User talk:Deskana/Archive 24

OTRS question
Re:

I'd like to request further information on this ticket. Specifically, is it a blanket permission from the Ontario New Democratic Party to use all of their photos of their ten current MPPs (Howard Hampton, Gilles Bisson, Cheri DiNovo, France Gélinas, Andrea Horwath, Peter Kormos, Rosario Marchese, Paul Miller, Michael Prue and Tabuns), or does it apply only to Cheri DiNovo? Thanks. I'm asking because Horwath's image is currently being nominated for deletion, and several of the others have no images or very poor ones, so I'd like to clarify whether that permission is extendable to all ten of them or not. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Query on Neutrality(?) policy
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)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS request
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)

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:drini 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to message me if you need more renames. --Deskana (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Joepercussion1
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. Mango juice talk 03:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.  Mango juice talk 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Coolest holiday ever. I even got the day off from school for it! :-) --Koji Dude  (C) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AdultSwim
Could we consider unblocking User:AdultSwim, or at least unblocking email so he can respond to contacts? Gimmetrow 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi!I've got a problem!Two days ago I modified this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Scotland .But I forgot to connect and so my IP address was visible.Then I modified once more and my user name was visible.This is the question:is it possible to add to my contributions the editing of my IP address?Thank you! Itanesco (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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!
 * Thank you very much for your action and answer! --Vlad|-> 06:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hi, Warning, strange question coming..... How do I get checkuser status, without becoming a bureaucrat? Bearian (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I did not read the notice on top. Whenever you can get back to me is fine. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * Thanks for the answer(s). My real ID is on my userpage.  I can wait for checkuser. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure if this is appropriate, but....
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.delanoy gabs adds  03:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 

J.delanoy gabs adds 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)
 * Welcome back! AGK 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to active!
Glad to see you're back. ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flo! --Deskana (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi as a mentor to Jack Merridew
Please see my statement in the relevant case. Thanks. I am only posting this to you and not to every arbitrator. -- Cat chi? 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)
 * I tried to add a comment, and somehow that happened. I think my laptop's going wonky. :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re
Honestly? I was bored, and I was curious to see what would happen. All of the standing edits are either positive or innocuous. Zagalejo^^^ 08:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Giano II re David Gerard
''*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)
 * 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)
 * This is not about Giano, but about my concerns regarding as exampled by matters concerning Giano. If that taint is still too strong then just say the word and I shall prevail upon another arbiter to pass on my viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SV motions
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

User:Power level (Dragon Ball)
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

Thanks, User: ???, Sorry I don't know what my IP is right now, the auto sign bot will do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.95.209 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm paranoid and I don't see this happening. User:Sesshomaru is a respected editor in good standing, has been since March 2007.-- Koji †  16:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

True may this be, but so was User:Power level till the end. Sesshomaru joined in the same time Power level knew he was going to banned. 125.237.95.209 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.95.209 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and David Gerard
Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly ), 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)


 * 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.) Thatcher 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.Thatcher 23:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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 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)

Bot flag
Could you please remove your bot flag? Unlike other flags, it actually affects other editors, see the difference between and. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Weys 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes this does seem a bit inappropriate. Bot flag isn't a toy.  Majorly  talk  18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relax, it's not like I oversighted anything inappropriate! Did violate a few people's privacy though. Bummer. --Deskana (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Are you ok? You really don't sound right.  Majorly  talk  18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you consult the King of the Potato People. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)`
 * I'd like to clarify that everything I said above was a joke. I've not done anything inappropriate. I have done a few checks since I said that, but they were well within the checkuser policy. Remind me to never make jokes again. --Deskana (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing too, because I was in IRC, calling for an emergency deCU, deO, deCrat, and desysop :D Sorry about that :) - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * wiki flags are srs bis --Charitwo (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Giano block... Yeah, I know, but...
Please see Giano's talkpage, and my request to a link to the written permission of the ArbCom for blocking per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would very much like to see that as well, preferably endorsed by a single majority of ArbCom members and backdated (if necessary) to before the block. While you are at it, an explanation of the strange length (55 hours) would be nice. Is that a new standard length, or was the length chosen deliberately to make it plain that while formally unrelated, the block was intended as yet another endorsement of the earlier bad block by FT2 (of the same length, which had already been commented upon)? Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 55 hours is a standard duration provided in Special:Blockip. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry for assuming bad faith. I hope the original question is as easy to resolve as this secondary one. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no prior approval, as has been stated on Giano and WJBscribe's talk pages. See there for more information, and an apology from me for acting without thinking. --Deskana (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Your behaviour once you had finished thinking was one of a very small number of positive signals from ArbCom members recently. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the process borked a bit, but... Can you please follow this up with the other arbitrators, as I agree that the original incivility was blockable? Don't let the process mistake prevent a perfectly legitimate block not happen. If Arbcom's going to impose the restriction, you need to follow through and promptly take up justifyable incidents with him. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I intend to. I think Giano's incivility there is very actionable. Had I not acted so rashly, perhaps we'd be somewhere already. --Deskana (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you also prepared to block Jimbo for slandering Giano? I've reviewed the evidence - one of the nice things about WR is that it is at least as open as Wikipedia so anyone can do that - and it is quite clear that either 1) someone lied to Jimbo, 2) Jimbo did a really crappy job of researching, or 3) both of the above.  Frankly, either Jimbo, whomever lied to him, or both of them, need to be sanctioned for slandering one of our editors.  And since they started the problem, their sanction should be more serious than Giano's. GRBerry 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology from LHvU
Sorry I dropped you in this, but I was late for bed and I wasn't able to participate in defusing this. I hoped that my request for a link to the ArbCom permission would nudge you in the direction - if you had not gotten the approval (I had a quick look at your contribs and found nothing, but realised there are other avenues of communication) - of undoing your block and then raising the matter as required. I regret that I was not able to frame my rhetoric(ish) question in more good faith terms, and for that and my absence I apologise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


