Contact me on IRC. I'm usually in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins. Just say "Deskana" in a message to get my attention, since I use a wide variety of nicks.
Add a note on my Talk Page. Please read the rules below.
If you wish to comment here, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~.
Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.
If I leave you a note on your talk page, you can reply either here or there, as you prefer. I tend to watchlist talk pages I comment on, but you can reply here if you prefer.
If you comment on my talk page, I could reply either here or on yours, depending on how important the reply is.
I reserve the right to ignore/remove comments without prejudice, especially insults/uncivil comments per the above. I may or may not give a reason for the removal.
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]
Hello. I've already contacted Yamla about this inquiry. It's been a year and a half already and I'm still waiting to get unblocked. I only want to use my account to make edits because I don't want to edit using an ip address. When I had originally brought up my unblock request here Unblock request, Yamla had turned it down and said that it was too early or whatnot. It has now been a year and a half. I remember about two or so years ago, you had originally blocked me back then and I want to bring this up to you. Can you please, please help me get unblocked so that I can edit using my own user page. I seriously do not want to create a new account. I only want to edit using my original user page, Zarbon. Please help me. I don't know who else to say this to. I've contacted Yamla and now I am contacting you. And yes, I know that my edits were supposed to be constructive and yes, for the entire year, I did not make any edits because that's what I was told to do. But then, in these last 6 months, I've been editing under my ip address. All I want is to use my original username to do my edits. That is all. I don't want anything else. I will not create any other accounts. I am still sorry that I created Dodoria nearly two years ago. But seriously, I've been punished long enough. Can you please help me get unblocked. Can you please place an unblock request for me. I will verify whatever is needed in order to maintain my identity. Please help me Deskana. I am relying on the help of administrators because I feel that you make the correct decisions when need be. And now it has been a year and a half since my initial block. Please, I am seriously asking you wholeheartedly here. I have the same account name on wikiquote and wikimedia commons. You can check there for further deliberation as to how well I have been contributing. I have been following guidelines and only editing constructively. Thanks again for your time, I greatly appreciate your help. 72.229.48.178 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.
This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.
Hi Deskana, this is Hirohisat. I know this is a IP address edit, but I can't figure out how to log back in, because its not recognizing my password. My email address is hirohisat.wiki.pass@gmail.com. If you need to conduct a checkuser, you can to make sure. Thanks! 66.8.255.14 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I'm sure you've been flooded with such request, but here we are. I am trying for this new unified login feature. Therefore I ask that you might change my username to Ioscius. Regards, and if I can return the favor in some small way, please do not hesitate to ask. --Ioscius(talk)22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have unified login Narcotic (without English Wikipedia project) and I need your advice/help. I am wondering, should I try to usurp en:User:Narcotic to add it to unified login or should request it at nearest beaurocrat, like you (since en:User:Narcotic contributions count is so tiny and the account is no longer used), as it is suggested at polish wikipedia project. I would be very grateful if you could enlighten me with your opinion. Thanks.
Narcotic (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (CEST)
PS. All my contributions at English Wikipedia are anonymous since I usually edit it for interwiki issues. Since unified login is provided I am eager to use it to sign my contributions.
I have renamed the local account out of the way given it has been inactive for some years and has no significant edits. You should now be able to sign in here with your global account. WjBscribe19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume any range would be too wide to block, but see here. Also a lot of other talk pages. The vandal comes on every day to brag about how Wikipedia is unable to block him/her/it. Enigmamessage23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed you were one of the administrators for the Dragon Ball WikiProject, and I wanted to inform you that there have been a few individuals going around deleting information on the subject. They've completely remove the Dragon Ball Z article - leaving only three paragraphs describing it on the Dragon Ball manga page. The saga summaries have also been removed. (And as the WikiProject page states, there were to be four pages dedicated to the story arcs in Dragon Ball Z.)
