User talk:Deskana/Archive 18

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.

~*Sigh*~

Here we go again: Talk:Charles_Linden#Innacurate_Content. Mr. Linden is editing the article, and I tend to agree that the information he wishes removed is possibly inaccurate. The material is solely from the source that was a negative review, and the information is used to explain what the "method" is. It seems to me, that a proper description of it, would not come from someone who wrote a negative review, but since that review is not available online, I can't even confirm that the information is correct. Mr. Linden has offered this review as an alternate, could you evaluate that and see if that could be used as a WP:RS? The site is supposedly "The #1 Self Improvement Site Online", and it appears to be an encyclopedia of sorts, but I'm not sure it would pass as an RS. Also, for some reason, Absentis is removing the "response to criticism" section, that we had worked quite hard on getting right, perhaps as a mistake, I don't know. I won't make judgments about a fellow editor who in the past was extremely helpful, but I'd really appreciate it if you could at some point, take a look at the newest talk page comments and perhaps weigh in, as it seems that Mr. Linden and Absentis are not seeing eye to eye anymore. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an opinion page. Opinion pages from some website we've never heard before aren't exactly "reliable sources". --Deskana (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought, but wanted to be sure when I said it isn't usable. Now, the issue is that I do not think that this other source (this Anxious Times newsletter) is a WP:RS, as a members-only newsletter put out by a medical clinic and not a peer-review journal, academic journal, etc., it is not available in public libraries or university libraries. (This is the ref that has been the source of contention, that is not verifiable online). Because Absentis has verified he has a copy, he's been using it to write in a portion of the article. Yet it was a negative review, written by someone Mr. Linden calls a "competitor" and really would not seem to me, something that's neutral to use when explaining this "method" thing. Mr. Linden is now wishing the whole section and reference be removed from the article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war with Absentis, who was really helpful initially with this whole issue, but he feels that this "Anxious Times" newsletter is a reliable source. The thing is, I really have no opinion, I have never heard of Mr. Linden, or his program. I agree with Absentis that Mr. Linden's descriptions on the talk page can't be used unless backed up by a source, but at the same time, I don't agree this other source is valid. But I also know that if I remove it, he's going to place it back, because it has been in the article uncontested for so long. (Granted, I didn't realize this was not a real publication, but still). I'm really at a loss as to what else I'm able to do, without getting in a silly edit war over it, which I refuse to do. ^Ariel♥Gold 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with problems with image licensing

Hi Deskana, I am a new user here at Wikipedia. I am a big fan of airplanes and I live in Mexico so I decided to make this page and inserted five images, as you can see in the spaces lacking them. I was warned about their delition, so I requested Hydra Technologies (the company that provided the pictures and actually made the airplane captured in them) to send by e-mail the proper OTRS permission form, which I forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; in other words, the whole drill required to make the images stick happened. Still, the images have been deleted, can you help me out? Can you check the status on their clearence

If you need additional information to check if the mail arrived, here it is: My e-mail address: eldalieva@hotmail.com. The e-mail address from the contact at Hydra Technologies: daguilar@hydra-technologies.com. I can't remember the heading but it was something like: "Permission form images Hydra Technologies".

Thanks in advance and cheers from Mexico!

Eldalieva 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

Hi Deskana. Thanks for the response. As you requested, I send the proper e-mail that you required since Thursday. Do you have any news? If the mail didn't arrive or you need additional information please let me know so I can compensate. Thanks for everything and cheers!

Cheers! 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

Closure of MFD

Deskana, typically I would agree with you, but reform talks elsewhere lead nowhere. I figured putting it on a high-profile place such as MFD would help promote discussion and bring a wider audience to the issues. I'm not going to revert, I just wish you would reconsider your early closure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sensible close. WP:RFC/POLICY is where to take majorly policy reform proposals. Nomination of pages intrinsically linked to policy at MfD is unhelpful and were it not for the respect I have for the nom, I would consider the action rather pointy... WjBscribe 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC is much better than the MFD. I have already added some views. I do not plan to revert my close. --Deskana (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

'Crat Question

Per this thread, would it be appropriate to remind users who change their usernames to create a new account under their old name? I just recreated my old account (Pats Sox Princess) to avoid such a problem. Sasha Callahan 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tazchook

