User talk:Deskana/Archive 25

Cyclone Airways
I made an entry for Cyclone Airways which you tagged for deletion. The Article is significant because it established information about the airline vis-a-vis with other airlines of the Philippines.

Researchers about airlines in the Philippines may not know until they browse the wikipedia for information. Removing the article is like denying them the information about local airlines such as Cyclone Airways which have limited information available on cyberspace. Information could be linked to their website at www.cycloneairways.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marletbadeo (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironic
I find it rather ironic that you removed my comment suggesting that the arb com case had little productive value with the edit summary "removing comment that has no productive value". Thank you for making me smile. :-) --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
I laughed. I cried! &mdash; neuro(talk) 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sssh. --Deskana (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
I forgot to tell you to have a happy holiday earlier. It was almost as frustrating and upsetting as when you resigned from Arbcom. Argh! :) I hope your holiday is relaxing and that you feel better. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth's RfA
What a thoughtful closing statement. I found it especially helpful given the fact that his numbers were well into the range where no closing statement would have been required. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Phishing site using Wikipedia's name
Hi Deskana. I found your name in the list of administrators and I decided to contact you about this issue because I believe you're a user that may be able to help solve it. While typing wikipedia into my browser's URL, I accidentally left an "I" out, accidentally going to this website instead. I don't know if you know how to contact someone from the Wikipedia office or know where to go to, but someone has taken that URL and has copied the Wikipedia homepage in order to promote a false advertisement block. Where should I go or who should I contact with this information? There are currently two domains that are advertising with Wikipedia's name. These domains are 1 and 2. Notice the missing "I" in Wikipedia on those URL's.

 ~Beano~  (talk) (contribs)  07:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

contents on Nazism in Intrauterine device
I was browsing the entry Intrauterine device today and found that page was all in red, with contents on Nazism like this:
 * ''"We must protect our white nation
 * And murder the savage subhuman
 * Jews, Niggers, and Muslims."
 * American Nazi Party and Consultec Software Founder David Mack
 * To donate, contact us at:
 * 40 SQUANNACOOK DR
 * GROTON, MA 01450
 * 978-272-1289
 * You're help to kill the black and zionist beasts
 * is greatly appreciated.
 * Heil Hitler and White America''

I've tried different browsers like Firefox 3.0, Google Chrome and Opera 9.63, but this problem always exists. When I logged out there's no problem. I'm wondering why this thing could happen. Is there any way to solve this problem? Thank you. --Kegns (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I started a thread on WP:AN about this.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Template vandalism, being worked on.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard range block
Hi Deskana, you made a long-term hard range block of. is affected by the block and is requesting unblock. Can you confirm that your intention was for this to be a hard block? Thanks. --B (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Would you consider this thread and perhaps decide if a check is warranted or ok in this case? NonvocalScream (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Coren has done a check for you, I think. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks, please read this on my talk page :)

Mdandrea (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.181.60 (talk)

Happy New Year!
Dear Deskana,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a mild irony

 * People interested in why this conversation seems to make no sense might want to look at this version of it. --Deskana (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me saying this, but you forgot to sign your last post. Leave  Sleaves  15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooof. Thanks for pointing that out. --Deskana (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a new signature now. --Deskana (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good one. What's the character length? :) Leave  Sleaves  15:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 171. Well within the character limit. Violates a few other parts of the signature guideline though. But I'm pasting it manually on the end of my posts, so it's technically not a signature; my signature in the software is the same as it always was. Neat eh? --Deskana (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * POINT, anyone? (grin) Please refactor that monstrosity on the ANI page...  Horologium  (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, that huge sig blocks the link in LeaveSleaves' comment.  Horologium  (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a pain isn't it. But I'm not really doing any harm, am I? --Deskana (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's straining my eyes a little, but I guess that's not a well enough excuse. Leave  Sleaves  15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it. I'm just trying to get through to Roux. Sorry if it hurt your eyes. --Deskana (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind. It's nothing. Leave  Sleaves  15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Headers
I saw your comment to roux about his edit notice; you might visit my talk page and see mine (plural); there are a bunch and you'll get different ones - use preview a few times. fwiw, I think sigs should not have code of any sort in them because too many people know too little about code and they're snotting up pages with every sig; and sigs with boxes should be a blockable offense.

Cheers, User:Jack Merridew aka david   15:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (not my normal sig. which is plain)

Enigmaman's RFA
Hello. I've been trying to find out why Enigma's RFA is on hold, but haven't had any luck in the past few minutes finding the reason. So I thought I'd just ask you what the story was. Useight (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Give him time to write his reasons! :-)  Majorly  talk  21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead and take your time. I don't know why I'm always being a speed demon. Useight (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please e-mail me.  Enigma msg  22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done so. --Deskana (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another e-mail sent.  Enigma msg  23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another e-mail sent.  Enigma msg  23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ping.  Enigma msg  00:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know
I am critical of your actions, but they still don't come close to the worst thing I've done... I'm saying this because while I am critical of your actions in this case, I am not going to loose sight of the bigger picture. Mistakes are meant to be growing experiences... chances to learn. We are volunteers... not paid professionals.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The above message helps me appreciate your comments more. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NP, I wanted to make sure that you realize that I am not attacking you.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @Balloonman, I appreciate that comment. Like we expect from everyone else, WP:AGF is truly needed here. Tiptoety  talk 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, and everyone includes Enigmaman. I have no idea what these awful edits are, but perhaps we should be AGF that he did not make them maliciously, or that it was out of character for him because it was a bad day or something? Obviously, we have no idea, because Deskana did not have the courtesy to ask, in private, and instead has caused a lot of unnecessary commotion and drama on the RFA.  Majorly  talk  23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stupid question: let's assume he had contacted Enigmaman and Enigmaman didn't want to release this information. (I assume the comments are bad enough to prompt a CU investigation). What could Deskana have done then? I see why he chose to act proactively. -- lucasbfr  talk 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When Enigma was asked he had no idea why it was put on hold. He then emailed Deskana about it, and about 15 minutes later, according to the discussion above, Deskana emailed him.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Lucas: Enigma made other comments about how he didn't know about it, but this edit clearly indicates that he was not emailed about it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT2: And to answer your question, if he had contacted Enigma, and Enigma didn't want to release it, then that would have been tough luck.  Deskana would have then been obligated to raise the issue.  It's not that he raised it, but that he did so without contacting Enigma first.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my past tenses suck in English. I meant hypothetically, what good would have become of sending EM an email and letting the RfA continue in any case? Just trying to put things in an other perspective.:) -- lucasbfr  talk 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the outcome would not have been too different from what might happen now. The big differences are that by making the accusations they way they were made Enigma had no way to defend himself.  He had no way of knowing what was about to happen.  He should have been notified first, and I think Deskana recognizes that now.
 * Now, since we are speaking in hypotheticals, the edits in question occurred on December 2nd. If you look at Enigma's edits, there is a two day period where he made no edits.  Now what if Enigma had come back and denied that those edits were his?  What if he said, "If you look at my edit history, there is a 2 day period where I didn't make any edits.  That's because I had family over and I didn't log onto my account.  I don't deny that the IP is mine, but those are probably the edits of my younger brother who was visiting?"  Or college roommate?  Or whoever.  There are a number of possible reasonable explanations that could have been given---and the fact that there is an edit gap in his history could have been used as proof.  We know that didn't happen because Enigma has admitted the edits are his, but when the allegations were made, we didn't know that.  Deskana, unless he has more evidence than we know about, couldn't know for a fact that Enigma made those edits.  He can only state that the edits came from his IP.  In this scenario, Enigma's reputation would have been destroyed based upon a false allegation.
 * Another hypothetical, let's say the edits were much worse than they are, and that there was evidence of Enigma deliberately logging on and off to make sock puppet edits---or using the IP account to further a specific agenda---perhaps arguing at an AFD/RfA/etc where Enigma had already commented. Suppose the comments were that inflamatory.  If Enigma was notified of the situation, he could have quietly withdrawn and nobody would ever be the wiser.
 * Whatever the scenario, no good came out of the, and I wish I could think of a better way to phrase this because I know it isn't what Deskana intended, sneak attack. The way it went down, it created a lot more drama than it should have.  An email to Enigma would have allowed Deskana/Enigma to come up with a way to handle this without the drama.  The RfA community would have been given the chance to review the edits. It is not as if this were a hot pressing issue---it's over a month old, and presumably the check user case is over a month old as well.
 * Again, I say this not to beat a dead horse but to answer lucas' question. I am very critical of Deskana's handling of the situation, but as I said above... let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He should have posted on the RFA talk page, as he did. Only this time he would have communicated first with EM. It's all very well trying to save the wiki from evil sockpuppeteers, but if so much damage is caused along the way, I start to think is that person really the best one to be doing it.  Majorly  talk  23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ec:Majorly, to paraphrase Tip, back off. Deskana knows, or should know, that he could have done things differently. You and I both think he blew the handling of this... but enough is enough.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA request
Deskana, I appreciate that you were acting as you felt necessary and that you did not want this RFA discussion to go pear-shaped. I would like to have my RFA reopened as soon as possible so that the community can judge me on my overall merits. I have always been committed to this project and I will continue to be committed whatever the outcome from my peers.  Enigma msg  01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Deskana - as you know I have only assumed good faith in your actions in this matter. I understand the pressure must be mounting on you also - but with respect a comment under the appropriate section at the RFA talk page would allow everyone to get some sleep/rest on this situation. Best wishes.-- VS  talk 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note that in Deskana's part of the world it is past midnight, so I am not certain if he will respond. I would suggest another crat or two handle it.  MBisanz  talk 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is! I'm in the same part of the world and its 02.25am - That reminds me, I need to go to bed! :D John Sloan (view / chat) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to start the RfA all over, with a clean slate... and let Enigma do so, so that he could time it when he is available. Deskana did his job and notified the community, it is out there. In light of the events that heppened, I think those who supported need to reaffirm their support---otherwise, they might get discounted as "pre-controversy" supports.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

