User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Socks

Syria21stcentury (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Syrianview (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Syrianview is stale and, so, there is nothing I can compare Syria21stcentury's CU data with. This will have to be determined on behavioural evidence only and, for that, it's better to file an SPI. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Abbazorkzog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that single edit is not enough to warrant a check. If that account edits again, then I may investigate it (provided I can show I have, at least, a reasonable suspicion that he may be ChronicalUsual). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sal, as you are about can you check this SPI please, as the suspect sock has returned. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deonis IPs

Our favourite IP-hopping pest has returned to Template:Syrian civil war detailed map within a day of the expiration of protection. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Semied for six months... That guy is definitely persistent! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of persistence, look who's popped up at Tatars again [1] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, nice to see him again. Demeyeats, Gnarlelias, Glassfishy, ByteOlive, Caribatari, Glibscour, Rosesnuder, Vogueris, Edit1107 and Altercopy CU-blocked, Gemeripeg indeffed (different IP range, different UA, but same country – same town, actually –, but quacking rather loudly). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual

This is definitely him ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Childeric_Ier (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed. Surprisingly, there were no sleepers, this time... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Syrianview SPI

Following up on your recommendations above, I've filed an SPI on User:Syria21stcentury. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Childeric IIeme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Block evading sock

User:WarunaNugawela a sockpuppet of User:Dipendra2007? --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The check was  Inconclusive, but that account certainly quacks loudly... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Many thanks for the blocking of that annoying troll... Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the barnstar: I've just added it to my collection of shiny things! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Way too obvious

Childeric_III (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Socks

I'll come to this section for future reports.

Spuddy999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Childeric IIeme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I also re-added Childeric IIeme so you can check for sleepers, incase Spuddy turns up negative, which, since he was created 8 days ago, probably will. Sopher99 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

They're technically  Unrelated: different continent. However, the person who created Spuddy999 seems to have also used another account (which has made fewer than ten edits, none of which are to Syrian civil war). I'd say it's probably someone who, after losing the password to his original account, created another. That said, I'll be watching. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What clarification requests are for

You mentioned that I don't understand the role of clarification requests. Guilty as charged - I don't understand much of the bureaucratic rigmarole that has accreted on Wikipedia over the years.

But just so you know, I was directed to file a clarification request by one of your colleagues on the Committee ([2]). (I did so with misgivings, apparently well-founded ones). So apparently even some members of the Committee don't understand the role of clarification requests, which says something about how unwieldy our system has become.

Anyhow, since you suggested speaking directly to Arbs, what, if anything, are you willing to share about your view of the ban appeal? MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know you had been invited to start a clarification request by one of my colleagues, thanks for pointing it out. I am a little surprised to see such a suggestion, however, because, as I said on WP:ARCA, it's not what, in my opinion, clarification requests are for. That said, if I appeared too dismissive, I am sorry: it's just that it's the second time in a week that an inappropriate clarification request has been filed and this one in particular smacked a bit of forum shopping (though I'm not implying that was your intention)...

Moving on to Will's appeal, I was inactive when it was first discussed by the Committee and, so, did not express my opinion. Should we reexamine the issue, I'll probably abstain, because I'm not familiar enough with it: to cast an informed vote, I'd have to review the original case, all the e-mails the committee exchanged while discussing Will's first appeal and the various discussions which have been taking place on.wiki since our decline. I am still trying to catch up with everything that happened during my long absence and, so, would hardly have the time to do a thorough job, unfortunately... That is why my comment was merely procedural. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. It's my own fault - I fell into one of the oldest traps in the book. Someone shuts down a discussion in one venue by telling me to file a clarification request, and then when I file the clarification request it looks like I'm "forum-shopping". I'm cynical realistic enough about how things work here that I should have recognized and avoided the trap. But perhaps you can understand some of my frustration? From my perspective, this really does feel like a bureaucratic run-around. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your view of the matter. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI, I put in a RM at Princess An Tư to restore your move. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I'll take a look at the discussion, if I can. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Contributors using a proxy