This was either my first or second RFCU. You declined it. I don't remember if I submitted another RFCU before it but, if I did, it was declined as well. Can you explain to me your reasoning for declining this one so that I can understand better what the criteria are for an RFCU? Thanks. --Richard 06:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start "Code A" clearly states "List in the IP check section" which you didn't do. Secondly, I wasn't convinced by your evidence tying them together at all. --Deskana (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC

First, a belated thank you very much for your most-welcome "your RfA was successful" message...! I'm looking into setting up a cloak and getting access to the admin IRC, but wasn't sure what to choose as a cloak...do we normally just use our Wikipedia usernames or pick something more..well...cloaky...;) Thanks! Dreadstar † 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

User: Sefringle (nor User:Yahel Guhan) has responded neither to me nor to User:Hiev (both of us made comments weeks ago). In fact, Yahel Guhan hasn't edited the mediation talk page since 15 September, yet is now indiscriminately reverting others edits, without any explanation at all.[1]

I recommend protecting the article and continuing with meditation. How do you think we should solve this?Bless sins 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Brother

I am not sure why the matter was declined, as the person who was using hte account seemed to be someone I was involved in a contact dispute with, who reported me twice for 3RR violations which I was not guilty of. It fulfills the criteria of harassment. I would very much like to know who a) is stalking my accounts and b) only uses this alternative account to attack me. I am not sure why i am not allowed to know who the primary account owner is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Deskana (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot how manyof these types of issues you must come across on a daily basis.

Order of events:

1 I initiated a checkuser search after the second 3RR was filed by user Heavy Brother, as the account had no other purpose but be used to attack me specifically, as indicated by his account history.

2 Comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise (you might recall him as the admin who was so very polite at the image removal fiasco this summer) erroneously states that the matter is resolved, and that the report was misfiled anyway. FutPerf is also notable for having acted on the first 3RR complaint filed by Heavy Brother, which resulted in a 24-hour block for me.

3 Declination to pursue by user Deskana, without explanation.

4 Checkuser request archived less than a day later.

You declined to process a checkuser request on a user (Heavy Brother) utilizing a single-purpose sock account for over a month to report me repeatedly and erroneously for 3RR. I submitted the report because that qualified as an attack account, and I wanted to know who the original user was, if for no other reason than to allow me to be on my guard with them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Firstly, the request was misplaced. Code A requests are listed in the IP section, which are requests to block the underlying IP of vandals. If you wanted me to check accounts against each other, then it should have been listed in the main section with a different code letter. Secondly, FutPerf's comment was what lead me to decline. The matter seemed resolved. --Deskana (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, and Deskana, please forgive my interruption: The only person still keeping this alive is you, Arcayne. That user did exactly what I told them to: ceased using that account immediately upon finding out that it was not allowed as a single-purpose account. There have been no contributions since 9/25 from that account. This matter is closed. There is no further need for you to keep this alive. - Philippe | Talk 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, thanks for responding. Yes, it was only my second time siling a checkuser, and was unclear as to which code it better applied to. As well, I can see how you would have thought from FutPerf' erroneous comments that the matter had indeed been resolved. Clearly, someone forgot to let me know I was happy with the resolution.

Philippe, thank you for responding on this as well as my Talk page as well. I will say what I did there. I don't care if the person has ceased to use this one single-purpose attack account; who is to say that they cannot just start up another one? It isn't like the primary user account is on your watchlist - you yourself said the matter is resolved, so you certainly don't plan to moniitor to see if this person isn't going to create another sock. On the other hand, if I knew who the primary account was, I could be on my guard with them in the future. I should have a right to know who set the account up in the first place, as it was specifically designed to be an attack account directed solely towards me. I am not really sure why FutPerf said the matter was resolved, but I do not consider the matter resolved; I would like to know who the primary account user is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

DBZ portal

Can you delete all of those selected articles in the Dragon Ball portal except this one. We only need the main one now (Goku's), the rest aren't appropiate. While some even have fair use images, I really don't see the need for any of them. Ah, if there is anything you can do to update the unfinished portal, by all means, I'd appreciate it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Try tagging them for deletion using {{db}}, you'll probably get a quicker response. --Deskana (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AA's RFA

Deskana, thank you for closing my RFA and sorry for the late reply - my net connection decided to go AWOL at the crucial time! Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Poison the Well, Deadriene16, and Deadriene

Hi I notice you assisted User Deadriene16 in becoming User:Poison the Well. I also notice that in both identities, he made a HUGE number of edits to User:Deadriene, as seen here: [2]. Is this some sort of sock violation, or just bizarre editing pattern? Do you know what's going on here? I ask because after being the first to comment on his user page, it's in my watchlist, and I continue to notice him working on this page. ThuranX 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like userspace theft to me. Perhaps you should leave a note on WP:ANI asking an admin to clear it up. --Deskana (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation

Hey - it's not a huge deal, but there are about five requests waiting to be filled. I asked Secretlondon, but she hasn't signed on since the eighth. I noticed that you are online right now; do you think you could take care of them? Thanks. i ^said 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --Deskana (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's backlogged again. You're online, so you're the lucky bureaucrat I felt like poking. As a side note, there is a special case at the bottom. WjB suggested someone with checkuser could be of assistance, and since you are dually capable, all the more reason to ask you. Think you can spare a few moments? Thanks. i ^said 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I can do them tomorrow, but not tonight. It's 1:45am and I'm exhausted. WJBscribe also seems to have slipped up and said "checkuser" instead of "bureaucrat", so I'll try to remember to do that one tomorrow. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. Same time for me as well. Night all... WjBscribe 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See, this is the problem with almost all of our active renaming bureaucrats being in England, or the Eastern Hemisphere ;). I think the only active crats not there are Cecropia and Raul. Dunno about Taxman. Ah well. i ^said 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to heap more jobs on you, there's a mighty large backlog at RFCU. And since your checkusering capabilities are not needed at CHUU, maybe they can still be used... i ^said 03:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on that, but I don't think I can get it under control on my own. --Deskana (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

←Well the good news is that Dmcdevit did a chunk of the checkusers, so there's no longer an enormous backlog. The usurpations, however, are still backlogged. For that matter, so are just the normal changes. i ^said 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dirty rat

You dirty rat! I had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot all queued up to go, but I got the edit conflict and user is already an admin message. :) You must have had quick reflexes because I didn't flinch much. Nice work - Taxman ^Talk 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming the first crat' to grant adminship to a bot, releasing a blood thirsty binary-runned machine to the world... that is evil! :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Taxman. I had all the tabs open because I wanted to be the one to do it ;-) --Deskana (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RedirectCleanupBot

Just as a heads up, since you've already given RedirectCleanupBot his sysop flag, you will need to get a steward to grant +bot status. Sysops cannot be given bot status due to how Special:Makebot is set up. I had raised this issue here, but I suppose no Bureaucrats saw it (it reminded you guys that you need to set +bot then +sysop, not the other way around). Just a friendly reminder, as you were the one closing the RFA. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew, thanks for the reminder. I'll be contacting a steward when the time comes to flag. --Deskana (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be early

But... come November 1st, I was thinking about maybe putting in a nomination for you for ArbCom. What you say? Kwsn(Ni!) 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few people have indicated to me that they'd be happy with me running. I'm still considering it. Thanks for the offer. --Deskana (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		With thanks!
		Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly. Actually, you'd probably noticed tht, you did close it ;-). I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman! Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine! - - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for access to the admin channel, as I don't have a client installed right now, and instead use the portal at java.freenode.net, I cannot accept that at the moment. Now I'm an admin, though, I should really get a clent and a cloak. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asana

Dear Deskana,

I've got a question on the article of asana, where I've got some strange feeling on how edits are going. There have been some edits recently by anonymous users (69.177.114.230, 69.0.51.55, 69.182.29.155, 69.37.154.146, 69.177.190.20, 69.177.191.117, 64.252.196.99) that all are from Richardson, Texas and Sadhaka accuses me of starting an edit war, without editing in the article himself. I have a feeling that I am played with here, and that here is just one and the same person concerned, who is anonymously trying to undermine my integrity and imposing a personal point of view to the article. Since you have a check user, could you please find out whether Sadhaka - who claimes here to not have done two reverts - is the same person as the one that did those edits: edit 1, edit 2? If that is so, it may have something to do with the fact that I asked for protection of the article some week ago, against the edits of Empacher was. It might be important to check of him as well if he comes from Richardson, Texas. Thank you in advance. Davin7 12:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please file a request on WP:RFCU, laying out your information clearly. I try to work through them in chronological order, when I have time. --Deskana (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Davin7 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you free?

