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.
rollback
Hello, I use twinkle, but I heard that the wiki rollback is more efficient for the system. Do you recommend I get it, and if so would you granted? Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around a while, why not try running for adminship instead? I can't guarantee it'll pass of course (since my only reasons for recommending it is your length of time here and your clean block log), but I'd certainly be willing to grant you rollback if your request for adminship didn't pass. --Deskana(talk)19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long, I had forgotten about this thread. Well, I am a bit scared of the admin bit, many times it seems arbitrary. I would rather start with the rollback function. Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. And with that Doc signing as Docg (which there's nothing wrong with), I know it has confused at least a couple of people before when I was in on the same discussion as Doc glasgow -- and especially when someone had already referred to me as "Doc" on the page. I even got confused once, thinking somebody meant me. Likewise, any Xzilla name always makes me do a double take. :) Doczilla (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. dave souza, talk09:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might have been kidding around around my username, but a couple of people actually seemed to have !voted for me because of it. Thanks for participating. DoczillaRAWR!08:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To try and get help. This guy wants rid of me because I stood up to him! Deskana - please... PJ knows I have used one of those IP because I was responsible for requesting it be blocked (it's a wide-ranging IP used by many users and I was tired of autoblocks). Prester John knows there will be positives (Ogmon for one). That's why he's filed this. --Capitana (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dan babs, sorry to hear you've been poorly :( Get well soon, and good for you for getting to the meet, I'dve curled in front of the telly in a quilt instead. :) SpecialRandom (Merkinsmum) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deskana, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:Deskana/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:
Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}}
(Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment about Deskanas health status - I don't really think he needs too much sympathy, after consuming 15 pints of cider at the Manchester meetup last week I had to carry him home whilst he was trying to persuade us to go to the Casino - I had to remind him we we both students and had no money Ryan runs extremely quickly out of the building Ryan Postlethwaite01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following our brief discussion about this request, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question about requests for checkuser
I've recently come across a user that I suspect to be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Hornetman16. User:CinnamonCrunchy supplied a link to Hornetman's photobucket account (under his Monnitewars alias) here. I was going to do a Request for Checkuser, but when I type his name in the box to create a new request, his old request comes up. I've never done this before, should I add it to the old report or create a new one? Thanks. Nikki31120:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Help.
A tag team of abusive editors are reverting a redirect on the Couronne page. It was originally a redirect to Carrom, and with a simple Google search of both words, you will find out Couronne is an online based game of Carrom. Then, an editor by the name of Neelix changed it to Coronet, which is a page about a crown. An anon ip reverted, and now User:Yankees76 and User:Quartet are reverting the anon's edit to the page, without providing a reason why or a source. Yankees76 and Quartet have been known to bail each other out of the 3RR rule, and they might even be socks of each other. Can you please solve this problem with either telling me that the redirect to Coronet is acceptable, or changing it back to its original meaning of Carrom, because you are an administrator, and they are not. Thank you. And sorry for wasting your time on such a feeble thing. 64.149.212.221 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couronne is french for "crown" or Coronet. It's a no brainer. Even French ship La Couronne is a more appropriate red-direct. The word Couronne does not even appear on the link this vandal is redirecting the page to. Vandal did I say? Yes indeed, as 64.149.212.221 is also Burgz33 who simply wikistalked me to the Couronne page and like all previous IP socks of Burgz33 is using AT&T Internet Services PPPoX Pool - rback14.stlsmo SBCIS-121305091629. Deskana, as you might recall, Burgz33 has been indef blocked for close to 1 year now for amongst other things, vandalism and personal attacks on numerous Wikipedia administrators. The other "anon IPs" that the user above is referring to also are AT&T subscribers out of St. Louis. It's long been established that Burgz is from St. Louis. Pretty obvious case of use of IP socks to evade a block and in this case disrupt Wikipedia. --Yankees76 (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deskana. I would like to share with you some updates about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [6]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [7]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [8]. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need a little help. Some one threatened to take their own life and per WP:TOV I am trying to find out where they are so that the local authorities can be called. The only problem is that they are using an account. The discussion can be found here. Rgoodermote22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iagree345 says this IP block you made after a checkuser is affecting him. Can you look at his (rather minimal) edit history and see about whether we should soften the block? It could well be a shared IP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a naming of the series article controversy that's been going on for several months. In case you don't know, the series consists of three role-playing games, Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3. Only Mother 2 was released in the U.S. under the title EarthBound. Personally, I'd prefer Mother (series) instead of EarthBound (series) for these reasons.
1.) EarthBound was the name of only one game.
