User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 55

User:88b88 and User:Newfiebangaa (CheckUser blocked) are asking for Administrator help

Hello Salvio giuliano, i need to inform you that User:88b88 and User:Newfiebangaa user accounts that you blocked 4 days ago are asking for administrator help on their user talk page. As CheckUser investigations are mostly accurate and correct, other Administrator's without CheckUser can't do anything in this. So should i close this request by replying or just revert both the user account's edits ? I also suspect that they can be the same person as admin help was requested within minutes on each account and User:Newfiebangaa telling on their user talk page (see this [1]) that they did they not do anything like User:88b88 really makes it more suspicious. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Salvio, i suspect that 88b88, Newfiebangaa and User:55555power are one and the same person. So should an SPI be field in this case ? Because if it comes out true, then these accounts will be confirmed socks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You missed one... Thanks to my 8-ball, I can confirm that 88b88 (talk · contribs), ProtonjonSA (talk · contribs), Newfiebangaa (talk · contribs) and 55555power (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person. Feel free to revert his edits with extreme prejudice. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Salvio ;) I have tagged all the related accounts. Glad to be of help! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is it an Iban violation to edit content which had been removed by one of the editors imder the bam which had been reverted by a different editor? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: in my opinion, it is. You'd still be involved in a content dispute with the other editor, although there is also another user involved. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I am reporting another violation [2] I removed this content per wp:sps. It was reverted back by mar4d, see above for link. It was thenodified by another editor and that edit was reverted[3] by the editor with whom I have the Iban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, now that you have shown me the diffs, I'm even more certain it was a violation. I have left a message on TopGun's talk page, pointing here, to give him a chance to self-revert, as per my usual modus operandi. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I will only add that this is a much better way of dealing with these problems, including Salvio's solution, and I hope that this is how they will be addressed in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the way they were addressed in the past (and the reason why I'm aware of the case law regarding this IBAN). But after a while, I admit I needed a short break, because I feared I was becoming too involved (and a little too stressed, to tell the whole truth)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I remember asking you this before and you explained though I would be technically reverting another user in such case but I'll be aiding another's revert violating the spirit of the ban. This case however is different. I have technically not violated the ban (and would have violated the spirit in normal circumstances) but since I was hounded and followed to this article right after I made edits, and then DS blanked a section and prod'ed the article knowing that I can not revert prod due to IBAN, that itself would be a violation of the spirit of the ban. I've self reverted for now in case it is still found to be a vio, but in my opinion if this is considered a vio, it will only encourage the users to follow each other around and make such edits (DS was also warned for this on his talk page). --lTopGunl (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. As at the ani thread the user continues to violate the Iban further with his comments above, I ask how do such accusations which were responded to on this very talk page not violate the ban? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Lol... It cant be a vio when you report a vio or counter a report made on you... yet this is brought up everytime. Tell me how many of these would I have to show to prove a report disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Further explaining: DS follows me to an article, blanks a section, PRODs it so that I could do nothing about it and then when he's reverted by another who followed through the same link probably, Vibhijain appears on five of the articles I edit in some way or the other opposing me [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (not accusing of anything yet, but not seeing it as all clean and tidy either)... all I did was BRD revert assuming that the warning of hounding would mean that the violating the spirit of ban would not apply here when the first occurrence it self was such. I'd like to reinstate my edit if that justifies it. On a side note, I see a problem with the reports now that are being made (esp. last three). DS first reported me for having a user page that listed archive thread names which happened to have his name in the section titles as a vio (this was rejected as being construed as a vio on his part taking the definition to the breaking point), next out of the blue he reports me for the AFD which was fine just before and now this. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is getting beyond farcical, WP:IBAN is a policy, where in that policy does it say a person who violates the Iban may make accusations of hounding or imply sockpuppetry? It does not. All the above comments are further violations Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@DS The IBAN allows both of you to report violations committed by the other, who, in turn, has to be allowed to respond to the allegations and since I also apply a "clean hands" policy, TG has to be allowed to reply that he felt hounded to the article, if that is the case. The other allegations, the ones regarding Vibhijain, are inappropriate it's true.

@TG please, when responding to a report regarding your actions, you can refer to DS's, but only insofar as they concern the same general event, broadly speaking — as I was saying, if you're accused of having edited content added by DS, you can reply that you felt hounded, so that your violations will not be sancioned; you may not throw in accusations of socking or meating which concern other articles or for which you have no evidence.

