Jump to content

User talk:Deskana: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ariel (talk | contribs)
44 edits
→‎Account merging: new section
Ariel (talk | contribs)
44 edits
Line 1,062: Line 1,062:
Good morning, Deskana.</br>
Good morning, Deskana.</br>
I'm an admin on the Italian version of Wikipedia and I've been editing pages since 2002. Unfortunately I couldn't merge [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ariel my account] in all the versions of this project, e.g. the English one. I'm logged as §Ariel instead of Ariel here in fact. Now I noticed that the [[User:Ariel]] page and its [[User talk:Ariel|talk]] were deleted and that user has not any contributes at all. So I wonder whether it is possible to merge §Ariel in Ariel. You can write me back [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Ariel on my Italian talk page]. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day! --[[User:§Ariel|§Ariel]] ([[User talk:§Ariel|talk]]) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm an admin on the Italian version of Wikipedia and I've been editing pages since 2002. Unfortunately I couldn't merge [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ariel my account] in all the versions of this project, e.g. the English one. I'm logged as §Ariel instead of Ariel here in fact. Now I noticed that the [[User:Ariel]] page and its [[User talk:Ariel|talk]] were deleted and that user has not any contributes at all. So I wonder whether it is possible to merge §Ariel in Ariel. You can write me back [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Ariel on my Italian talk page]. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day! --[[User:§Ariel|§Ariel]] ([[User talk:§Ariel|talk]]) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks! I just posted a request. I hope I did not make any mistake. :-) --[[User:§Ariel|§Ariel]] ([[User talk:§Ariel|talk]]) 15:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:35, 19 January 2013

Contacting Deskana
  • Contact me on IRC. I'm usually in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins. Just say "Deskana" in a message to get my attention, since I use a wide variety of nicks.
  • Add a note on my Talk Page. Please read the rules below.
  • Email me

Deskana's Talk Page

  • If you wish to comment here, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~.
  • Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.
  • If I leave you a note on your talk page, you can reply either here or there, as you prefer. I tend to watchlist talk pages I comment on, but you can reply here if you prefer.
  • If you comment on my talk page, I could reply either here or on yours, depending on how important the reply is.
  • Be civil, don't attack me or anyone else, and I will do the same.

  • I reserve the right to ignore/remove comments without prejudice, especially insults/uncivil comments per the above. I may or may not give a reason for the removal.

The Signpost: 27 February 2012


Invitation to Tags Discussion on Karen Wynn Talk Page

Hello Deskana, Since you have made edits recently to "Karen Wynn" page I invite you to join discussion (if you choose to) of possible removal of "References," "Original Research," and "Improper References" tags. YThis is occurring on the Karen Wynn talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karen_Wynn . Thanks! Dianeblack (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Help needed on SPI

  • WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818
  • Hello D, please see above, note that a couple of us regular editors (including 2 Admins) are quite sure that this is the real mcoy but T had stated it is stale, thus denying a CU, which is understandable. Problem is, the behavioural pattern are too similar for us to ignore and so is the IP range/exact expiration of block on IP for Alex with the immediate resumption of WP:Disruptive editing/WP:Tendentious editing by Aben. Could you or any patrolling Admin/CU please give it a wee bit of look into, as it has been dragged out long enough. Thanks~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're asking me to do. Can you be a bit clearer about that, please? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my cloudiness, TNXMan had turned down the CU but could you take a look and give it a second then comment? IMO, the drama has dragged on for too long. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser was declined because there is no data there to check. It is simply not possible for the sockmaster account to be checked. That's what the  Stale tag means. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am a checkuser, I prefer for admins to handle things like that. Separation of powers. I only act as an admin on an SPI case if it is strictly necessary. An admin will get around to it soon. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, I'm not really sure what to make of this? Would you actually entertain such strange request? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. To quote the checkuser policy, "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, especially to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such requests are not accepted on the English Wikipedia". If you know what you're doing, it's more than possible to completely fool and evade the checkuser tool and then ask to be checked knowing that the results will be a false negative. As such, we do not accept these kinds of requests. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy

Since the sock is "proven", shouldn't the main account be blocked for sockpuppetry? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my job to comment on the request for checkuser. It's better for a normal admin to handle non-checkuser requests, and I'm someone will get to it soon. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to archive your talk page some, it is really slowing down when typing and saving. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just being lazy. Your comment finally convinced me that I should do it. ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I let my talk page go for a couple months too. Gotta keep on myself to keep it clean. :) As to the other thing, I will find the admin who blocked the user's IP last (making it a sock) and ask him/her what should be done. Have a Good Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick follow-up, I checked the block log and have contacted the admin who first connected the two accounts. You can comment on what I wrote here. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My userpages

Could you restore them, as they are being randomly deleted. I would also like my userpage back to what it was before it was removed. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College, London

Please explain to me why Imperial College, London, is not yet hardblocked, indef, until such time as it gets it's network under control. Provide examples of collateral damage that outweigh [1]. Thanks.

