User talk:Deskana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Clear app kopete.png
Crystal Clear app kopete.png
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.


Echigo mole socks[edit]

Hello, thanks for taking care of Coal scuttle (talk · contribs). Could you clarify if the other two accounts currently listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole have also been checked yet? Fut.Perf. 06:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I found that account while I was doing something completely unrelated. I'm very busy right now so I don't really have the time to check any more, I'm afraid. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about ThinkEnemies[edit]

May I ask why you concluded in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThinkEnemies/Archive that Special:Contributions/PartyJoe is not ThinkEnemies? As far as I can tell their editing interests were very closely related: Obama, the Tea Party, Al Gore, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck (9-12) etc. (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Deskana stated: "User has provided a plausible (if somewhat unverifiable) explanation for the technical data."
Perhaps he accepted my explanation based on a history of productive contributions to this project. TETalk 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Further, there is a glaring discrepancy between the positions claimed on the user page of PartyJoe [1] (Obama and Dem. supporter) and the clearly sarcastic/trolling edits like [2] or [3] or more serious ones like [4]. PartyJoe's user page was clearly trying to mislead as to who they really were. (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I hate to badger you further on this, but can you also clarify whether the only other account he admits to, MookieG, was merely an "alternative account suspended" as he now claims, or whether it was found to be an illegal sock-puppet. Many thanks, (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
MookieG was a legitimate alternative account because I never used it to game the system. It was also retired 3 months before being blocked. TETalk 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging through an SPI case that is over two years old to find the explanation for some edits. If you have an issue with ThinkEnemies conduct now, then my talk page is not the correct venue; I suggest filing an SPI. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I take your word that MookieG and PartyJoe both having edited Coffee Party USA and D. C. Douglas and Hutaree and Tea Party protests was all a bad coincidence. (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, you could take my word to be a flying saucer and I'd be happy with that, because I can't even remember the circumstances of the case. I am interested in pertinent current issues as I stated above. If there are some, file an SPI case. Otherwise, quite frankly, I am not interested. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

Choudary protection[edit]

Thanks for that, there's nothing worse than Islamophobes (a large percentage of Reddit are) mucking around with such a contentious article. Parrot of Doom 20:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]


Ermmm... that wasn't you, was it? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed. We were testing something. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chowkatsun9 SPI[edit]

In response to your CheckUser decline of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9, I have provided additional diffs. I'm sorry if my original request was inadequate or otherwise unacceptable. Does this satisfy your concerns? szyslak (t) 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


I've been working on User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets with the goal of moving into meta space soon. Basically a guide for newish users that covers the basics, written in a style any editor can understand. Your input on the page/talk page is welcomed. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm working on a few cases right now, so I'll try to check it out after that. If I've not looked at it in a few days, please do poke me to look again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Poke. I'm thinking of moving this into WP:SOCKHELP but prefer some feedback from those in the know before I do so. I think it is fairly complete and worded in very plain English so anyone can understand. There are probably plenty of things that can be tweaked over time, but I'm more interested in your opinion of the appropriateness and utility rather than correcting my grammar there. Dennis Brown |  | WER 09:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirokiazuma[edit]

Hi Deskana.

I opened this SPI/CU report having previously tagged the user page of the suspected sockpuppet. They were then blocked by Arthur Rubin along with the master account because of obvious disruption. So no checkuser was actually necessary and King of Hearts closed the SPI report accordingly. Subsequently another editor has edited the same article in a completely different way, showing more mathematical competence than Pirokiazuma. In one of their edits they made an error in trying to streamline an argument. I reverted that edit. Their username appears to be Japanese and I see no evidence that they are a sockpuppet, even if recently registered. They made a mistake but have not edit warred as Pirokiazuma did. Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has twice reverted the closure adding the new editor but with no further explanation of why he thinks this is a sockpuppet. There is really no evidence at present. If problems do arise (edit warring, etc), Incnis can open a fresh SPI report providing detailed evidence to support his suspicions.

