User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deonis

Please semi this page from his ips. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Homs&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, sigh. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Block threatening

Salvio,

you first confused discussion with "protection principle" or something similar. A bad start.

Now you you removed my request for administrative assistance again. By what authority?

You also hatted an open discussion, violating the policy for closing discussions. You should at least add a note that there is a discussion at ANI, to which people should go if they are interested.

Please apologize for your "drama"-laden belittling phrase and your block threat.

Perhaps you should block yourself for stirring up drama?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nopes, sorry. You are definitely behaving disruptively now and are just stirring up drama. Kindly stop. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you glad to be back Sal Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Overjoyed indeed... And you? How are things? Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty good actually, not been blocked for hours . Am thinking of heading back to Rome in a few months, you can buy me a guinness if your in town. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You must be behaving then... Either that or my fellow admins are starting to slack a bit. And if I'm here when you visit Italy, I'll be happy to offer you a Menabrea! Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think you would have apologized for your bullying, which only delayed the inevitable removal of an improper page protection. Doug himself was surprised by the lack of its removal. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is not my "bullying", but rather your impatience (not only yours, though). The OS team was discussing the issue and the community was discussing it as well on the article's talk page. Everything was proceeding smoothly and there was no need to start demanding everywhere that the article be unprotected immediately. What would have been the harm had the page remained protected for another couple of hours? Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Salvio - I respect your calm responses but Keifer is no stranger to the reality of Wikipedia and should "know better". He's an editor/troll from way back; indeed I identified him as such quite quickly early in his use of Wikipedia.. Quite why he wastes his copy editing and reference work skills by spending half the time here getting angry I have no idea. However when he's in this mood the troll bit comes out and it's best left unresponded to; blocks and the ensuing community melt down are valueless. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
He's mentioned you at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. He's also mentioned me on Talk:Wikipediocracy as well. Meh... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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) 22:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good-faith content dispute?

I suggest you should examine the facts more carefully before describing the Alger Hiss conflict as a "good-faith" content dispute.

In fact, my opponents have stonewalled all straightforward requests, repeatedly twisted my words (and the words of others) out of context, and have deliberately misrepresented my position. For example, they claim I failed to cite a source, when in fact the opposite is the case: I cited a source, and they failed to provide anything to substantiate their WP:FRINGE views to the contrary.

If they were showing "good faith" they would cease preventing the insertion of factual material that they happen to disagree with, unless they could actually demonstrate otherwise. Just now a user deemed a response I gave as inadequate and proceeded to use that as an excuse to make additional comments on the Arbitration page misrepresenting what I said, all before I could post a more extensive reply. Was that an act of good faith on his part?

CJK (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Thank you

For being the first Arb to actually address the central matter in the Sandstein drama. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Then again, that's only my personal opinion – and I've been known to have weird opinions, at times... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Re. Evidence on an ArbCom page

You seem like the go-to guy for ArbCom protocols and procedures, and you also appear to have taken the reigns in the Ironholds/Kiefer case, so I'd appreciate your input.

I recently submitted evidence to Ironholds/Kiefer where I went into detail regarding the latter's activities at RfA over the past several months, as well as his previous RfC/U from 2011. I knowingly exceeded the 500 word limit, and I was notified of this by Hersfold's bot. I took the time to read through the directions at the top of the page, and I am that it says the following:


However, I chose not to follow this protocol and did so afterwards; the reason for that is because I didn't want to run the risk of losing all the evidence that I'd typed there. If a clerk decides to remove it without any further discussion (which I see as likely), then so be it. My questions are as follows:

  1. Under what circumstances would the Arbitration Committee permit someone to exceed the word limit on the evidence page?
  2. Is there a legitimate case here for me to request permission ArbCom's permission to do so?
  3. Would you consider the context regarding Kiefer as being relevant to the case?

Thanks! :-) Kurtis (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on the evidence talk page; anyway, exceptions are granted when a person has something to say which cannot be condensed in a given number of words. Word limits are there to prevent people from posting walls of text that nobody would read, but when it's impossibile strike a balance between conciseness and completeness, then a party is authorised to exceed them (which is in our interest as well: it's much better for us if the diffs are explained, so that we can understand immediately what happened, rather than seeing "A behaved inappropriately" and then a list of fifteen diffs). In your case, to answer your second question, it depends: can you not shorten your evidence without having to exclude important details? If that's the case, granting you the exception would be inappropriate. Finally, the focus of the case is on Kiefer's conduct and on Ironholds' and not only on this specific incident, so everything they've done is relevant to the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough response. I'll see what I can do. :-) Kurtis (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All right, I've condensed it. I can't tell if it meets or exceeds the limit at this point. Are there any tools I could use to check? Kurtis (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Guess who