March 2008
Deskana, I don't know if you noticed it, but another admin (mbisnaz) made an accusation about Enigma making anonymous edits back in March of 08. Did you by any chance find other IP's that Enigma used in the past? If not, could you make a comment exhonerating Enigma of that allegation. If you didn't, because of the circumstances, I think it would be prudent to check out. Mbiz's allegation is now a serious allegation because of what has happened tonight.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 03:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, to everyone involved, I don't think running yet another checkuser would be the appropriate step here. Isn't policy against CU-ing to prove innocence? I personally checked out Mbi's diffs and couldn't find a strong similarity: 1) The language of the IP was very coarse, something E-man just doesn't do 2) The location of the IP is a fair distance from where E-man lives. Very unlikely. Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can already tell Balloonman what the CU result will be: Stale; since the IP hasn't edited for 11 months now, it would be totally futile to do a CU.


 * @Scarian, while I trust your judgment, of the 5 pages the IP edited, on one E-man and the IP were the only people to edit the page over the course of several months, on another page, E-man and the IP edited within a week of each other and only 3 other people edited the page, and on the 2 primary concerning edits, E-man was active on both of those pages during the time the IP edits were made. I would not say it is conclusive, but in light of today's findings, it does raise questions as to how long this sort of logging out has occurred.  MBisanz  talk 04:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And that is why, in this case, I think it is important to go ahead and do the check. Too many allegations and inuendo have been levelled.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 04:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not run another checkuser query, but based on data that I already have, it is possible it is him based on geographical location. However it is important to bear in mind that by the same logic, I am a sockpuppet of everyone in Manchester. --Deskana (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes me, Ryan Postlethwaite and Malleus Fatuorum are all sockpuppets of Deskana! :O  Majorly  talk  18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sssh. --Deskana (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have already told MBisanz, those edits were absolutely not mine. If fact, they geolocate to Binghamton. Yesterday, when you e-mailed me, I immediately confessed that those edits were mine. However, I refuse to take responsibility for edits I never made. I've never been within a hundred miles of Binghamton and I certainly did not make those edits.  Enigma msg  18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps I got confused with my geographical locations then. I'd check again but there's not too much point. As I stated above, my conclusion proves nothing. --Deskana (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Restarting Enigma RFA, Crat noticeboard
Hi Deskana, I put in a request on the crat noticeboard based on comments from you and Enigma on the RFA talk, and the general consensus which governs us on the page that it be allowed to run out as normally as is still possible. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA re-opened. As you should be recused from closing the RfA, you are free to !vote if you so choose. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although people dispute the action itself, I have already acted as a bureaucrat on the RFA, and I don't think anyone disputes that. As such it is not appropriate for me to do anything, including vote or close the RFA. --Deskana (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A fair assessment, though I think of !voting as something an editor does (ie: a recused 'crat can do so with impunity). That said, staying far, far away from the RfA is a good idea too. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And, in the spirit of looking for the silver lining, think of this way, you won't have to be the one who has to write a closing statement for this RfA ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this
I'm hopeless with formatting. :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
I sent you two e-mails yesterday. Have you seen them?  Enigma msg  17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see them now. I'll sort that out for you. --Deskana (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have no problem if people don't trust me because of what happened, or whatever, but I don't think it's fair to oppose me for doing what you told me to.  Enigma msg  17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting Rollback (or more)
Hmm. Accidently making me an administrator would be quite bizarre. I wonder how long before I would notice the new superpowers... Thank you for the Rollback capability.Naraht (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate consideration and closure of Engima's RFA
Deskana, I am going to stick my neck out and make the following comment, specifically because you say on your user page ... If you have a problem with any of my actions on Wikipedia, please contact me straight away, I bet I can resolve the situation. I'm not sure how you can fix this situation totally and I make no comment at this time about the actions you initially took in putting this RFA on hold but try as I might I can't help but read so many of the comments that oppose Enigma specifically because they feel that he purposefully held back information from all of us, as some sort of game playing episode or diversion, when others (including yourself) know that that is not the case. Towards that point and whilst I noted with some relief your comment here - I wonder how - (as per your user page) you will resolve this situation where Enigma is gaining many opposes which clearly indicate that (to use your words) they have a problem with him leaving out diffs when he posted, [rather than] ... with [you] for not giving him all the diffs. I appreciate that you can't go after every !vote and provide a rebuttal as you did following Lankiveil's !vote, but the fact appears strongly to me that without you closing this RFA - giving due consideration to this very issue, any other Bureaucrat will not be able to give the same weight to your actions behind the scenes in discussion with Engima. This is not to say that your 'Crat colleagues do not have the intelligence, it's just that they were not privy to the emotions, the behind the scenes emails, or the reasons for you thinking and acting the way you did. I request and strongly urge you to act as your user page states, by acting fairly and impartially, so as you, yourself take the effort of finalising this shmozzle at the appropriate time and giving appropriate weight to each vote and comment - based on your personal knowledge. If you should then feel the need to have your closing statement confirmed by other Bureaucrat/s so be it - but at least that will give some possibility and appearance of fairness; rather than through the likely general method of percentage or vote counting being used as the primary method of closure. I would appreciate your comment and I trust that you will see that I am concerned and alarmed at the precedent here - but that I do not attack you personally in any way. I should also add that in the event that the percentage of votes favour Engima that I would still request that you were the closing 'Crat given your extraordinary heavy influence in this situation.-- VS talk 11:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sticking my neck out even further, since my input was not requested (I clicked on the wrong one of my recent contribs, and saw this here) I don't think it would be a good idea for Deskana, having announced himself to be both involved and recused, to then go back and close it. This is an unusual Rfa, but this type of case is exactly why we gave them the bit. Perhaps the Crats will choose confer like they did for Riana's RfB; I don't know. I do know that we don't do Enigma (whom I have supported BTW) any favors by promoting him under circumstances that invite his opposers to question the legitimacy of his adminship. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Deskana has already said that he won't be closing the RfA. I, for one, think it would be highly improper for him to do so, even if it ended up being painfully obvious (ie: something happens to cause it to jump to 20% or 99%). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Steve, while you may see this actions as being a positive, Deskana would be in a no-win scenario if he chose to close it.  If he passed Enigma, those who opposed might accuse Deskana of capitulating to Enigmas supporters or trying to 'make amends'.  If he failed Enigma, those who supported Enigma might accuse him of having it in for Enigma.  I don't think either of those are the case, but Deskana showed his wisdom by distancing himself from the RfA.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough my fellow editors - I have read your responses. Two quick returns. Firstly @ Balloonman - I appreciate the difficulty of any action that Deskana would take hence my suggestion to confer the result with other Crats.  However somehow we do need to ensure that the specific issue of Deskana's influence over what and when Enigma posted as his comments is taken into account. To my mind only Deskana can assist to undo that damage and whilst I appreciate his one rebuttal as detailed above it has the possibility of paling into insignificance amongst the other similar reasons for oppose.  All of that said I do not seek to open up a massive thread here.  I close my comment and do not seek any further approval or rebuttal from colleagues.-- VS  talk 22:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail
Pedro : Chat  21:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is nothing to do with the Enigma RFA. Pedro : Chat  21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Data Crystal
Me and my mate were wondering if there is any way of taking over (becoming a bureaucrat) on this wiki: Data crystal, we are asking you because it has been inactive for a long time, and we were hoping to try and take over to help fix it up. I have tried asking people on this wiki but no one is ever on besides me, the only other contributions are random IP addresses that spam the articles (even more then they already are). If you could please reply on my talk page it would be highly appreciated, thanks (This message has been sent to most bureaucrat's). --MỸŠŦЄЯỸЊӘҒҒ (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Sent yesterday. Your input would be appreciated or just let me know if you can't. Thanks. Pedro : Chat  21:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

