User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sopher99

You block users request Sopher99 though he long ago had to be suspended because he edited the section Civil War in Syria in favor of one party (the rebels) and is provided with all possible sources, and this is often not reliable sources, or just videos he has repeatedly canceled each others' changes just as you wish, and the sources that say about the success of drgugoy belligerent calls propaganda!37.52.28.177 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. 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. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Hi!

Hi there! Do you think enough time has passed to lift the topic ban? From now on I will have proper access to the Internet. I'd like to resume my wiki activities. I want to start with a clean slate. Thanks! Nataev talk 03:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nataev. Do you want to make any edits about Goldblum in future? Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No, of course not. I got involved in the article about him after the Jewish editor posted on my talk page. I don't find this topic interesting at all, not a bit. What I'm worried about is that some people have claimed that I might be the long-time vandal User:Runtshit!!! See this for example. I was really shocked to read this allegation. I think I need to get the topic ban lifted as soon as possible and continue my usual Wiki activities. I hope after that no such unfounded accusations will be made. Thanks! Nataev talk 10:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll lift the sanction momentarily. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The ambiguity there made me smile... my sense of humour is rather odd though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge1000, you do have a point! Salvio, what did you mean by "momentarily"? If you meant "very soon" then that's great! If you meant "for a brief period of time", then I guess I am put on probation. In that case I assume that if I don't engage in disruptive editing, the band will be lifted for good. Since the time difference between this edit and this one is only one minute, I hope by "momentarily" you meant "very soon" and the ban is lifted for good! Thanks! Nataev talk 03:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing in the context to enable "for a brief period of time" to make sense, so you can be reasonably sure "very soon" was intended. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
What Demiurge1000 said; Nataev, don't worry, I don't plan on sanctioning you again any time soon. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot! Nataev talk 05:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

MalesAlwaysBest

[1] Though I am not 100% sure? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That account was a sock, but not of the person you suspected. I'll give you three guesses... Face-tongue.svg Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Template map

Can you re-provide the semi-protection to this article? Only a day after semi-protection expired Deonis is back on it. And given that its a 1 revert rule, things could get messy for many users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Still at it. This after I even explained to him in Russian that he's not allowed to edit here and he himself said that he understood and agreed to edit only on ru-wiki. Unbelievable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. 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. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Random header

You have closed down my contribution with the comment 'irrelevant'. May I be forgiven for not understanding?

How can any credence be given to an admin. who, when banning a contributor, announces:-

I have not investigated the matter in great detail

Then the ban in completely arbitrary. --Damorbel (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the sanction iself, because I have not familiarised myself with its background. It's possible you're right and the ban is entirely arbitrary, it's possible you're wrong. As I said, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that such a discussion does not belong there, seeing as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is a review of the process known as "discretionary sanctions", whereas the restriction you'd like to discuss was imposed on you by the community. Those are two different processes.

If you want to have your topic ban reviewed, you can appeal it to the community or seize arbcom and ask us to examine it. The DS review page, quite simply, is not the appropriate venue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You write:-

What I do know, however, is that such a discussion does not belong there, seeing as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand

Which may well be correct. But lack correctness is scarcely a valid reason for closing a discussion dowm.

I appears to me that your intention was, like my topic ban, an attempt to censor discussion and I invite you to reconsider.

I am quite sure those reading the discussion are fully competent to judge the relevance of the contribution themselves and do not require your intervention to remove the matter from their field of judgement - please!

I'm not trying to censor you, because, as I said, I really wouldn't know you from Adam. The point is that a discussion there can only be used to complain about what you perceive as an injustice, venting some steam. Even assuming that those who read your posts decide to comment, there is nothing they can do: if you want your topic ban lifted, then you have two choice – AN or ArbCom.

Being an off-topic discussion with no ties whatsoever with the topic at hand, I'm not going to reconsider. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but this is becoming absurd. I granted you "good faith" when you blue pencilled my contribution.
Does it matter that you wouldn't know you from Adam? You didn't like what I had written so you removed it, that is censorship.
"Knowing me" is utterly irrrelevant to censorship, censors scarcely ever know the writers they vandalise. If the words makes you feel uncomfortable, then so be it.
My contribution was meant to put flesh on the reality of delegating Arb. Com powers to another kind of decision maker. This is the way of all those granted power and it sure is the way here.
You seek to trivialise my contribution :-
if you want your topic ban lifted
Nice of you to think of me. Had I wanted to ask for that I would have done it myself, I'm not that dumb.
You have written nothing to justify your censorship, but then censors never have to!
I invite you to reverse this unreasonable action.

--Damorbel (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just checking

Random accounts with the sole purpose of reverting me, that just so happen to be linked to Russian wikipedia

La belle verte (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
Caring300 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
Deonis_2012 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

Sopher99 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

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. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WT:AC/DSR

Hi Salvio, not sure if you ended up seeing my reply in the Role of administrators (comments) section. Just a reminder in any case. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be a sock of chronical or deonis

Roma-borisov (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
Deonis_2012 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That was Deonis; now indeffed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Sopher99 and Alhanuty

Dear Admin, you are understandably protect these parties, and they're realizing that do what they want and where they want. They interpret any information on your own and edit the article as you see fit. As an administrator, you should know that distortion and twisting facts blatant violation. And if you tolerate this then means that you encourage such actions. If you are not aware of the actions that they do look at this section and learn about their recent changes which they carried out on the basis of her fantasy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map 37.52.27.151 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When I block your sock puppets I am not trying to shield Sopher and Alhanuty from criticism, but merely enforcing the sanction which was imposed on your main account: if an editor in good standing were to criticise their actions, I obviously would not do restrict him. If you want to edit freely, you'll have to convince an admin to unblock you; until then, if you continue to edit, it will be considered block evasion and will lead to more blocks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

  • Featured content: F*&!