Any chance you can take a look at pthis? As you can tell I'm quite annoyed by it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at this to find that Cecropia had just indicated the user has simply signed up the new account. Not much to do now, really. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot flag

Hey Deskana, would you be willing to flag User:NeraBot for me? It has been approved. Thank you, I'd really appreciate it! Love, Neranei (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done it. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Neranei (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User name change

Hi Deskana, yes, I figured that was obvious - avoid the bot. I'm taking steps to legitimize the new page including joining a project and having others look at the page. Changing my username is just one step. Plus, I really would like my own personal username for making edits to other pages as I can. Thanks for understanding. TDHCAuser 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thans for thanking from matalababu--> blogeswar thanks again ...--Blogeswar 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of User:Sefringle/userboxes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Sefringle/userboxes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Sefringle/userboxes is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Sefringle/userboxes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

re: IRC

Not where I can get on IRC atm - got Gtalk? ~ Riana ⁂ 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, i'm back, so i thought i better let you know. By the way, why did you protect my old talk page ? i was waiting for Mangojuice to decide if i was going to be unblocked or not, then you just decided to protect the page which meant i couldn't even give my side of the story. look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know about this but since you just blocked him can you please close that report? - Rjd0060 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Deskana (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how that personal attack page disappeared and then I see you are a b'crat...Thanks for your help! - Rjd0060 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm wondering the reason you deleted that info from my page. - Rjd0060 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY. He clearly wants attention. He's not going to get any. Revert, block, ignore. --Deskana (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense but I am going to restore that information, which will soon be archived. He is blocked so it shouldn't be a problem. I don't necessarily agree 100% with that essay because the vandal's already get attention by being vandals. If I am asked a question, I will answer it, and expect the same from other editors and vandals alike. I never delete content from my talk page and I archive it all. - Rjd0060 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your choice, however please do not reply to any further messages on his talk page. I will handle them if it is necessary :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont plan on it, but he just requested unblock - Rjd0060 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request

I'm using WP:TWINKLE and just using its templates. I assume from the fact you are removing all the requested times that this is no longer permitted. You might want to notify the WP:TWINKLE developer that he is doing the wrong thing with his templates. I expect a message from you might motivate a change more than something I say to him. --NrDg 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AzaToth has modified TWINKLE accordingly, see this. Thanks for the suggestion. --Deskana (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this issue a while ago, but as I consider page protection to be a last-resort, I tended to always choose a rather short protection time. I'm not a coder, so I honestly don't really understand the code change. Does this fix basically mean that if the drop-down box is left on "indefinite", it will omit any "suggestion" of a time from the submission request? Ariel♥Gold 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick test shows that whenever I try requesting protection, the default is an null string (empty option), rather than indefinite. If they don't click anything, it omits a choice and simply requests "full protection" or "semi protection" as far as I'm aware. --Deskana (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw your test, but I just did it and it still defaults to "indefinite" without a null option for me. Odd. Hrmm... Ariel♥Gold 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Try a forced refresh. That's Ctrl-F5 in most browsers. Sometimes it helps to refresh your monobook.js too. --Deskana (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Born to be a Beurocrat

This song reminded me of you for some reason,

Hermes: When I was four there was a hurricane in Kingston Town With a foot and a half of water. Everyone was alright, but I cried all night, It blew my alphabet blocks out of order.

And they said, 'This boy's born to be a bureaucrat', Born to be all obsessive and snotty. I made my friends and relations, file long applications To get into my tenth birthday party.

LaBarbara: But something changed when my man turned pro. Hermes: I was sortin', but I wasn't smilin'. LaBarbara: He forgot that it's not about badges and ranks. Hermes: It's supposed to be about the filing.

People, we didn't choose to be bureaucrats, No, that's what almighty Jah made us. We treat people like swine, and make 'em stand in line, Even if nobody paid us.

They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats, They say we're anal, compulsive, and weird. But when push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love Even if it's not a good idea.

