User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Angela Merkel

Salvio, thank you for your message and your concerns regarding my Angela Merkel talk page statement. As evident from the content you have removed, I have not accused Volunteer Marek to be "a sockmaster", per se - but have put emphasis on the fact, that in regard of the edits done by Elizabeth Cumberbatch - I have encountered similar editing patterns of users in support of Volunteer Marek's agenda, who later turned out to be a sock (e.g. Skoranka) of a tag team member (e.g. Space Cadet); IMHO meatpuppetry can not be ruled out, of course - with the latter being less likely.

Of course, I will respect your admin action and not restore the content in question, however I do feel that I have raised valid concerns - that had to be pointed out. Thank you for your understanding. (P.S. Get well soon!) --IIIraute (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Marek previously edited under a different username. IIIraute, you have a fairly silly username yourself, but were you informed of Marek's previous username under which he was sanctioned by arbcom? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe he is aware of the VM's previous identity, because he mentioned it on the talk page... That said, Illraute, I perfectly understand your points: the Cumberbatch account did indeed look suspicious; I ran a check and asked a fellow checkuser to run another, just to make sure. I received the results this morning and *it appears* that the account is not a sock (at least, not one the checkuser tool is able to catch). Meat puppetry is possible, but it's much more difficult to prove...

A general suggestion, however: when tempers are already frayed, it's better to keep discussion concerning behavioural issues separated from the content dispute at hand; if you suspect an account to be a sock, you should report it to WP:SPI, while you keep discussing content on the article's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help & advice. Thank you for your efforts! --IIIraute (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

• Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink

• Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?

• News and notes: Wikipedia Library finding success in matching contributors with sources

• Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup

• WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Singahi Bhiraura

Since you are around, please could you take a look at Singahi Bhiraura‎ and the last couple of sections of the talk page. The IPs seem to be in IDHT mode and I think the article needs protecting. Letters, diaries, official communiques etc quite clearly fail our sourcing tests. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semied for a fortnight (there should be a template somewhere, which would make it look more professional, but meh...). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And for inserting the omitted heading here also ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Koimoi

Why did you close this? It had just been reopened as the conversation had just got started and people were making comments. That is premature. Please reopen it. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought about relisting the AFD, but it has already been open for a month and relisted thrice and, nonetheless, it has seen very little participation. The person who restarted the conversation had already expressed an opinion earlier, so it's not really like the AFD was getting fresh opinions. So, no. I will not reopen the discussion; however, if you want, you can renominate it in future without waiting too long (as it is customary for AFDs closed as no consensus).. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine but did you see that it had just been reopened (at my request) within the last 24 hours? You should at least have given it 48 hours to see if it reached a conclusion. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I admit I didn't see the AFD had been closed and reopened about twelve hours ago; had I seen it, I'd probably have waited a little longer. Then again, the fact that two people independently closed the discussion could also be seen as an indication that the AFD actually needed to be closed... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

India sanctions

I see that you recently added a sanctions note at User talk:Ganesh J. Acharya. I'm at my wit's end and have just told them this, having felt it necessary to collapse a thread here. This rubbish, which is basically a campaign being operated by the Vishwakarma community to get themselves accepted as being Brahmins, has been going on for ages. They may have a point but it is not one that is generally accepted outside their own community and this is reflected in the various articles per all the usual things, eg: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc.

I know that you and the rest of ArbCom have a lot on your plate digesting, for example, the Austrian Economics case but I thought it best to let you know, bearing in mind your prior note to the contributor. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, over the next couple of days I'll have very limited access to Wikipedia, so I don't think I'll be able to review Ganesh J. Acharya's conduct. However, since he's already been alerted, you can report him to WP:AE; the admins there are usually rather quick to deal with disruption. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. Thanks for the suggestion and I hope it is something good that limits your access to WP (like the vino from DarknessShines. Hic.) - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no wine: I have just been invited to a conference. Granted, there'll be a cena di gala (a banquet), where hopefully there'll be booze, but I'm not sure the game is worth the candle... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Am I still banned from filing SPI`s on Nangparbat? I ask as I think this is him. Based on the usual copyvios, and cherry picking only the bits from a source to make India look shite, dunno why he does that, the armed forces do a good enough job themselves an J&K Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember; then again, you've just reported him to a CU... I have run a check and I'd say it's a  Likely match. Indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly my good man, and it was not really a report, just a question Darkness Shines (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Block the socks?

Hi, Salvio. I've blocked Lalithshastri for two weeks for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalitshastri. I kind of assumed the named accounts, that you confirmed as socks, would be indeffed, but they haven't been so far. One of them is posting on my page now. Er, was your CU report a definite finding of socking? Should I indeff Padmanitrivedi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Rakeshvasishth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? tomorrow (I'm going to bed now), or is there a reason nobody's done it yet? I noticed Drmies blocked one of them for 31 hours, so maybe there's some wrinkle I don't understand. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Howdy Bish. Yes, usually, for a first offence, the socks are indeffed and the sockmaster is given a short block (a fortnight, generally). However, this is left to the discretion of the patrolling admin: when an editor is reported to SPI, the CU who ran the check is not the one who issues the blocks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, cool. No, I knew it's not your job to block the socks, but I had a sort of impression that somebody generally rushes to do so. I very rarely deal with socks, so I felt a little insecure about doing it myself, in case smarter people were holding off. But I've now exercised my discretion and indeffed them. I don't have the impression the three accounts are necessarily one individual, but certainly collaborating IRL in the sense of WP:MEAT. I've even seen one of them explaining somewhere about how they chat at the BM and discuss their edits... can't find it now, but if it should become an issue I'll do a little research (oh, groan). And it's clear to me that they've been collaborating to harass Sitush. Thanks for explaining, Salvio. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC).