User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 54

Edit war (further)

With regard these threads: [1], [2], this editor has started edit warring again, and is socking as well. So far he's made a couple dozen reverts without any kind of administrator response. Radiopathy •talk• 16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The user was indeffed, though not by me... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

User:Badmachine

You were recently involved with the page User:Badmachine . That page now reads "FOREVER DEATH TO TH3J35T3R", a reference to The Jester, who, although unidentified, is a living person. The comment was added on 17 May. This is only the latest in a series of incidents relating to the user page - perhaps it is time to say enough? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is the Jester someone that Badmachine has interacted with before (possibly negatively)? If so, I will block. But I want to be sure its related to WP, not some strange, off-site meme I don't know. It's ridiculous that we have to tell this person every few weeks that they're being disruptive on their user page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...it looks like the user has had their userpage deleted per own request. That is a fine solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the sooner this user is indeffed the better, but I don't wish to have to deal with a community that don't want to do anything to stop trolls, so I'll have to consider this a fine solution as well. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Revdel request

Please note that there are two sections on this page titled "Revdel request". If you followed a link to User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 96#Revdel request and it looks like you reached the wrong place, look lower on the page for the other section titled "Revdel request". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi, can you please rev del these racist obscenities and abuses in Hindi/Urdu... don't think they're helpful to the page history in anycase. [3] [4]. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please translate those two edits for me, please (if you prefer, you can send me a private message). I don't understand the language and would feel uncomfortable revdeleting an edit without knowing clearly what is being said in it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is not appropriate for the wiki. Check your mail. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Busy

Sorry about that, setting {{{small}}} to "yes" was a mistake from sandboxing. I have restored my change but without that bit; enabling opt-in shadow and customizable width. Cheers, benzband (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I must admit I was a tad curious. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sal, can you help?

Dear Sal: This is User:Djathinkimacowboy (indefblocked, and no, I am not trying to circumvent the block) with only one request: please remove the photo that is seen on my page[5]. I DO NOT want that to remain there. The rest is OK as-is but NOT that photo. Thanks. There are other admins I am approaching with this request, but I came to you because you and I used to know each other. So you know they've protected the page, which I appreciate. But I cannot edit it and I think that was the idea. Anyway I need to have that photo removed. Also therefore removed from Commons. Thank you if you can help Sal.75.21.155.84 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

TParis got there first. Regarding your wish to have the image deleted, I cannot do that, because I'm not an admin on commons; I'm about to nominate it for deletion, but it's very unlikely they will actually delete it. The commons community is one of the most dysfunctional entities I have ever seen... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you anyway Sal. You have always been good to me.75.21.155.84 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I'd like to invite you to appeal your block in a couple of months, if you wish to come back; I'd like to support your unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh many thanks. See, I am always right in these matters and I have always said, YOU DA BOMB. TParis recommended a stab at appeal...but I wonder if it's even worth it for me. Still, whatever I do, I am deeply appreciative and touched by your post.75.21.100.24 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And the image is gone from Commons too. I'm pleasantly surprised. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Antispam barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Thanks for all the work you've done cleaning up those spambots/spam-only accounts! It really helps keep Wikipedia clean! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this barnstar comes loaded with another request to have a look into the likely-related User:Cradjokjo1. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Reaper Eternal! It's much appreciated, though I must admit I have had help (the CUs from the other projects ). Wrt the guy you reported, he has already been blocked and checkusered, though not by me. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've also been following this St Thomas mess after a post at WT:INB, looking through some of the contributions I've filed an SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look momentarily, thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would you be so kind as to remove Nangparbats comments from the edit history of this page please.[6] lest I get blocked again for telling him exactly what he is. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. But please stop reverting him. Just ignore him; after all, he's blocked, for the moment. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I asked on ANI to block talk page access till the block expires, you know he is just going to keep up with that shit, this is why I got so pissed off by it to begin with, it will just keep getting thrown up. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comment there by chance, before receiving the lovely orange bar, so I have commented there as well... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well he is still at it[7] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And Regentspark revoked his ability to edit his talk page... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And thanks to you both. And to think one of the blocks in my log is because I called him a jerk, sheesh. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I'd never block you, or anyone else for that matter, for calling me a jerk. You got away that time. --regentspark (comment) 22:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding :o) I called Nangparbat a jerk. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd figured that. Just reminding you that you've also called me a jerk :) --regentspark (comment) 22:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Salvio giuliano, I apologize for being harsh on anyone. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Robin, the most important thing on Wikipedia is to accept consensus, even when it's against you; repeated refusal to get this can become disruptive and, therefore, sanctionable. This is what was behind my IDHT comment: there are times when you realise that the community has a different opinion and you have to conform to it... Now, in this case, you can start a request for comment on the article's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Salvio giuliano, thanks for your response it was of help to me. Just so that you know I put up this topic on WP:DRN over a week ago, but did not receive any external feedback. It is still there on WP:DRN. It would be helpful if you could give some feedback on this issue there. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin, I'm very hesitant to chime in over at WP:DRN regarding this issue, because I'm one of the few uninvolved admins who keep an eye on the topic area and, if I start getting involved in content disputes, I'll no longer be able to take admin actions there... I'm really sorry, but I want to also give the impression of being neutral, when it comes to Indian social groups, as I understand it is a particularly sensitive area, so, as I was saying, I try to avoid getting involved in content disputes. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Salvio giuliano, thanks once again for your reply. I am happy to be corresponding with you. You have been positive and tried to understand my perspective and have not been judgmental on me. I thank you for that. I totally understand and agree with what you say. In fact in my several years at wikipedia I never had issues until I decided to try and take some risk with this one case. And now for the first time I am on the verge of being banned. It is sad and unfair. I too would like to perpetually keep away from anything Indian to be safe. But I guess once in a while people need to take risk. I came prepared with peer reviewed research citations and now I am the villian. Anyway I have a request. Could you please tell few editors to chime in some feedback at the WP:DRN. Something has to be done right in order to be fair. At least could you please ask few editors to give feedback at WP:DRN. Once again I appreciate your patience and listening to me. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Email

