Daccono
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked
editYour account has now been unblocked, as behaviour and technical evidence seems to indicate your innocence. Please take care to discuss controversial edits on the talk page; always discuss if in doubt. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Re:about John Hunyadi's wiki page
edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please stop edit warring on John Hunyadi. Read WP:3RR and the first link I gave you. Any further edit warring by you on that article can result in a block. You may wish to seek dispute resolution or some other way to resolve the conflict. Killiondude (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just blocked you for 12 hours because you decided to revert war again, directly after I just warned you above. Please take this time to examine the Wikipedia pages about revert warring and dispute resolution that I linked above. Killiondude (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Igor Smirnov
editI undid your revision to the Igor Smirnov page. The reason is that the law passed on 1 September 1989 used the term "Moldovan language" in its text. The exact wording of the 1989 law was:
"Article 70. The state language of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic is the Moldovan language. The Moldovan SSR guarantees thorough development of the Moldovan language and its function in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the republic."
We can talk more on the discussion page if you still think the wording can be improved. Thanks jamason (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Question for administrator
edit{{admin help}}
Is it rightful, according to wikipedia rules, to re-insert in an article a verifiable information added a banned user? As per guidelines, "editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content.". This is exactly what I did here, but someone claimed that my edit was not congruent with the rules. I specify that I fully agree with the edit and I think we should not remove a good information just because of the bad reputation of its uploader. Please let me know if I am doing something wrong. Daccono (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, that policy you cite basically just tells you to not revert banned editors if reverting would restore inappropriate content. If you do so, it's your responsibility. But the section above that talks about how helpful edits do not need to be reverted. Our one goal here is to build an encyclopedia. Reverting positive contributions to the encyclopedia just because a user is banned (or for any procedural reason, for that matter) is counterintuitive. So the general rule in these situations is to use common sense. If the banned user's edit is not helpful, revert. If it's obviously helpful, don't revert (or don't think you need to). If you're not really sure whether it's helpful, you should probably err on the side of caution and revert. But at the end of the day, blindly reverting any addition made by a banned user really doesn't help anyone, and whether to revert or not is left to your own discretion. In this case, there's clearly a disagreement, so I would recommend you explain exactly why you think their edits should remain, and discuss the issue with Hobartimus. If you need any more help, just ask. Regards, Swarm X11|11|11 17:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
editYou were mentioned here: WP:ANI Hobartimus (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe1992 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Unblock request
edit
Daccono (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am very dissapointed of this block, I had never imagined things will take such a turn. There were 3 different SPIs against me before (the last one completed on November 10th) and in each case administrators declared my innocence. A CheckUser even complained that "It's getting frustrating to review this case over and over again.". I deduct that the incriminating edits occured since that last investigation. What have I done since then? * I reintroduced the birth name of Sándor Petőfi in the lead section, as per the general practice (see for example Nicolas Cage or Mihai Eminescu). It is to be noticed that the same thing was done by Wladthemlat (before me) and CoolKoon (after me) * I added a referenced phrase that had been removed by Hobartimus with no motivation: "rv to an earlier version". The same edit was done before by Wladthemlat * I restored an information added a month before by Samofi (not by Iaaasi), which had been eliminated for no objective reason * I rescued some constructive-looking edits made by Iaaasi through a sockpuppet, that I go along with, and taking complete responsability for them ** links to Bunjevac and Šokci articles ** two phrases from a reliable book by Rein Taagepera, political scientist at the University of California, Irvine :To be noticed that after my block the edit was later supported Wladthemlat and Koertefa * I debunked 2 sockpuppets of the banned user Stubes99, who was trying to eliminate from an article a referenced map I knew that restoring edits of a banned user is a delicate matter, and I asked an administrator about this issue: [1]. I was given the green light to save the edits that I consider positive, but now it seems this is considered an incriminating sockpuppetry evidence. Was I wrong when trying to support the improvement of some articles? Why does Wikipedia spirit exist just in theory? Why don't we respect the third guideline from there? Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia (WP:BLOCK). In what way did I disturb the activity of the community? Except the early 3RR rule did I break any norm? Why do I not benefit of the guiltlessness presumption? In such cases, when suspicions are backed up by questionable proofs, accounts with positive contributions should be left unblocked. I am an independent user, and my edits were not done at anyone's directions. I had no contacts with Iaaasi. You can check my talk page and wikipedia e-mails. I want also to solicit the re-analyzation of the technical evidence. The affirmation "they are geolocating to the same exact city and are editing via the same ISP" is erroneous. I don't know what kind of tools CUs are using, but a simple check on whatismyipaddress.com demonstrates that I am from Timisoara, while he is from Craiova There are many cases where administrators made mistakes: * An administrator tagged Zupfk as a probable sock of Iaaasi: [2], but this is clearly false, cause there were conflicts and edit wars between Zupfk and DerGelbeMann (confirmed sock of Iaaasi): [3] [4] * User:JanVarga was blocked as a "obvious sockpuppet of Samofi", but was later confirmed to be in fact Iaaasi's. I understand Iaaasi is a problematic user, but please don't let this become mistake no n+1
Decline reason:
The number of similarities between your editing and that of certain other accounts is way to much to be chance coincidence. (Incidentally, how can you tell what IP address anopther registered user is editing from? I can't do that.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unblock request no.2
edit Daccono (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
JamesBWatson, I am sorry that you consider me guilty. The answer to your question about Iaaasi 's IP is simple: I took it from a previous SPI against him. However you can find many IPs of his in that archive I'd like to ask for another administrator to review my request. I am not sure if User:JamesBWatson is very familiarized with this case. Recently he has affirmed, based also on "behavioral evidence", that Zupfk "looks very much to me as though it probably was Iaaasi", and even I myself was able to get some compelling counter-arguments against this correlation. More precisely, I found some open conflicts and edit wars between Zupfk and User:DerGelbeMann (confirmed sock of Iaaasi): [5] [6] [7]). That implies the fact that they were controlled by different persons (it is hard to imagine a "civil war" between socks of the same person). Maybe from Iaaasi's point a view, a new sock added to the already huge list is not so disturbing, but from my point of view it is, because it is my single account. Why does the Hobartimus-Iaaasi conflict have to produce so much collateral damage? Why do you prefer blocking a suspect account to be 100% confident Iaaasi is not around again? Please also consider this comment of Iadrian yu, whose area of interest also overlaps that of Iaaasi, but is now afraid to edit his favourite articles to avoid further sock-puppetry accusations (he was already the subject of SPIs investigation and he was declared innocent so far, just like me in the first 3 SPIs) Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, where editors cooperate in order to create and improve articles. The general approach should be content-oriented rather than user-oriented, and the quality of the edits should prevail to some more or less provable sockpuppetry suspicions.
Decline reason:
Your editing history is very similar to Iaaasi's, and based on the SPI report there's solid technical evidence to link you to Iaaasi as well. As such, I see no reason to unblock. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Without prejudice to any possible outcome of this unblock request, I'll just point out that: 'a "civil war" between socks of the same person', is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think we have to be terribly, terribly careful here in order to avoid a string of miscarriages of wiki-justice. It surely stands to reason that different people, editing from another country, using a language which is a second language to them, may very well word things in an extremely similar way (because of the ways in which second languages are taught, just for starters). It's also reasonable to take into account that entirely different users, from one country, can hold extremely similar views to each other. Consider a parallel where a Romanian or Hungarian wiki was trying to distinguish a dozen different members of one (radical) political party in an English-speaking country, all of whom could speak basic Romanian. In all these non-confirmed cases (which I have been looking at, on and off) I personally couldn't decide "beyond reasonable doubt" either one way or the other. I;d be hard put to it to make a firm decision even on a balance of probabilities. I think the most just way forward is to work from a presumption of innocence, and just keep an eye out for any blockable-disruptive behaviour. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Pesky I think you are not talking about the Iaaasi/Daccono case and sock issues (which started long before you started actively editing wikipedia in 2011, just look at some of the sock dates here), but in more general terms. Since you are not familiar with the original case, Your main issue seems to be something else entirely namely how Wikipedia's policies deal with say a dozen members of a radical party from England editing Wikipedia in a coordinated way. That's a different issue entirely. It sounds like the party gave orders for wikipedia articles being edited or had other outside influence if really that many people came from such a small circle. It would also help to understand your main concern, if you would link this case you are talking about with these dozen radicals. If they really tried to register en masse to influence Afd votes for example they may very well run into some trouble, beacuse of local policies similar to the WP:MEATPUPPET policy (you say this happened on another wiki). The issue with the political party is more about how Wikipedia can protect itself from coordinated manipulation and coordinated attacks. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is something which is only used in criminal cases such as murder trials. So I'm not sure why would that be relevant here. Also I hope you see that the issue here is not only whether they are actually the same person. There can be issues between entirely different persons living in different countries. Let's take an example. Let's say you ,Pesky, - who we know are 100% NOT to be a different person or a banned user from another country -, decide that you don't like that a banned user is in fact banned. So you agree to act as his proxy (just for the sake of example). The banned user writes the text, issues the instructions and you follow it. Meaning it's effectively the banned user editing through your account. Say you do this long enough so it becomes obvious to admins. Should you be blocked in this case? If you are not blocked you would have the power to effectively lift Arbcom sanctions, Community bans, topic bans or any other sanction Wikipedia even has. I think you see why it would be problematic to give such broad powers to any one person to overrule the whole community. Hobartimus (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I don`t think it is appropriate to delete anyone`s unblock request, guilty or not, that person has the right to ask for his account to be deblocked. I personally don`t think Daccono is really a sock of Iassiii since his account passed several check users, and by insisting on it, he simply got blocked to prevent further disruption and to calm things down. By the same standards, I am also a sock of Iassiii, if I have 1 or 2 more check users... So what is the point? Should I edit articles I did till now or run away to avoid a block because I have similar interests as Iassiii? Hobartimus, you are usually right about Iassii`s socks, but in this case you should reconsider the circumstances. Anyway, deleting an unblock request is simply wrong, especially on their talk page also it is against WP:TPO. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Unblock request 3
edit Daccono (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I agree that my edit history is similar to Iaaasi's, but this is not an irrefutable argument. There might be other users that are having similar edit history... Which are the "solid technical evidence"? The administrator Tiptoety talks about "new IP ranges and Useragents", while the administrator PeterSymonds affirms "CU didn't seem to think it was Iaaasi". The IPs show that we are from different areas. This statement contains 2 errors:
- we are not from "the same exact city"
- Yeah, I could see how another CheckUser could mark this as more as a highly 
Possible - > this is false, no CheckUser marked me like that
Decline reason:
Please see here. Tiptoety states the evidence is conclusive. m.o.p 22:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.