Vandalism is a strong word, but this hits pretty darn close. A user by the name of Collectonian seems to be taking the lead among them. It's pretty clear given the negative backlash that these changes were not warranted, despite how the users in question attempt to justify them. Anyway, I can try to tackle repairs myself, but my expertise on editing Wikipedia articles is somewhat limited. Any help you can provide in fixing the damage and preventing these users from causing more is greatly appreciated! Thanks.72.160.93.25 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing up my edit to the Arb.s list, and I was sorry to hear that you're currently ill - I hope you stay rested and relax, and feel better as soon as possible! - here's a doughnut to keep you in good cheer! best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The account creator and rollbacker tools are meant to be used by users who the community can trust to responsibly handle the tools. Given your recent behavior, I do not believe you have the community's trust to use such tools and have removed them. MBisanz talk 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)"
"Quotes sometimes only confuse matters more if the person that tells them to you doesn't actually make it clear what he wants you to help him with." --Deskana of the Shattered Sun
I need those tools, It basically what I do on wikipedia. You have my word I wont abuse them nor do i think they should have been taken away on such a petty incident. Yes I have a hot temper, but it doesnt mean I go around vandalising pages «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)03:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can look at giving you rollback again, but given that you've not actually used the account creator feature in quite a while, there's no point giving it back anyway. --Deskana(talk)03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, removing the flag is not a statement about your activity or worth. It is simply a fact that you were not using it, so it was removed. That is the common practice with these flags, so far. --Deskana(talk)13:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The detail in the elephant
The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors".[9] Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room".[10] I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant"[11] before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk08:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hello. I'd like to inform you that on July 16, 2008 at 02:12 (UTC), your user page was vandalized by an anonymous editor. Fortunately, I spotted the edit on recent changes and reverted it. I'm not fishing for compliments or anything, I just think you should probably be informed of these happenings. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 02:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my Japanese wikipedia user page was briefly vandalised.[12] I.P. address point to U.K. Plus, ass raping is not a common insult in Japanese. Could you use checkuser and see if this particular I.P. address belong to a user in English wikipedia and take an appropriate action. I should also mention that the vandalism was immediately reversed. Vapour (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vapour. I'm not so sure that would be an appropriate use of the checkuser tool, in this instance. The tool is to be used strictly to prevent disruption to the project that you're on, and I'm not sure that this would actually prevent any disruption on enwiki. Feel free to file a request for checkuser to see if any other checkuser disagrees with me. To save you a bit of time, code letter G would be the right code to use, if you file one. --Deskana(talk)13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight
If no one happens to beat you to this, could you please remove that information. I'm not sure who it belongs to, but I stumbled across it. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the tip on my signature. You're right, dropping the font tag makes virtually no difference - it was pretty much an unnecessary holdover from when I used to have more than a letter or two within it. I'd actually cut it down recently because it was indeed too long, glad I could prune off some more of it without losing anything significant. Cheers ~ mazcat | c22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Deskana,
conserning this sentences in WP:LOGO;
It is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using their logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Wikipedia or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner. The purpose of the specific guidelines above is to meet these conditions.
In the event that the owner objects to the use made of a logo, the suggested action is for the owner to remove the logo themselves, and identify themselves and their reasons for removing it on the associated talk page.
Has there been any consensus established with regards of using logos in user pages. For example, is it possible to use this logo [13]
in my user page? Thanks in advance. Peace be with and around you--ZentukBir Papyrus 12:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion.
I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :
Hello, could you please remove the bot flag from User:.anacondabot? It stopped fixing interwiki links so it will no longer edit in this wiki. Thank you. --.anaconda (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not active on that case, and I'm afraid that due to my illness I currently don't have the time to review all the associated information and make myself active. Sorry. --Deskana(talk)16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this change. Frankly, I didn't think there was any way to encourage them further, but c'est la vie. Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the removal--I'm honestly kind of surprised it stayed up as long as it did :) --jonny-mt05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, Hope you're well. What's the status of the ongoing CU cross-review of the Giovanni33 request for checkuser case? It's been lying stale for a while now, so I'm just pinging for a status check on the review of it. Has your investigation been completed, or is it nearly completed?
Hello, I have the username Manuel de Sousa on many Wikimedia Foundation's projects, namely Wikipedia in many different languages. The sole exception is en.wikipedia where I have to be MSousa, as Manuel de Sousa account was already taken by another user.