Please be a bit more polite. I do not respond to queries with such tone. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume tone, as I don't intend tone. I'd like you to explain, as the most recent checkuser to have reviewed Imperial College, London, the home of outrageous racist troll and vandal MikeMikeV, why you left Imperial College, London, totally free to edit and create new accounts. I assume you found example of new accounts being created by Imperial College, London that are contributing positively, or anonymous edits from Imperial College, London, that are non-vandalistic. I'd like to see some examples, because, honestly, defaming the recently dead is amongst the most offensive things possible. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no tone assumed. I assume you are referring to this checkuser case? I actually was not acting as a checkuser on that case and did not run any checks. I was simply closing the case as it was submitted with the intention of putting something on record only. When I have run any checks, I make it quite clear on the case. I can investigate the possibility of placing a range block later, but for now I'm a little busy doing something else. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your assumption is correct. Is the appropriate place to ask for a range block WP:AN? Shitting on the biography of the recently dead is offensive - shitting on the biography of a recently dead wikipedian should have serious repercussions. Imperial College, London, has allowed Mikemikev access to this site for far too long - there is no reason why it's lax policies with respect to computer access make it's entire network any different than an open proxy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the potential collateral damage, I think this should really be left to a checkuser so they can investigate the potential collateral damage, and possibly see if a smaller range can be found to block. I am happy to do this, but it will have to be this evening, as I'm working right now and only get a couple of minutes between running my simulations. One thing you could try, however, is to contact the ICL IT staff and see if they'll do anything about it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked into this? Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev, the most recent abuse by Imperial College, London. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not contact Imperial College with the IP address, dates and times so they can work out who is doing this? The edits about Slrubenstein were beyond the pale. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually suggest as much in my message above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see that. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (passing comment) I'm of the opinion that Slrubenstein's user & talk pages as well as his article should be semi-protected to deny the disruption. I don't think that those edits should even have the chance to get into the edit history.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 155.198.0.0/16 anon. only, account creation blocked for 1 month. You should probably still get on to Imperial College London about getting his access to the internet revoked though, because I can't just block the IP range forever, and I'm probably not going to be willing to extend the block should it expire. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that silence as gratitude, then... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana, I'm sorry, thank you for doing that. He has been back since as 94.194.154.216 (talk · contribs), currently blocked for 48 hours, and 68.147.204.72 (talk · contribs), blocked for three months as a proxy. But your range block will have made a big difference, so thanks again. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements on SPI filings

Hi Deskana, I had been following along in your conversation on WT:SPI about users not proffering a wall of text but rather making concise reports. How am I doing in that regard? I'm open for constructive criticism on making improvements. Along the same lines, it may be a good idea to have examples of good reports and bad reports (even if fictional) for filers to see and understand what they should be doing. A FAQ may also help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your report was pretty much spot on. It kind of illustrates my confusion with people complaining that compiling diffs takes "too much time" but then they write several paragraphs of text on an SPI report; your report was almost certainly quicker to compile than the time it takes to write a quite detailed amount of text. I'm in agreement with you on providing an example case. I think I may use that one you just wrote and perhaps the Mikemikev one that Mathsci wrote as examples of just how easy it really is. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Your feedback is appreciated. If you see something in a future report that can be improved just let me know.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Thanks

Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WilliamH.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Hope I have clarified it it is related to an Ani discussion and more to policy rather than Maths .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Hi, Deskana. My apologies for my part in the argument which you have quite rightly deleted from the SPI talk page. Please note that I have already raised an SPI about the troll who posted that section under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. He is a long-term offender and is yet again evading his block. I would like to have his current IP blocked (I realise the geolocation problems with British IP addresses) as he is very active at present and I am now his primary target for abuse. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

YGM

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Mlpearc (powwow) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Dannyboy1209

Hi Deskana. As the admin who blocked User:Dannyboy1209 2, I'm a little disappointed about this, to be honest. If someone was indeed impersonating the guy for laughs, it's simply wrong of us to leave the sockpuppet banner on Dannyboy1209's userpage, regardless of the fact that he earned himself a competence/immaturity block. That's the difference it makes. I hope you will reconsider. 28bytes (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your predicament and I share your opinion that if it is an impersonator then it's not fair to the user being impersonated. That said, our opinions are irrelevant, as checking an account to decide whether or not a sockpuppet banner should be on the userpage of an account is not an appropriate usage of the checkuser tool and does not meet the criteria of the checkuser policy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this, and just wanted to say "thanks." I'm glad Floquenbeam was able to point to an aspect of it I hadn't considered. 28bytes (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block on User:122.109.0.0/16

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Having looked back at the issue and thought about it, I have unblocked the range. Further details on my talk page, if you are interested. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Non-free rationale for File:StarTrekArmadaIICaseArt.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:StarTrekArmadaIICaseArt.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

I know there is very high responsibility to become an administrator and I will accept all the terms of Adminship access and shall not abuse them Snowwatcher

  • I've already replied to this ambitious request on the editor's page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

