Jump to content

User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62→Archive 65

YGM

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.— AOK-President (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again

Apperently I am a Jihadist now.

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

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

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

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

Sopher99 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The following accounts are a  Confirmed match to CU and I have indeffed them: SopherJihad, GBdinc, JihadVonSopher, Lotharsnackbar, Gmnens, Mekits and MiskGaiden. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick question

Sal, what do you think are the odds on three different editors all registering at about the same time, all interested almost exclusively on the International Crimes Tribunal and related articles and all having a major hardon for the same blog as a source? And one of those editors only pops up now and again. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, that's fishy... Who are these guys? Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Well One along with two of his socks is currently blocked[1] (you blocked his meatpuppet also) I then noticed this[2] by the guy who only pops up once in a while but is quite busy the last few days, just after protection was lifted on the ICT article and I began to try fixing it. His comments about Bergman are very similar to what Aminul802[3] has said about the guy. The style of writing is similar also. It may be just another meatpuppet, but given how active he is being after the socks got their unblocks rejected got me a little suspicious. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
And how many people start off a post with "Dear"[4][5] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, this is weird... I suspected he was a sock, or at least a meatpuppet, but he appears to edit from a different continent... I'd call him technically Red X Unrelated... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, by any chance in america? Given $25mil being paid Cassidy & Associates to help those being prosecuted I honestly think there is a lot going on under the surface here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Nopes, this guy hails from the old continent... And I entirely agree with you; unfortunately, our resources are rather limited: as I usually repeat, the CU tool is rather easy to fool... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, they have been spending big in the UK and EU also, having never been caught up in something like this on wiki I am at a loss as what to do. Obviously a great deal is being spent by those being tried to make the ICT look shite, although they are managing this by themselves lol. Well, I suppose I will have to put up with it and once the trials are all over I suppose these spas will bugger off. Thanks Sal. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The easiest thing to do would probably be a post on AN or ANI to get more uninvolved eyes on the articles... If it doesn't work, then I'll shoot an e-mail to my fellow arbs and see what they propose. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question Sal, if someone edits via Opera mini proxy can you determine with the tools who it might be? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, though it's more complicated. In this case, I checked the IP range you reported on WP:OPP, namely 141.0.8.0/21, but could come up with nothing: only anonymous edits. I have rangeblocked it for a week, though. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Mailed you with a further question mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sal. happy sunday. Got another peculiar one, uses the same source as Aminul802internationallawbureau.com/blog Same edit summary Applesandapples as Abbasfirnas887 Very few edits and whose very first post quoted policy like a pro[6] And like the others, all registering within weeks of each other. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm really puzzled... This latest guy comes from a third continent (and none of these guys seems to use proxies). Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Paid lobbying. The political leaders being tried are spending big to discredit the ICT. This is obviously coordinated from somewhere. But I suppose nothing can really be done about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, couldn't help noticing you guys mention me. I just want to clarify that I am neither a sockpuppet nor a sockmaster, I'm not paid by anyone to edit, and I really am an editor in good faith who wants to make balanced articles. It makes editing a very uncomfortable experience when I am accused of being a sockpuppet and then a paid lobbyist in the same day, as well as my first edit for six months being reverted three times. I hope you trust me! Applesandapples (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Applesandapples. I am sorry your return to editing has been unpleasant; unfortunately, the article you chose to edit is quite controversial and, on top of that, has recently been hit by both sock puppets and meatpuppets... As a result, editors there (and a lonely checkuser here) have become a little suspicious of all newcomers. It's unfortunate, but I fear it's reasonable. That said, there is no evidence you are a sock puppet and I have no evidence that you are a paid editor. I can only advise you to discuss the problems that, in your opinion, the article has on the talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible block evasion on National Defense Forces

I wanted to alert you to National Defense Forces since you just deleted an identical page (National Defense Army of Syria) created by a blocked user. - MrX 17:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


He won't stand down. Sopher99 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks both. MaherHero, GollimRaston, ManisPower and SoSoonAlready? blocked and article deleted. Will look into a rangeblock, now... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It's back. This time the article is called Forces of Defense. - MrX 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Socks indeffed, article deleted and a couple of pages semied... Thanks again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again

Another sock has spawned and created this identical article under the name Neighbourhood vigilante. (I hope you don't mind me notifying you. Please let me know if I should post in SPI instead). - MrX 18:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

...and here Commitees of defense. - MrX 18:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Both articles speedied; Fort et Beau, Ribisinis, Quareshmin, NeigbourhTagh and MonikerReturn indeffed. I'm now starting to semi-protect all articles this guy hits. Let's see if he gets bored... That said, feel free to report his socks here, if you wish; if I'm online, I can deal with them rather quickly, as, by now, I'm extremely familiar with his editing style... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe CU

ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DanielUmel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Salman9999 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong master: this was one Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs). Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of Deonis, he's back to IP-hopping. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocked, thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Another hopper slipped through. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
IPsock blocked, article semied. Thanks. P.S. LOL. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Haha yeah, obnoxious little pest that he may be, that one was a gem. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for protecting my user page. I appreciate it. 72Dino (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Page Protect

Can I get a semi-protect for Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from January 2013) and its talk. Males always best's Ip won't stop vandalizing it. Sopher99 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Article semied for three months; I have not semied the talk page, however, because I'm not seeing enough disruption, only a couple of edits, which can be rollbacked without problems. Protection of talk pages is only meant for extreme cases of disruption... Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed... Blocked. Cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EolexMax Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

AN/I

What about constant violation by user:AndyTheGrump of WP:NPA even in this AN/I thread he was blocked many times and yet he continue.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to honest: I try to avoid WP:CIV/WP:NPA blocks, unless the attack is particularly egregious or there is a consensus supporting them, because, in all other cases, they are a perfect recipe for drama. And, then again, I have to admit that Media-hound-thethird is being particularly disruptive here... This does not justify attacking him, but makes Andy's behaviour understandable. By the way, I am pretty certain that if I were to block Andy, my block would be reversed in no time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
His past blocks were not reversed , though Andy sometimes is right he use such foul language so any conversation with him is not pleasant also he frequently use WP:AN/I to solve contents dispute[7] anyhow I understand what you say.Cheers.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It is funny how different admins deal with such issues. I got a block for calling a sockpuppeter who stalks and abuses me a jerk, ATG tells someone "fuck off you turd" and nothing gets done. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends on how powerful your friends really are... Seriously, though, since I was elected to ArbCom, I've been trying to avoid taking excessively controversial actions. Not that I always manage to do that, but I try. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A different tack

Hey, Salvio, I was hoping to get a second opinion on this post Media-hound made to AnkhMorpork's page, and whether it contitutes a legal threat. In my mind, it does, particularly the line "If they continue a formal complaint should be made." I've asked Media-hound to retract it; they have yet to reply, although they have been editing since I left the message. It's circumspect enough that I don't feel comfortable enough to block outright without at least geetting someone else's thoughts about it; what do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, yes that can certainly be reasonably interpreted as a legal threat and it can have a chilling effect on ATG. That said, I believe you did the right thing, when you opted to ask Media-hound to retract or explain why he did not mean it as a legal threat. My advice would be to give him another couple of hours, but, if he doesn't reply, then, yep, banhammer to the ready. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh look

[8]. You know the drill.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And this. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
All socks bagged and tagged, thanks guys. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Good deal. On a related but less pertinent note, I've been doing some digging through some old haunts of mine, and I think I've established an even older master account for "CU". The account name was Geromasis (talk · contribs), and he started editing in April of 2011 back when Libya was still the hot topic. He started out innocuous enough, but with a telling pro-Gaddafi POV not dissimilar to his current pro-Assad one. In late July of that year, he was given two edit-warring blocks. The second was a two-day block on 28 July, and he seems at this point to have had enough, and creates the FreemanSA (talk · contribs) account, abandoning the former—the same behaviour that occurred when DanielUmel was handed a 2-week block for edit-warring and what led to his connection with CU.
This account was busted in an SPI on 12 August, which you can see here. What I find interesting are the three redlinked accounts there, which don't seem to have been confirmed as having the same IP as CU, but which engage in the same stalking and reverting of perceived enemies—note as well the faux names. And what's even more interesting is that CU started editing on 13 August. It's possible that he used another computer to create the account, thus slipping by the final checkuser sweep.
The behaviour of all these recent socks, particularly the long-lived DanielUmel sock, always gave me a strong sense of déjà vu, and now I know very well why. I am almost certain this is correct, though certainly no longer checkuserable. This would place the beginning of his disruption much earlier—into WP:LTA territory, maybe, though I'm conflicted as to whether or not that in general is a good idea. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Checking the CU log, I can confirm that Geromasis and his socks edited using one the typical ChronicalUsual ranges. As you said, apart from that, everything is stale – and, as a matter of fact, it already was when the first check on CU was run, which is why we did not pick up the account –, which means that I cannot check this guy's UA. But this, coupled with the other odd similarities that you list, lead me to believe that Geromasis was indeed the original master. Now, I don't think we should move the investigation: ChronicalUsual is a well-known name, by now, so my fear is that we'd risk creating a bit of a chaos... But I'm open to changing my mind. Regarding WP:LTA, I'm frankly opposed to the creation of pages about vandals, because I fear it can only embolden them. WP:DENY is a much better strategy, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that tends to be my view on LTA, though I can see how it might be of use in some very limited cases, probably not this one. Nevertheless, I think that we should at least for historical reference connect or merge the cases on-record. I've gone ahead and made some subtle categorisation changes to the puppet lists and soft-redirected Geromasis to CU. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done! Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oversight?