Please could you explain to him how SPI reports are handled? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

With no further explanation? How I hate lies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Incnis Mrsi, that was not true of the first revert of the administrative close.[5] It was the only edit I looked at in detail. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As Mathsci said, in general people shouldn't be reverting closures of SPI cases; if you have a new sock to report, add it in a separate, new report. This is also true here. I see Rschen has closed it now and there's been no more trouble, so it seems that Incnis Mrsi understands this now. I think no action from me is needed right now. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for replying Deskana. I'm not sure that Incnis Mrsi has understood that what they were doing on the SPI page was not permitted. They have replied below in a not particularly pleasant way. Prior to that, on WikiProject mathematics, presumably referring to me, they wrote,[6] "FYI Endohiraku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is his new, active sock. Feel free to track and/or block it, but I will not help anymore because I’m disappointed and upset about rampant incompetence and dickery of the people related with sock hunting." My understanding is that, unless there is a large amount of disruption or exceptional circumstances, reports are usually made at SPI. Moreover, if is thought that a checkuser is needed, arguments or diffs must be presented carefully. Even with a recently created account, I would not immediately file a report on the basis of 3 slightly ambiguous diffs, but would wait. The other socks were blocked by Arthur Rubin who saw the SPI report and has known me for several years. In the case of Endohiraku there was no particular urgency, no deadline. The accounts Junior Wrangler (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Silver starfish were identified by me as socks of Echigo mole. It was only months or years later that the puppetmaster admitted that they were his sockpuppets. Mathsci (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. Mathsci’s opinion was disregarded by anyone but SPI people, the sock was blocked after a reasonable sysop read my analysis, and even if new socks appeared in the future, then CheckUsers’ intervention will be redundant: the situation is now clear without any aid from official sockpuppet investigators. No action from you is needed, thanks for your attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 00:40, 30 June 2013 (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.

Suresh 5 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Deskana. I just noticed a suspicious-looking request for checkuser and oversight access by a Deskana2 (talk · contribs). I'm almost certain that this is an impersonator account but I thought I would check with you first, out of an abundance of caution. So if you can confirm to me that this isn't your account then I'll be happy to bring down ye olde bannehammer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Should be CUed and globally locked too, if it's who I think it is, and because Deskana is on the OC. --Rschen7754 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As you suspected, that account is not owned by me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like T. Canens beat me to the punch. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ombudsman commission RFC[edit]

The last post on that RFC was almost a month ago. What is the plan for closing it? Thanks, --Pine 06:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Soon™. This is on my list of things to do once I am back from my holiday in Ohio (read: early next week). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cranes Software[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cranes Software requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 05:34, 28 July 2013 (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.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at this yet? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88.
Message added 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have added diffs per your request. Let me know if more are needed. Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding recreation of deleted page when the user responsible for deletion is blocked[edit]

The Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy was deleted 19 November 2006 by Centrx who was blocked 6 April 2012 by Hersfold who has subsequently retired. I'm interested in recreating this page and have followed the chain of users to a dead end, so I'm not sure who to contact now regarding why this page was deleted. Please advise. Melissajan0 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The block and retirement of the admin who deleted the page is irrelevant to the matter at hand. That said, the article has been deleted for so long that if you think the topic now merits inclusion in Wikipedia then you can just go ahead and create a new article. There was next to no content in the deleted article (which was probably why it was deleted), so you're better starting from scratch. Be sure that the topic meets the notability guidelines or it may be speedy deleted again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

Hey man, hope that didn't come off as too annoying[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For extensive contributions to the behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia, with processes that many of the rest of us might misunderstand or under-appreciate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eberspächer[edit]

Thank you for all the information. I only would like to know why I did not have this kind of discussion on our German Wikipedia article, which you can find here: The English article is ONLY a translation of this. Hope this will clarify the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eberspaecher (talkcontribs) 14:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Eberspaecher, we're not the German Wikipedia. Different wikis have different standards. If you can't meet the standards on this wiki, your stuff doesn't get published on this wiki. Remember what you were told in the help channel: writing an encyclopedia entry is a long and laborious process, so if you're here for any reason other than because you enjoy writing, you're going to be quite frustrated by the entire process.--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