@Both, there needs to be a place where you can freely discuss your IBAN violations, it can be ANI or an administrator's talk page, and there you are granted a bit of leeway, because it's needed to insure that you both can defend themselves against any allegations. This is allowed and needs to be; what's not allowed and, for the future, will result in sanctions, is the "yes but he..." defense. If the other editor has violated his IBAN also, start another report, provided it does not appear retaliatory. Regarding the article, finally, I don't think DS's hand are dirty, in this case; the explanation as to how he got the article he provided is reasonable and though I myself said his actions were unwise, they are not egregious enough in my opinion to excuse a violation on your part. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is wrong. There are but three exceptions to ibans, making accusations against the other editor when one violates is not an exception, nor is posting a defence. Either policy is followed or what is the point? Two blatant viTio s owed by further violations in the reporting thread and naught done. I am sick of this entirely one sided approach

Two things further, I assume I am able to edit that content am am about to, please let me know if I am incorrect in this assumption. I wish to know whom do I complain to regarding Magog's hideous handling of this entire affair. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit the content you added to the article: since TG self-reverted, you would not be editing material edited by him. Regarding Magog, the first thing you should do is discuss the issue on his talk page. If that fails to yield the desired results, you can start a discussion on AN, to get the take of the community. Regarding the exceptions to an IBAN, there has to be one for a user who has been reported and intends to explain why his actions did not constitute a violation or why his violation should not be sanctioned (aka the clean hands doctrine), this is a question of natural justice, in my book. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse Vibhijain of anything (categorically saying that before), I only said he appeared on 5 articles like this and that was looking all clean to me atleast apparently. About the "yes, but he" thing, I guess it is ok to report vios in a report instead of being bureaucratic about it and filing a separate one (saying that this happened already means it is being reported)... what I mean is, if user A first violated and the second case wouldn't have been a vio by B if the first didn't occur, it is relevant to the report (as far as it is related to posting a defense). Just the wild ones, I agree, wouldn't be appropriate. I do however strongly feel about being hounded and that was relevant to this too. I reverted my edit before commenting here so this is over I think. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree in part: as I said to DS, a user who was reported needs to be allowed to argue his defense fully; if he needs to refer to the editor's actions, because they are immediately material to the case, then so be it. What will not be allowed is referring to the other editor's actions when they have nothing to do with the violation at hand. "Yes, I reverted him, but only because he stalked me to the article to game the restriction [diff][diff]" is very much ok; "yes, I reverted him, but he reverted me the day before on an unrelated article" is not ok. This is not bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, it's just a way to insure that the various reports do not become a TLDR list of "DS did", "TG did", "But DS also did" and so on. This would be chaotic and stressful for all people involved. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser assistance requested

First, thanks for the note of support on Badmachine...unfortunately, I felt I had no choice but to back away. No, run away. At the moment, I'm not blocking anyone, because I don't 1) trust myself to make good choices, and 2) don't know if I want to deal with the hassle of off-wiki problems. It doesn't help the community if I undo my own blocks just because of my own off-wiki stress.

That being said...I have to ask about two ranges, because User: Guerrilla of the Renmin asked me about trying to stop a serial problem editor. The editor is basically added unsourced material to a large number of articles on Chinese cities; these edits are always unsourced, and usually more fitting to a travel brochure than an encyclopedia. GotR thinks the user is a sock of User:Loveshirley for behavioral reasons. Of course, CU won't connect IP's to a named account, so the SPI didn't get anywhere. However, all of the IP edits, save one, seem to fall within two ranges: 14.214.64.0/19, and 27.36.112.0/20. Since this isn't vandalism or anything really terrible, I don't want to throw down rangeblocks without first finding out if there will be collateral damage. Could you look at the activity on those ranges and see if it looks like any legitimate editors operating there? I hesitate to lift my temporary hold on blocking so soon...but since this probably (behaviorally speaking) just enforcing a block that's already in place, I guess I can do it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you impose two soft rangeblocks, the collateral damage is negligible, so do feel free to go ahead. Clearly, I cannot either confirm or deny that the editor making those edits is actually Loveshirley, but the disruption caused by those IPs is evident. Now, that said, I'm really sorry to hear you have chosen to refrain from imposing blocks; I consider you a very good admin and I do trust your judgement! Let's face it, this community really sucks at dealing with low-level disruption and this much is a given — I share your opinion of Badmachine and still think you did the right thing, even though others disagreed — and, to be honest, I can understand your desire to avoid off-wiki stress perfectly well. I do hope you'll reconsider in the end, though. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I've blocked those two ranges, and I'll let GotR know, so that way xe can watch for anymore popping up outside of that. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Salvio giuliano, for your feedback and questions at my RFA. I plan on being careful with CSDs, thanks in part to your feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

SPA

Dear Salvio, I asked RegentsPark to have a look at the editing behavior of a well-known SPA as he was the one to deal with it in the past. The SPA has now gotten back to following people around. RP asked me to get your take on it, which I too would welcome. Please read here if you have the time. :) Thanks. JCAla (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

If I make an edit to a page [9], and another uninvolved user under 1RR comes out of somewhere to revert me [10].. would reverting that break 1RR? Since I have not reverted that user before, does reverting for the first time come under 1RR restriction? Since 1RR means more than one revert. I am asking this in regards to this. Also, I think that there is some gaming the system going on under the disguise of the 1RR excuse. Mar4d (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a violation, at least according to the clarification I received a while ago on WT:3RR; if you're interested, here is the relevant thread. I'd rather comment on the alleged WP:GAMING going on, due to lack of evidence. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