2.) Though Super Smash Bros. Brawl says EarthBound (Mother) under series when looking at Trophies, when looking at songs, it says Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3.
3.) On the Smash Bros. dojo, never says EarthBound, only Mother.
There are too many reasons. In the discussion page, the main person who's defending this is A Link to the Past. To be honest, I'm not to fond of him and tangled with him over a naming controversy. It was whether the Android/Artificial Human pages should be called either one. I think I contacted you about that. Anywho, again, he was the only one trying to make it Android, dispite Artificial Human being the proper term and more known. I ended it by renaming them #17 and #18 because these are also propers names used after the Cell arc. In this argument, some of the points he's making aren't accurate, and he's becoming very frustrated with the subject, resorting to name calling and such. Read the discussion and you'll see. He even kept reverted more than three times which breaks the 3RR policy. He's also moved the article without Wikipedia:Consensus. Can you please intervene so this discussion can end. I haven't been to the article in months, and it's still going on. I read everything and he's wrong again like he was back then. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no obligation in trying to get some community input for our giving checkuser rights to Sam Korn. The reason I did it is because people have suggested that they wanted to be able to give input. So far, I have received nothing but grief from people for doing so: People telling me that what I said was clearly a lie and that we weren't going to pay attention to what was said to us, Kurt referring to us as the "Arbitrary Committee", and now this. Not a single "thanks for trying to include us". All this grief I have gotten over this is something I'll consider next time the community asks to be included in something.
As Majorly (or whatever he wants to be called now) has pointed out, Kurt wasn't objecting to Sam Korn, but to something else. I certainly meant no offense to him in what I said, it wasn't intentional at all. I notice you've not asked him to apologise for calling us the Arbitrary Committee? I wonder why that is? It's alright to insult the Arbitration Committee, but lets not insult the person who opposes adminship candidacies on shaky grounds and has been banned from Wikipedia IRC channels? Do you think that's an acceptable stance to take? You're absolutely right that it's unacceptable to insult Kurt, but since when has it become acceptable to insult us? --Deskana(talk)17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First up, I thought it was standard practice to get community input like this - these additions to checkusers and oversighters happen so rarely it is difficult to track how things are done - is it even properly documented anywhere how it was normally done? Secondly, Kurt called you the Arbitrary Committee? I missed that. Sorry. I'll go and redress the balance right now. Thirdly, I didn't know Kurt had been banned from Wikipedia IRC channels, but I fail to see what relevance that has. Fourthly, I absolutely disagree that he is opposing on shaky grounds - that is a widespread opinion, but no more than an opinion. There are plenty of people holding the exact opposite opinion. Fifthly, I apologise again for bringing this up, but in some ways I think it is good that people should know you feel this way. The community can be pretty heartless sometimes, and I would encourage you to go to the AN thread and post something similar to what you said above, though maybe not the "All this grief I have gotten over this is something I'll consider next time the community asks to be included in something." - I think you will find that once you do this once, people expect it to be done like this in future. From what I can see, there was lots of support for Sam Korn, a lot of lack of interest from most people, and a sideshow, which I have probably contributed to, and for that I, once again, apologise. I hope you will accept my apology and let the community know how you feel about how this sort of thing should be handled in future. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was quite angry when I read your message, but I realise now that what Kurt said was quite easy to miss. I've heard him say it before, so I knew it was coming. I appreciate your fairness. Also note that Kurt's view on self-nominations wasn't a widely shared view until he started saying it all the time. I'll leave others to theorise on why that is, but I certainly have my explanation for it.
That was the first time that the Arbitration Committee has ever publically asked on-wiki for views regarding checkuser/oversight candidates. In fact, it was something that I personally chose to do; it was suggested and carried out exclusively by myself, based on the concerns of some users that the community was not involved enough in the selection process. I was expecting a "Thanks for at least trying to include us", or something. All I've got instead is an insult from Kurt. --Deskana(talk)23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that now saying I was expecting something like that would mean people would just say it to keep me happy, rather than a genuine "Gee Deskana, thanks". I'm also working on getting something else done that I thought the community would like, but I'm not so sure they'll appreciate it, anymore. --Deskana(talk)23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you prepare the ground, I'm sure they will. Sometimes it helps to get input before announcing something, or taking a little bit of time to explain something. Picking the right moment to get input is difficult. Sorry if I've personally discouraged you - that was certainly not my intention. Also, people who only read the AN thread don't get this other side of what you are thinking - you come over very formal in that thread, which is good in some ways, but not in others. AN and ANI are quite dysfunctional sometimes. Maybe announce things there, but ask people to comment elsewhere? Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stale anyways - Alison ❤ 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)