User:Babylon 2000. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know who that can be: Deonis is so good at hiding his traces... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at PinkAmpersand's talk page.
Message added 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(I'll be in the air from 22:00 to 23:30 UTC, and probably not back online for several hours afterward, so my apologies in advance if I'm slow to reply.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. 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) 22:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nangaparbat

User_talk:RegentsPark#Standard_offer FYI and for comment. --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology and request

Salvio, first, an apology for spelling your name wrong at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Comment by TransporterMan and, second, just a request that in your rewrite of the DS policy that you clearly retain the right for non-admins to give DS notices. In fact, it would be well to turn it around from the current "admins can give notice, oh yeah non-admins can, too" to simply "any editor can give notice." Admins can't be everywhere and encouraging non-admins to give those notices might take some of the heat off of admins who do. Of course, that philosophy regards those notices as just that, notices only, not as individualized warnings or accusations of wrongdoing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the aspects we disagree on (in my opinion, every editor should be allowed to issue notices and, so far, by my count, the majority of arbs agree with me) that we are currently discussing. As I've already said, we should be publishing a motion on wiki soon (we are trying to solve our disagreements), so we should be answering the questions the community have in a short time. Regarding my name, don't worry: it's an incredibly common typo (don't know why, but most of the English-speaking people I know spell my name like that; so I've grown quite accustomed to it ). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You never did answer my question from earlier...

But don't worry about it, I won't hold anything against you. ;-)

Anyways, I'd like to add an additional subsection to my evidence at the Kiefer/Ironholds case. Is there some way I could check how many words or links I've used to make sure I'm not exceeding the limit? And if I do go a couple words beyond the specified parameters, could I have ArbCom's permission to do so? Kurtis (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I apologise: I really didn't notice your question... However, I don't know why the bot is not showing the number of words/diffs you've employed; maybe it's something to do with the fact that you've exceeded the limit, that's only an educated guess... That said, using a word counter I found on the net, you have written 612 words, which is still more than what you'd be allotted. Anyway, since so far we have had very little evidence, I have just granted you an exception. You now have as many words/diffs as a party. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I appreciate it. :-) Kurtis (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

You've got mail!

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Super urgent.
Message added 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Darkness Shines (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes arb

Apologies, I am a novice at arb procedures. I am a named person in this arb. But I am not quite sure what the subject of the arb is - and to gather by the comments, I am not alone. Can you please advise - is the arb going to consider the infoboxes issue generically - or editor/editors behaviour in particular incidents associated with infoboxes - or both? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, no need to apologise: arbitration is one of the more convoluted processes Wikipedia has and the case, as has been presented, is a bit of a mess. That said, arbcom does not make policy and does not get involved in content disputes, so we will not be solving the content aspect of this issue. However, we will be examininig the conduct of all parties wrt this particular conflict and, if warranted, impose sanctions (we can go as far as directing the community to start an RfC whose result will be binding for a limited time, as we have recently done in this case, but that's pretty much it). Hope I was clear enough; and, though I won't be one of the drafters, if you need assistance, feel free to drop by. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yor opinion would again be welcomed by me. A number of comments have appeared in the arb disucssion on why infoboxes are good (or bad); these are presented as 'evidence' though they seem to me to be nearly all opinions without evidence base. I take it that - given that the arb case is about editors' behaviour - the arbitrators will set these comments aside? - as, if so, I don't want to waste any of my valuable 1000 words on dealing with them. With thanks again in anticipation of your guidance. --Smerus (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I wonder if this includes my evidence, but would be surprised because I would not say "good" or "bad". Information is not good or bad (my POV). I noticed that one opponent for long years expects an infobox to summarize "the article", - evidently wrong because the manual of style says: "summarize key facts". (Found on Talk:Don Carlos). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
...uhh....and I think I would also be grateful for your opinion on my being apparently 'stalked' like this by one who is, on this issue, on the other side of the fence to me. It's more than a little creepy. I have specifically sought not to name individuals in my posts to you.--Smerus (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It's possible Gerda did not follow you here to stalk you, as she might still have my talk page on her watchlist from months ago, when we discussed Rlevse's block. However (and pardon me if I appear dense, but I don't know what has happened between you in the past), do you have evidence of Gerda following you to articles/talk pages/noticeboards/whatever she has never edited before? And have you ever discussed the issue with her (not necessarily on her talk page)? Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed this is one of more than 10.000 pages on my watch list, and the thread is of interest to me. What happened between us in the past is that we both love Wagner and other music and get along well. (So I think.) - I was advised to tell a story such as Don Carlos with diffs and comments, but tried to avoid that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just skimmed over the evidence page and, yes, some of the material presented as evidence is not really evidence, but rather opinion: discussions regarding the usefulness of infoboxes should probably be left for the workshop, mindful of the fact that, without wanting to prejudge the case, I find it very difficult that ArbCom will pass a finding of fact saying that infoboxes are always good or always bad. We may end up restating policy (i.e. that the decision whether to include an infobox in an article should be made on a case-by-case basis – that's how I interpreted the relevant policy, but I may be wrong, seeing as I read it rather quickly for the moment), but I think that's as far as we'll go (again, this is my opinion, ArbCom may end up doing the exact opposite of what I've just said).