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

86.129.44.145

Can you also block talk page access[8] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination. 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) 07:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

South Asian social groups general sanctions log?

Given the increasing number of sanctions and enforcers, do you think it might be time to create a log for these actions? Perhaps as a subpage of WP:GS? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree! I don't know exactly where to place such a list, but it's a very good idea indeed. By the way, this category contains all editors who have received a {{uw-castewarning}} — I know that not all of them have actually been sanctioned, but it's a start . Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GS/Caste. Feel free to modify, I created a barebones starting page. I'll inform Q, Boing and Blade as I know they've been doing some actions. I've also noted this on the main sanctions page as a log of actions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass additions to Bad image list

Hi, the following just popped up on my watchlist (apologies, cba to wikilink):

• (diff | hist) . . MediaWiki:Bad image list‎; 12:31 . . (+347)‎ . . ‎Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs)‎ (+ File:Dildo and penis insertion.JPG, File:Creampie photograph 1.jpg, File:Bukkake in blowbang illustration.jpg, File:Illustration of anal sex.jpg, File:What a tangled web we weave - color.jpg, File:What a tangled web we weave.png, File:Reverse cowgi) [rollback]
• (diff | hist) . . MediaWiki:Bad image list‎; 12:26 . . (+192)‎ . . ‎Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs)‎ (+ File:Vaginal penetration with anal stimulation.jpg, File:Sexwoman on top.jpg, File:Having Sex missionary.jpg, File:Sex intercourse 1.jpg, File:Sex pictures.jpg)
• (diff | hist) . . MediaWiki:Bad image list‎; 12:23 . . (+196)‎ . . ‎Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs)‎ (+ File:Sexual intercourse with vaginal lubricative fluid.jpg, File:Sexual intercourse with woman in fishnet stockings.jpg, File:Interracial Swinging.jpg, File:JJ AND TJ.jpg)
• (diff | hist) . . MediaWiki:Bad image list‎; 12:19 . . (+178)‎ . . ‎Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs)‎ (+ File:Vaginal penetration.jpg, File:ErosPyramide20090221 379.jpg, File:Doggy style position.jpg)
• (diff | hist) . . MediaWiki:Bad image list‎; 12:17 . . (+117)‎ . . ‎Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs)‎ (+ File:Orgasm.jpg, File:Femdom at Eros Pyramide.png, File:ErosPyramide20110218 0264 Timmy Sweet.jpg)

