Jump to content

User talk:Deskana/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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

Email

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

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:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then I would advise more care in your usage of Twinkle and a closer inspection of the pages, as you're tagging pages with notices which are incorrect and do not accurately represent the copyright status of the images. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grace_Saunders/Archive#Request_for_deletion.21

Will it be deleted?86.176.72.79 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. However, I must say that if he didn't think that it was bad form to do it at the time then it is not surprising that he also does not think it was bad form after the fact. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for leaving that note for her. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Mail

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.

Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.146.23.208

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

WP:BN

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Talkback

Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx#Suspected sockpuppets.
Message added 06:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Commander (Ping me) 06:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do? I don't see anything there addressed to me. Can you point out what I need to look at? :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed out an edit made by the sock which was quite similar to the one made by them in the past. —Commander (Ping me) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not enough. I also need to see an edit from the sockmaster so that I can compare the two. Anyway, this discussion is moot since AGK has already checked the accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Could you please explain...

Can I ask some questions about the SPI on User:Iqinn?

  1. Will the new IDs User:Birdmight and User:Jrwikieditor be blocked?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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)[reply]

I'm more than happy to answer your questions.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

User:Israelite1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Thanks! I hope you're having a nice time too. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

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,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

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.

Karen Wynn (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deskana/Archive_32&oldid=1143542456"