 Marlith  (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Marlith  (Talk)  04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're back
I'm pleased to see that you're back to normal levels of involvement again :-). – Thomas H. Larsen 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Request an opinion at an open arbitration request
I appreciate you are likely busy with other things right now, but if I could direct you to the procedural inquiry here for just a second, that would be great. All that is required is an arbitrators opinion, that is all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cancan2
Hello Deskana, unfortunately I noticed your final warning for User talk:Cancan2 just after I blocked as vandalism only account based on an AIV report and a previous warning. Shall we amend or leave as is and wait for a possible unblock request? --Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself
On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to (now removed) section entitled "Lol"
It appears that, so far, the user in question is now more a of "lol" than an issuer. Have a wonderful day! Kylu (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/Cold fusion
You have voted on the proposed principles and the proposed remedies, but probably meant also to support the fact findings. I think you might have inadvertently forgotten to put your signatures down in that section. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed that now. --Deskana (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman Request
Could you comment on the Matthew Hoffman request for vacation currently up on WP:RFAR? I'd like to move past this situation, but, at the moment, remedy 1.3 requires either one more support or one more abstain to pass. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is incivility
I understand what you are saying with this. I have said it myself and discussed it before on other projects to determine guidelines. But yeah, in this instance, with what we all know about Giano, there is a history that makes it more than incivility on both sides. Even if some certain people were talking to Giano kindly, and he responded kindly, everyone knows that there is deep incivility on both sides. Why? Because, like oil and water, certain things don't mix nor ever will. Yes, there are people out to get Giano, and yes, Giano is out to get certain people. The ArbCom has to deal a lot with that. I really don't know what woould be best, or if there was a better solution. However, I do think that civility, at least for Giano, has to have a closer analysis and description in ordr to accurately apply it to the various historical background and nuanced aspects of the incidents. And yes, I've fought with Giano quite a bit, so I know from that. Furthermore, I have the same personality, so I can understand. Anyway, you can ignore my babbling. I just wanted to express my thoughts on your choice of phrasing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

pester power :-)
Requests_for_arbitration - come on chaps, bums off hands please. It's not acceptable to leave this hanging, and you have a duty to make your position known. It's causing drama, and undue stress in all directions. Socks up please. Privatemusings (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.

Thank you,

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Problem
Hi Desanka,

I filed an ANI against theserialcomma a little bit ago. In doing this, I re-read the checkuser on TheRegicider, something which you were involved in at the time. I'm not sure if this is the correct place, but I figured since that you are an arbitrator/checkuser, it's as good a place as any.

In re-reading the checkuser, I noticed that TheRegicider mentioned that the page was a violation of WP:OUTING. At first I thought mentioning that was a bit of a last-ditch effort, but upon a re-read, I think it should be taken a little more seriously. TheRegicider's instant messenger account, his place of residence (or at least, who his roommate is), and his university are all revealed. In fact, even revealing his name is a violation of WP:OUTING.

Furthermore, a website links to the checkuser with the purpose of disparaging TheRegicider's real life persona. I'm kind of baffled as to how this website found the checkuser in the first place -- has there been any instance of this happening before? Regardless, I'm not sure that Wikipedia's role should be to service an internet fight.

In light of this, I'm not sure what should be done with the page. I don't think it serves any immediate purpose other than a historical one -- TheRegicider seems to have deactivated both of his accounts. I feel like the checkuser should be taken down, or at least heavily edited. Maybe a better solution would be to hide the archive so an external site can't link to it so easily.