However, going back to your question, if you want and you have words to spare, you can provide your opinion, knowing however that it's not really evidence (and that, in general, arbs may give all those opinions little weight, seeing as the case is focused on the behaviour of the parties); otherwise, you can start a thread on the talk page or discuss the issue on the workshop. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I don't complain about Gerda, was just a bit spooked!. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, both! Once we are together: the case on behaviour is - my POV - a problem. I see a lot of behaviour evidence from years ago, how relevant is that? I could point at behaviour I didn't like but (to quote you) "I have specifically sought not to name individuals in my posts" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just re-read what I wrote and was appalled: I need to start using this "preview" thingy... *sigh*

Gerda, behaviour from years ago is relevant because it helps to prove that there is a longstanding problem (or that the editor in question is a repeat offender, so that we don't end up reminding/warning/admonishing the same user five times) and is not just a one-off occurrence. There should, however, also be more recent examples of misbehaviour (and, I say, they ought to make up the bulk of the evidence), because we generally try to avoid imposing sanctions for things which happened long ago (the old preventative and not punitive mantra)... So, again, best to focus on recent problems. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that someone opposes infoboxes, "longstanding", and now (!) shows that he doesn't understand what they are supposed to do, - where is the "offense"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't say that yet, because I have not yet formed an informed opinion.

To be entirely honest, to an outsider, at first glace, it looks like there are two entrenched factions waging a war of attriction on this issue. Usually, in these cases most of the people involved are partially to blame (including the admin corp for not intervening sooner), although some people may be more guilty than others. Also, I'm not sure those who don't like infoboxes don't understand what they're supposed to do. If I may, it's not a good idea to dismiss your opponents' opinion during a content dispute by saying "meh, they just don't get it". Again, this may sound naive, but this approach does not help get to a consensus. People just become more entrenched. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I understand you right. What do you mean by "factions". If I have the same view on a topic as others, does it make me part of a faction? I was against infoboxes in March 2012 and for them in September, so I know both sides. I keep hoping others would learn a little faster ;) - I didn't say "those who don't like infoboxes don't understand what they're supposed to do", I saw one instance of it and called it "myth" in my evidence. Is that clear enough? - I have no opponent, to my knowledge. - Perhaps we can go step by step, for a beginner like me. 1) Project opera offers an option to have {{infobox opera}}, I insert one for Don Carlos, hoping for discussion among other contributors and readers, - where is "offense" and "blame"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
ps: about learning (written before I came here) - in thread "Precious", - I proclaimed the "warriors" on both sides precious - and they are, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, to be completely honest, I was not thinking about you; anyway, when a dispute reaches ArbCom, it's often impossible to select a single edit and say "this is the problem": you have to examine patterns, which is why I wrote that I can't really tell who's wrong yet... Then again, as I've admitted, that was only my first impression. It's very possible I'm be wrong (and, if I am, hoperfully I'll realise it as soon as I start analysing the evidence presented with more attention). Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that you didn't think of me, thank you! I am new to this, - it's not "one single edit", but we have to start somewhere. If we agree that 1) is not problematic, we can get to 2) the infobox was reverted as "infobox still under development". Well, I believe that things can be improved/developed in article space. The next revert said "Infobox ready for use", the following "no consensus for this change", by now four editors involved. To be continued, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
New day: before going to more theatres now (projects' and user talk pages) and more actors, let's look at the difference of infobox and the side bar it replaced (which is back at present), The infobox has information about the opera in question, the sidebar duplicates information from the navbox {{Giuseppe Verdi}}. - Without looking any further right now: my simple suggestion to prevent edit warring and its spreading would be to "freeze" a new infobox in the article for a certain period (3 days, a week) for improvement and discussion by editors and readers. A fast succession of reverts makes it hard to tell what a user saw when he made a comment. How and where could I say so? - Did you notice that the article was improved greatly yesterday, because of the discussion? (Again, the infobox mirrored the article and showed what was missing.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
We can certainly agree that an editor adding one infobox to one article is generally not problematic. However, the conduct of an editor who starts adding infoboxes to (say) fifty articles he's never touched before and then never returns to those pages except after "his" infoboxes have been removed to revert them back into the articles may be problematic (for those who love acronyms, this behaviour may be described as WP:TEND). I don't know if anyone has ever behaved like this, it's a purely abstract example. The same goes for an editor who endlessly argues on the talk pages of multiple articles that an infobox should be added without accepting the consensus of the other users who are editing the page (again, for those who love acronyms, this may be described as WP:IDHT). Of course, this is as much valid for those who do want infoboxes as for those who don't. As I said, we need to examine patterns of edits, instead of just picking single ones taken out of context. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure about the "patterns", at least recently (2013). I asked about recent evidence of adding infoboxes and didn't get an answer so far. Look at The Rite of Spring, for example: a question on the talk page, not adding an infobox to the article. I supported the infobox vs. an image of a stage set that looks as if it was an article about a painting. (TFA on the centenary of the premiere, 29 May.) - I said in my evidence that it is a good feedback for an article writer to see in an infobox how someone else perceives the article. To stay with the example: it was argued that "number of movements" is not correct in the infobox, but that is what the article said until it was changed. I actually saw no good arguments for keeping the stage set image, that could not be countered by a better argument for the infobox, - call that "endless" ;) - I think to look at one or two recent cases closely (The Rite and Don Carlos would be my suggestions, arguments and battle in a nutshell) might be better than rehashing the wounds of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick question about Arbcom evidence

