User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 49

DIREKTOR

I want to report ongoing incivility of User:DIREKTOR

- personal attack [1]

- disrespectful comment [2]

- harassment is alleged without clear evidence [3]

- blatant falsifying of a source is alleged without clear evidence [4]

- I tried to discuss it on his talk page, but he refused and even deleted my comment [5]

- he continues with the same accusation [6].

BoDu (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Those diffs, though indeed troubling, are a tad too old for me to be comfortable acting unilaterally. I suggest you report him to WP:AE to get sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN or WP:ARBMAC. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is funny considering you yourself engaged in personal attacks and referred to DIREKTOR as a "communist crusader". [7] As for the falsification of sources, you twice provided pages stating they support your claims when they did not. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The dispute

Hi Salvio, I've been keeping an eye on this dispute as I've been the main "mediator", for a lack of better words, with this dispute. To get the load off of you a little bit, I'll continue to keep an eye on the ANI thread and the ongoing RfC on the content. Should anything go awry, I'll bring it to the proper forum and bring it to your attention. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There are 5 editors who seem to have this continuning fight across a large array of articles. Instead of just watching TopGun and DarknessShines, we should watch all the editors. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Whenaxis and, first of all, many thanks for getting involved. Your intervention is really appreciated! I honestly don't think I'll get involved any longer with either TopGun or Darkness Shines for the time being, as it seems I was not able to do much good. I am, however, quite glad someone who's good at dispute resolution is taking over. I do hope the community can find a way out that's not too draconian, as I believe they can both be great editors... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there'll be any productivity or advantages of the ANI thread because they're looking at what they've done wrong rather than weighing both sides of the argument—what they've done wrong and what they've done beneficial for the project. I would suggest closing the ANI thread and let me work with the parties to find a solution, but then all the editors will likely disagree with me. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I think Salvio was the first administrator who dealt with the issue without drama and who was fully neutral. Any further input from your, Salvio's, side would be appreciated from my side. JCAla (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Really fed up

I Have REALLY had it with ChronicalUsual and His sock accounts.

User:Brucerman, User,TristanBogard, User:Sobarmako, User:Idigm, User Igolahi, User:Misstock, User:ImpossibleBehavior, User:Bilasmatic, User:Hepmonton, User:SawYouThere, User:Blinderarg and User:Vlzibstcic are all the same people. They are all User:ChronicalUsual. All were created after March 1 when Chronical was banned. They all target individual and separate pages of the Syrian uprising in a biased manner to express the same POV chronical had. Chronical publicly admitted he was going to continue creating accounts to express his POV.

THose are just the ones I know about, I assume there are countless more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Homs&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_National_Council&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Idlib_Governorate_clashes&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011–2012_Syrian_uprising_(from_January_2012)&action=history

If you look in your own talk page history , you will see that his sockaccount Impossible Behavior just vandalized it. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ImpossibleBehavior (talk · contribs) has now been indefblocked, and I had already filed a checkuser request before even seeing this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

...and there they go. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

• Interview: Liaising with the Education Program

• Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters

• Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators

• News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation

• In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar

• Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History

• Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case

• Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education

• Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Karam Nishapuri

Hello, Salvio giuliano. I hope you are well. I am the main recent editor of the now-undeleted page on Karam Nishapuri. With respect, you are mistaken about my edits. Not one of my edits was based on bias against Mr Nishapuri. I do not know him, I do not know his family, friends or colleagues; I am not emotionally or intellectually involved with any views expressed in the article; and I have no axe whatsoever to grind against the man's faith, other beliefs or lifestyle. I just thought it was a poor wikipedia bio page: a weak and hyperbolic fan-page or vanity-page about Karam Nishapuri, who is simply not notable (according to my understanding of Wikipedia criteria and my search of the internet). In my honest view the page should be deleted. But I will not recommend deletion again until you have "fixed" it, to use your word. Is that ok? Good luck with it. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you check my comment, you'll see that I have actually defended you from the IP's accusations of vandalism and that I think the article should be deleted due to lack of notability too. The problem is that when a user contests a PROD, the article will be undeleted immediately. I'm sorry you felt attacked by my words, but it was never my intention to imply you had behaved incorrectly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Salvio (and thank you sincerely for the explanation and clarification). Like you, I just want Wikipedia articles to be neutral, concise, accurate and informative. Regards and good wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Some admin help required

Hi Salvio, can you have a look at Aatmatrisha and the username of User:Aatmathrisha12? I think the article is promotional stuff (they have a college festival next week) and the username is a UPOL violation because its promoting the festival of course. Any salvageable material from the article can be added to the main college article of PESIT. I request you to have a look at it because I study in what's considered a "rival" college, so, me reporting it or taking any sort of admin action could be considered inappropriate. Besides, my onwiki identity isn't all that secret in my close friend circles, so if I did take any action, I'd probably be called "catty"! Thanks, Lynch7 16:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly: the article was a shameless plug for the fest; therefore, I have just zapped it and spamublocked the editors. And to ask another uninvolved admin was the right call! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Lynch7 17:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. 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) 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You online?