IP check question

Do you have the ability to check whether a particular IP address has been used by a registered user if you have sufficient probable cause to do so? (I've already checked for IP user contributions from the address in question - there weren't any.) mwalimu59 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do. However, it is almost certain that I wouldn't be able to tell you the results of the check. I would be able to act on the results of the check myself though, if I saw fit. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I made this edit on 6/8 a 04:11 UTC, to which a reply was posted at 04:22 UTC. At 04:27 UTC I received a highly derogatory and profane reply to a post at my LiveJournal account. The post was anonymous but the IP address was visible. The post screened and therefore not publicly visible but I'm willing to temporarily unscreen it if you wish to verify it and see what was said, although I don't know if the IP address will be visible to anyone but me. The IP address on the post is 76.74.158.171. While I can't prove a correlation, the timing is highly suspect. mwalimu59 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a general principle the off-site behaviour of users is not actionable on the wiki. Adding in that Badmachine is currently indefinitely blocked, there's no need for a check at this time. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing down the spectacle at User talk:Badmachine. What do you think about removing that post you just replied to? Whether the claims are accurate is not relevant as they are not actionable here. I am confident that the claims are just trolling (regardless of the content of the claimed chat) and would recommend replacing them with a diff link showing the post so those interested can see it. It is likely that a lot more WP:DENY will be required before this incident is forgotten. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Denying him the attention would be completely ignoring the post. Removing the post shows that you've read it and consider it objectionable, which is actually giving him more attention than ignoring it all together. Besides, from what I know of Ironholds, I doubt he actually cares. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Nmate

See my latest posts at User talk:JamesBWatson#Bozo1789 and User talk:Nmate#Conditional unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Account creation request

Hi Deskana, there is an account creation request which User:Elockid would like you to take a look at as you placed a checkuser block, but the data is now stale. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the request. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've created the account, thanks for that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

progress report

So you being one of my biggest, I hesitate to use the word "Critic" but I can't think of a better word, I was wondering how you think I'm doing having been unbanned now for nearly a year and and a half. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm Hornetman16. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 00:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Arbcom

Any chance you're considering it this year? - jc37 17:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting near that time for candidates to declare. So I thought I'd ask if you were considering it : ) - jc37 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what other candidates are running and make my mind up. Right now I don't have the time to commit to it, but it's always possible to rearrange things so that I do. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Still hoping to dust off User:Jc37/Userboxes/Deskana4Arbcom : ) - jc37 18:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I'd totally forgotten about that! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
: ) - jc37 18:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI archiving

Not that I'm an expert, but your archiving doesn't look right to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use automated tools to do it, so it's strange that it went wrong. Even stranger, reverting my close then re-archiving has fixed the problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what automated tool you use, but sometimes they malfunction. Thanks for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

You've got mail!

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Urgent!.
Message added 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Mr. Wikipediania's talk page.
Message added 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request

Would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Way u die? It appears that Titanic225 (talk · contribs) is operating bad-hand vandal socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This says it all. Funny how by being quite obvious about the sockpuppetry, you can still get away with it for so long. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never even thought to check his user creation log. Sorry about that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you wouldn't, because most people aren't stupid enough to create sockpuppets while logged in. I only noticed because user account creations show up in the checkuser tool. I suspect that he's not that stupid either; he was doing it quite obviously, and wanted to see how long he can get away with it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hi! I saw that you CheckedUser the sock puppets but refrained from checking the puppet master. You asked for further evidence for this. I've posted more evidences there. Is that enough? Also, am I allowed to post further comments? Please guide me. Thanks. --Zayeem (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have added some more evidence at 16:03, 30 October 2012, please take a look. Thanks. --Zayeem (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added another comment, please take a look. Zayeem (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're grasping at straws now. Just stop. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sorry. Thanks for your patience and co-operation. --Zayeem (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Help with protection

Hello, I need help with my talk page. A very annoying vandal keeps adding useless gibberish to my talk page and idiotic categories to my page. Can an admin please protect my talk page from edit by new users and such so my talk page is not consistently vandalized with spam... Also, the same person keeps creating different user names and spamming my talk page at a repeated basis. Please protect my talk page and my user page or have an admin who can. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been protected by someone else since you asked. Not that I would call two vandalism edits this month 'consistently vandalised', but there you are. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana he is one for arbitrarily reverting my edits! Haaaaa... wait until he gets the best of meh. 166.147.120.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Hi. I made a checkuser request by email. Would you prefer that I make it as a checkuser request at WP:SPI? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

SPI

I disagree with your comments at a recent SPI where you stated that an editor looking to be a clear case of DUCK meant we shouldn't check - that totally violates AGF. GiantSnowman 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the check is unnecessary, it cannot be carried out. Those are the standards by which the checkuser tool is used. If you disagree with them, then you should speak to the Arbitration Committee. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced notice

Get your block privilege out now, because if I don't get an answer from Ubikwit in next 12 hours, I will revert him again. I was somewhat tired last night, and in the 3RR submission (wall of text) mentioned the wrong source.

Never mind. The source over which Ubikwit engaged in the edit war in fact does not match the text! It does not come from any of the major international organisations he insists the lead refer to, nor is it even a paraphrase of the 476 word 'definition'. The 'definition' is categorised as "...adopting a broader, more comprehensive approach"(p.11), although still "...retains the now-standard emphasis on marginalization, loss of autonomy and control over resources, and the prospect and reality of cultural decline. It highlights, in a variety of ways, the idea of indigenous peoples as being victims of broader processes, buffeted by the forces of development and rendered largely powerless within the nation state." Following this, Ken Coates, a professor of history, says the following

The issue at hand is clearly a complicated one. Depending on the approach taken, the concepts of indigenous, tribal and ethnic minority could be interchangeable or, at the minimum, substantially overlapping. The challenge is to find a definition that works historically. It cannot or should not be framed entirely within contemporary terms, like that of Survival International, for to do so would obscure important historical transitions. Ideally, it would not be Eurocentric and would not define an entire category of people solely on the basis of their relationship to a external group/force. It would incorporate the experiences of small societies in Asia, Africa and other regions and would not be influenced by the contemporary efforts of Asian governments to exclude their indigenous and small societies from inclusion within the indigenous political world. To be meaningful, a workable definition needs to focus on historical processes and relationships while remaining sensitive to the circumstances of local indigenous societies. At the same time, efforts to be comprehensive and inclusion in terms of definition, as with various United Nations’ efforts, can strip the concept of its meaning.

In my attempt to edit the article, I am trying to infuse it with the greater scope than that when "framed entirely within contemporary terms", and will seek to highlight "important historical transitions". Currently, the article is almost entirely Eurocentric, and defines "an entire category of people solely on the basis of their relationship to a external group/force."

This is the reason that the United Nations organisations could not, and will not adopt a definition of the Indigenous peoples. Their work is focused on the contemporary relationships, but "To be meaningful, a workable definition needs to focus on historical processes and relationships while remaining sensitive to the circumstances of local indigenous societies" which can only be found in disciplines other than contemporary law and political science. Ubikwit's single-minded pursuit of retaining the emphasis on the contemporary relationships is denying development of the article into a better version.

I also note that the discussion cited as 'consensus' 10 months ago failed to cite any reliable sources, and based itself solely on this one mis-cited and wholly OR reinterpretation of the IWGIA webpage which is no longer extant.Crock81 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far too tired right now to give serious thought to the issues you've written about here. Please hold off on reverting for a bit longer until I'm able to read and discuss these issues. I'll read this tomorrow. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coates is arguing for a revisionist definition, not giving one that is widely accepted. His view could be noted in the article but should not determine its scope. The Unesco definition, the ILO and WTO definitions all give primacy to contemporary political relations, as do NGOs and as does the majority of the literature on the topic. There are no works to my knowledge that define the topic in as broad terms as Crock81 is attempting to do, since that leaves the concept vacuous and meaningless as all groups have "historical connections to a territory". The consensus from 10 months ago remains in vigor until such a time as you succeed in forming a new consensus, regardless of whether you think it was "racist" or ill-informed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You on Earth would you post this here?! Crock81 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would you be spending time lobbying administrators and arbitrators instead of producing sources in support of your claims on the talkpage of the article where you viewpoint is currently in the minority?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and a long read. I think a decade of butchering such an important article, literally representing millions of readers in Wikipedia, is enough. I want someone from ArbCom to review this. I don't enjoy conflicts, but I know right from wrong, including application of Wikipedia principles, and while I would very much prefer not to engage in an AN/I, but I will if pushed Crock81 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The above messages, from both of you, have totally missed the point. As an administrator looking at the article, all I am concerned with is the edit warring, not the subject matter. Edit warring is not good for the encyclopedia, as it does not create good stable articles. I know nothing of the content issues related to the article, and my neutrality is what makes me a good administrator for dealing with administrative issues related to the article. If there are content disputes, then you can read about how to solve them at WP:DR. If there is edit warring, then it will be treated entirely as an administrative matter and page protections and blocks will likely ensue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but there is a concept that one can participate in Preventive medicine to avoid surgery. Administrator involvement in edit warring is surgery. If you want to understand why you are doing 'surgery' all the time, look at the symptoms. This is an important article, but for over a decade it has evolved into the a schizophrenia sufferer. That is why you will be coming back to it for edit warring, if not with me, than someone else, maybe not now, but in months or years time, maybe not you, but another administrator. Its not just edit warring that's "not good for the encycllpedia", but also what causes edit warring, which is even less good, because it creates a cycle of behaviour that either a) produces crap articles, b) drives away editors, or c) takes you away from editing to administer edit warring (assuming you are not here just for adminship). Engaging with the cause, eliminates the effect. I'm sure if I look, I will find for you a plethora of articles with similar symptoms. The basic cause is the same - failure to adhere to Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines. I am not asking you to look at the content, but only the failure to follow Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines that has led to the edit warring Crock81 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Milesgive3030-

Hey Deskana, you recently blocked Milesgive3030- (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) indefinitely, but you left email access unblocked. Now it appears that s/he is sending abusive emails to other users. I wondered if you'd be able to reblock them with email access disabled? Interesting note: It's been suggested that this is yet another incarnation of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp.