As existing user:Manuel de Sousa just made about 20 edits between 15 March and 28 May 2004 and has been completely inactive since then, I'm contacting you to know if that account can be given to me, so I can have the same unified login in all Wikimedia projects. Thanks & best regards, MSousa (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally thanked Alison for her intervention on several occasions recently and continue to value her wisdom in Irish matters. As you'll notice my additions to her talk page have been conciliatory to try and calm down warring editors. I hope you appreciate this?The Thunderer (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My post wasn't specifically aimed at you, it was aimed at everyone in the thread. Besides, that's just my thoughts on the matter... whether she choosed to involve herself is her business. --Deskana(talk)14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means warn me per the wikipedia guidelines, however I stongly suggest you use the templated messages in future, for they a neutral and provide a reason. All I can see in your messages is hostility, hence why im sick of them. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)10:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to ban Steve and his wife for six months? What are you trying to prove here? What dispute are you supposedly resolving here? -- Ned Scott20:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you saw my apology regarding Steve's situation, but just in case.. my apologies. I was under the impression that Steve was being pressured into this, but it turns out the pressure he felt was more about his own fear, and not anything the arbs directly did. -- Ned Scott02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I want to usurp the english account for Philam, which is no longer used. It's the only wiki I can't add to my merged account. Thank you.
This w is currently being merged.
After a discussion, consensus to merge this w with Philam was found. You can help implement the merge by following the instructions at Help:Merging and the resolution on the discussion. Process started in September 2008.
I'm requesting unprotection of this talk page. It's been one month since he was indef blocked, and I wish to start a discussion regarding a new block review, per previous comments about waiting to see if he could go without making new accounts to evade his block. -- Ned Scott02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he attempted to apply for checkuser rights while blocked, then wikilaywered when I wouldn't forward his application, I think unblocking him would be misguided at best. That said, I'm happy to unprotect the page. The protection has served its purpose, now. --Deskana(talk)11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN.
however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republick of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M.
May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used....
If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue.
As unimportand as it might seam to you:
1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy
2) it is malinforming and incorrect
3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute
4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN
thank you very much for your attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
Since I haven't gotten anywhere on Meta about getting OTRS access, I gots to gimp off you guys... I'm doing an image check for the FAC of Connie Talbot and I was wondering if you could send me the details of this ticket via email (I obviously don't need personal details, just the meat.) Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help
I kindly ask your assistance for the renaming of "dodo" account to something else (anything) here. This in order to proces the request on meta. All your help is appreciated. Thank you. -- m:drini19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user is requesting unblocking; he's affected by an IP block you did on User:63.98.227.2, a checkuser block. I'm exploring IP block exemption with him, but in the meantime -- this is a school IP. Was sockpuppetry still going on while the school IP was anon-only blocked? It would be nice to have the IP softblocked if possible. Mangojuicetalk03:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a much faster response than I expected. Ok, I may give IP block exemption to this user but I'll be cautious. Maybe this school just has a very active Wikipedia culture, or maybe there's a serial sockpuppeting vandal there. Hard to say, but either way, we can deal. Mangojuicetalk03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Deskana's Day!
User:Deskana has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Deskana's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Deskana!