I have to ask. The Bad image list is meant to be a counter-vandalism tool, populated with images which are used for vandalism. Were any of these images used for vandalism, or is it just that they happen to be sexual ones? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

They were. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So they were used by one person on the sandbox, a day ago, and now no one can use them anywhere. That's kind of an overreaction. If someone's vandalising articles with them, repeatedly, then that's a justification for addition to the list as a way to stop the vandalism when bans are ineffective. But one IP vandalising the sandbox? Come on. You aren't preventing the IP vandalising - they stopped 24hrs ago. All you are doing is preventing people from legitimately using the images. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

They can ask for an exception, if they think those images are so necessary they can't do without; of course, most of them are entirely useless, anyway, due to technical poorness, not that I'd ever imagine commons to get rid of them. That would be censorship. Now, those images were misused and can be misused again, so they qualify for blacklisting; if you legitimately need one of them for an article, I'll be glad to add an exception to the list, otherwise I'm sure there are several more useful things you can do. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So by your argument, anyone who has ever performed one bad edit should be blocked forever. They have been disruptive, they could be disruptive again, so they qualify for indefinite banning. OK, well, here, let me help you, you need to add these images to your list. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, you just want to start an argument. Thanks for clearing that up, now I can ignore you without second thoughts. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I came here hoping that I could change your mind about this, I guess if in your mind that constitutes starting an argument, then yes. You're right, we on Commons will not delete these images, because we believe that they could be useful to someone. That en.wp tends to shy away from that sort of thing, to put it on bad image lists and try to prevent anyone ever seeing it, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't find it useful.

The photos you added to the bad image list had been used for vandalism once. They probably never had been before, and probably never would be again. It's Commons, we have a fuckton of nudity and sexuality related images. Breasts, penises, anuses, vaginas, you name it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that by effectively banning the use of these 10 or so images, you are making Wikipedia "safer". That's really not the case. If someone wants to vandalise wikipedia, they will. If they want to use sexual images to do so, they will, because there will always be more where they came from, and unless you somehow either add every sexuality image to the bad list, or reverse the list so it is an explicit list of images which can be used (rather than those which are disallowed), people will vandalise wikipedia with "nasty" images.

The bad image list should exist as a means to prevent persistent vandalism. It should be dynamic: images should be added when used for vandalous purposes which are more than a one-off, and then they should be removed again later so that people can use the images for legitimate purposes. Your actions were just closing the stable doors after the horse has bolted. You get nowhere.

Now to cheer you up, here's a story about a kitty. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User retirement

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad. A new user comes in, starts abusing a tool, refuses to accept my warnings about it, and promptly retires when an admin gives him advice. A case of WP:BITE, or an intentionally abusive editor leaving as soon as his abusiveness is pointed out? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I'm sorry if he felt bitten and really hope he'll continue editing, but, in the end, when an editor is behaving in a disruptive manner, we need to let them know and, above all, we need him to stop. WP:BITE means we should be careful when approaching newbies, not that they get carte blanche to do what they want and we have to keep quiet and clean up after them... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, lest you misunderstand my point, I meant that any biting that occurred was on my part, not yours. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, if he was indeed bitten, it's partially my fault too... But thanks and cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d

Has again begun to stalk me, nominating an article I created for deletion and reverting me at another article he has never edited before. In reverting me he restored content I dad removed which was sourced to a self published website, please be so kind as to let him know this behaviour is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about stalking? How about pull the other one?. The article you created fails notability, hence AfD is the only place it belongs on. Btw, may I ask how you got to the "other article"... your edit seems a clear violation of your WP:IBAN and gives the impression of hounding to any outside observer. Btw when Salvio comes online, we shall discuss your behaviour and conduct over the past few days over multiple articles, which has been questionable, as far as hounding is concerned. As regards the following statement: Has again begun to stalk me, nominating an article I created for deletion... just to let you know, there's one thing I'm quite allergic to: it's called irony. Mar4d (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You may not ask how I got to that article as telling you would violate the Iban. I can tell sal if he asks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here I am: could you please provide diffs showing the alleged instances of hounding? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[9] nominates an article I created for deletion. [10] follows me here to revert me. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DS. Now, Mar4d, how did you get to those articles? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[11] You may also wish to comment here as you are familer with the situation. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[12] sorry wrong link. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I read that discussion and seem to remember that a similar situation had already occurred in the past, but could not remember how it was solved, so I was procrastinating until I could find the precedent I was thinking about... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be isi support for terrorism article, I asked you a while after and you said it was a vio but it was to late by then to do anything. But I think I see how it is going to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! There is a bit of case law regarding your IBAN by now and I don't want to treat differently similar situations... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

All I see is around 10hrs ago I reported this. I have been blocked within seconds when I haveafe a vio. Magog blocked me for a vio even though I had self reverted within seconds of it. I do not know why there is a double standerd here. But there sure is one. Darkness Shines (talk),

I don't like to block established users without giving them the opportunity of fixing their blockable errors; I believe you too were extended such a courtesy in the past. Other admins may be a tad quicker on the trigger, but this is not due to there being a double standard; rather, it's just that they do things differently. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Salvio: Sure thing, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is watchlisted and TopGun added a section there on I Protest just yesterday. But Darkness Shines, how did you end up there? WP:IBAN violation, right? Btw Salvio, could you please investigate a very recent case of hounding when I created Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir (it's over here) currently) where DS hounded minutes later and nominated. Please also see Template:Kashmir separatist movemement, nominating a template I created for deletion. Also refer to Democracy in Pakistan, I was hounded there too. DS' allegations and double standards are wearing thin. Mar4d (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm about to go to sleep, now. I apologise if I leave this issue unresolved, but tomorrow in the morning I'll take a look. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Your explanation as to how you got to I Protest is plausible and I believe it; DS, can I ask you a. how you got to the various pages listed by Mar4d and b. how you could get to the I Protest article without violating at least the spirit of your IBAN with TG? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

18hrs after I report a violation you look for a reason to block me, Jesus wept. I got to the template after it was slapped on most articles on my watch list. I got to pro pak sentiment in Kashmir as it was added to said template which is now on my watch list. I got to I protest from a link in an edit summary, are you really so stupid as to believe mar4d got to that article as he says? Just in time to revert me? And how did he turn up at an article I created to nominate for deletion? There really is one born every minute. I have not violated either the letter nor the spirit of the Iban, if an editor puts a link in an edit summary to something I have not heard of, then I go look at it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If the editor putting the link in the edit summary is the one you have an IBAN with, it may be unwise to do that... Regarding your comments on my smartness, well, I guess you're just lucky I don't take myself too seriously... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not care if it is unwise, I am a curious human being who enjoys reading new things, it was not nor will ever be a violation to follow a link, regardless of what Magog the let's block DS at any chance says. But let the vio's and hounding continue, all you admins are the same, whoever posts walls o txt must be right, therefore block and warn DS. I had aittle more fath in your sense of fair play, obviously I was mistaken. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of the IBAN is to get each of you to disengage from the other; granted, you can still edit the same page, because a rule which prevented you from doing this could be easily gamed. To actively seek out the other editor is the best way to get in trouble, as you have witnessed for umpteenth time; don't worry, you won't be blocked — at least by me —, because it's not worthwhile, but your attitude really needs to change. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Malick78

Salvio, remember this [13]? Well, that editor is doing exactly the same thing again. After he revived a month old dispute [14] [15] he once again first, showed up to my talk page [16], despite the fact that I have asked him about a half a dozen times by now to stay away, has again essentially tried to provoke an edit war on my talk page about whether he gets to comment there or not [17], despite a stiff warning [18] ("This is your only warning on this issue. If a comment by you on a users talk page is deleted by that user you may not revert it " (asterisk)) from an administrator that this wouldn't be tolerated, he then looked through my recent contributions and decided to revert my edits on an article he has NEVER shown an interest in before [19] and inserted himself into the disagreement there [20], then filed a bullshit report at AN/I [21] where, in addition to repeating false claims from the talk page he managed to accuse another user (User Altennman) of racism without any basis. [22].

I'm a bit at my wits end with this person (the fact that any talk page discussion ends up in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT circles doesn't help either). If this isn't a textbook case of stalking and harassment I don't know what is. If something isn't done - and warnings to Malick78 have been issued in the past but these don't seem to have done anything - sooner or later I'm going to loose my cool and let this guy know what I *really* think about him. Which is probably what he's aiming at. Can you please take a look?