Thanks, — Oli OR Pyfan! 09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just  Done by Yunshui. Thanks anyway :), — Oli OR Pyfan! 10:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

DieSwartzPunk sockpuppet investigation

After reading your comments[3] I realized I have made a grave error on that page. I have included a random user, Cantaloupe2, as a sockmaster. This was a huge mistake and wasn't intended! I believe in the confusion of the form I cut and pasted his name, from my talk page, into the form and realizing this I pasted the correct name DieSwartPunkt later. I thought I had edited the incorrect name out. His editing is nothing similar to the problem edits and didn't appear involved. If anything more helpful in the matter. I don't know how to handle this. He wasn't notified or maybe even aware of this procedure (my complaint) Can his name be removed or at least stroked out not to involve an innocent editor? I feel horrible about this error. I need to apologize to him but do not know where to start and I don't even think he is aware of what I have done. Thanks 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it if you want, it makes little difference. It will remain in the history of the page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another look?

I have provided evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WWEJobber. Could you take another look? Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for providing the check Deskana. Now that the probability shifts towards pointing Nomelck as a relative/friend posing as a meatpuppet instead of a genuine editor, is there any possible avenue for me to take to prevent Nomelck from skewing talk page discussions in favour of WWEJobber? Or is there any way to further investigate the unlikelier possibility of Nomelck being a sockpuppet? Starship.paint (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no proof of anything. All we have is suspicion. And it is very suspicious, yes. But the population of Brazil is nearly 200 million. We don't have enough to act on based on the checkuser results. I've intentionally left the case open so that an administrator can look at the behavioural evidence and decide whether it's enough to act on. I make a point of trying not to act as both an administrator and checkuser on the same case when I can avoid it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Deskana! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer187, Crock181

Dear Deskana,

I couldn't help but note the rather curt tone of the wording of your decision in the sockpuppetry case I was compelled to file for obvious reasons against Evildoer187. You will recall the following comment by EdJohnston:

Evildoer187's statement when he reduced the timeout was "Undid revision 529129762 by Ubikwit (talk) "This horse is on its last breath. You have 15 days to present a solid, rational argument for your proposed edits." I think this is on the border of disruptive editing (my emphasis) and urge all parties to leave archiving alone for the duration. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

After reading your decision I checked your talk page and noticed the attacks against me there by Crock81.

These two individuals have been working on tandem on the Indigenous peoples and corresponding List page in a manner that has been described as bordering on disruptive by more than one other editor and administrator, as well as related to a "personal project", which has been characterized by another exerienced editor as "an attempt to shoehorn Israelis onto the list", if I recall the quote corectly. Here is the quote posted by EdJohnston to Crock81's Talk page.

I view the activities at Indigenous peoples to be an extension of the dispute at List of indigenous peoples, an article which has been under the ARBPIA 1RR restriction since April, 2011. You have already violated WP:3RR at Indigenous peoples. You seem to be on Wikipedia in service of a personal project. Apparently it is of great importance to you whether one or both of the contending parties in the Middle East should be considered to be indigenous peoples. (my emphasis) You risk wearing out the patience of editors here with your wall-of-text posts. This is disappointing because you occasionally seem to reveal a knowledge of the subject matter that might be useful to Wikipedia. An inability to explain yourself briefly or to negotiate with others may prevent you from making any actual contribution here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed on Evildoer187's Talk page that you have mentioned me in conjunction with a 3RR violation. Since I am still somewhat new to the editing scenario here, perhaps you'd care to clarify?

Evildoer187 has posted warnings in the manner of an administrator on several other editors' Talk pages, has attempted to dictate discussions on Talk pages, has attempted to cut off an RfC midstream because he couldn't control the discussion, filed dubious complaints against me, and I could go on.

Please correct me if I mistake you, but it appears to me that you are somewhat sympathetc toward Evildoer187 and demonstrate a modicum of antipathy toward me.

--Ubikwit (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Given the amount of SPI cases I handle I have little patience for SPI reports like the one you filed, which is probably why you think I don't like you. That's not the case, I don't like or dislike anyone. Coren recently aptly described me as "the grumpy old grandpa" of SPI, so bear that in mind. I find it interesting that you said he's filed "dubious complaints" about you, when your SPI case him was exactly that. Anyway, Evildoer187 clearly deserved to be blocked for edit warring. So did you, however, so you should count yourself lucky that you did not end up blocked. I didn't say you had violated 3RR, I was correcting Moxy who said you were exempt from 3RR because Evildoer187 is banned, but he isn't banned. Don't edit war or break any rules and you'll have no problem from me. Edit war and break rules and, well, you will. I have nothing more to say on the matter. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I don't mean to waste your time, but I don't want either of the abovementioned individuals wasting my time, either.
I've no intention to violate the 3RR rule or edit war, and apparently there is a distinction between "banned" and "blocked" that related to that.
In any case, I don't have problems with Evildoer or Crock editing as long as they are acting in good faith and in accord with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, basically, as well as providing sources to support their assertions.
If my case sockpuppet case against Evildoer was a trivial waste of your time, I apologize. I'm not familiar with the ins-and-outs of sockpuppetry. It seemed to me that if it was actually Evildoer, such behavior would represent a turn for the worse, and I have been following his conversations in which even sympathetic experienced editors have become exasperated with dealing with him.
If he returns and files RfCs and the like, I'll participate. However, if there is an administrative action against him, he has made numerous statements to me that would appear to demonstrate behavior issues, so I will provide comments in such a case. Happy New Year.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]
I wouldn't say the SPI case was a waste of my time, nor are you wasting my time by asking these questions. I'm a strong believer that anyone should be able to file an SPI report and put whatever they want in it. SPI must remain a place that does not exclude people for any reason, in order to maintain its neutrality. I would say it was a fairly useless report however, for the reasons I listed in the case. No offense intended by that, I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Try to keep out of trouble, eh? Merry Christmas (or whatever holiday you celebrate, if any) and a Happy New Year to you too. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