ACC request[edit]

Hi Deskana, Elockid would like you have a look at an ACC request when you get a chance. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've handled it. Thanks for notifying me! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]


There appears to be some very serious outing of marie13 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2 going on now. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am One of Many, I've been harassed by quite a few different people about various matters relating to this SPI case. I'm afraid this means I won't be involving myself in it further, in any way, shape or form. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear about the harassment. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I am One of Many, don't worry about it. I'm used to dealing with this sort of thing. However, it does frequently cause me to lose interest in the things that I was doing that cause the harassment. I just felt I, at least, owed you an explanation for why I'm not handling that case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Any explanation?[edit]

[7] Eric Corbett 22:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I nearly dropped my tablet and hit the revert button accidentally when I was trying to grab on to it. Sorry about that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]


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.

Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Manchester meetup[edit]

Hi Deskana, You signed up to the Manchester meetup on 19 October. Harry has strongarmed me into rescheduling it to the Sunday, 20 Oct, due to clashes with other events. Hopefully you can still make it. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Newsflash! The location of the meetup has been moved back to Wetherspoons on Princess Street - the Ducie Arms isn't open on Sundays! Can you believe that?! Bazonka (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]


Your ping on User talk:Retrolord reminded me: did you receive my email from a few days ago? NW (Talk) 15:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NW, I did. Sorry for the delay in responding. I've responded now. Thanks for the reminder! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

MV Seaman Guard Ohio : Request your participation in the discussion[edit]

Request your opinion on my comments regarding the editorial style and info source of content uploaded to MV Seaman Guard Ohio Kindly see the TALK page of the article at Talk:MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio#Discussion_about_the_article NATO-Legal (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC) (formerly IP

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Nomination of MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesome[edit]

TWA badge 2.png Barnstar of Awesome
You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your amazing work alpha-testing The Wikipedia Adventure. Over 180 bugs were identified and 143 of them have been fixed already! (The rest are catalogued as known bugs).

You. Are. Awesome. Check out your name in the game credits here: WP:TWA/About.

Thank you again :) --User:Ocaasi 17:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How you can help even more!
(and for which there may or may not be a super secret second extreme helper barnstar)
  • Start over fresh with a new account: Like User:OcaasiTWA17 (these are legitimate alternate testing accounts and are not considered sockpuppets)
  • Finish the game: Give some attention to missions 5-7 (which have been tested much less)
  • Try a different browser: If you used Safari, try Firefox (or Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera...)
  • Show the game to a friend or family member to see how they like it and if they get stuck anywhere

Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

  • Featured content: F*&!

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barburrito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

Happy New Year Deskana![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Deskana:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Peace sign.svg

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

Help me to complete my single user login[edit]

Hello! I was in the army when globalisation of user logins was in action. I am most active in ruwiki as ru:User:Сидик из ПТУ, but I have made many contribs here too as User:Sidik iz PTU. Now I want attach to my current login those contributions so it needed to rename User:Сидик из ПТУ to User:Сидик из ПТУ (usurped) and User:Sidik iz PTU to User:Сидик из ПТУ. Hope for your help, Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Deskana,

Is OAuth enabled on en.wp? I came across Special:OAuthListConsumers but couldn't see how I could sign up for any of the applications. I am most interested in Snuggle. I have used it the old-fashioned way but I thought it would be slicker to use OAuth.

I checked out WP:OAuth but it didn't help.

Am I just jumping the gun?