I require a small favor. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am online now, if you still need it... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I need two things actually ) First there were a lot of bickering at the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir over what content should go in, so I moved it to Human rights abuses in Kashmir, which funnily enough lead to bickering So I moved it back and have turned Human rights abuses in Kashmir into a parent article so a bit of everything can go in. I would like you to review it to ensure I have done it properly, and also to ask if that was the right thing to do? The second is I need an RFC closed out, I had asked Ironholds but he has not responded, would you like to do it? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A link to the RFC would be useful I suppose [8] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, technically speaking, you moved the page in the appropriate manner. Out of curiosity, you're the sole author of this text, are you not? I ask because if you're not there could be a need to provide attribution... Regarding the RFC, I'll be taking a look momentarily. Today I closed my very first RFC (the one about Indians in Afghanistan) hoping I did not mess up too badly; if that RFC is not too difficult to close, I'll be glad to do it – as I consider myself to be somewhat inexperienced when it comes to requests for comment... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

All the content in that diff was written by me yes, I just copied in over from user space. This however was not[9] I just copied it over from the other article, how do I add attribution? Thanks for looking at the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, a hyperlink in the edit summary is enough. I see you indicated that you were moving some parts of another article there, so arguably, the requirement to link to the original article might be satisfied; however, just to be on the safe side, I'd say that a null edit with a clearer edit summary (and a similar one on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir indicating you moved part of the article to Human rights abuses in Kashmir) would be best. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot actually remove the text from the J&K article due to the IBAN. I was assuming someone would just remove it from the article. I will do a null edit to point out were the content came from to be on the safe side, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In the end, I decided to voice my opinion, instead of closing the RFC, because I was afraid I would end up casting a supervote... I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a worry, at least I learned something new, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Neologisms and new compounds I had not seen that policy before. Do you know any spare admins hanging around who might close it Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

He'll probably hate me for this , but you could try Boing! said Zebedee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I have asked him, I also told him you told me to Darkness Shines (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanisgtan closure

Hi, you seem to have missed closing one of the sections ("Lede material"). No worries if that was intentional or if it's in progress. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was intentional, because I felt that the only appropriate closure would be a no consensus one and I wanted to avoid it – because I personally dislike them and because I believe that no consensus closures basically defeat the purpose of an RFC as a way to solve a dispute –, so I have left it for another admin to close or for the various parties to discuss further... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. The RFC got off the listing due to some issue with the bot and stayed that way most of its duration. Probably more uninvolved editors will comment till the closure then. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Salgi Esophageal Cancer Research Foundation

Hello,

I would like to re-create the page "The Esophageal Cancer Research Foundation" under a new username and account. I understand that the previous page that was created under SalgiFoundation username was deleted. Am I allowed to publish the new page under my account?

Thank you,

Christina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cma8709 (talk • contribs)

Hi Christina and welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, you are allowed to recreate the article under your new account. However, please be aware that it can be deleted again, if you do not establish why this Foundation is significant: under Wikipedia's rules, to qualify for inclusion, an entity must be notable, which means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. And, furthermore, articles must be written using a neutral tone.

My advice to you would be to create the page as a userspace draft – for instance, here –. This way, you can work on your article without having to worry about the possibility that it will be speedily deleted and, when you're done, you can ask for feedback from experienced users here.

That said, I think you could have a conflict of interest when it comes to the Salgi Foundation. If it were indeed the case, I suggest you also familiarise yourself with these rules.

And if you need anything, feel free to drop me a message. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

This is a heads up that I have revoked the account creation flags of a user you gave them to, with a notice here (Log). Thought you might be interested. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I trust your judgement (and, sadly, I'm no longer as active as I used to be when it comes to account creation...). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi there.

Based on this edit I assume you can run checkusers, so have an understanding of how it all works.

I recently changed my username from "A man alone" to "Chaheel Riens", and it reminded me of an incident over a year ago:

• A Alone Man

At the time I just passed it onto ANI, but it occured to me that given Lucy Marie's sock puppetteering, it could maybe do with another look. Is there a time limit on checkusers?

Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chaheel, yes I have access to the checkuser extension – and a passing acquaintance with how it works . Unfortunately, due to software limitations, CU data is only kept for three months, which means that everything older than that can no longer be accessed. Unfortunately, this means that A Alone Man is now stale for the purposes of checkusering. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Applesandhonee

You beat me by seconds to correcting my mistake with the block. :) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to leave you a note on your talk page, but then I started checkusering him to see if there were other socks and kinda forgot... Good to see we were on the same page though! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to start a SPI to ask for a checkuser, but then I realised that you are a checkuser, so guessed you would have it in hand. And, from what you say, so you have. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi. At the SPI case for User:Skashifakram, you confirmed that User:Jimindian at least was using the same IP. Well, Skashifakram says that his institution uses a proxy server for the computers. Since Jimindian was created at about the same time as Skashifakram was warned about voting more than once, does this mean that Jimindian is likely to be a sock? Thanks. P.S.: Jimindian isn't blocked yet, if he is a sock. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the technical evidence I obtained using the checkuser extension make it almost certain they edited using the same computer (the IP address and user agent matched). This is all checkuser can tell us: we have, of course, no way of knowing whether the computer was shared by different people... That said, even assuming we were dealing with two different people, meatpuppetry is prohibited as well.

Personally, I believe that Skashifakram and Jimindian are operated by the same person. However, usually, a checkuser who has run a check will not block the accounts; he'll provide the technical evidence which will be evaluated, along with behaviour, by an uninvolved admin who, in turn, will determine whether to block and for how long (which is why he's not been blocked yet, SPI is getting a bit backlogged...). Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Revdel needed

[10] This content which I have removed is a direct copy and paste from page 58 of The Kashmir question: retrospect and prospect I would recommend a revdel. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to check when that section was inserted into the article and I see that it goes back quite a lot (I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly the moment it was added, though), which means that I would have to delete a lot of revision. In this case, I'd rather not revdel that copyvio, unless the copyright owner complains, after all we have removed the infringing material and it should be enough, for the moment, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to hold off anyway, I am finding a lot of copyvios Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn your lazy 29 November 2011[11] Already warned the user. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's something also She who must is always complaining about... I tried using WikiBlame, but it didn't help... That said, if Pcampion715 posts copyvios again, please let me know and I'll use my clue-by-four. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

oper abuse

The Satanism userbox is a joke and was completely in-line with Wikipedia userbox/userpage policy. I ask you to consider your removal of it and proceeding protection of my userpage. Thank you :) -badmachine 01:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems like religious discrimination to me. Also locking a user's page over a userbox is definitely a serious abuse of admin privs. --Zaiger (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Zaiger, what if you had mistakenly confused someone's religious beliefs with trolling? Whatever happened to WP:NPA? -badmachine 02:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check out Category:Satanist Wikipedians - there are plenty. It's a perfectly valid religion (no more or less than any other, IMO) which has many adherents in the US. Unless you wish to be accused of using your sysop bit to promote religious discrimination, I strongly suggest you undo your admin action here - Alison ^❤ 02:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sal, I wish to inform you that I have spoken in your defense regarding this matter here[12].—Djathinkimacowboy 04:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I replied on the ANI thread, but I appreciate your words! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Closing note: apparently I was not accused of using my sysop bit to promote religious discrimination, despite the fact I did not lift protection. Go figure. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks Salvio. Whilst I would have preferred a CHECKUSER to stop all this nonsense, I appreciate you're busy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, when there is no evidence of sockpuppetry, as in this case, a person is usually not checkusered to protect his privacy. The checkuser and privacy policies are very stringent when it comes to running checks. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

that's good to hear, I'm really in uncharted territory here and it's good to know there are people out there that keep everyone on the straight and narrow. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, can you please tell me what kind of additional evidence I should collect for checkuser to be performed? Can you at least check from which country User:Peacemaker67 comes? PANONIAN 15:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. Sorry, that's called "fishing", and it's regarded as disruptive to the project. Looks like you can't silence your opponents by administrative action. You'll just have to do things the old-fashioned way—talk it out on the relevant discussion page :) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Panonian, but I cannot check which country Peacemaker67 edits from as that would require me to run a check on him – there is no way to determine that without looking at the IPs used –, which is something I don't intend to do unless you can provide evidence that there are behavioural similarities that would warrant a check. It's not enough to say that they agree on something or that one reverts back to the other's version. That's a common occurence when a dispute involves a moderate number of editors.

The similarities I was mentioning may regard the edit summaries they leave or the grammatical constructions they choose or words they employ, everything that may lead to the doubt that they might be the same person. But I have to say that Lothar has done a good job proving Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR do not appear to be socks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your effort banning vandals and socks. Especially the whack a mole variety. Applesandhoney (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar, Applesandhoney! I have just added it to my collection. Keep up the good work. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)