A little help please

You seem to have some experience in ending disputes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonialism#Israel

Evildoer187 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many times must I say this? I am not interested in content disputes. I am only interested in conduct issues. I am not a dispute resolution tool. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests# deskana refusal to perform CU in SIP case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate venue for you to contact them was to email them. I suggest you do so now, because this case will get very quickly declined. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest I send the same text but through email?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]
Hello deskana, Please excuse me for apparently misunderstanding something about the scale of attacks of sockpuppetry against which the CU tool is apparently reserved for use.
That wasn't clear to me, and I therefore couldn't understand your reasoning for refusing to carry that out.
These contents disputes have been causing me to loose a little sleep, but one thing that came out of the recent block was that I did a little more reading of policy, which made it apparent that a couple behavioral issues related to those policies have been taking place. So, before dealing with the content disputes, I'm gong to seek to have those behavioral issues examined in order to rectify those in advance of getting at the content issues.
Another admin has offered to advise me, so in order to proceed with that in the proper manner I'm going to try posting on my Sandbox the text I've drawn up detailing specific incidents of behavior that I've already drawn up a text for with respect to three editors, two of whom are very experienced, and the corresponding points of policy.
The text is longer than 500 words and relates to three editors, so I don't know how to proceed, but it seems to me that because they are all interrelated and happening on the same talk page, it would be desirable to streamline the arbitration process to the extent possible. Since this deals with conduct, you may be interested, so if your not too busy please feel free to comment.--Ubikwit (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]
The very nature of Wikipedia means it's very difficult to break anything (software or otherwise) on the site, so there was no harm caused by you filing that case. Regarding the rest of your message, I saw that a few people suggested you read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. I would also like to suggest you do so. The Arbitration Committee normally only accepts cases when all other possible avenues to resolve the problem have tried and failed. Those avenues include those listed on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Submitting a proper ArbCom case is quite an undertaking and there is no guarantee it will be accepted. Those pages I have linked will offer some guidance. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, deskana, thanks, I'll do that.
By the way, I know it's burdensome, but please check the Talk pages on the Colonialism and Settler colonialism articles. Those articles are basically linked, as Settler colonialism is discussed in the Colonialism article.
I'm not interested in expending any effort to have Evildoer187 sanctioned for his overzealous editing, but once I start filing content disputes--which looks like it will be necesary--his conduct will likely come under scrutiny.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]
My conduct is already under intense scrutiny, in case you haven't noticed. I don't see how you could have missed it, given that you've been prowling my user page for a good while now. If I were you, I'd focus more on improving your own conduct rather than preoccupying yourself with mine. I will notify the appropriate noticeboard if your harassment does not stop.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit war in the article - Turkey

Hello. December 28 in article "Turkey" you put the protection from editing. But you have not returned to pre-conflict version of article. Now, can not be canceled vandalism by "Maurice07" who removed information and sources. Please return to the pre-conflict version of article with sources. With best regards Rs4815 (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see m:The Wrong Version. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article is "wrong version". Were deleted information and sources, and you protect the article. Now it is impossible to return the deleted information. Opponents have no weighty arguments and they simply remove the information without providing any source. Please return the pre-conflict version with the sources (right version). Rs4815 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I will not revert to anyone's preferred version on a page that is protected. To do so would be an abuse of my ability to edit pages while they are protected. Do not mistake the humour in that article I linked for whimsicalness; it's a serious commentary on the fact that that every time a page is protected due to edit warring, by definition someone will always think it's the wrong version. It's not my place to decide who that is. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chromium Oxide

I was confused about your post in this SPI[4]. Was there some mistake I made or maybe I'm not understanding the context of the comment? It sounds like you didn't think he was a sock, but you still checked. If there is some mistake I made, I would want to know about it. Well, other than picking the master, I was short on time, using TW and it wouldn't allow me to put him as both for some reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say exactly what happened without stuffing beans up my nose. In short, I lacked a reference point for the check. If that's not clear, I can explain to you privately sometime. Courcelles's conclusion should be the one that's taken, and mine discarded. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it. I almost never dropping single unmatched socks and understand it is hard to play connect the dots with only one dot, but this was one of those screaming duck cases that needed eyeballs on it. I just wanted to verify that the problem was technical, not my judgement. I almost never get feedback on clerking, good or bad. Thanks for the quick reply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer187 and Ubikwit