Zoidberg: They said I probably shouldn't be a surgeon. Farnsworth: They pooh-poohed my electric frankfurter. Leela: They said I probably shouldn't fly with just one eye. Bender: I am Bender, please insert girder.

Hermes: Everybody sing 'Jamaica'! Everyone: Jamaica!

Hermes: Just the Bureaucrats. Bureaucrats: Jamaica!

Hermes: Sing me Home! When push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love Even if it's not a good idea.

Hahaha, couldnt help it. Later. Atomic Religione 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCU on Asad Aleem

• Hi. Sorry to trouble you, but I think I listed the wrong kind of vandalism on the RFCU; it should be G, as most of what the guy does is confined to his and his sock's user spaces. JuJube 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi. Just thought I should elaborate. I am objecting to the RFCU because I believe Prester John takes a content issue rather than a policy based "sock puppet" issue with my edits. If Prester wishes to gain an insight into my edits or me as a person he could just approach me. I really really hate confrontation but I will not be passive as someone manipulates the rules for his/her own games. I'm sure you understand, thanks --Danny 17 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's bad news about the checkuser on the above editor. There is no doubt the behaviour is the same, they all read the same. He must be editing from college now. Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana - further to your advice. Would it be still acceptable for me to edit List of Mosques? This is my favourite article. --Danny 17 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Case closed?

Why did you close the islam and antisemitism mediation? Yahel Guhan 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I said why. None of you were contributing to the mediation, none of you could reach a compromise, and (even more unacceptably) you continued edit warring. This is not the basis for a compromise. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, just to clear up, I had responded and was waiting for Yahel Guhan's response. But regarding the other points you are correct (we did revert and we did not reach compromise). Where do we go form here?Bless sins 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This now seems more like a user conduct issue than a conduct issue. I may refer this to the arbitration committee. --Deskana (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:CHU

Apologies, I thought it was the right action. Thanks for correcting it. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreated again

Hey Deskana, Over 9000 was recreated again, could you delete it, again? Is there anyway to block this from being recreated permenetally? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would Siddhartha be deemed appropriate by username policy standards? It is a very common name in Asia. Kevin 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, a username should not be blocked simply because it is common :). — Thomas H. Larsen 03:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SNOWed RFA

Hi, I just closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn early per WP:SNOW. If you have some time, could you make sure I did everything right. I added the templates, removed "Voice Your Opinion", took it off the RFA page, and added it to unsuccessful RFAs in the J section. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CHU

Good Afternoon, Deskana. I'd like to bring to your attention a user who has been denied a new username by Secretlondon (See:this section) and has now started to add more and more requests. I have come to because of your advice the other day, and seen as you're a bureaucrat I thought you were best placed to carry out the requested action. Could the new section be removed? Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reg. Checkuser for User:Mudaliar

Hi, Per your recommendation, I have made the requested clarification at [3] for Checkuser of User:Mudaliar

thanks, Ramki one 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Kraken7

I was prompted to post this case in association with the sockpuppet case, asking for checkuser investigation to help confirm the wrongdoer. If this case is wrongly posted or premature, I apologize for the good-faith error, but my prompter was an admin who'd reviewed the sockpuppet case evidence before it was opened. BusterD 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haemo has made more specific request on my behalf. Thanks for working the process. BusterD 18:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Usurpations

I was reading WP:CHU/U. You rejected someone's usurpation requests because someone made a mainspace edit. I have an interest in usurpsing Sophia (talk · contribs), who has also made exactly one mainspace edit, except this one was to wikify a word instead of rewrite a sentence. Does this qualify for usurption? hbdragon88 02:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Been a while

Hey Deskana. Been a busy month for me. Finally have some free time to edit now. Think I'll be back on the Wiki in full force again on Monday. Anywho, have you noticed User:Monnitewars? Obviously it's User:Hornetman16 but I'm surprised it’s been as long as it has been for anyone to realize it. Anyway, I'll be back on the Wiki by Monday but I'll be on MSN if you want to talk. Hope you're doing all right man. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Private matters

PLease e-mail me on my personal e-mail.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From RfA to first actions

