User talk:Deskana/Archive 29

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rename User Account"
Hi!. I just want to ask for a user name changing, please, by the way, thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauricioRaiOrtigozaViveros (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Edit War"
Hi. I am already aware of the WP:3RR, and I respect that rule. You may, however, need to take a closer look at User:ܥܝܪܐܩ. He was the one who started removing sourced materials from the Iran-Iraq War article. Then, he wrongfully accused me of being a sockpuppet. I think I am being unjustly accused here. With all due respect, I would appreciate if you two stopped harassing me, especially since I have not broken any rules. This type of discriminatory behavior is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 84.23.140.26 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded here. --Deskana (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally my fault
Thanks for fixing my mess... it shouldn't have turn out that way but I guess I messed up the whole lot when I clicked on "Save page" before I could checked it out first. Toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Zealking
Thanks for the blocks, but he's switched IPs - see User:Mayor F Whale. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request
This user has requested an unblock, as they are caught in a rangeblock. Are they related to any of the targets of your rangeblocks (possibly Zealking?)? Thanks! TN X Man 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The user sent me an e-mail too. I've granted her an IP block exemption. Thanks for the note. --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack
Can you give me more detail on why you rejected the CheckUser? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A combination of factors, including the privacy policy and recommendations from the AUSC, permit the IPs that editors use to be revealed only in exceptional circumstances, and this is not an exceptional circumstance. --Deskana (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's previously been indefintely blocked for abusing sockpuppets, and the evidence is very strong that he is doing it again, he is swaying a debate on the use of his personal website as a reliable source by double posting with this IP. Do you not see why it is important for a CheckUser to confirm that this is his IP? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see why you requested one. This is the complex nature of checkuser. There are two policies that govern the use of checkuser- the "checkuser policy" that says when you can perform checks, and the "privacy policy" that says when you can reveal information from the checks you've run. In this case, your request appears to meet the checkuser policy, but does not meet the privacy policy. This means that I could probably run a check, but that I wouldn't be able to tell you the results. In that case, there's no point running the check in the first place. I realise this may leave you in a difficult situation, but I'm afraid that that's just one of the downsides of checkuser; sometimes I really just can't say anything. --Deskana (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response, the point I would make is that this is a dynamic IP that will change the next time he logs in and the previous SPIs have already confirmed IPs of BlackJack which show his ISP is BT. If a CheckUser can't be run is it possible to move the SPI to the non-CheckUser list? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do that for you, sure. --Deskana (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deskana. I have followed 88.111's posts from the SPI page to here and I would like to assure you that I am not BlackJack but I am a personal friend of his, as I said earlier. Now, I would be prepared to accept that, as a personal friend, there is a conflict of interest in my taking part in the WP:RS discussion but I would make two points about it that justify my action in the interests of fair play.

One is that I have tried to be objective and have mentioned areas in which BJ and I disagree but the differences do not alter the fact that he is a subject expert and that needs to be made clear, and why. Second point is that the discussion is effectively being hijacked by 88.111 and another person who is pursuing an agenda.

It should be a discussion by genuine site members who are interested but it is being prejudiced by 88.111 who has been campaigning on the talk pages of other users to try and gain support for his end, even though he is ignorant of the subject under discussion. I have therefore joined in to strike a balance and ensure that essential points are not lost. It is called ensuring fair play, something that a serial stalker and troublemaker like 88.111 has no interest in.

His use of IP addresses amounts to single purpose usage and I would think that is not something the site would approve of. I have been given the following details of his IP activities and if you check the contribs in every single post he has made, you will see that he has a single purpose which is to discredit someone who has been a major contributor to the cricket and philately projects on this site.