Just not sure theses editors will ever fit in here. At the very least we should force some sort of separation of interaction between these two. Moxy (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could be arranged, but I'd say we're not quite there yet. Perhaps something like that will happen if Ubikwit files an arbitration case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my Talk page, especially the section titled "Colonialism article revisited". I think the time for an interaction ban may have come. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They just like reverting each other and accusing each other of things. I'd personally prefer to just block them both, but an interaction ban would be a first step more people would be happy with I suppose. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy policy and SPI

Hello deskana, and Happy New Year! I was wondering if you could point out the relevant WP policy that discusses the issue of linking IPs to users with respect to SPI investigations. Thanks.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Potentially identifying information (such as the IP of a user) cannot be released except in the most extreme of circumstances. Read m:Privacy policy#Access to and release of personally identifiable information. Once again, this is only incidentally relevant to your case as not only did you actually never even request a checkuser (I checked this yesterday), but you had insufficient evidence for one anyway. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a report on administrators noticeboard

It is clear to me that I am being harassed and wiki-hounded by Ubikwit, and I am ready to take formal action against him on these charges. He is making this a much more stressful and intimidating experience than it needs to be, and I have reached my wits end here. I will not tolerate this abuse anymore. How do I file a report?Evildoer187 (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:ANI and write your complaint. You'll need a lot of proof to have your complaint taken seriously though. I don't think there's enough for any administrator to act. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Long term or short term? Forgive me if these questions are stupid. I have never done this before. And frankly, I don't know what else to do at this point.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is evidence. Doesn't matter when it was. More recent is better, of course. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patience

In case I haven't mentioned it recently, you have a superhuman quantity of patience. MBisanz talk 03:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, some people say the opposite sometimes! But, seriously, thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Urgent

All fixed in IRC PeterWesco (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asleep but I left myself logged in to IRC. My apologies. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Thank you

It feels as though I've just been relieved of a huge burden. Now if you could just provide me with a list of articles to avoid, I will be on my way. Cheers.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ARBPIA for more information. An example: most administrators would probably consider the article Israel to be okay for you to edit, as long as you didn't edit anything in the article related the Arab-Israeli conflict. "When in doubt, assume it is related", says ARBPIA. It's up to you to steer clear of the topic, so don't expect to be warned if you violate the ban. There's so many articles on Wikipedia that there's plenty for you to do while doing so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be ok if I informed some people at WT:JUDAISM of the dispute taking place at the colonialism article? Malik recommended earlier that I should do that, but now that the ban is in place.....eh. Anyway, I will petition for the lifting of the ban at a later time, when I feel as though I can edit these articles without losing my cool. Not an easy thing to do, when you are an Israeli.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't keep answering questions about what your topic ban applies to and what it does not, otherwise you'll be checking with me before you make every single edit. It may not appear so due to what I'm doing not being a publicly logged action, but I'm actually doing something behind the scenes on Wikipedia right now, and I can't afford to be constantly interrupted. This is the final thing I have to say on the matter: Before making an edit, ask yourself "Is this edit related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?". Based on the answer to that question, you know whether you should be making the edit or not. FYI, if you're incapable of telling whether the edits you're making are related to the conflict or not, then you're clearly not going to be able to stick to the ban and a block will ensue to minimise damage to Wikipedia. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at this edits [5] and [6] as I think ubikwit might have broken his IBAN as he talked about other editor and his TBAN too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that topic ban that you gave to editors is only it article/talk space the usual scope is all wp:namespaces.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too busy to look at this right now. Report it to WP:ANI if you think it's a violation of the interaction ban and WP:AE if you think it's a violation of the topic ban. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last bit, I can always extend the ban to all namespaces under the discretionary sanctions if it turns out to be necessary. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a chance

In case your decision to impose sanctions at that point had been influenced by the statement of Nableezy on the ANI page, he has admitted that he mistook some comments/sources posted on the Colonialism Talk page he was addressing as being made by me when they weren't by me. User_talk:Nableezy#Colonialism_2

I'd misunderstood the parameters of the IBAN (extending to User Talk pages) in discussing the issue with Nableezy at first , so I deleted nonconforming references that were made with respect to Nableezy's ANI comment relative to that article and Talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in any of this. If you want to appeal the bans for whatever reason then go ahead and do so, although I doubt the community will appreciate your appealing a ban only a few days after it was given to you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No rush.
I see that Shrike has complained about my responding to this on the questioners user talk page. I assume that in view of the scope of the topic ban sanction that it would be acceptable to continue that specific discussion there, correct?--Ubikwit (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat what I said to Evildoer187. I can't keep answering questions about what your topic ban applies to and what it does not, otherwise you'll be checking with me before you make every single edit. This is the final thing I have to say on the matter: Before making an edit, ask yourself "Is this edit related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?". Based on the answer to that question, you know whether you should be making the edit or not. FYI, if you're incapable of telling whether the edits you're making are related to the conflict or not, then you're clearly not going to be able to stick to the ban and a block will ensue to minimise damage to Wikipedia. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 03:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Guerillero | My Talk 03:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crat statement draft

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

  1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
  2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
  3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
  4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
  5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
  6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Facto SPI