Hi Salvio. Can a post from this discussion list hosted by wikimedia.org for the WikiData Project be linked in evidence in an arbitration case? Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that, generally, it should be admissible, although, obviously, it will be treated as off-wiki communication. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Фаиз Махмудов

Hey mate, sorry to post here but my connection is gone screwy and I doubt I can file an SPI, he's back already. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked: just another service provided by your friendly neighborhood checkuser. By the way, old bean, you're becoming lazy... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
No really, my connection was taking like 15 minutes to render a page, so I went to the pub and it seems to be fine again, cheers from your lazy sockpuppet reporter. BTW I tagged the sock as blocked for ya Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I am guessing a rangeblock is out of the question? As back again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. This guy is using three different IP ranges; I could block them, but there is more collateral than I am comfortable with. So, I've decided I'm going to do what I did with ChronicalUsual: I'll semi-protect all the articles he hits. Let's see when he gets bored... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case. 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) 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Salvio giuliano. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 10:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 10:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation request

Can you help with a quick translation? Toto and the Women formerly had a plot section, but its grammar/wording/syntax/etc were so badly written that I couldn't fix it, so I've removed it. Meanwhile, it:Totò e le donne has a six-sentence plot section; would you be willing to translate it and copy it over? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll start right away. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it'll have to wait a bit. I have reasons to believe that the plot section is a copyvio and will have to check... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The clarification thread regarding Sandstein, TDA and myself

Hi Salvio,

Apart from your recent comment, there seems to be rather little said by Arbs on whether Sandstein's judgment was flawed. Is there a way to try and encourage more comments on that? I tried to ask questions regarding it but Arbs seem really just to have focused on the opening statement by Sandstein. Do I have to open a separate discussion to get the actually restriction on TDA considered or open a main Arbcom case request to have Sandstein's use of his powers looked at?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that the committee is not answering the questions you (or others) have posed us, my advice would be to ask again; if you want, you could also try pinging some of my fellow arbs. I hope that a case will not be necessary, but if the clarification request is closed without input as to whether or not the sanction on TDA was appropriate, then a RFAR might be opportune (although I imagine it will be dealt with summarily, either by motion, if we agree that Sandstein's actions were unwarranted, or with a quick decline). Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Scope for a CU?

Is there scope for a CU here? I think that it may be stale, although I'm sure that they are a sock of someone. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for personal headaches

Hi Salvio!

I don't disrespect you personally. You did fail to look around and block or warn other editors the time you blocked me, but apart from that common failing in administrators you've been conscientious and thoughtful.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Secret evidence

When do I get to see the "evidence" submitted in private by email? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say that no evidence regarding your actions was submitted to us in private, so there is nothing that we are allowed to share with you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check.
Demiurge1000 asked and Roger Davies confirmed having received "evidence", which Demiurge1000 has claimed on the evidence page to have sent, in sections attacking me.
I doubt he sent messages listing his chats with Keyes and Russavia on IRC.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You are quite right and I was wrong; I had completely forgotten about that e-mail, I apologise! I'll check with my fellow arbs and get back to you as soon as I can. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Anthony AGK, apparently still not recused, emailed me that he'd received a (small) email from me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_65&oldid=1143284391"