It's was good to see you back here but I've deliberately tried to avoid pestering you. Alas, that changes now! Can you point me to any guidance regarding how we can deal with disruptive users who operate from a proxy. According to User talk:59.163.10.123, the IP address in question is a proxy but the contributions all seem likely to relate to a specific "real person" because they are repeatedly inserting BLP violations/unsourced statements to Agrawal and related articles. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Only open proxies are routinely blocked; closed proxies are allowed to edit and treated like any other IP address, which means that, when the user employing them disrupts Wikipedia, progressively longer blocks are imposed. In this case, the user in question has made too few edits to warrant either a block or page protection, so, for the moment, the only solution is to keep reverting and warning him. If he keeps it up, he'll end up restricted, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that they've only made a few edits since their last block and that it is not an open proxy. What confuses me is the statement in the talk page header that includes Messages left on this page may be received by other users of this IP address, making them irrelevant. Extreme caution should be used when warning, blocking, or banning this IP, or reverting its contributions, ie: the "extreme caution" bit. We have to be careful when blocking any dynamic IP because of potential collateral damage, thus what is so special about a proxy? And why should extreme caution apply to reverting them? - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean; however, no worries, Sitush: that part can be safely ignored. It's evident that there's only one person editing from that proxy and, so, there's no risk of biting an innocent newcomer (which, I guess, is the reason why we are invited to exercise caution when blocking/reverting/whatever)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. A pragmatic approach seems sensible. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the IP has done it again at Agrawal. I've previously explained on their talk page what it is that they need to do, so I've just warned them this time. They've already had an edit warring notice but it is a week since their last attempt - slow burn stuff. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that RegentsPark was faster than me... When protection expires, if this guy persists, feel free to ping me and I'll re-protect the article. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		I don't know if you remember me (if you don't this is gonna be super awkward ), but you really helped shape my interest in (and work on) Wikipedia when I first registered a few years back. I was thinking the other day about how much I've gotten out of my Wikipedia editing, and I wouldn't have learned half as much as I did (or had half as much fun!) if I hadn't had your guidance or friendship. Thank you for everything you've done, salvio. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I remember you and it's really a pleasure to meet you again! I'm glad to see you're still having fun here but is it not time you ran for adminship?

And thanks for the barnstar: I really appreciate it and have just added it to my collection of shiny things... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if it's time for me to run for adminship just yet; don't the crowd over at RfA expect a lot of article-writing? I'm mostly a gnome, so I think an RfA of mine would probably fail.

I saw you gained the checkuser hat. Congratulations!! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the voters expect candidates to have written a lot, others just don't care... Me, I like to see a candidate who has been involved in a couple of content disputes, because it shows me how he reacts in stressful situations and shows him what prolific content creators have to deal with... That said, look at my RfA: even though I have written very little, it was successful. Then again, an RfA, even when successful, is definitely hell week, so I understand your reluctance.

I saw you gained the checkuser hat. Congratulations!! Thanks! But does this mean that you did not vote for me? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've actually been on an intermittent hiatus since I started college this fall. It's taken me a while to adjust to things here, and I've only just found the time to get back into editing again, so I've been largely clueless about the goings-on around here It feels so good to be back, though. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

Salvio, actually it is an attack , just on the term itself. However, I won't re-nominate it for a speedy deletion. Regarding the message on Nyttend's page. I removed the template message immediately and replaced it with a customized version that explained what happened and why. Thanks for the heads up !  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

Hey, Salvio, I'm a bit confused by the "closure" of the two recent reports here. User:DoRD blocked based on the first report, and you blocked on the second, but there's nothing in the report itself about what happened. That can't be right, can it? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the sock in question was first reported on my talk page, so I just examined his edits, ran a check and blocked. I did not notice until later that – when I tried (and failed) to archive the sock investigation – the guy had also been reported to SPI, so did not comment there... If you think it'll make things clearer, I can leave a comment on the SPI page indicating that it was a  Confirmed match and blocked.

There are a couple of puppeteers I've grown rather familiar with over time and, so, they sometimes get reported here. It's more efficient and leads to quicker blocks... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to add the result to the SPI, even if that's not where it began for you. Can you do DoRD's as well, or do I have to ask them? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're a stout fellow, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sek101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
NicoAmm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Both  Unrelated to any of the usual suspects. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sek101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
NicoAmm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MalesAlwaysBest (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
WholegoodSoulrestorer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I Have a feeling they are actually MalesAlwaysBest. Sopher99 (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sek and Nico seem to be clean; WholegoodSoulrestorer, Highlypraised and Rotise are MAB and have been indeffed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

	Pierogi Award
	Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Bhills996's talk page.
Message added 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed that you've already warned this user earlier. This user is still making vandal edits as of present. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And indeffed... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

More Socks

Childeric VI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Can you semi the Al-Qusair page? Sopher99 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock blocked and article semied for a fortnight. No sleepers found, this time... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Kane County Eagles Page

I'm confused as to why our page was deleted. Our Team was one of the highest decorated Semi-Pro football team in the country. There was a ton of useful information that was associated with the page. is there a way to re-instate the page?