Please study these IP edits and see for yourself:
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing
 * - blocked for disruptive editing

Frankly, I think it is disgraceful that this site enables people like that to pursue campaigns of invective. I am sure there is a way that IP ranges can be blocked and I certainly believe that should be done in this case. However, that is not your problem and I appreciate the common sense way you have dealt with this matter. I have said my piece and will go now. Thank you. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again
Surely 88.111 does not have the right to remove evidence from the procedural page? Please accept that he is a serial offender (I believe "troll" is the buzzword used) and take appropriate action. I am sorry that I am not fully clued up on the site's rules and processes other than editing. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Zepp900
Look what he typed in the edit summary box. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Need you to take a look at this
Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. 

Then, what I would like is a comment from you on the last part of the evidence, where I point out this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the Nefer Tweety account to back Arab Cowboy on several articles for 7-8 months, (considering everything I have pointed out in the evidence) the NT account then contacts ACs sock before it was revealed that AC controlled it and "asks" him to go to the article. How can this have been a coincidence? Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, due to time constraints I typically only do checkuser cases. --Deskana (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring pov user
I have noticed you blocked this editor before for constant edit warring. He is doing it again at this page Please look over his edits he is deleting large portions of text and then nominating them for deletion as well as deleting users comments from talk pages Read this Please take care of this disruptive edit warring pov pushing anti-assyrianist agenda user. Likley a banned sock 130.17.218.242 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah
Good point (at David71) its just he keeps coming back- I suppose we need to just keep a record for the system or his ego... maybe at some point his achievements of multiple socking need to be hidden to deflate his sense of playing the system so well .... SatuSuro 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Followup on your CU
Sockpuppet investigations/Go leafs go 3000/Archive

I was looking into an unrelated matter and found what looked like pretty solid evidence of another sock,. This user is currently denying the match (but then, Go leafs go 3000 is still denying your prior established match). Feel free to look into this and opine. I won't at all be offended if you reach a different conclusion. Cool Hand Luke 00:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The technical data conclusively supports the accounts are run by the same person. --Deskana (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

G8crash3r sockpuppet investigation
while (as I pretty much expected and had stated on the page) there was not a connection between G8crash3r and Puppyph, was there a connection between either of the users and the IP editors; or is that still being investigated? Active Banana (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Checkusers typically do not reveal any information regarding how IP users relate to accounts due to the privacy policy. However, I am monitoring the situation and will take action myself if necessary. --Deskana (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana SockPuppet Investigation
There has been no comments yet on this case. Has the investigation been started for this User: Active Banana? - G8crash3r (talk) • 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone will get around to it. I typically only handle the checkuser cases. --Deskana (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

for what it's worth...
For what it's worth, I take it as a one-off kindness to someone bereaved. People's lives. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Extension of a block?
Hello, this is a little old now but you altered the parameters on this user's block because of the case related to User:Soupysoap. The main account for Soupysoap (By78) has been idefinitely blocked and the user in question has been banned from Wikipedia. I am concerned however about the possibility of the IP block on By78 expiring and this user making a new account to engage in more vandalism. I was wondering whether you'd consider extending the block on By78's IP address so as to ensure that the user cannot create a new account and start vandalizing the site again (mainly as a precautionary measure). I do however understand though if you're wary of doing this and think I should wait for the user to re-offend before taking any additional action. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I am not able to disclose my reasons for making this block. However, I do feel that extending it is not necessary. If there is further disruption, we can reapply the block quickly, so there's no harm in letting it expire and seeing what happens. --Deskana (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback


I do? Where? I don't recall speaking to you. --Deskana (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay... you're talking to me through your talk page. Okay then. --Deskana (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI. – xeno talk 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:The Oh-So Humble One disputing CU block
As per this AN/I thread, The oh-so humble one is calling your indef of them into question. The reason you gave was that it was a checkuser block, so I'm assuming it was part of a sockpuppet investigation, but it doesn't say which. Would you mind elaborating? Also, it doesn't appear that you put a block template on their talk page, would you mind doing that as well? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, I can't give a reason. I've placed a block template on their talk page for you. See the ANI thread for more details. --Deskana (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the AN/I thread closed as I posted this, I'll copy it here. I have reservations about transparency and fairness, but I'm with you on this one. Linking an IP to another, currently unknown, account would be a violation of your duties. Let the checkusers sort it out. Having been in Humble's position before, however, it might be considerate to at least email him detailing some of the charges against him. It was a bitch to get my block overturned, and it was only possible because I happened to realize that the person I was accused of being was editting from my university. I had to go to the network administrators and pull IP logs to clear my name. I can see exactly why J.Delanoy made the original block, and it would have been very hard for me to defend myself without the information and access that I had. Having no information at all would make it impossible. Whatever information you might be able to provide to Humble and Humble alone so that he at least knows where he stands would, I'm sure, be greatly appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If he wants to e-mail me, he can. Certainly, he can speak to me privately and I'll send him the checkuser data, but there really is no way for him to plausibly explain it away. He's welcome to give it a shot though, and I'll keep an open mind. --Deskana (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fair. Thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I have just revoked TOSHO's talkpage access and advised him that any further unblocks need to go through arbcom. That was from a combination of your message that essentially normal administrators could not unblock without consulting (so further unblock requests would likely not be met with the desired outcome), and him starting on the anarcho crypto fascists (can't tell if you, me, or FisherQueen is the 'crypt fascist' [sic] in question). Syrthiss (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Users spewing such nonsense rarely get unblocked. Anyway, you handled this matter absolutely correctly. ArbCom may review the block, see the blatantly obvious checkuser evidence, and decline it. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I expect that the Committee will make a reminder statement to that effect some time soon, but to make things extra clear: blocks made by a Checkuser in their capacity (in particular, if the block rationale mentions checkuser) can only be overturned by another Checkuser or by the Arbitration Committee.  Given that the rationale behind the block necessarily involves information covered by the Foundation privacy policy, community review of those blocks is not appropriate, and any inquiry should be directed to the blocking Checkuser, the AUSC or the Committee only.  Administrators who unblock a user who was blocked under those circumstances is misusing their technical ability to do so and may face sanctions up to and including an immediate desysop.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Coren and Deskana - would it be reasonable to suggest that the standard operating procedure in these cases is to revoke talk page access for these users? That way you can take an extra step to avoid collateral damage by admins who aren't mindful of this restriction.  I know *I* read block notices and know the policy, but taking away the ability of the person blocked under a checkuser block to appeal to people who are unable to service the appeal seems like a good idea. Syrthiss (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to say to use standard rules for revoking talk page access. I've updated the checkuserblock template so it's much clearer that admins undoing checkuserblocks risk having their rights removed, and there are plenty of cases I can think of where a checkuserblocked IP would have something useful to say on their talk page, so I'd prefer to only revoke talk page access as a last resort. Oh, and obviously adjusting the block parameters of a checkuserblock to revoke talk page access (if it's being abused) is perfectly acceptable and no checkuser needs to be consulted for that. I'm sure we all know that, but I felt the need to say it. --Deskana (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
(talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the blocks on TreasuryTag and KnowIG
Hi there. I was wondering whether you'd consider unblocking TreasuryTag and KnowIG and protecting the page instead. Typically, there's very little to be gained from blocking all parties in an edit war, as it does nothing to resolve the conflict. It's likely that they'll just go back to reverting when their blocks expire. I agree that the blocks are valid (both parties were edit warring and it was indeed pretty lame), but I think that what I'm suggesting may be a better solution to the problem. Thoughts? --Deskana (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Blocking all parties in an edit war, especially when for a short time, is better than protecting the page as it doesn't penalize other editors who want to contribute to the article in a constructive manner. I don't see why you believe both parties will continue after the block has expired; realizing the matter is a blockable offense will, in my opinion, discourage further disruption. --  tariq abjotu  14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please delete User:Dmartinaus/Sig page
Deskana - Thanks for the info re the signature. I kept the Sig page to keep a back-up copy of my signature code. Thanks for the sugestion. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;"> Dmartinaus •  Talk  20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Deskana (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One other thing. I got my instructions for the signature and using a template on the sig page at: User talk:Giftiger wunsch / Your Sig. There apparently is some bad information there if you want to correct it. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;"> Dmartinaus  •  Talk  01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelm von Gloeden pictures of naked adolescents
Deskana, just wanted to let you know that someone undid your removal of pictures of naked adolescent boys at Wilhelm von Gloeden. Not sure if it is on your watchlist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * These images constitute ephebophilia which is prohibited by law and for good reason. Deskana was right to remove it. Wikipedia's becoming far too tolerant of this sort of filth. --86.177.62.231 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
How is suggesting that she could have a checkuser file an abuse report feeding the trolls? . - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a person repeatedly vandalising that page, and there were two separate threads talking about the vandalism, reporting them to their ISP, etc. That's the kind of attention they thrive on. It's best just to get rid of it and deny them any kind of attention. --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be helpful and empower her with the ability to fight back against these jerks... filing abuse reports with the related ISPs seems like a much better solution to someone being regularly harassed than playing this game of blocking IPs and removing their trolling and pretending it doesn't happen. The ISPs can revoke their internet access. The harassment and trolling problem is getting worse, not better, and DENY and DNFTT don't seem to be working. We need to do more than just play defense all the time. That's more or less how Byzantium came to an end. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people have made plenty of complaints to this guy's ISP before. You can see how that worked out. If you want to make a complaint, then I can give you limited technical data so you know who to complain to and what to say. Until then, we need to continue on as we are doing. --Deskana (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the ISP is unresponsive. Ok, thanks for explaining. Burpelson AFB (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to complain to them anyway, feel free. I'll give you some technical evidence for the report. --Deskana (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yongle the Great
Thanks. I'm sure he'll be back, but at least I don't have to spend an hour every morning cleaning up and blocking. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Deskana (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACC
Hey :D