If there is a way to do that, it's undoubtedly complicated beyond reason. Is there any motive behind your request besides bumping your edit count up by 2?--Koji†00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no special reason:if it's possible I would like to add that editing to my contributions.If it isn't possible,it's the same! Itanesco (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback request
Hello Dan
Sorry to bother you, I've stumbled upon you from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_grant_rollback_requests (as I've just stumbled upon this Rollback feature). I'm interested in it, and what can I say in support of that? Well I used to be an Admin and CheckUser on ro.wiki (users AdiJapan, Orioane and Ronline (all three are still Admins on ro.wiki, AdiJapan is still a checkuser back there, and the two others are also admins on en.wiki can vouch for me); I stepped out from these "functions" not because of any dispute with anyone, but simply it was a matter of lack of time. I still pass from time to time there (and here two :) and do small stuff, so I consider myself a WikiGnome. Having the rollback feature I guess might help me do this kind of helpful stuff easier! You can, of course, check my contributions, and make a judgment of your own! Thank you! Sincerely yours, --Vlad|->13:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. If it's not too complicated for you, I prefer an answer on my own talk page! Thanks again![reply]
From WP:CHECK: "The permission is approved (exceedingly rarely and only with good cause) by the Arbitration Committee, who handle many privacy-related functions. Users authorized for CheckUser must be 18 years or older, and have provided personal identification to the Wikimedia Foundation." You could also look at Wikipedia:CheckUser/Appointments. You probably wanted a short answer though, so no, you don't have to be a Beureaucrat. User:Luna Santin and User:Thatcher are administrators with Check User rights.--Koji†14:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice to see you back. Not sure if you're so happy about it, based on your last edit summary, but anyways, yeah. Here's a cookie. Can provide a glass of milk if needed :-) J.delanoygabsadds03:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks! I am very happy with returning to work, the reasons for my edit summary are perhaps so complicated that I shouldn't have written it. :-) --Deskana(talk)04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my statement in the relevant case. Thanks. I am only posting this to you and not to every arbitrator. -- Catchi? 10:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Decided to just strike the whole...
...conversation? :-) (I know it's back...just couldn't resist noting a bit of irony and humor in sort-of-striking a conversation basically started by a discussion comment that was struck...) Frank | talk 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Since the ArbCom was rejected there is no venue to pursue the matter, but if needed I can find the diff that says DG investigated CnB on a suspicion that it linked to a known vandal. It didn't, but it obviously pointed to Giano - which it has now been clearly stated he had known some two years previously. It was what he did with that info, synthesising a violation of WP:SOCK#Good/bad hand (which cast Giano - past and presently by far a content building contributor - as a bad hand) to enact a block on this account, which is contrary to the advice to parties given by ArbCom at the conclusion of the IRC case (involving these two same accounts) that further drama was to be avoided. So, perhaps Giano is a little off target with the "privacy" matter - although I have not seen it indicated that DG shared the "no link" check between CnB and this other account mentioned and am forced to AGF that DG's recall is working in this instance- but what was done with it was outside good practice; it was used in a potentially political manner against an editor with whom he had previously been in dispute, and contrary to the advice given to him as one of the parties to that dispute by ArbCom. Furthermore, it was information that DG had known (he remarks in his block notice that the identity was confirmed by a third party some considerable time ago) yet only upon that belated realisation gave him grounds to act unilaterally... Perhaps Giano is incorrect to claim invasion of privacy, or at least ungrounded use of personal information, but of more serious consideration is the fact that there is a CheckUser who is permitted to use that tool whose recall - even when prompted by the CU finding - cannot extend two years back, or in the case of the ArbCom finding to earlier this year. Why should someone so addled be permitted to use the tools, especially when it was previously found that he has not the grasp of WP policy he thought he had (when edit warring on the IRC page).
It is likely that Giano will recover his equilibrium and, gentleman that he always ultimately is, remove this from his page - it is not his personal opinion, opinion or action that is explicitly being commented upon here. That is unfortunate because, in the absence of an ArbCom to look at the actions of DG so soon after a previous case involving his misuse of priviliges there is no other venue. Would you care to have this transferred to your talkpage?
I note Flonight's comments on Giano's page regarding review of DG's recent action, but am placing this here to record my personal concerns on DG's view of his relationship to the policies and guidelines of WP, and his apparent failure to keep himself in touch with current practice. My major concerns are, following the finding that he edit warred via a misunderstanding of the status of the page in the IRC case, that he so poorly applied WP:SOCK#Good/bad hand accounts that he had to label Giano as the bad hand to CnB's (I cannot recall the socks full name, but I assume with confidence you know the account) good hand - where despite G's defiant misuse of convention in respect of his complaints and "campaigns" is by far a net good contributor to Wikipedia in the manner of the breadth and quality of his article building (not just contributing, but expanding and bettering what previously existed). My other concern expressed is that DG took it upon himself to block someone whose history with regard to sanctions is one of "drama" (the exercising of effort - better spent in improving the encyclopedia - with a net result of precious little other than the enforcement of divided opinion) where he had already been strongly advised not to interact to decrease the likelihood of same. If someone with such access to both the most acute of tools provided to volunteers, a former Arbiter, and someone closely associated with the founder and figurehead of Wikipedia cannot be relied upon to acquaint themselves with the current understanding of policy regarding pages they edits, or to the directions provided by ArbCom, then it may be considered appropriate to remove access to such tools until the community is reassured that potential abuse through ignorance no longer exists. Should there be a finding that abuse was derived through malicious or indifferent considerations then perhaps the tools should never be returned.