KC Eagle (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC) KC Eagle

I deleted the article because its deletion had been proposed (cf. WP:PROD) a week earlier and nobody had objected; this is a simplified process that allows us to delete articles when nobody thinks they should be kept. If someone objects to the deletion, even after it has been carried out (as you're doing now), we are supposed to restore it and, in fact, I'm about to undelete it.

That said, I have to inform you that the username you have chosen is against our policy (cf. WP:ORGNAME), because it gives the impression you are editing on behalf of a group, whereas your username should only represent you as an individual. I suggest you file a rename request here or this account may be blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD close of Earth Cabal

Hi Salvio, I have to say I was puzzled by your no consensus close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal. It's WP:NOTAVOTE, of course, but three votes to delete, one to keep, and one neutral doesn't seem like it should add up to no consensus. Since another user and I identified it as a speedy deletion candidate, which no one argued, the close is every more confusing. Did you give so much weight to the keep vote? --BDD (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had to disregard your opinion and Mangoe's, because you both argued that the article should be deleted per G4 and, yet, that's not an appropriate criterion, because the previous deletion was based on the page creator's request, as pointed out by Nyttend. So I was left with one delete and one keep; I thought I could relist the discussion, but, since it had been open for more than a month already and nobody seemed to pay much attention to it, I considered it pointless and closed as no consensus. If you believe I messed up, I have no objections to relisting it, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I overlooked that. Ok. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It is WP:FUNNY. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Checking

King Dagobert (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you semi the 2013 Daraa offensive page? Aside form Chronical there is massive is a massive wave of ips socks of Deonis_2012. Sopher99 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Roman_Laslo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ChronicalUsual (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Game Over Fire Emblem (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case

Hi Salvio, sorry about the Casenav/data I saw this edit and thought you were moving yourself to active on the case (how I managed that I'm not so sure). Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I realise I wasn't particularly clear there. The TPM case was already too far along when I returned from my period of inactivity and, so, I chose to remain inactive on it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

• News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014

• Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy

• Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead!

• In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions

• WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous amount of ip socking

This talkpage is almost ONLY Ip socking of Deonis_2012. Please semi the Talkpage itself. Sopher99 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&action=history

I don't like semi-protecting talk pages, so I have just rangeblocked 95.133.0.0/16 for a month. I hope it's enough... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 95.133s aren't the only ones he uses: Special:Contributions/46.201.20.240 ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, page semied for a fortnight. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reported 46.201.30.244 Alhanuty (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Low-hanging fruit

User:Denniss 2013. Sure makes it easy, doesn't he? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

He's not even trying to avoid detection any longer... Indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Also found registered-but-unused Special:Contributions/Denis_2013. Sleeper? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That account is stale and, having made no edits, I feel uncomfortable blocking. I'll keep an eye on him, should he start editing, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI backlog

Hi, You seem to be the one of the few admin around now. Is there a chance you could take a look at this request please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll gladly take a look. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and mille grazie. History2007 (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Salvio, This morning I became aware that you banned me from editing anywhere at Wiki-with exception of my own talk page. Both History 2007 (18 comments) and Reiky (10 comments) pushed for this ban and both have been disruptive no matter where I contribute, which has only been two pages in eight years.. I have made numerous attempts begging editors to give me a fair and balanced Bio page but they refuse-preferring the misleading info remains. I made numerous attempts to explain the back story about the Times of India article but they refuse to consider this, claiming I lack sources. I am the source. I was there. I know what happened. I provided them with this background info . I only begged for a fair shake and I feel these two Wiki editors, Reiky and History2007, have not given it- and will continue to throw disparaging comments about me at every opportunity on Wiki. Banning me and making me 'go away' does nothing to improve their biased and often inaccurate comments I ask that you remove this ban. Thank you. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. I wish you a speedy recovery. Hope all is well with you soon.