Do you have any thoughts, or am I just dragging out an old issue? Svernon19 (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PD RFAR
When I initiated the Peter Damian RFAR on the 5th December I was rather hoping it would be a quick motion to clarify his unblock terms, to prevent further disruptive blocks and unblocks. It's been nearly a fortnight now, might I just ask what your concerns are, or when you think you might be in a position to offer an opinion? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
I know you and I haven't been on the best of terms on various issues, but I wanted to thank you for the time you spent on ArbCom and wish you well. SirFozzie (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! Thanks for all your work over the past year. I'm sorry to hear you've been ill, hope you are feeling better soon. And I totally agree with what you said about tactical voting FWIW. the wub "?!"  18:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your note. As someone's who's had a fair share of bad health of late, my commiserations. I found Wikipedia overwhelming while ill, but enjoyed coming back as I recuperated. Get well and come back recovered and refreshed - you're a huge asset. --Dweller (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Deskana!
If you are either a firm friend of mine, have signed my autograph book, are a member of WPTC, or are someone I simply like or admire: 

Dylan 620  Contribs Sign! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. You fall into the admiration category; we've never met, but it is an honor to meet a Wikipedian as revered as you are. Keep in mind that if you haven't signed my autograph book yet, you still can. -- Dylan 620  Contribs Sign! 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Desk
I saw you had resigned from the ArbCom on account of illness &mdash; admittedly I was surprised and wanted to express good will.

I hope you take the time to make a full recovery. Wikipedia's not the same without you.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Deskie, get well soon. Enjoy life rather than being saddled with the feeling that you should be doing 'work' for arbcom- there's enough work in the real world.:) Some fun will probably do you good (as it does for us all.) Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, get well soon, Merry Christmas, etc... :-) -- Koji †  16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I echo the above sentiments. Get well soon, and I'll support your (re)appointment to the Arbitration Committeee any time ... – Thomas H. Larsen 23:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

*cough*
I am now officially warned. 10 minutes after I removed my comments. Isn't wikipedia grand. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --Deskana (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the public support. Needless to say the only really offensive comments I might have posted today would have been in response to the warning but I made good use of the preview and delete keys so there is no need to escalate my wrongdoing to an NPA2 warning. George usually finds it impossible to accept error so don't expect him to respond to your note. Not that it matters, I'm extremely amused by his contribution especially as it was over 10 minutes after I removed the section. Obviously he is a slow typist. Spartaz Humbug! 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Deskana
I liked my rollbacker privilege. Its me being nostalgic. :) Sedd&sigma;n talk 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano
Hi, Deskana. I write this apropos of your comments on Spartaz' talkpage... and other talkpages... and all over the place, really. I'm well aware that Giano offended you    some three or four weeks ago, causing you to withdraw from the neutral and fairminded investigation you had just started (after you and I spoke). It's not surprising that you told him to get stuffed, on that occasion, and altogether expressed a sense of injury. But I'm quite disappointed that you're still taking every opportunity to express it. Three weeks is a long time in Wikipedia time. And it appears Giano apologized to you soon after the offense. Theoretically, you accepted this apology ... but you still seem just as ready to flame or poke or pinprick, at the drop of a hat. Please stop the compulsive bellyaching about Giano, Deskana. It's like reading Fred Bauder sometimes... It's not becoming to you. Nor is it bold, or daring, to attack the most-attacked user on the site from a position of power (=ex-arb). Bishonen | talk 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm not bearing any grudge about that. He apologised to me, and I apologised to him for snapping. The fact remains that Giano was the one that was edit warring and breaking the rules of the page, not Spartaz. Allow me to summarise my views.
 * Spartaz could have worded his comments more delicatly.
 * Giano was well within his rights to be offended by what Spartaz had written.
 * Giano should not have edit warred over the page. It was him who crossed the line.
 * Spartaz should not have been warned for his edits. LHVU asked him to tone it down in a very reasonable manner.
 * Just because I'm not bearing a grudge against Giano doesn't mean I'm not going to sit back and watch him take part in edit warring. --Deskana (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I guess you didn't take it that I was speaking in general: "Spartaz' talkpage... and other talkpages... and all over the place". The way you jumped on the edit warring thing was only the last straw. Let me try to be clearer: you whine and bellyache about Giano all the time. You take every opportunity, and you make yourself rather than him look bad in the process. In my opinion. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC).
 * That is your perception. I disagree with it. I would much rather spend my time NOT having to deal with Arbitration matters relating to Giano. If he was to spend less time breaking policies like WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, then I would enjoy Arbitrating much more. Giano edit wars, and people still condone this behaviour, yourself included. This makes you part of the problem. I will continue to complain, and try to find solutions to the problem, until there is no problem anymore. --Deskana (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats
Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks!  Majorly  talk  14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators
Check again. I've placed my moniker in the confidence section. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya don't suck. I gave you a vote of confidence. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Did ya check things out? My vote is in the confidence section. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

yes we can
Yeah I'll change it tonight. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.   Talk   Contribs  18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)