User talk:Picaroon

• To leave me a message, click here. To email me, click here. If your email requires a timely response, please notify me here to ensure I see it.
• If you have a question or concern about a deletion (or other action) of mine, please ask nicely and do your best to figure it out yourself before asking.
• You can sign your comments with ~~~~, or not; page history will tell me who made what comment when.

Igbo Wiki

Hey can you move-protect the Imo State article (frequent page move vandalism) and block the user Niameychan who is responsible for the it? Perhaps a move-protect also on its talk page. Thank you. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let's keep this discussion on enwiki for now (you'll understand in a few sentences.) I've moved the page back and deleted the two redirects, but there is a reason I have not move-protected the page yet (see the deletion logs, this is the fifth occurrence.) Imo State here on enwiki is on my watchlist, so if the vandalism has not been fixes yet, the interwiki bots will alert me - this is how I caught the two attacks from a month or two ago. So, unfortunately for the article, I think leaving it as a dummy for this recurring vandal is necessary: otherwise he might turn to lots of other pages instead of just this one. But now I have an idea: I am going to request a checkuser on Meta and see if we can get his IP address blocked. (I'll do this now.) By the way, I think you should go ahead and request adminship for igwiki. Picaroon (Talk) 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for adminship

I took your advice. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 00:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RE Question

My apologies, I wasn't intending to appear to assume bad faith. My issue isn't so much that such users necessarily make bad admins - "bad" is a pejorative term. What concerns me is that admins who are against voting will close XfDs according to which arguments they think are more valid, rather than what a majority of participants think. However, as per your concerns, I will tone down my comments at the RfA. Walton^Assistance! 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that I originally supported before changing to oppose, and that I have nothing personal against this candidate. Walton^Assistance! 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While you're online, I'd just like to ask something. As you were one of the few opposers on my second RfA (which passed, nonetheless), I've been wondering whether (based on my record since then) you still consider me to be an unsuitable admin. I admit that I do tend to get a little sharp in community discussions about issues which I feel strongly about (RfA voting, userspace and the like), but I will say in my defence that since becoming an admin, I have not had any confrontations or disagreements over my use of the admin tools. Also, as I just did, I tend to admit my error when someone perceives my comments as uncivil. Obviously it's all an academic question now, but I'd prefer to feel that I have the confidence of all users who interact with me, hence why I'm asking your opinion.

OK thanks. Sorry I forgot to sign my comment above. Walton^Assistance! 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with my (successful) RfA

I thought my RfA entered some bizarre parallel dimension before you and Dmcdevit came in and helped sort things out. Things went swimmingly after that. Thanks ever so much, I hope to become such an effecting Admin in the future. All the best. --Bobak 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I regret to say I never actually got around to reviewing your contributions so as to make a decision, but the high level of post-sock-puppetry-removal-support you received suggests you'll make a fine admin. If I recall correctly, besides Dmcdevit and me, Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) was involved in having them checkusered and removed, so you might want to thank him as well. Picaroon (Talk) 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about refactoring part of my ArbCom statement

I don't usually like to refactor anything, but an editor has strongly suggested I move part of my evidence to workshop. What would be your thoughts on that? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Super48 is angry at you/Claims admins are "denying" the truth

Super48 is angry at you for not responding to his e-mail. Here is his message: I simply have no clue why you're denying the truth by calling me a sockpuppet. Such lying is only going to turn this into a flame war. I've emailed the blocking admin, but do I get a reply? No. That pretty much ticks me off. If the blocking admin is seeing this: Get a god damn life other then framing people for misunderstandings! - Super48 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Pants^(T) 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pay no attention to him. Checkuser confirmed the sockpuppetry, so there is really no way to deny it and expect to be taken seriously. While checkuser is not infallible, it might as well be considered so in this case - behavior and articles edited confirm the technical evidence. Picaroon (Talk) 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

• Thanks for the welcome to Igbo wikipedia.--Barryland 21:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonbonbonbonbonbon

Thanks for blocking the troll. Musical Linguist 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)