Salvio- I just did some checking. On the 'Biographies of Living Persons -Suzanne Olsson'- History2007 made 10 negative comments about me, and Raeky made 4. Then, on 'Articles for Deletion, Suzanne Olsson', History2007 made 14 comments in support of banning me- and Raeky piped in with 2. Then again on [Talk, Suzanne Olsson]', Raeky made 27 comments to ban me ! A total ban on Wiki when I have only edited two pages? A tad overkill, eh? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, you are not currently banned from editing Wikipedia; you are merely restricted from making edits about Roza Bal everywhere on Wikipedia with the exception of your talk page. The topic ban has also been worded in a way that still allows you to make comments about your biography, so that you can help us correct any errors that may have crept in, if you wish. Aside from that, you can still freely make edits about anything else. I apologise if I were unclear.

Also, it was not I who decided to sanction you, rather it was the community and I merely enacted their decision. So only the community can lift it.

Regarding your biography, a couple of things: an administrator cannot unilaterally delete an article, except in very limited circumstances (your bio, unfortunately, does not qualify); only the community can, after a week-long discussion called WP:AFD – and your article is currently listed at AFD. Now, we have a rule, called WP:BIODEL, which allows administrators to delete the biography of a person who does not want it after an AfD, provided there is no consensus to keep the article and the person in question is a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Currently, the AfD seems headed for a no consensus close (though this may well change before the discussion is closed) and this would mean that the closing admin would be allowed to delete your article. Until then, I cannot do anything, I'm sorry.

Finally, Wikipedia has strict rules regarding verifiability of information: any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source (cf. WP:V). So, if the information you want included is uncontroversial (for instance, your date of birth), you don't need a source. If, on the other hand, it is likely to be challenged, your word is unfortunately not enough. In this case, in my opinion, the best solution compatible with our rules regarding verifiability, would be to include the bit from the Times of India and to add after it your explanation (without giving it undue weight, though) – which, apparently, has already been done, so this is rather moot... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by a user from Rewari

Sorry to bother you but I tried The Blade of the Northern Lights & they are not around. This is one of their special subjects, so I am a bit stumped. Austereraj appears to be block evading again. Probably also as Rajwikipedianrewari, eg: see this series of edits. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I heard quacking noises and indeffed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just CSD'd Royal Corptravel Pvt Ltd.(RCT) and will have to clean up other stuff. I'm not sure what to do about the image uploads. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If they're on commons, they're better left alone. That's not a healthy place... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You ain't kidding! I occasionally look through stuff on Jimbo's page and am amazed that the WMF have not stepped in there - some radical reform is needed but no-one seems sure how to effect it. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I tried to discuss with them as you would with a reasonable adult once: in Italy we say: don't try to wash a donkey's head, you'll waste time, water and soap. The only viable solution would be for the Foundation to step in, desysop a bunch of "Wikimedia is not censored" activists and impose new rules by fiat. It'll never happen... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it probably will not. This is where I fall flat on my face: the relationship between WMF and specific projects rather baffles me. Consensus or no consensus, I live in a world where someone is in charge but - presumably because of US charitable status etc - that seems to be a vague concept in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I've just found Naveenyadav999 (talk · contribs) and all the hallmarks wrt obscure village articles, legal stuff and private universities are that they too are an Austereraj sock, although they claim to be a friend on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've checkusered the guy and he appears to be  Unrelated; I believe he really could be a friend of Austereraj's. And, from what I could gather, there has not been meat puppetry yet...

By the way, you need to run for adminship! I'd offer to nominate you, but you already have a boatload of nominators... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The similarity of scope in contributions could be just down to them being friends but it looks like another load of clean up, regardless. I'll try to sort it out tomorrow: it really is not worth presenting diffs because if the CU is ok then proving a claim of meatpuppetry is just too time-consuming both for you and me. It is easier just to fix. As for adminship, well, I've just mentioned you on my talk page but I don't think Echo will pick it up. And I am sorry for bothering you - I realise that you are still not 100% and I can sympathise with that. Not every male illness is a case of man flu, regardless of what the other half of the world may believe ;) - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Block of User:Kaiser von Europa

Would you please explain why you choose not to participate at ANI and blocked him right after this was archived ? And what about "in private" ? I do not think he should be unblocked but it would sure have been better to resolve the situation with more input. 79.255.222.99 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked Kaiser von Europa for something that occurred after the discussion you mention was archived and I chose to be vague because otherwise I'd have been attracting attention to his actions, which is something that's best avoided, in this case; if he wonders why he was indeffed – though I think he knows –, he can contact me and I'll gladly clarify. Or, if he appeals, I'll explain myself to the reviewing admin, so that he can make an informed decision. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You may want to block his alternate account as well then. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I wanted to block him earlier but got distracted and forgot... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)