Blocked IPs

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Another one

Hanibal911 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
GhiathArodaki (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
Deonis_2012 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

your comment which pertained to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK

"the act of providing a reason for the block is part of the action of restricting the user"

Hello Salvio, you said the above, as a metaphorical example to show a related point, over in a thread related to the Manning article. I'll avoid linking to it, unless you would like to see the 100KB thread again.  :-)

  But my question is not related to Manning, but more to your tangential assertion about blocks. From what I have seen, there are three generic reasons, suitably vague enough to be used as justification for any kind of effort whatsoever. Typically, in the case of blocks the boilerplate explanation is usually "disruption" without specifying any diffs, let alone explaining what particular in the diff was disruptive.

  Along the same lines, in the case of page-prot (which is a block on all non-admins or on all non-autoconfirmeds depending on strength... in the case of WP:FLAGGED it is a review-required rather than an outright block but the chilling effect is very similar). Almost invariably, the boilerplate reason given is "persistent vandalism" and I've *never* actually seen a diff to justify that explanation. There are cases where three episodes are dubbed 'persistent vandalism' and used to justify an indef prot.

  The third generic reason is the most common, and methinks the most pernicious, which is when somebody reverts without explanation. In the days of yore™ typically the jargon 'rvv' was used, even when the edit was in good faith, because poor spelling was still classed as "vandalism" to many editors, and reverting poorly-spelled content with the three-letter-rvv-explanation was faster than giving a real explanation. Nowadays, there are still plenty of WP:NINJA-reverts, but rather than using the traditional rvv boilerplate, instead we use the "undid... seemed to me it was not constructive" phrasing, which certain blue-monster-shaped editors see as milquetoast.  :-)   My problem is not with the phrasing, specifically, my problem is with the lack of an authentic explanation (same as with the above cases).

  I hope this small WP:WALLOFTEXT has authentically explained what I'm asking about. TLDR: are you *sure* that current policy specifies that admins must provide an authentic reason for their block? If so, are you sure that the spirit of the policy -- and not just the letter -- is actually being followed in practice? WP:EXPLAINBLOCK has a great first paragraph, but the second paragraph pretty much overturns it, to my mind. Thanks for improving wikipedia, please use the talkback trick, gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the lack of a response, which is due to the fact that lately I'm insanely busy in real life. I'll try to get to this query as soon as possible, but I'm afraid it's not going to be before next Tuesday... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a person who sometimes reverts edits using "rvv" as an explanation and who has blocked editors using the "persistent vandalism" boilerplate explanation, my response may appear a little pro domo mea, but anyway here goes.

There are cases where a long explanation is superfluous, because the reason for an action is immediately evident: if I revert an edit adding the word "penis" to an article, using "rvv", anyone examining the edit I undid will understand what I did. Writing a longer or more detailed explanation would be useless. Now, on the other hand, if an editor has sneakily introduced an error in an article, for instance adding a plausible but incorrect fact, then, in that case, using "rvv" would be inappropriate.

Of course, this isn't really a correct analogy, considering editors don't have to provide reasons for their edits, but the very same can be said wrt to the block tool: if I block an IP editor who keeps adding four-letter words to articles, for me to be indicating diffs is really not that necessary, in that anyone examining the edits which immediately preceded the block will see the reason. If, on the other hand, I block an established user for a personal attack, I should not be using a boilerplate explanation, but rather I should be pointing to the specific diff.

So, summing up, in my opinion (because this is just that: the opinion of this particular individual), providing the justification for a block is necessary and is a part of the action of blocking; nonetheless, when the reason would be immediately apparent to a reasonable observer, then the use of a boilerplate explanation satisfies both the letter and the spirit of the policy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [2]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS

Well, I have to say that I agree with John's actions; he seems to be removing material which is in violation of WP:BLP, both as unsourced (or insufficiently sourced) and as not neutral. Your main mistake was reverting his edit: when an editor removes something from a BLP in good faith, you should not revert him unless there is a consensus that his actions were wrong; next time, if the other editor's explanation doesn't satisfy you, you should start a WP:BLPN thread before undoing his edit. The other error was misusing rollback, which is usually meant for vandalism. You should never rollback a good-faith edit. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

My Arbitration Case

Hi. I'm trying to compose my evidence for my Arbitration Evidence page, but I dont' know if I can get it down to 1,000 words. It was at nearly 1,800, and I managed to get it down to about 1,400, but I don't know how much more I can jettison without losing important substance. As the drafting Arbitrator of my Arbitration's evidence page, Rschen7754 informed me that I should speak to you regarding extending the word limit. Can this be done? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be done. Please, do try to trim your response as much as you can; however, it's not necessary to do so if it means removing bits of info you consider essential. So if, despite trying, you still cannot comply with the 1000-word limit, don't worry: just post the evidence and I'll log the exception. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I am continuing to try and find a way to compose the material in more condensed form. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to rewrite sections of my evidence, but every time I did, it ended up coming out to like 1,400 15,00 words. I posted it last night, just so you know. Thanks again, and Buon Natale, da un italiano all'altro. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just seen it and, at first glance, there appear to be no problems with it. Buone feste anche a te, sebbene un poco in ritardo... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014