and a Happy New Year, too!
Thanks for the good wishes, Deskana! Wikipedia and,moreover, my Wikipedia friends are one of my favorite things in the world. I've been trying to dabble in some editing on the path to taking on some of my 'crat duties but, so far, I seem to get hit with another wave of responsibilities that eat up my leisure time. Yet, like a certain governator governor of a large western U.S. state" "I'll be back!" -- Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Oversight needed?
Diff redacted as email sent to User:Oversight - apologies for any difficulties, new to this kind of thing. Best, umrguy  42  22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for adding your name to the bolded statement. I've removed my additional comment since it's no longer needed for clarification. Trying to bring as much regularity as possible. Durova Charge! 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to misattribute it to you. I apologise for the confusion. :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and no need for apologies really. Things are moving very swiftly today and hardly anyone is letter-perfect under such conditions.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BC Account creations
Any reason to suspect that any of the the account creations done by Canis Lupis are meant for sleepers? Im hoping that would too obvious. Viridae Talk 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's not something that checkuser can help with, as all it does is show me the accounts he made, which is publically available anyway. There's little that we can do apart from check the list of accounts that he made. But he never struck me as the malicious type like that. --Deskana (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there Deskana
You'll be fine after a break. Surely the users annoying you can be sorted out.  Ar ct ic   F ox   11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's anything I can do to help you, I will do my best.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate what I said above, while I was critical of how the Enigma situation went down, you have not lost my trust or respect. You are a valued and necessary element of this community.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My short break actually had nothing to do with the Enigmaman RFA at all, and also had nothing to do with any of the people involved in that situation. I thank you for your kind words, though. --Deskana (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey we're only here to cheer people up :D. What actually made you go on a wiki break. If you don't mind me asking. -- Ar ct ic   F ox   13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll not subject those people to unnecessary grief by naming them, but thanks for the concern. :-) --Deskana (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to know the names of the users who pssed you off. I was just wondering if they where the one's who caused you go on a wiki break. Regards  Ar ct ic   F ox   14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow
Hi there. Regarding the comments on User_talk:Kalajan, I'm not sure I follow you. If he actually wants to try to become a better contributor to Wikipedia, why shouldn't someone try to give him advice? He's got a week to read up on rules and policy, I don't see why recommending he do that (and warning him not to use block evasion tactics) is a bad thing.  Hazardous   Matt   15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that he doesn't really want your advice, and that you're kind of just wasting your time giving it to him since he's just said he doesn't listen. Maybe do something a little more productive? It's your time, anyway. :-) --Deskana (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If people didn't answer my questions when I first started I wouldn't have known where to find my sandbox. I'm not a fool. I've seen when people don't want help. I've even spoken against him at WP:AN. If he's willing to listen, then I'll talk. When I'm 100% certain that he doesn't want to listen, then I'll be done.  Hazardous   Matt   15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you can take my advice or you can leave it. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Anyway, I have other things to do. --Deskana (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

boxes are bad?
I think so. I tried doing a few cases before and got frustrated with all the collapsible boxes. --Deskana (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#suggestion Any objections to opening up the boxes? That way, one can scan the info in 3 seconds. Most people don't want to spend half an hour opening up all the collapsable blue boxes. If they have that much time, they should edit more. Chergles (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about getting rid of the collapsable boxes? Chergles (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like that, but others might not. I don't know. (there's a nice ambiguous reply for you) --Deskana (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you then support a change back to the original way? To me, it's like a pothole in a street that you don't use much or seeing someone who ran out of gas. The nice or ethical thing to do is help out or call for pothole repair. It's not like your own street has a pothole or your own car has trouble. One trouble with Wikipedia is that some people will shout others out so that only a few people will persist to improve Wikipedia. Others who don't shout you out will attack you in other ways.

How can we change this back? Changing it back will make it easier for everyone in Wikipedia to scan the page, particularly those who do not devote all their time to RFCU and not edit much.

If I know you support it and I support it, then that's 2. That's a start. There is too much bullying in Wikipedia that if you don't support it, I will give up and let the bullies who edit little win. I'm sorry to say that is the way Wikipedia often works.