Good work on the Derby sex gang ANI, Salvio. But was it you that oversighted all AnkhMorpork's edits to the article? If it was, might that have been a bit over-enthusiastic? I can't indeed tell, as I can't see them, but some of them had been sitting there for at least a week, so it's hard to believe they were totally outrageous. Did they all contain BLP vios..? Below your ANI post, there is now a poll about topic-banning AM, which sounds generally like a good idea, but it would be a lot easier to research it properly if we could see the edits he'd made to Derby sex gang. :-( Ordinary admin revdel would perhaps have been sufficient? Bishonen | talk 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

Ordinary admin revdel wouldn't let all of us commenting on that proposal to see the edits he made there.
Besides which, by the sound of it, it was more than covered by the oversight requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it was another oversighter who did the needful: as, under the OS policy, suppression can be used to remove potentially libelous statements. And, personally, I agree with this functionary's actions: the article explicitly named an innocent person and indicated that he had been found guilty of a serious crime. So, even though it was not me, had I seen the OTRS ticket, I would have done the same... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I see my point about the ANI poll doesn't impress you, at least not to the point of replying to it. Since the edits have been there for like a week, it seems to me that oversighting could have waited for 24 hours, to let the poll run more usefully. Is it a secret who it was that oversighted the edits? Bishonen | talk 23:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC).
Oops, that's not it, it's just that it skipped my mind... I was also writing a couple of e-mails and got distracted. Unfortunately, due to the ANI thread, a lot of eyes were drawn to the page and a lot of people would, therefore, be reading a serious BLP violation. I understand that being able to review the article's history could help those commenting on the thread to better understand the underlying issue and make a more informed decision, but, on balance, I think that the interests of a living person not to be defamed take precedence; not to mention that, if I were to tweak the settings, to allow admins to see the edits in question, non-admins commenting on ANI would still be prevented from seeing them.

Regarding the identity of the functionary who suppressed those edits, I'm really sorry, but I'm afrain I cannot disclose that information. There isn't a clear consensus among the functionary team, but the majority thinks that it's inappropriate to tell who oversighted a diff (as it happens, I disagree and, so, will inform the functionary in question, to let them know that you have expressed concerns regarding their actions, so that they can contact you, if they so choose). Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I would in fact like that functionary to see my comments and, well, consider them, so if you'll send them a link I'd appreciate it. But I don't need to know who it was, and by no means do they need to contact me, unless they've got an uncontrollable urge to. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC).
Hi guys. Salvio, thanks for the email drawing my attention to this. Bishonen, I was the oversighter who suppressed those edits. As Salvio says, every revision of the article prior to my suppression contained the same BLP vio accusing a party of the crime who had not been mentioned in sources (and as we now know, naming that person was in fact entirely in error), so yes, in my view all of those versions needed to be suppressed. As far as whether we could let them stand while ANI was ongoing, two things. First, the suppressions were done before that ANI thread opened - a user pointed out in the #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel that there was a serious BLP violation hanging out in the history, and I completed the set of suppressions before the current ANI thread ever opened. Second, it's my view (and I believe this is shared by most, if not all, of our oversighters) that when it comes to libelous content, it's for a very good reason that we suppress it on sight. I understand that it's frustrating to be trying to have an ANI conversation without access to the meat of the problem, but letting content stay on Wikipedia for the sake of less editor frustration, when it being there could really, truly harm someone irl, is just a no-go. For the same reason, I won't be lowering the restriction to simply revdelete - we suppress this stuff because it's WMF policy that not even admins should have access to revisions containing libel, defamation, personal details, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 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) 00:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Better message in uw-castewarning

Hello Salvio. I noticed you're the creator of Template:uw-castewarning. The information links in the community sanction templates often go to very broad-based pages like WP:General sanctions that may leave the recipient unclear on exactly which restriction applies to him or her. How about replacing the last line of text in the template:

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions

with

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at WP:General sanctions/South Asian social groups

Any complete reform would probably require adding a few sentences of explanation also to the South Asian social groups page. (It seems we explain either General sanctions, or caste, but not both on one page). If others agree, I could create some new text or links for the South Asian social groups page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, feel free to tweak both pages so that they are clearer; I fully trust you. When I created those pages, I shamelessly copied from others, so they certainly can be improved. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Would the following be a correct summary? (I see you were the original proposer, so you would know):

The language approved at ANI states that "The standard set of discretionary sanctions [apply] on all pages about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal."