(asterisk) Technically, speaking, this time around he didn't revert my removal of his comment from my talk page. He just posted a second, albeit different comment, as soon as I removed the previous one - no difference except possibly an attempt to WP:GAME the restriction) VolunteerMarek 01:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to go to sleep (it's 3.35 where I live); tomorrow in the morning, I'll be glad to take a look. Sorry I cannot get to it sooner. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio, as said on the incidents noticeboard, I'm not stalking VM. He's cherry picking edits and then presenting the context he'd like you to imagine. As for the talk page, I left comments on his talk page to engage in dialogue rather than have an edit war, but he wasn't interested in talking (btw, he came to my talk page, and others', earlier this year and removed others' edits from it. That surely is overstepping the line).

FYI, he and I hadn't interacted for a month or two till he came back to Murzyn to revert me, after his most recent ban had ended. I was happy not interacting, he was not. Please don't believe his version just because he left a comment here first. There are nuances to it that he has happily skipped over. Malick78 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Malick78, since I have asked you at least half a dozen times to stay away from my talk page, and since you have actually edit warred to keep your comments on my talk page and then were given a stern warning about it by an outside administrator (Philip Baird Shearer), and since this last time, you posted to my talk page immediately after I removed your previous comment, it would take a moron to believe that you are acting in good faith and just want to "engage in dialogue". You are stalking, harassing, taunting, plain and simple.

And no, this all started when you reverted an edit I made almost a month ago.VolunteerMarek 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to find a solution to the edit war as said above. If you really thought you were being stalked, why have you never reported it? You just lash out and make wild accusations when attention is drawn to you, it seems. Sorry for wasting your time here Salvio. Malick78 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have brought it up on several occasions. The only reason I haven't brought it to AN/I or AE before is simply because I don't like to see people banned or blocked until they really need it (I see it as a bit of finking). You've definitely crossed that point with your atrocious behavior. I very much regret that I didn't report you the first time you did this whole personal attack-harassment-stalking routine, as that might have nipped this stupidity in the butt.VolunteerMarek 23:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have no inclination to report me and prove that I was stalking you, I suggest you refrain from your unproven mudslinging. I highly doubt that someone who has been blocked as many times as you really doesn't like to see people blocked. You just know that your accusations are cherrypicked/twisted and the situation could easily be turned round to show that you at various times have stalked me (as I have shown on other talk pages at other times: you have appeared minutes after me on various pages to revert my edits, when you'd never edited that page before). Sorry again Salvio for all this.Malick78 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I myself linked to the Euro 2012 article 2 days before I edited it (the alleged "stalking" event). I hope that proves I didn't follow him. I wish he'd quit making absurd accusations (and certainly not give them as edit summaries in the Euro 2012 article; if an edit is warranted, it's warranted for editorial/content reasons, not because of imagined persecution). It's worth pointing out that VM is now accusing other editors of being "disruptive". Do you get the feeling this is his usual argument against anyone who doesn't give into him? Malick78 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have no inclination to report me - I see, that's what one gets for being a nice guy on Wikipedia. I'll keep that in mind. and prove that I was stalking you - that I did, several times already.

And your link to UEFA doesn't show anything of the kind, only that you were aware of the article's existence (congratulations on knowing that a UEFA tournament is about to take place). If you had made edits to UEFA which were unrelated to mine that would've been one thing and it wouldn't have been stalking. But no, you showed up there and jumped right in to revert me. And as I've already pointed out above, you have a habit and a pattern of doing exactly this, every time someone (not just me) disagrees with you.VolunteerMarek 17:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I linked to it with info about the controversial BBC documentary. 2 days later I removed 2 out of 3 highly visible tags from the very top of the section with info about the BBC documentary (the controversy section). Wow, what a huge coincidence only explainable via stalking. Salvio, do you have any opinion now? On the incidents board you made a comment highly suggestive of you taking VM's side. I'd appreciate it if you'd add another comment regarding your current opinion. Thanks, Malick78 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I still share VM's opinion; all events, taken individually, may be explained away as coincidences, but when there is a pattern, things change. I'm still thinking whether an interaction ban would yield more results, and I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter (both Malick and VM's). A block would be short and would probably be quite useless, a restriction would be a more sensible idea, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to hear that. I don't have the time to write out a case regarding VM, his activities and misdeeds would form a long list, but just for starters:

1. He mentions Philip Baird Shearer telling me off for readding comments on VM's talk page (something I thought at the time that I was allowed to do, due to rules saying you can't delete other users' comments), yet that same editor told VM off for meddling with PBS's talk page. And here VM deleted another editor's comments from my talk page.
2. In a related incident another editor had to tell VM "You son of bitch, keep the fuck off my talk page", for VM's meddling.
3. He claims I've stalked him, well, we often edit Polish articles and it's a small world here on WP, yet I've never gone through his contributions to find a page he's edited and then leave an aggressive comment like this - just 4 minutes after I'd edited it. That was his first time on the page, and also mine. He could only have followed me through my contributions page.
4. Likewise here, he makes his first and last ever edit to the page to revert me - 17 minutes after my first and last ever edit there. These are just two instances from this year that I know about: they took me half an hour to refind (I'd mentioned them to somebody before) and I don't have the time to check for others. But can you see, Salvio, how this works both ways? Malick78 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
5. As for his comments on my edits on Feeders of Lice (which took place the month after his stalking mentioned above!), I didn't follow him there via his contributions, like he did me above. I saw the page mentioned on his talk page as I left a comment. The eye-catching name caught my attention, so I clicked. It's a striking name.

I have a suggestion: how about an informal agreement between him and me to avoid interaction? I'll keep off pages that he started, and vice versa. On others, we'll agree not to revert each other. How does that sound?Malick78 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If VM is ok with this agreement, I'd say it's a fair solution. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is silence assent? Malick78 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sad to say there is an impasse: VM sent me a private email today asking if the offer was genuine, 2 hours after reverting some of my edits on articles I'd started. Here is our subsequent discussion. It's rather him rejecting the above offer, which is still open I hasten to add.

For the record, the original reason I posted on the admins' board is because of things like this (one of the edits two hours before responding to my offer of a truce), where I provided a new ref and he just deleted again (with no explanation or acknowledgement of the new ref). The ref is from a a high-selling tabloid in Poland, verifying that a cake exists. Yes, that it exists and is notable enough to have its recipe printed. Various Polish editors seem to dislike this being mentioned - I can only guess that the cake's name, "Piersi murzynki" ("breasts of a black woman"), makes them uncomfortable. What is your opinion? Are they being fair demanding ever-better proof that a cake merely exists? Note, I make no claims in the text as to it being racist or otherwise; I merely want to record its existence. A quick google search shows plenty of pics (and no naked black women! ;) ). Thanks.Malick78 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

By this point, at least three other editors ([23], [24], [25] - there were additional objections at the AfD) in addition to myself have objected to Malick78 inserting a particular text into the article. Yet he keeps going back to the article over and over and putting it back in. Sometimes he'll wait a couple days, or weeks, (carefully avoiding the 3RR boundary) and then try again, as if to see if anyone's watching. This kind of persistence is clearly disruptive and bad faithed. It's an obvious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

The reason why I'm wary of the above proposal is that it seems that Malick78 is interpreting it as a carte blanche to engage in exactly this kind of disruptive editing, throwing all the relevant Wikipedia content policies like NPOV and NOR out the window, with impunity. He's basically trying to WP:GAME this.

In my email I genuinely wanted to restart this relationship but not if he's going to play this "haha haha I'm going to make provocative edits and you can't revert me haha haha" game. I have no intention in getting involved in any of the other disputes Malick78 has gotten himself into (on Russia, whatever else), and I would appreciate it if he did the same. But the Murzyn article, I edited it long time ago and I don't see why Malick78 should get to WP:OWN it. Likewise, he basically wants to turn Racism in Poland into a coatrack while I actually added academic (rather than junk pulled off the internet) sources to the article.