Thanks a lot. So far I've been only exploring areas where I am reasonably familiar, but maybe I'll have some questions later. As regards IRC, I am not familiar with it at all, so i probably won't be using it for wikipedia either.--Tikiwont 13:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget

Hi,

Just for your notice, I've replied with additional comments (in disagreement) to your remark on this RfA. If you'd like to take the discussion to anyone's talk page, that's fine, though I think I've made my point clearly enough. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks Deskana. I had just gotten that point from someone over at the help desk too. Thanks for fixing it for me :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for telling Jpgordon‎ about it, because that's where I first saw the solution. My thanks to you is on his talk page. Gscshoyru 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about dismissal of my IP check

In response to my IP check request:

• Sviatoslav86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anstatt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laderov (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ProudAryan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AryeitskiySaldat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EuropeanLynx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The edits of the recently-created account Sviatoslav86 are suspiciously similar to the many-times banned Laderov and his many, many sock puppets (including several anonymous IPs). Please check the IPs and edit histories, and take the appropriate actions if it is likely that it is the same person.Spylab 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

 Declined. List this in the correct section with evidence: "suspiciously similar" is not sufficient evidence. We need diffs. --Deskana (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by listing it in the correct section? I posted it on the IP check request page, beause I strongly suspect that some, or all of those accounts are sock puppets of one person. The evidence is in the edit histories, which are linked for easy access and readability. Isn't that the whole point of the {{checkuser|}} template? Some of those accounts have already been banned for sock puppetry and/or other issues, and it doesn't seem to be a monumental task to simply check if the IPs are all from Montreal. If you do not want to take the time to do this IP check, perhaps you can let someone else who is concerned about POV-pushing sock puppets to do so. Spylab 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see the backlogs that checkusers have. If I have to spend 30 minutes investigating every case (because users don't provide evidence) then I'd never actually clear it out, since cases would get filed faster than I can handle them. Have you read the instructions at the top of WP:RFCU. IP check section is for blocking the underlying IP of blatant vandals etc, the case section is for confirming accounts have the same owner. --Deskana (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have read the instructions, but I am not sure what the problem is. Where is the "case" section you mention? I have requested many IP check requests before, to confirm suspected sock puppets. In all those cases, an administrator checked the IPs, usually confirming that there was sock puppetry going on, and leading to a block of the offender's account(s). I'm not sure why this case is any different. The account in question, User:Sviatoslav86, seems to be the latest incarnation of a long line of sock puppet accounts and sock puppet IPs who disrupt certain articles by promoting an uncited neo-Nazi point of view.Spylab 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called "Outstanding requests". If you read the instructions (your questions suggest you have not), then you'll see that the only time you're supposed to list something in IP Check (Code A) is to get the IPs of attack accounts and blatant vandalism accounts, not to confirm sockpuppetry. You need to present evidence to get a sockpuppet check, otherwise I won't do it, because I do not have the time to do it myself. I'm afraid it's that simple. --Deskana (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCU: Bobtoo

Hello, may I ask why RFCU: Bobtoo was declined? FWIW, another checkuser suggested (off-Wiki) that I file this request. I wouldn't want to put this much effort into a future request, if I knew that I'd done something wrong this time. (Also posted this at the RFCU.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm anonymous

Per WP:CNR, can you delete both my former user and talk pages? DBZROCKS is merging some of the saga pages, can you check if there are any copy/pastings that need correcting there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA closure

Hello Deskana [once again ;)]. Could I query whether you'll be closing my RfA? Thanks, Rudget _{Contributions} 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Why do you ask? --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:P, just asking. Rudget _{Contributions} 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I probably sound like a right pain in the arse, but could you close my RfA. I'm quite anxious to see the outcome. :S. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

