User talk:Salvio giuliano

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 31; 30; 32; 34; 33; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 49; 48; 51; 52; 50; 54; 53; 55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91; 92; 93; 94; 95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Salvio giuliano is experiencing physical health issues that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Wondering if User:Natalie rose gauci Softblock Should Become a Hardblock Due to Presented History

I am just reaching out because I saw you blocked User:Natalie rose gauci. I am wondering if the User:Natalie rose Gauci softblock was too light and the user should have a more traditional hardblock and their accounts should be considered sockpuppets.

According to the talk page for her article, users with names resembling (or outright claiming to be) Gauci have been editing the article since at least 2013. This includes User:Natalierosecowan, Natalie Gauci's former maiden name (who was blocked indefinitely for vandalism), User:89.240.30.134, and User:Shri207 (who was never blocked).

I also found User:Brainsoul and User:Xfactor1234 in 2012 (both never blocked), User:Shriyansh Sapkota in 2013 (who was also blocked indefinitely for vandalism), and User:Natg8888 in 2017 (never blocked) as other single-purpose accounts that only seemed to edit Gauci-related articles.

Feel free to do what you wish, but I just wanted to show it does not look like an isolated pattern. Thebirdlover (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]