Yaris678 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

Sock case ... remember User:Zarbon?[edit]

thats right! Upon reading his block history u dealt with this heavy abuser in the past. Check it out, he is under investigation. please, chime in ... Dark Lord Deskana! ActionFigureLover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

Zarbon's harasser[edit]

I was wondering if you had any clue as to the person who has been harassing Zarbon since allegedly 2008 (he directly mentioned you in his taunts). He's decided to pick me as an additional target after a stupid spat on some articles and is now reverting me across the project and warning a user I was in a dispute with a month ago whenever I edit an article (he even unreverted vandalism I reverted 2 weeks ago and informed the other editor of that). I thought I had identified the earliest registered account as Dragonron (talk · contribs) but it seems there's more history to this than Decemer 2013. Do you remember who this might be so as to better coordinate prevention and cleanup?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I found the earliest account as Wiki-star (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started up WP:ANI#Wiki-star regarding this user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Help to resolve an issue?[edit]

Hello I was wondeirn gif you could provide me with information and advice regarding a small issue. Recently I posted a question on the talk page of Elizabeth II, which was reverted by this user shortly after claiming I was a troll. THis is not true, I was simply asking a question related to why certain factual information had been ommitted from the article pertaining to the Queen's arrest warrants issued by the International Commonlaw Court of Justice for her involvement in a child abuse ring. There are numerous articles relating to the arrest by Googling "Queen ELizabeth arrested".

I went ahead and reverted the question hoping for a more clear answer. This was later reverted by an an administrator who went even further to hide all edits made by me without explaining why she had done so. I went and posted on her talk page, which she removed minutes later without even answering the question.

I can understand if I deliberately change the article, but all i did was ask a question

Could you possibly look into this for me, and clarify by this was done? Thanks in advance (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (Andrew)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit[edit]

Regarding you claims on not enough differences on this investigation, if you look at the Archive, you'll see that the master usually makes 2 or 3 socks at a time, always edits Benedict Cumberbatch and there is a sock that was blocked under the name Cluingforlooks, and this new one is just Clueingforlooks with an 'e' added. I don't see how a check user could hurt. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems your case was resolved. To avoid the same situation in future, please provide diffs when filing your next case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]


Thanks for helping out during the call today -- nice to chat :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Hi, Deskana! It's me, ANNAfoxlover. Quite some years ago, you adopted me in that Adopt-a-User program when I was quite active in Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you remember, but I was quite the annoying user sometimes; being over-obsessed with my autograph page, having a wacky signature, aspiring ignorantly to become an administrator, and sometimes being rude. You adopted me and gave me correction with patience, even in my bizarre fits of weirdness. Sorry for my inappropriate behavior.

Well, over time I matured and learned various things. Many of the lessons that stuck with me came from you, especially those related to being a good and better contributor online. You helped teach me how awesome that simply being a Wikipedia user can be. I apologize for the trouble I caused you back then. And thank you, thank you, for being a great Wikipedia adopter. I'm glad to see you're still doing good for the encyclopedia and Wikimedia. Congratulations on your success! Again, thank you. Blessings. A•N•N•A hi! 04:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

Your edit to the page User:Δ[edit]

You made an edit here with the edit summary "It would appear this ban is no longer in effect". From what I read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Appeal of ban, the ban is in effect until the arbitration committee has approved an appeal from the user to have the ban lifted. Are you indicating that this has happened? If the ban has been lifted, I would expect an announcement from the arbitration committee, but according to WP:AC#Members, you are not a member of the said committee. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I've had several people comment to me independently at Wikimania that Betacommand is now editing under the name of Dispenser, so I assumed that was public knowledge and that the old user page is simply out of date. That said, as you pointed out, I am not a member of the Committee, so if you think I'm incorrect then feel free to revert me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I would assume that Betacommand and Dispenser are not the same person, and I have not seen any SPI or other statement suggesting this. A different user was recently blocked for assumed sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth. I'm not attending Wikimania, so I do not know what is being said there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Stefan2 is correct. The only appropriate venue to lift the ban is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Appeal of ban. If you have evidences that Betacommand is editing under a different account to evade his ban, please don't hesitate to fill a SPI to have the alternative account(s) blocked as well. --Cavarrone 11:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You've got it a bit backwards. I wasn't trying to lift the ban, I was merely documented what appeared to be the current practice. Either way, if you think I'm wrong, that's okay, simply revert me. I don't really care to go chasing after sockpuppets right now. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted it myself. If I was wrong about being wrong, someone can revert the revert! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

An important message about renaming users[edit]

Dear Deskana,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

Please subscribe to the global renamers mailing list[edit]

Dear global renamer,

You have not yet subscribed to the global renamers mailing list. Considering the diverse background of all renamers, and with the intention to create an efficient platform for direct internal assistance and discussion, we strongly encourage you to do so. Please subscribe here and send me or Trijnstel an email to confirm it is you requesting it. Should you have any questions or comments, please let us know.