I would add this to WP:General sanctions/South Asian social groups following the existing words about the Community discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good summary; I'd probably avoid the "be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc." part, but it may be needed for more clarity... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That phrase does sound a bit technical, but is there any better way of summarizing it? EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated the pages at uw-castewarning and Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. I am interested to see there is a category for people who have been warned: Category:User talk pages with Uw-castewarning notices. That's a lot of notices! This is a good idea but it does depend on people not removing the notices from their talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything looks OK. And, to respond to your question, unfortunately, I don't think there is a better way to summarise castes et alia... Regarding the category, you're right that it's hardly fool-proof, but the alternative was to add all those who were warned to the page (or to a separate page), and that, in my opinion, would have been worse (cf. WP:GS/MMA). So I'm basically trying my luck, hoping the recipient of a warning will not blank it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Thanks, I presume it was a range block? MartinSFSA (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you were affected by a hard rangeblock placed by a fellow check-user to prevent a disruptive user from editing Wikipedia; said block was not meant for you and, so, I granted you a userright that will permit you to edit through it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the context and thanks again for the exemption. MartinSFSA (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Media-hound

Hi again, Salvio. Indefinite with no talkpage access? Isn't the combination a bit draconian? You may give Media-hound the impression that we're muzzling him because we're afraid of his words, you know. That seems a bit silly. What harm if he continues to post on his talk? Nobody need go there, and Andy in particular should simply have the self-control to not watch it. I suggest you restore talkpage access. (Yes, I know it was Basalisk that removed it, but it was you that combined it with indef.) Bishonen | talk 20:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC).

Hi Bish, I understand that my action may appear draconian, but the indefinite and the no-talk-page parts of the block respond to two distinct problems with this user; the first is the massive battleground mentality that he has displayed, which is unlikely to disappear in three months, the second is the current misuse of his talk page. The combination is unpleasant, I agree, but, in my opinion, necessary. That said, I'll ask for review on AN, because your concern is reasonable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I originally raised MH's battleground behaviour on Future Perfect's talk page (as the admin who'd blocked him in the first place), stating "Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he is permitted to continue to use his talk page as a means to appeal the block, rather than as a means to ensure that his block is extended?" [9] - note that I wasn't calling for anything but a warning at that point. However, given his later statement that he was going to raise a legal issue with the WMF, [10] I can see legitimate reasons for the block. Is it a legal threat? Maybe, maybe not - but given his earlier warning over legal threats, he should know better. As for 'self-control', maybe I should have ignored MH's posts - but that doesn't maker his behaviour legitimate, and he was attacking third parties, not me, when I first raised the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I seem to recall you Andy posting on your talk page when blocked over issues which you perceived as wrong. Is this a case of what is good for me is not good for thee? MHT3 is a newish editor Jan 08, 2012, I think WP:BITE has been the case here. First block for a few months, then TPG revoked & an indef slapped on. Nice welcome he got. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Erm, DS, I don't meant to be a smart-ass I swear, but did you check the year? Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Ya, he has been around a year (hence newish). This is his first block. He has never been reported for edit warring. He has only once been reported to ANI. If his comments are to be taken as a legal threat then so should ATG's comments on the talk page of derby sex gang were he was suggesting that UK contributers could be dragged into court. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I was asking because I don't consider someone who's been here for over a year to be a newbie protected by WP:BITE... That said, I did not indef him under WP:NLT, because I agree that his edits do not contain proper legal threats. Then again, those edits are pretty much indicative of his battleground mentality, which is the reason why I blocked the guy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that if DS wishes to argue that me pointing out that UK law actually applies to UK-based contributors, regardless of where Wikipedia servers are, constitutes a 'legal threat', he raises it at WP:ANI - and then explains why we have talk-page templates for making exactly the same point (see e.g. the one on Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority). Then again, since it was Media-hound that raised the issue in the first place, presumably it is MH that DS should be reporting for making 'legal threats'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is ACC related.
Message added 03:50, 28 January 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.

Tiggerjay (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another ChronicalUsual sock

I think ChronicalUsual is back. In this case, creating an article about some sporting event in 2015 (2015 Global Futsal Cup).

Fredy94 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thank you - MrX 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong master, but sock puppet nonetheless: already blocked by a fellow CU. Thanks for reporting. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Madonna

Thanks for the offer

... but I detect a distinct lack of enthusiasm :) Feel free to make any offer or proposal, though. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not really lack of enthusiasm, more like lack of time... ;-) I volunteered because there has been an editor whom I consider utterly unsuitable to the task who, apparently, keeps jumping up and down to be selected. Now, and I acknowledge I'm being a tad self-important here, I'd rather be one of the closers than let him be one... But, then again, if there's no risk he'll be a member of the panel, then there is no reason for me to volunteer. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Loud and clear :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Deonis (?)

Samuile 2013 (talk · contribs) has appeared now with a pathetically similar name to our friend Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs). His user page also has that poorly-formatted Syrian propaganda look to it that Salman9999's had. He hasn't traipsed into Deonis's usual haunts yet, though I suspect it's only a matter of time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged, thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_60&oldid=1148819664"