Any chance we could spare your checkuser eye for a few minutes over at WP:ACC? We've got quite a few checkuser requests piling up it seems :)

TIA

 Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  11:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've handled most of them, now. Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Karmaisking SPI
I was just curious about the Karmaisking sockpuppet case since most of those have been pretty open and shut. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amalthea will get back to you shortly, I hope. --Deskana (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Amalthea is available. Is there another way to bring attention to this case? BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BN
See Bureaucrats' noticeboard (on the "SUL unification request"). – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim Keats page
Hi, you blocked the guy who edited the user, User:The Oh-So Humble One. Im a very active admin on the Life on Mars Wiki and he used our work for it here. Not just for abusing but is that why you also blocked him? Trikster87, (Talk)20:28, July 13, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Are you asking me why I blocked User:The Oh-So Humble One? --Deskana (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Checkuserblock-account
I think there is somthing wrong with the template. Right next to the bold word Administrators, the link to CheckUser just displays Usernames with the word CheckUser in it but not accounts with checkuser privileges. Should it be CheckUsers or CheckUsers instead? wiooiw (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I remember quite clearly that I copied the code from Template:Checkuserblock, so it obviously worked at some point. I've made it point to Checkuser. Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed the problem on a few other Templates. wiooiw (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
WP:A/R/CL. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. --Deskana (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Dwayne

