User talk:Deskana/Archive 28

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 .

Per this, why did you remove my db tag? I am literally the only editor, it's a stub, poor references and the chance of the article expanding is very unlikely. ς ح д r خ є 14:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history and saw that you weren't the only editor. What I didn't realise at the time is that the other "editor" was a bot! I've now deleted the page. Sorry about that. --Deskana (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ς ح д r خ є 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the article,

As per my comments at my talkpage, I have removed the content I originally posted at the above - pending my finding diffs that support my interpretation of events. I have also removed your comments there, since they were redundant upon my removal of mine. I trust that you are agreeable to this further action, but if not then why not just block me for a bit (I feel I still really haven't arrived, having such a unviolated block log) rather than some chit chat. Cheers, anyhoo, for the input. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's one good example of the exception to the rule that you shouldn't modify/remove comments made by other people, so I do not object, of course. I do, however, regret to inform you that I am outraged by your implication that I block for frivolous reasons or with an excessive duration, and will accordingly be blocking you indefinitely for daring to speak to me in such a manner. Not. --Deskana (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice comment about my username, heh.

You hold many titles and have been around a while, and you mention you are pretty impartial, and wanted to get your input on this

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Foswiki. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that warning.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, [1] and [2]. Can you make heads or tails out of this? Cirt (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Unfortunately we don't seem to have an active checkuser at the moment. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't see the red padlock at the top. At that moment in time, no red padlock was there. JAF99 (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Deskana, I would like to create a unified login with my original name "Dansker", but there is an other user in the English Wikipedia using this name. It is possible and can you help me to capture this name over to my account? Thanks --Danskeren (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deskana,

First of all thank you very much for dealing with this SPI. Is that the end of it then (ie: should it be closed and archived)?

I also have a question regarding

Thanks,

It is only a violation of the privacy policy if a checkuser says that, based on technical data obtained through use of the checkuser tool. As you can see in that SPI, I have made no comment based on any of the technical data, so I have not violated the policy. If you are referring to the comments made by User:George based on behavioural evidence, then that is also not a violation of the privacy policy as it is all conjecture based on evidence that is publically available. Hopefully this answers your question. If it does not, feel free to contact me again. --Deskana (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the comments by George. I'm a little unsure about your explanation though. Is it really publicly available evidence that "The IP address 99.236.137.50 is almost definitely Breein1007"? I have certainly never claimed that I was associated with that IP, so I'm not sure how that is publicly available, whether or not it is an accurate statement.

Breein1007 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

To put it bluntly: the privacy policy is concerned only with information derived from the checkuser tool, and since he does not have access to the checkuser tool, he cannot possibly have violated the privacy policy. To try to explain it a bit more: He has come to the conclusion that you're the same person as the IP based on your edits compared to the IP's edits. Both your edits and the IPs edits are publically available, so he is definitely well within his rights to say that. --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you're saying that

Breein1007 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I will ask another admin. Although to be honest, I don't think that knowledge of my IP address should affect the answer. Because either it's a violation of the policy or not... regardless of accuracy of the claim. Anyway, thanks again,

Breein1007 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, didn't mean to tread on your toes there. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't at all. Thanks for the help. :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When screening Brexx socks, you might find User:Kww/Brexx and User:Kww/Brexx2 handy. They are lists of frequent targets. Obviously, I may extend the series in the future.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. --Deskana (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deskana, would it be possible for you to further clarify what you meant by the "inconclusive" result at this SPI case? Was Millmoss completely unrelated to the IP addresses, or just not exactly the same? And did you check only Millmoss' IP address, or those used by other NoCal100 sock puppets? Thanks! ← George ^talk 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Inconclusive" basically means "We've got no way of answering the question you asked". You can think of it as, basically, a glorified "I have no idea", except it also means that other checkusers will also have no idea. --Deskana (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks. :) ← George ^talk 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. --Deskana (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job you are doing there! I want to extend my gratitude and state that your edits deserve the highest praise. What would Wikipedia be without your kind. --Zaphood (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks again for your feedback/changes here. I think we've got a pretty good consensus to implement these changes and before I do so in a single edit I wanted to confirm whether or not you would like your changes attributed to you, and if so - would you care to perform a histmerge on the two forks of the article. If the attribution is not important then just let me know and I'll make all the changes in a single edit referencing your name in the comments.  7  23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) (this message copied to all three admin who helped with the page). [reply]

PMDrive1061 has requested further action in regard to this serial vandaliser of his user page. Since you did the check and confirmed it, I told him I would ask you to respond to his request. Thanks in advance, Auntie E. (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Accordingly to what is asked to be done, I’m sending to you, bureaucrat of the current wiki, a request for account usurpation by the name of “Ethaniel” for the Wikimedia unified login. My original account is on Wikipedia FR and, during my account unification attempt, it appeared that it already existed here, account on which I can not login. As this account had never contribute here, I hope that this usurpation won’t bother the real creator of this unused account. Thus, could you please usurp this account in order for me to finalise my Wikimedia accounts unification? Many thanks!

Ethaniel (d) 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.234.48 (talk) [reply]

 Done. When you read this message, if you're logged in globally, your account should be created automatically :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! =) — Ethaniel (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-unique1 decided to take the Brexx problem to a wider community at

Hey Deskana, just letting you know that on this case Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) has kindly upped the block on Afatatlot (talk · contribs) to indef, meaning that all three accounts there are now indefinitely blocked, and I have tagged them as suspected sockpuppets of Stopallspam (talk · contribs). Hope this is alright, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for informing me. --Deskana (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the

Thanks Deskana :). I will drop you a note in a few minutes, and after that i will be working trough my User:Excirial/Blocknote#Admin_To-Do_list admin to do list to make sure i don't end up on ANI for making a mess of things. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deskana. You may remember me from here. Just to let you know that our agreement expires today, so i hope that i fulfilled you expectations. :) Anyway, thanks for your helpful eye during those two weeks, and i hope that i can ask for you in the future.
P.S. BIG OBSTRUSIVE AND TOTALLY REDUNDANT EDIT NOTICE is so useful to have on talk page... :)
All best! --Tadija^speaks 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deskana,
I have strong reasons to believe that User:Assyria 90 and User:Destudent are Sock Puppets of User:Shmayo. Their comment on this page came just minutes apart after more that 18 hours of Shmayo last activity, all to handle a single issue. Those other accounts have been basically idle, and just awoke at the voting stage of some suggestion in the above mentioned page. Please help verifying this issue, and please let me know what you find out.
Best Regards,--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can file a request for checkuser

clerk for help if you can't figure something out, though the process is reasonably straightfoward. --Deskana (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, sorry for disturbing you again. I have filed the case here, but I am not sure if there is something wrong with it. It has been there but it is not showing on the main page of Sockpuppet investigations. Could you please give it an eye to see what's wrong. I appreciate your help.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]