User talk:Deskana/Archive 32
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Hi Dan. You have email, if you could read and reply when possible it would be most appreciated. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
The Signpost: 08 August 2011
- News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
- In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
- WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close
- Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news
Replaceable fair use File:Wotsits-ReallyCheesy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wotsits-ReallyCheesy.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you actually look at the file page in detail, you'll see that the original fair-use rationale that I provided isn't even valid anymore anyway, as the new image that was uploaded was taken by someone on their phone and has not "been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media". Given that, I'm not entirely clear what the purpose of your message here is. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's a notification issued by Twinkle to the first contributor to the file. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 August 2011
- Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix
- WikiProject report: The Oregonians
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress
- Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection
Mediation requested for Myrtle Allen article
Another editor has been reverting my edits to the Myrtle Allen article, providing no explanation whatever, leaving a decidedly inferior version, replete with redundant text, cruft, misspellings, etc. If you check the diffs you will see my version is superior in every way: substantively, grammatically and syntactically; the last two probably due to the fact that English is not his first language.
More offensively, this editor has refused at least twice, to explain at all, despite my reaching out to him on his talk page, his reasoning or to try to delineate where he believes I am wrong or where it is simply a dispute between MOS styles. His reverts show he is not looking to improve the article but simply to revert wholesale my edits entirely. He may have an ownership problem with his articles, but, as you well know, no one owns an article on Wikipedia, regardless of how much hard work is put into editing.
I am leaving the article as is due to WP:3RR but I hope you can view the diffs and restore the superior version I crafted. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- In fact RMS is just pushing his version. The talkpage of the article is still blank, but my talkpage is full of PA's and insults of this incivil and rude editor. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 August 2011
- News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
- WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
- Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography
- Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
- Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
The Signpost: 12 September 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
The Signpost: 19 September 2011
- From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
- News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
- Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork
- WikiProject report: Back to school
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word
- Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year
Hello.
Hi, I was unblocked on Wikipedia some time ago and use this IP address because I am not at my parents' house. I was wondering what the stance is on this page below, though. Since I was allowed back on and that page was full of trolling, it does not seem that relevant to me.
Will it be deleted?86.176.72.79 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2011
- Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews
- News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content
- In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references
- WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles
- Featured content: The best of the week
Re:SPI
Thanks for leaving that note. Just getting back into work at SPI, and that was indeed a pretty stupid error. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 16:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hey, Deskana! I saw that you were a bureaucrat/administrator here, so I was just wondering if you might be able to answer a question I had. The thing is, I'm an admin on a different wiki, and another admin on the same wiki posted a question to the rest of the admins asking if there was a URL that can be used to show any user their current number of edits on the wiki. On our wiki, there's a page called Special:Editcount that conveys that information (I don't think Wikipedia has a page like this though), so another admin advised him to use this URL: http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/Username. That URL would achieve the desired result, but one would have to constantly put the username of the specific user at the end of the URL when posting it on that user's talk page, so my goal was to come up with a way to avoid that; almost to create something you could post on any user's talk page without changing any part of it and still get the desired result. I came up with this: {{fullurl:Special:Editcount/{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}, this way, one could just post the coding on the talk page of the desired user and the returned URL would automatically direct the user to their respective edit count. This worked successfully for every other user whose talk page I tested the coding on (without saving the page, of course); the only problem is that the user he wanted to do this for has an "*" both at the beginning and the end of their username (the second asterisk isn't a problem, just the first), meaning that instead of being returned as:
http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*
it gets returned as:
{{fullurl:Special:Editcount/
- User*}}
and doesn't take anyone anywhere, because it's just the raw coding. So I was just wondering if you knew of any way to circumvent this problem (aside from just telling him to post "http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*" on the user's talk page, which isn't the end of the world, but is, of course, what I was trying to get around in the first place), maybe by putting some other form of coding that I'm not aware of somewhere in the existing coding or something. Any light you may be able to shed on this problem would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
69.204.38.3 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can't really offer any advice I'm afraid. The only think I can suggest is that you try looking at Help:Magic words, as that might contain the answer you're looking for. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually able to find a solution that fixed the problem; just had to add {{urlencode:}} to the coding. Thank you for your help and time. Btw, awesome sig!!! :D
- 69.204.38.3 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Admin Re-opening a TfD discussion he started
See [1]. User:Scott MacDonald both initiated and re-opened the delete discussion after User:King of Hearts closed it per WP:SNOW. I did question whether this was appropriate [2] ut he has replied [3] that the allotted time had not expired and this wasn't an admin action. Do you think the action appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- In my mind, the amount of delete votes in that discussion suggest that it really shouldn't have been SNOW closed. There's really no harm in letting the discussion run its full course. I agree with you that it's bad form for Scott MacDonald to reopen a discussion that he started in the first place, but if we consider only the reopening itself (and not who did it) then it is not objectionable to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whilst I'd disagree with you about the SNOW close, I don't exactly object to the discussion running its course. However, it was bad form for Scott to do that and equally bad form that he doesn't recognise it. Don't you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 October 2011
- News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy
- In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts
- WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand
- Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan
- Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 10 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians
- News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised
- In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist
- WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People
- Featured content: The weird and the disgusting
A request
Hi Deskana, I'm writing to ask if you would consider unblocking CandaceDempsey (talk · contribs). She was blocked by you in June after posting on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, and a checkuser found she was linked to GeniusApprentice (talk · contribs), who was also posting on that page. Both were indefblocked.
I don't know anything about the multiple-account issue, but if you look at Dempsey's edits (she made just eight edits to the talk page), she arrived here to defend herself (e.g. here) after another editor insulted her work as a journalist, dismissing her as a food blogger. In fact, she's a respected journalist who has written an excellent book about the murder. Perhaps she felt she had to sign in under her own name to defend herself; that would account for the use of a second account, if indeed GeniusApprentice was also hers.
The indefblock and the block notice on her user page may be damaging to her, particularly now that her book is being more widely read, so I was wondering whether the best thing would be to unblock and let the issue rest there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I spent a little while thinking about this, and have come to the following conclusion.
- If she believes she is being damaged in real life by what's happened to her on Wikipedia, I would suggest she ask for a rename of her account. She may ask me directly if she wishes, and I will carry it out for her. I have also deleted her userpage which contained the block message. I should note though that I have very little patience for running around after sockpuppeteers trying to clear up after them when it was their behaviour that caused the issue in the first place, and if she refuses the rename and complains about being damaged in real life then those complaints will fall on deaf ears.
- There is no doubt in my mind that the block was appropriate, and it continues to be so. However, if she promises to stick strictly to one account, I am willing to reduce her block to time served and unblock her account (per standard offer, I suppose). Note that if she agrees to this and then uses multiple accounts anyway, I would block all her accounts indefinitely for violating the unblock agreement, irrespective of the usage of the accounts.
- I hope this is satisfactory to you? Let me know if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Deskana, that sounds good. In fact, it may be enough that you deleted the user pages and block notices. Whether she would actually want to edit, I have no idea, but I can look for an e-mail address and put forward your offer. I haven't actually been in touch with her about this. Many thanks for your help, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I got the impression that you were in contact with her. If you're not, then what I've done is probably sufficient, although I will extend the offer of unblocking to her via her talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving that note for her. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I got the impression that you were in contact with her. If you're not, then what I've done is probably sufficient, although I will extend the offer of unblocking to her via her talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Deskana, that sounds good. In fact, it may be enough that you deleted the user pages and block notices. Whether she would actually want to edit, I have no idea, but I can look for an e-mail address and put forward your offer. I haven't actually been in touch with her about this. Many thanks for your help, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 October 2011
- News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized
- In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out
- WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP
- Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 October 2011
- From the editors: A call for contributors
- Opinion essay: There is a deadline
- Interview: Contracting for the Foundation
- WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case
- Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project
The Signpost: 31 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
- Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified
- News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest
- Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful
- WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined
- Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.146.23.208, there is a dynamic IP who was given a 24 hour block about 2 days ago for edit warring on several articles. The IP was adding plot summary information that didn't conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but his edits were being reverted as vandalism. The IP seems to be a bit irritated, because one of the editors who reverted him, also violated the three revert rule and labeled the edits he/she made as vandalism. Today, he asked the admin why he didn't block the other editor, arguing that the issue was a content dispute. The IP changes every 6 or so hours, but it remains on the same IP range. The IP is making no attempt at hiding this fact, and has stated this several times. The editor filing the SPI report (mistakenly) believes that editing from a dynamic IP is socking. The IP isn't really doing anything blockable right now. I am working on explaining the neutral point of view policy to the IP. Hopefully this will help him/her avoid future problems. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
The Signpost: 28 November 2011
- News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar
- In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars
- Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:BN
- WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Malicious impostors
- Hello Deskana, if it isn't too troublesome, could you please provide some inputs there? Thanks and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've responded. Unfortunately there's not a massive amount we can do, but I see no issue with renaming the accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks bunch.
--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks bunch.
- I've responded. Unfortunately there's not a massive amount we can do, but I see no issue with renaming the accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 December 2011
- News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins
- In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge
- Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship
- WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...
- Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 06:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 12 December 2011
- Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa
- News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community
- In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed
- WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia
- Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain...
Can I ask some questions about the SPI on User:Iqinn?