I don't expect you to answer on DG's behalf, nor to rebutt my concerns generally except where your own knowledge or consideration may help my understanding of the matter, but would be grateful if you could forward the basis of my view to your colleagues on the committee for their consideration. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano's made it clear that he doesn't want my help, so I'm afraid I'm no longer interested in anything to do with him. I suggest you contact someone other than the most uninformed Arbitrator in history. I no longer care. --Deskana(talk)00:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have since passed this matter to FT2, who has said he will pass my concerns on to the committee. Please feel free to archive or remove the above as you see fit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Just to note that I left you and/or other arbitrators a couple of questions here. Given your vote on Nyb's motion (which did address one of them), I'm not sure you've seen them. I've replied to Kirill's first response there too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about what you wrote. My first impression was "Well that's obvious", but we do seem to be in a bit of a "stating the obvious" mood with those motions, since people are oblivious to what I thought was amazingly obvious. The problem I have with Newyorkbrad's motion is that it's overly complicated. I'll think about what you've said but I don't really see it particularly necessary to state it. The motion does say "subject to appropriate sanctions" so you could argue that it's already been thought of. --Deskana(talk)09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true. My issue is that the first motion has spelled out a list of ways to reverse actions, and everyone's eyes will focus on that before going back and re-reading the text before/after it. And knowing how vulnerable our system is to having community discussions turned into wikilawyering and attack zones, I don't want it to happen on this point. I'd have no concerns if the relevant part in Nyb's alternative (i.e. (a) in his list) was included in Kirill's original motion (even if it was modified slightly). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over a year ago, this user said he would be back : "I'm returning with a new account in the near future, NOT now. Don't welcome me or you'll be sorry". I think he did come back, as this user. User:Sesshomaru
He edits many of the same page's, and on Dragon Ball Wiki he even started editing the Power Level page. I'm am sure this is him, and would like a request for checkuser to be sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Power_level_(Dragon_Ball)&diff=next&oldid=130107440
Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly [17]), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to your reply to Giano on his talk page, you really think that a formal public request should be filed before anyone looks into this? Do you really think that a public hearing and 2 month arbitration case is the way to deal with this? (Including the other matter I sent to the list via Brad last week.) Thatcher17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, your email is still very much on my mind. In fact it was one of the reasons that I voted for the SV motions. The drama surrounding certain users is hampering the Committee's ability to address other issues in a timely way. I can't guarantee that any particular action is taken, but I promise that I will ask the questions and suggest appropriate remedies based on the answers. FloNight♥♥♥18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano has attempted to initiate conversations on a number of the arbitrators' talk pages, and Deskana is not the only one to suggest that there should be a case filed. I'm not sure that is a good idea.Thatcher23:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of request for deletion of editor Deskana :)
Deskana, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Deskana and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). TheHelpfulOne18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot flag
Could you please remove your bot flag? Unlike other flags, it actually affects other editors, see the difference between [18] and [19]. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I second this request. The bot flag isn't just a piece of ornamentation to be given out at will; it has real effects. Most people browse recent changes and their watchlist with bot edits turned off to help increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Edits made by a human that could potentially be controversial should never be hidden. Only bot edits should be marked as such using the bot flag. Unless you intend to never again make a human edit with your account, you need to remove the flag. This is not what it was intended for. --Cyde Weys18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stale anyways - Alison ❤ 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
Deskana, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Deskana and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). The Helpful One 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Besiktas.svg){kind=link}