The section you collapsed had my diffs in it. This is what this person always does – drags something out until it's unreadable. I'm just trying to find where this guy accused me of confirmation bias in exactly the same way as he's just done to someone else today, but I'm wondering if there's any point. Curatrice and MeasureIT are so obviously the same person as Eff Won, it's blinding. I don't mean to have a pop at you but this editor makes working on Wikipedia a total pain in the backside. I'm so bored of trawling through the contributions of all these socks trying to find diffs to get the latest sock blocked. Maybe we should all just let him edit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my comment, that case is sorely missing diffs. If you've provided some in that section, I will attempt to find them. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many because Curatrice has only been around for a short time, and he's clever enough to avoid F1 articles, which were all Eff Won ever edited. De Facto also edited F1 articles. But the debating "style" is identical, and it's hard to provide diffs beyond a comparison between various endless arguments like the one you just collapsed. I guess it's because I've spent so long arguing with him that it sticks out like a sore thumb. To an outsider it may not be so clear, I accept that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer187

Please could you have a word with Evildoer187? His editing on anodyne and neutral articles (I witnessed his editing on Ethnic groups in Europe) has been unsourced and agenda-driven, reverted by multiple editors. I advised him that he could not use wikipedia articles as sources for other wikipedia articles. His reaction was not very encouraging and I fear that he is heading towards a community ban. That's just how it appears to me. Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page on the article. I have reverted my edits there, and anyone who wants to discuss it can feel free to do so. I just thought my edits were obvious enough that they didn't need sources, but it appears I was wrong and I apologize for that.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole pattern of editing on White people, Ethnic groups in Europe, German people Germans, etc, has been problematic. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC) with correction. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any edits on German people, so what are you talking about. I participated in the discussion, but that's it. As for the White people article, that was more of a disagreement over terminology than anything else. I put in "Southwest Asia" so as to narrow it down from the more broad "Middle East", because the Middle East also encompasses Northern Africa and the paragraph in question was about immigrants from Asia. Of course, my revision there was met with hostility and accusations of agenda pushing. I made another mistake there, which I have since reverted upon recognition of it.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I think I'm just gonna pull back from editing for a while. It has become apparent that I am just not in a good mindset for editing right now.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Turkey

Hi Deskana. I've just been looking at a protected edit request at the Turkey article, and I was wondering if you would be willing to reduce the protection level to semi-protection. There hasn't been any new discussion about the disputed content since January 1, so it doesn't look like a consensus will be reached there any time soon. I think it would be best to reduce protection and start handing out blocks if the edit warring continues. Does this sound like a reasonable solution, do you think? Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually coming here to ask the very same thing. Deskana, we've spoken before a number of years ago, although I'm not sure if you remember me — I went by the name "Master&Expert" at the time. I was in the midst of reading articles pertaining to the Ottoman Empire, and naturally I wound up wandering onto the present-day nation state's page, only to find that it's currently locked from editing. Knowing that full protection is generally only used in circumstances where edit warring has occurred and individual blocks would not bring the situation to a resolution, I decided to check the article history to see what's been going on. Yes, there's been a lot of tendentious editing of the article in recent times, and I can back protecting it for a while. But I think now would be a good time to downgrade the protection level for Turkey, my reasons being the same as those given by Mr. Stradivarius. If the tendentious editing persists, then we may need to start considering editor-specific sanctions. Kurtis (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to police the page. If someone actually does start edit warring then I'm not going to be able to help you and you'll have to seek help elsewhere. Are you sure you're alright with that? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine by me. Kurtis (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and reduced the protection. I'll keep an eye on the article, so you (Deskana) don't have to worry about it being policed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Avs5221's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

avs5221(talk|contrib) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI

I made a post at the entertainment reference desk regarding an issue with which you have been involved. The discussion can be found here. I specifically mentioned a post you made on the talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor, so I figured it'd be appropriate for me to notify you of the thread.

Take care. Kurtis (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

SPI

You were the checkuer for [[7]]. Confused by your statement. I thought checkuser was to provide additional information to confirm/deny cases where there was not definitive evidence. In DUCK cases would it not be better than just relying on coincidence? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I absolutely hate the WP:DUCK page because it leads to misunderstandings like this one. WP:DUCK does not say "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you'd better check it's a duck because you might be wrong". If you're citing WP:DUCK then I'm just going to deny the case; you've already, by linking that page, told me that the connection is obvious. To quote the page "The duck test allows us to consider it an obvious sock-puppet, and act in consequence". This is why the case was tagged as unnecessary; you'd already said that they were obvious sockpuppets, so me running the check would be pointless. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Account merging

Good morning, Deskana.
I'm an admin on the Italian version of Wikipedia and I've been editing pages since 2002. Unfortunately I couldn't merge my account in all the versions of this project, e.g. the English one. I'm logged as §Ariel instead of Ariel here in fact. Now I noticed that the User:Ariel page and its talk were deleted and that user has not any contributes at all. So I wonder whether it is possible to merge §Ariel in Ariel. You can write me back on my Italian talk page. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day! --§Ariel (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just posted a request. I hope I did not make any mistake. :-) --§Ariel (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deskana&oldid=533857053"