- Will the new IDs User:Birdmight and User:Jrwikieditor be blocked?
- I took a look at some of the other recent SPIs. I saw the puppets being permanenty blocked, but I was surprised to see the puppetmasters receiving relatively short blocks. Since Iqinn would be evading an indefinite block, would a determination the individuals behind Iqinn were evading an existing block escalate that block from indefinite to infinite?
- It is my impression that the records that allow sockpuppets to be officially confirmed are only accessible for three months. Can I ask if those records can confirm Iqinn used the same range of IP addresses as the two more recent fellows?
- Sorry, I am not familiar with the SPI process. I can't tell, has a checkuser been run? If not, and there is a three month limit, I hope one will be done soon, as the last edit Iqinn made to User talk:Iqinn was just under three months ago.
Thanks. I figure that the answers to my technical questions weren't intentionally secret, or obscure. I've written elsewhere about security through obscurity. I am not an expert on computer security, but I have read what real experts say about security through obscurity. They mock it. They think real security does not rely on keeping procedures private, but on using secure algorithms.
If that's true then answering questions about how SPIs work isn't a security risk. If you think its false please trust I asked these questions in good faith.
I think Iqinn devoted well over 1000 hours to wikihounding me, before this well deserved indefinite block. 90 percent of their 20,000 edits were to material I contributed, or about my contributions. I'd really hope to see an escalation in the sanctions against Iqinn, if it can be confrimed they are behind these two more recent fellows.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to answer your questions.
- I suspect they will be blocked but that's not for me to decide. It is my practice, and that of many other checkusers, to not block accounts that we have checked through SPI cases. This is to avoid us being judge, jury and executioner on SPI cases. We summarise the results and let another user decide the appropriate action.
- There is no technical difference between an indefinite and an infinite block. Someone that's been using sockpuppets isn't likely to get unblocked any time soon, if they even get unblocked at all.
- I've already answered this question as well as I can on the SPI case. The technical data shows that it's almost impossible that the Jrwikieditor and Birdmight accounts are not being operated by the same person, and that it is possible (but far from conclusive) that they are both operated by the same person that operated Iqinn.
- I did perform a check, and the results are summarised in the case and above.
- Let me know if you have any more questions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. I am still not clear as to how the records used for checkuser go "stale". Does this happen at the 3 month point? If so, are confidential results of the checkuser you ran kept, and could they help identify if suspicious posts that look like Iqinn's come from posting from Iqinn's usual range of IP addresses? Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Their IP records simply don't show up in the checkuser tool anymore. Most checkusers do not keep separate records of IPs except in extenuating circumstances, and I make a point of not keeping any records at all. Despite that, you can rest assured that we can often still confirm a link despite the accounts going stale since sockpuppeteers are normally very sloppy and unaware of how the checkuser tool works. I can't really say more without violating BEANS. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply. I am still not clear as to how the records used for checkuser go "stale". Does this happen at the 3 month point? If so, are confidential results of the checkuser you ran kept, and could they help identify if suspicious posts that look like Iqinn's come from posting from Iqinn's usual range of IP addresses? Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 December 2011
- News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics
- In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?
- Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions
- WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics
- Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content
- Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, This user you just blocked returned immediately as User:Israelite2 to make the same edits. Can you please semi-protect Israelis for a period? Thanks. Zerotalk 10:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OxfordGeo
I'm not sure what more I can say. There was sock-puppetry around the deleted article Oxford-Georgian Society and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford-Georgian Society involving a number of editors with surprisingly similar interests and voices, and various identifications were made at the cases now in the archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OxfordGeo/Archive. Now the disputed article has been recreated under a new name University of Oxford Georgian Society by another editor with surprisingly similar interests and voice. I have added users Biographyspot (talk · contribs) and Charlie P Ryan (talk · contribs) for comparison as having been involved in the sock-puppetry and vote-stacking results from those previous investigations. Someone, or some group, is very keen to get this article into WP, and to promote a fallacious notion of its history and importance. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Additional: DQ's diffs show three of the four named users making similar edits to try to establish Tamara Toumanova as being Georgian. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I concur to CD's findings, a number of those new accounts seemed very experienced/knowledgable as to the inner working of Wikipedia for them to be true newbies, my spidey-senses are going off now telling me that they are most likely the same person. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry X'mas~!
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The Signpost: 26 December 2011
- Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data
- News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news
- WikiProject report: The Tree of Life
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales
- Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Advice needed
Hi Deskana. Sorry to bother you with something that's not your concern but I need your expert advice. The situation with mass AfDs of school articles has gone critical and complex. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest, and we need to know where best to take it. You'll need to read this thread and this thread. Thanks in advance your advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Deskana,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 22:53, 20 February 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Karen Wynn (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)