So I would be happy to take up the offer if I could believe that he is approaching it in good faith, rather than as an excuse to engage in tendentious games. So far unfortunately I have seen no indication that this is in fact the case.VolunteerMarek 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That nationalist Poles revert me is not necessarily an indication of me being wrong, that's why I wanted Salvio's opinion - to check if I was. I changed the refs you didn't like and you reverted me on Murzyn without making any comment on the change in the refs. Your actions were not collaborative, at all. As for your own edits, slipping in criticisms of Britain repeatedly into an article called Racism in Poland is hardly honest, I'd say (since you're citing 'coatrack'). Lastly, I don't claim to OWN anything: it's just the simplest solution - I stay away from articles you created, you stay away from those I did. What's hard to understand in that? It seems you like the antagonism. Btw, could you explain why you stalked me in February? You've avoided even mentioning that here and on your talk page. I wonder why? Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

While I'll take the insult of you calling me a "nationalist" Pole with grace, as it happens two of the other editors who reverted the same edition by you are not even Poles. You're fighting some imagined monsters, or else, just making up false excuses. And that's part of the problem here.VolunteerMarek 23:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And I did not stalk you in February or in any other month (what is that, some kind of "have you stopped beating your wife" question?). What the hell are you talking about or making up now?VolunteerMarek 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again you do not hear: I'll repeat what I wrote above...

1. You went through my contributions to find a page I'd edited and then left an aggressive comment - just 4 minutes after I'd edited it. That was your first time on the page, and also mine. You could only have followed me through my contributions page.
2. Likewise here, you made your first and last ever edit to the page to revert me - 17 minutes after my first and last ever edit there. You could only have known via my contributions page, once again. These are just two instances of stalking by you that I know about, who knows if there are more. Either way, how about my offer?Malick78 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been trotting out these two diffs as "proof" for your nonsensical allegations - or more precisely, as a means of justifying your own stalking and harassment - across several boards and venues. Each time, for example at WP:AE, you were pretty clearly told "no these do not show stalking" or anything of the kind by OTHERS (in addition to myself. And no, these others were NOT "Polish nationalist" or whatever boogeymen you come up with, but uninvolved admins and editors). This is just another example that you have a very serious problem with paying attention to what other editors are telling you. IDIDNTHEARTHAT all over again.

And of course these diffs don't show stalking as anyone with half a brain can easily see. Both pages are part of WikiProject Poland. On the first one, you asked a question on the talk page, I provided an answer - that's supposed to be stalking? On the second article, you're actually not telling the truth; while I have never edited the article itself, I did asses the article for the project, long before you showed up there [26] (so if there's stalking, it's going the other way). So no, it's not through looking through your contributions but rather just looking at my watchlist.

Both cases are just NOT comparable to your behavior, where you show up in a middle of unrelated argument at UEFA 2012 and start reverting me, or when you show up to a DYK nomination of mine to try and scuttle it as you did with Feeders of Lice. Apples and oranges. Apples and rotten oranges.VolunteerMarek 13:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finally responding to these points (btw, FYI, I don't remember anyone at AE commenting on them). While the second article does have an edit by you in the talk page's history (I had only checked the article's history) showing you'd been there before, I'm quite surprised that you have all WikiProject Poland articles on your watchlist, and would therefore respond so quickly to me. Either way, my offer is still open. To me it seems the best option, as it did to Salvio. Malick78 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

As you know, I suggested a truce - and have tried to avoid contentious edits with VM over the last week or so (even not reverting some detrimental and unexplained edits of his 4 days ago as a sign of good will). Today though, he's decided to delete as much info as possible from two articles regarding Poland and race: here he's cut lots from Murzyn (and added a little), and here, on Murzynek Bambo, he's cut quite a bit, with only the removal of a poem being justified (somebody added it but it may be in copyright still). I get the feeling that, since I started both pages, and since he's always hated them, he's trying to wind me up. As I said before - I'd be happy to avoid him, and vice versa if he agrees, but he seems bent on making WP a battleground unfortunately. Could you please have a word in his ear? I'd be very grateful. It seems to me that his coming back repeatedly to articles started by me will soon approach WP:HOUNDING ("the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."). He's also been at it on Racism in Poland.Malick78 (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure

Thanks for being reasonable about 'one can not revert when one is offline', I just came on and blanked my comment from that AFD. I've noted it at my talk page and at the ANI, I guess you should close it before DBigXray and the likes who come up at every discussion about my conduct dispute turn it into another unrelated drama. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone else closed it already. I'm glad to decided to be reasonable and remove your !vote. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)