I also note that since suggesting this, nasty people in Wikipedia have tried to send me fake Wikipedia e-mails to give up my password. I don't know who it is but their IP is 24.186.165.121 Chergles (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a support for change back to information in the open, not inconvenient boxes? If you don't answer, then I presume you are advocating murder. (ok, not quite :p ). Chergles (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

Possible collateral damage, could you check into this.
See User talk:203.194.5.126. It was a checkuser block you placed. I thought it prudent to let you deal with it. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 12:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This user is meant to be blocked. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Deskana (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More. I assume User talk:Jacobbrett is the same user as well?  Just checking with you.  Please respond as you know this case and I don't, really.  If not, could you drop an IPExempt on them?  Thanks! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely, it's not. I'll give them block exempt. --Deskana (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrakyte and school IPs
You wrote: "He edits from private residential IPs, which schools never (and I mean never) have. ". Let me clarify what may be a misunderstanding: Terrakyte, when he said "school", meant "dorms", which apparently have a different IP address, not clearly associated with the school in question. While school labs and such certainly have a clearly identifiable IP, isn't it possible that they may sometimes outsource Internet connection in the dormitories to others (and let's not forget about common, student run wireless networks, and their "security")? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These are private residential IPs. They do not fit the pattern of dormitories either. I've lived in halls of residence (as they're called in the UK) less than a year ago, and I'm very familiar with how the IPs in halls of residence work, and he is clearly not editing from a school or educational institution. If he said that, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he was lying. This is getting more and more farfetched as it goes on. You may be upholding the word of "Assume Good Faith", but I'm not sure applying it when all the technical evidence points against him and his explanations have zero weight is really how it was intented to be used. --Deskana (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request from ACC
Hi Deskana, the account creation team have received a request from a range that you blocked a few days ago; this one. No other requests have been made from the specific IP in the past. Prodego suggested that I should contact you to determine if this request should be dropped, or if it's ok to create the account. Thanks! Maedin \talk 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to decline it, without knowing any further details. --Deskana (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Maedin \talk 19:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry. Please forgive me. I didn't know what I was doing. Shame on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.210.131 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalajan
I am going to indef him if you do not have any objections. I shortened the block to 6 months on the condition he not sock. He is now unwanted here in my opinion as he has continued to evade blocks and create socks. IF you have a problem with this, let me know. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. I stated in my post to his talk page that any admin could extend the block at their sole discretion, and I meant it. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
I apologize for and. I didn't realize that you have bureaucrat and administrator rights along with checkuser and oversight rights ( [ verify rights] ). I have since re-removed that section of text you removed earlier. Again, I apologize for my actions. --Lightsup55</b> ( T | C ) 09:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I would have appreciated a note on my talk page for the first time I reverted your edit. --<b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; text-transform:lowercase; color:#008000;">Lightsup55</b> ( T | C ) 09:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chill. The header itself was a joke, as were my edit summaries. I found it quite funny to be called a vandal :-) --Deskana (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the header could have been re-written in more humorous way instead of removing it. After all, most administrators are just testing the blocking and unblocking procedure. I would too (...if I were an administrator myself) as I don't know what it looks like or how it works. Anyway... I have re-worked the page so that it looks funnier than it did before and users can tell it is meant to be as such. --<b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; text-transform:lowercase; color:#008000;">Lightsup55</b> ( T | C ) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

show/hide boxes on SPI
Hi, I have stated that I would do a temporary subpage today, however I see a decent proposal at this section of the talk. I'm going to hold out on the temporary pages because as soon as I put a solution in, incentive to do a better solution will go away as we will have something that "works well enough". If there is no progress by Friday I'll go ahead and commit my changes that have the temporary page. (I've already written them). I hope this is ok with you and you can stand the boxes for a few more days... ——  nix eagle email me 14:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Badit gold
I would have gone to WP:SPI, but since you were involved in the Kalajan incident, I would like for you to checkuser User:Badit gold. User appeared mere days away from when Kalajan was indeffed, has had interaction with Kalajan, and blanked his talk page, which mostly had Kalajan's comments. I'm just making sure. Thanks.  Simon KSK  22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that's likely. --Deskana (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting....so what's the verdict?  Simon KSK  22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I already told you the verdict: likely. If you like flashy templates I can use instead :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like flashy templates. ;P  Simon KSK  23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)