 * Dwayne · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · · count ·  · [ logs] · [ block log] · [ lu] · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3 ) ( assign permissions )
 * Hi there, i am requesting for rollback rights because i think i wouldn't have an issue with looking over edits people made to articles (making sure it's not vandalism). I already know Wikipedia's vandalism policy. I've had rollback rights already which were revoked because i was forum shopping in IRC, this happened back in April. One of the admins had told me that they lost trust in me so they decided to revoke my rights. I hope the community had forgiven me for what i had done wrong, although i had no idea forum shopping was against Wikipedia's Policies. Before this case i had rollback rights again, but they were revoked because i didn't understand Wikipedia's Vandalism Policy. But i least i do now. So i think i would be an outstanding rollbacker, feel free to speak with another admin about this before granting me rollback rights. If the answer is No, i will not complain and ask other admins for their opinion's like i used to. I will just continue editing like any other user would.  Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * . Deskana is active, so you should first approach him on his talk page since he was the admin that removed your rights. Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne  was here! &#9835; 04:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me. --Deskana (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again Deskana, your welcome, i also left a reply directed to you in the discussion.  Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Deskana. I think you may be interested in this User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/RFC draft. Back in April you shared your input on AN regarding the same editor that the RFC is focused on, so I thought you might be interested in sharing your thoughts. Thanks.  Caden  cool  02:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby
Hi Deskana. Hate to bother you, but I really can't think of any other active checkusers. Could you take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby? It has been sitting for three weeks or so without any action, and there has been very harsh criticism placed on those admins who mistake new editors for Scibaby and block. A checkuser would be useful. Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the required knowledge of Scibaby to handle these cases. That's why I've left it sat there for so long. I guess this is one of those cases where it sucks to have so few active checkusers... --Deskana (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Towit, why we need more and why the community shouldn't have been so hard on the noms in the Spring CU/OS election.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ack. I suspect that this answer is the case for the other CU's as well, and unless there is some CU who takes the time to get up to speed, then we are in a Catch-22. :-( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The very real problem right now, with CU kinda stuck, is that false positives are more likely to get blocked unfairly, than before. And that to my eyes is rather bad. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlevse: I and other admins could start making judgment call blocks, but the false positive rate will be significantly higher. While we wait for more checkusers to be appointed, is that an acceptable tradeoff? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many checkuser cases are cut-and-dry, and the technical link sits right in front of you, screaming "I'm the evidence, I'm here!". Seriously, it can be obvious before you even look at what users are on an IP. My experience with Scibaby cases is that it doesn't work that way, so I avoid them rather than checking and saying "I don't know what I'm looking for". If someone can tell me (privately) what I'm looking for, maybe I can help... --Deskana (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Eeee. Tread carefully though. The whole Scibaby thing is complicated. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you're talking about, Rlevse. That won't happen with me, so you don't need to worry about that. Thanks, and I'll be careful. :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deskana, I'll give you some pointers. Check your email shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Foswiki
Re: Articles for deletion/Foswiki: It was deleted early last year, probably correctly at this time. Can you undelete it in my space, so that I can see whether it can be salvaged? If yes, I will work to make its undeletion possible. If no, then I will just write a new article. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was decided in that AfD that the subject of the article was not notable enough for an article. If something's changed, perhaps you should try deletion review. I quote the deletion review page: "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article". --Deskana (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you were not reading my request carefully (or deliberately chose to ignore it). From deletion review I perused I saw it is not uncommon to restore deleted articles into user space. I am dissapointed with your bureaucratic attitude. (I agree it would be a good defense if you thought I am a foswiki functionary or minion. Well, I am not; I am a twiki user, and came across foswiki out of curiosity.) Fortunately, I have found what looks like an old fork of the wikipedia article (and de:Foswiki) and saw there was no significant third-party information, so it would be basically useless for a new article now. Lorem Ip (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:174.36.146.83
Hey there. I just saw that you blocked 174.36.146.83 for one year as a CU block. I just wanted to let you know that I'm pretty sure that this IP is the IP being used for the open proxy found here. At en I've seen some blocks up to 5 years for open proxies, but I'm not certain on the policies here. I just thought I would bring it to your attention. Thanks!-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems you are correct. There is no one defined length, but I've extended the block to five years. Thanks for the info. --Deskana (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Status
I am a bit worried about your current status. Are you angry and/or irritated? Or are you OK? / Hey Mid  (contributions) 12:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm irritated by you doing things like this, this and this when you clearly have no idea how SPI cases work. Please do not comment on SPI cases until you actually understand the procedure. --Deskana (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I find you irritaded at me, I still think everyone has the rights to learn. Newbies always have to learn, obviously. The procedure seems complicated. Can I get a link about the procedure(s)? / Hey Mid  (contributions) 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please just edit some articles or something else, instead. We do not currently require your assistance at SPI. --Deskana (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)