civility

I tried my best to reply civilly here. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose not to reply after scolding me for the precise wording in which I questioned the quality (and validity as an RfA oppose rationale) of a comment by an esteemed veteran who is held in high regard. It feels awkward to see a 'crat enforce the notion of senior infallibility without so much as a glance for the point I'm trying to make. Yes, stupid RfA comments piss me off, esp opposes, regardless of who made them. But seeing you endorse such a bad old habit as that is a real turn-off. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry, that's rubbish" is not civil no matter how you try to portray the situation. I did not question the validity of the following comments, and your point could have been made just as well without adding the uncivil remark at the front. --Deskana (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I could've worded it differently, e.g. "non sequitur" instead of "rubbish", but it amounts to basically the same point, which is indeed an important part of my comment. — Dorftrottel⁠ 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"In my opinion you are wrong" is the same as "Sorry, that's rubbish". The last is inflammatory, the first is not. It's that simple. --Deskana (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion you are wrong. Opposing an RfA based on a flawed logic is rubbish, not merely "wrong" as in does no harm. — Dorftrottel⁠ 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to ignore me then, but don't be surprised if you end up getting blocked for civility issues one day. --Deskana (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been indef blocked 2 times already, no big deal for me. At least I know it happened for something I did with good intentions, for not giving a fuck about etiquette as opposed to content. Although I'm well aware that impatience is my biggest problem, I can only hope the egalitarianism of being extra-nice to everybody whatever they say and do will self-demonstrate its shortcomings rather sooner than later. The "civility club" promotes the wrong kind of behaviour. I take it you're aware of the difference between "being nice" and "being civil". I'm nice most of the time, but I don't give a damn about differing ideas of what does and doesn't contitute "civility". What an idiotic articifial construct, it's almost as flexible as NPOV and OR — and comparably often misinterpreted and abused. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I might comment, civility is a key construct in relation to the structure of harmonious contribution between editors here on Wikipedia. A lack of it can often result in a total dysfunction in communication, which, should this pointless debate not cease, could be the result of further interactions, whether it be between you and Deskana, or others. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean with "could be the result of further interactions". However, NPOV is an even more basic notion, and look how it's being raped and beaten and left bleeding in the ditch on a regular basis. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but does that mean that we should abandon other principles while trying to rectify problems such as the one you refer to above? Good communication and fluid discussion become even more important when it comes to the combat and resolution of problems such as, and directly related to, POV. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion somewhere else. I find it hard to do other things with a new message bar constantly popping up. --Deskana (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pah, I think its finished now anyway. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For already promoting more than 50 users to administrators, working tirelessly against abusive sock puppetry as a checkuser [4] [5] [6] [7], and still fighting vandals, trolls, etc.(as an admin. and checkuser), I award you the working person's barnstar. I have to admit that I didn't know how you would do in handling two major new positions, but you have definately put the tools to good use and excellent help to the project. Keep up the good work!!! --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, I can't get it to format)

For already promoting more than 50 users to administrators, working tirelessly against abusive sock puppetry as a checkuser [8] [9] [10] [11], and still fighting vandals, trolls, etc.(as an admin. and checkuser), I award you the working person's barnstar. I have to admit that I didn't know how you would do in handling two major new positions, but you have definately put the tools to good use and excellent help to the project. Keep up the good work!!! --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I formatted it. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both. :-) --Deskana (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Now an oversight!!!. To think, in 2007, you went from just an administrator, to an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and an oversight. Congratulations!!! Do you plan to become a steward next?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If he did, he would rival Redux, one of the only three other people with all four local access levels, and he is also a Steward. But that's not important :) Congrats on your oodles of tools though. i ^(talk) 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I'm sure you won't abuse them.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone suggested I apply for stewardship, but given I speak only English (with a limited ability to understand French and an even more limited ability to speak it), I would not really have anything to add to the current steward team. --Deskana (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think that a firm grasp of how to edit effectively on wikis is almost as important as a wide range of mastered languages (not to mention being trustworthy). Granted, I'm a bit biased, as I've got my eye on stewardship at some point in the distant future (and my language mastery encompasses all of English and Simple English), but I know I'd support you if you were to make an attempt. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, EVula! Maybe in December, 2008.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin rights

Thank you very much. By the way, I do not use IRC although I think I registered there some two years ago and then, after my password had been dropped, some month ago. - Darwinek 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki's Most Wanted

This user has created the account Most-Wanted4Life (talk · contribs) and is requesting to be unblocked. I declined the first request, and blocked the account as a sock, but he wants to have his original account unblocked. You suggested he create a new account and simply move on, so I figured I'd solicit your thoughts. - auburnpilot talk 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied. He has to learn that he can contribute constructively if he wishes to do so, but that he will not be unblocked if he continues to create accounts linked to his old one. --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)