's not a bad faith opponent that should decide your vote. It might be better to change your support reason or else if you are otherwise neutral delete it before too many see. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I sure do not find it funny at all. Thanks for looking out for me, but my reason stands (I was going to support anyways) - there have been a lot worse support !votes out there before. Tiptoetytalk03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not obviously using bad supports as role models. ;) You presumably have loads of decent reasons anyways. He's stated it's not serious ... so unless you can think of any osbcure reason not to, just remove his vote and change your own. I'm thinking also of him, giving him opportunity to recover from his misjudgment with a minimum of fuss. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I've opened a thread at WT:RFA. For the record: I think it's unacceptable to just remove a comment like that without prior discussion. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 04:13, May 7, 2008
Ok....the user clearly stated that it was a joke, and they were going to remove it in the future. I saw no harm in removing the !vote from the RfA, but I always welcome discussion. Tiptoetytalk04:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently yes. Well, nevermind then and sorry for the stir. For the record: I still think it's wrong to simply remove an oppose (or any comment) from an RfA like that, but the community doesn't seem to mind it, and so be it. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:51, May 7, 2008
No worries, like I said I always appreciate discussion. And your opinion is duly noted, and I will tread more carefully in the future. I assure you that I agree that the removal of almost any !vote from an RfA is unacceptable, but I saw this as a exception to the rules. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knock knock
who's there?
Ida
Ida who?
I'd a left a' couple of questions for ya at the RfB, if you please.
You did ask for knock-knock jokes. Thank you, my friend, for the quick and clear response, as well as the good wishes. Now, if I can only brainwash you into becoming a zombie-like supporter......... . Seriously, thanks again, and I still hope I can amicably tell you "I told you so" six months down the line about my participation in all of the crat duties -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Not only can't you please all of the people all of the time, ya cant even please some of the people some of the time" <--- that is why I give you huge props for even submitting a RfB, which is one of the strangest process we have here. Hmm.....maybe your credit card number and pin code would change my to a zombie-support :D And I know that with a little more username experience/participation and a few more months you will have proved me wrong. I hope your next RfB (if not this one) you can say "I told you so", I really do. Always remember to be yourself, and do not simply change because the community wants you to. Cheers and best of luck! Tiptoetytalk18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I’m sorry that you cant support me, I must remind you that just because a user doesn't have 5k Edits, doesn't mean they cant do the same job as another admin, should they be qualified. Edits isn’t everything. Dell970 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