Thank you, Savhñ 23:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. Can you please look at your inbox? I've send you an email. Trijnsteltalk 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Deskana. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Appeal topic ban[edit]

Would you mind advising me of the procedure to go about appealing this topic ban through An/I for the I/P area.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm filing an appeal to have the topic ban and interaction ban lifted at AN/E.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]


Is Washington Institute for Near East Policy covered under Ubikwit's topic ban? Is its talk page covered? If not - ignore this. Else see WP:ANEW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) [8] is one of the edits in question, by the way. Collect (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Workshopping bureaucrat activity requirements[edit]

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xenotalk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened[edit]

Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xenotalk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Crat chat[edit]

From your 'crat chat comment, I have no idea whether you are pro or con, but I consider your recusal to be a demonstrated moment of personal integrity. Recognizing when our own opinions cross the line into bias is a sign of clear-thinking, leadership, and honor. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: That's nice of you to say. Thank you! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal[edit]

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements[edit]

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xenotalk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list[edit]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 02:11, 14 September 2015 (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.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December[edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me ( Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey![edit]

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

Question about CU bot use[edit]

Hi Deskana. I came here because I noticed an old discussion about fishing here, and you made some astute comments. Although I was searching on a slightly different matter, I guess fishing is tangentially related, because there is also a legitimate form of fishing performed by CUs.

Not being a CU, my questions/ideas/proposal will obviously reveal some ignorance, so be patient with me.Face-wink.svg Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

I wonder if there is some legitimate system for CUs to use bots for checking and flagging new users for connection with known blocked users? We know that blocked users constantly attempt to evade their blocks by anonymous IP editing/trolling/vandalism, and they also create new accounts when they aren't allowed to do so. Generally, as long as the new account flies under the radar by behaving and not repeating past bad behaviors, we don't pay much attention to them; maybe they have decided to mend their ways! But what if they are really devious and do return to bad behaviors, possibly of a more subtle and sinister nature which flies under the radar for a long time? They could do a lot of damage. Is there anything done on this front? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in here. So first off that would require a massive discussion on Wikipedia to even allow the bot to the proposed task. Next there would need to be discussion with the WMF to allow the bot to receive the CU bit and run routine checks. Then you would need to find a CU and admin who is also a botop to code up such a bot to send through the approvals process. I personally don't know any CUs on enwiki that are botops, but then again, my mind is currently elsewhere right now. Convincing the WMF to say yes will probably be the hardest of the tasks and the second hardest is convincing the community. But yes such a bot could be useful at times. My concern is that the CU log will get cluttered with entries from the bot, so the bot bit will need to extend the log entries, so users can easily filter out bot checks, but still see them if they needed to make sure that the account isn't being abused.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Limited Access 16:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the great explanation. Yes, there is definitely a lot to think about. So the idea may have some merit, but with a lot of cautions and resistance before it could ever get off the ground. If the will does not exist, it won't happen.
While this idea has some serious hurdles to overcome before it could happen, in principle it's kind of like getting extremely minor MoS changes to accommodate handicapped editors. Because the will among non-handicapped editors is lacking, it's nearly impossible, literally based on the reason that non-handicapped editors see no problem, so they block even minor fixes. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 19:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

IRC channel ops question[edit]

Hi Deskana, I'm not an admin but I was wondering if there was any precedent for allowing regular users to be channel operators, specifically in #wikipedia-en-help. I know there are a lot of channel ops that hang around, but I seem to be in a timezone where frequently the majority are away/inactive seem to be away when trolls come in the channel. I've been in -help for about a year now, and I try to stay level-headed and give vandals warning before requesting op assistance, and if given op I would continue to do so. If not, that's fine, but I thought I'd ask. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)