India GS topic ban

Hi, could there be a connection with the topic banned Chauhan1192 and 49.138.249.113. I am seeing yet more unsourced puffery etc regarding Gurjar connections, but you may think otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I have taken a look at this user's edits and I agree that they're puffery and should be reverted with extreme prejudice; that said, personally I don't believe the two sets of edits were made by the same person — not that it makes them any less disruptive, mind you, but they're not socking and, so, I cannot block for the moment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me. For some reason, I am suddenly seeing a fair few contributions by 49.* IPs that involve this subject matter. Perhaps there is some off-wiki business going on. Thanks for taking a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to impose a rangeblock, if most of the edits coming from the range you refer to are disruptive. There is clearly no point in going through the two or three warning system for each IP. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do some research/checking tomorrow. It is late here & I am playing catch-up on my watchlist right now. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is too broad a range by far. 49.138.* is as close as I can get. I'll have to keep tripping to RFPP etc as and when. They'll trip themselves up, sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by TopGun

Yesterday I conducted this edit per the sources (Stanford University Press, et al) after waiting for more than a month (!) for an answer including reliable sources from TopGun to this talk page discussion. Neither did he reply on the talk page nor did he elaborate on the Balochistan conflict article and his specific objections during the mediation. After I conducted the edit, Darkness Shines, Mar4d, SMS and me all edited the article in a major manner without the usual bickering going on (at least mostly, but what happened remained minor) ;). None questioned the edit. Then came TopGun with the usual language. He is the only one who repeatedly removes reliably sourced content without providing any sources to back up any position he might hold with regards to the issue. He has reverted to an unsourced statement which is in contradiction to and falsifying the reliable sources that were provided in the version he removed.[11] With all due respect, that constitutes disruptive editing. I think he should be asked to self-rv as long as he fails to present a reliable source which would contradict the reliable source that was provided and that he removed. JCAla (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've got to agree with TopGun on that revert. The word "invasion" is controversial since the Khan of Kalat officially decided to accede to Pakistan in the end. Hence, it cannot be called a military invasion by any means given the fact that the ruler chose to accede to the state as per his own final decision. Therefore, those who rejected the decision were nationalists who were officially going against the letter and spirit of the accession. You cannot call them resistance fighters by any means. Also, another important context is that all princely states in British India had the option of either joining India or Pakistan - independence was not an option. Thus, invasion doesn't fit here. This can be further discussed on the talk page instead. Mar4d (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is mainly a content dispute, so I am a little hesitant to take a side, because, to be entirely honest, I'm not familiar enough with Indian and Pakistani history to be able to express an educated opinion. That said, it certainly looks bad for TopGun to revert your edit, after the talk page discussion has been languishing for a month; it looks like an attempt to hinder change, but it doesn't really cross the line into disruptive behaviour. That said, since the various editors had stopped discussing, you could have left a note on the talk page, detailing your intent to reinstate the controversial material. My suggestion would be to take the issue to the talk page, but if discussion is not forthcoming, feel free to undo TopGun's edits — should you be be reverted without discussion again, that can be considered edit warring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This was editwarred on by JCAla some time ago without first getting consensus along with making other major edits. He was reported and warned for doing this. I did discuss with him at the talk page where he told me to go through his edits and make a list of objections instead of bearing the burden to propose the content on talkpage as asked. I, however, did tell him what I objected to (even now I haven't fully reverted as I did before). After seeing it go idle JCAla has pushed it back in resuming the old editwar without first getting consensus for the content on talk page. JCAla is of opinion that as long as his content is sourced he should get a free pass to add anything to the article but that is not the way it goes as I objected on it being POV. You're right that this is completely a content dispute, but now that he's mentioned the word disruption, note that he did not propose anything on talkpage even after being reverted once and asked to, that can be easily construed as disruption. Also, when these things are taken to noticeboards WP:BOOMERANG is taken into account as well to avoid useless reports that any reasonable person can judge as not being a conduct issue.. if you make that point in the same way, probably most of the mess on your talkpage will never occur - or more reasonably, this is a report to get past the content dispute via a block probably. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, sorry for the late reply, I was busy and found no time to go online. Thanks for the advice. I will do that. However, if TopGun keeps refusing to present a reliable source to contradict the very reliable sources I used (which he simply removed to reinstate an unsourced sentence), then this is not a content dispute. Then this would be a clear conduct issue on his part, right?! FYI, please see here. JCAla (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Unwillingness to discuss issues, usually is a conduct issue. (Thanks for the link). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Stalking / WP:SOUP

• Can you check out why JCAla is (admittedly) stalking me at an article he never edited and then going on to an editwar report to tag team and defend the user I reported? [12]. There's a pattern of tag teaming between these two... always appearing to support any one at all against me even if they have never been related to it. JCAla should be blocked for adding more walls of text to a report that was already being treated like that by the user who got reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Admittedly" stalking? It is time to get over your paranoia that everyone is stalking you as you have been alleging versus multiple other editors. One just has to look at Magog's talk to see TopGun's newest block shopping report against the young boy (User:Vibhijain) who has never been in trouble with anyone and where he proclaims certain articles to be "my". (Note: I have had Magog's talk on my watchlist ever since I had to deal with User:Lagoo sab, long before I knew TopGun, so I couldn't really miss that report.) We are all editing in the Afghanistan-India-Pakistan topic area to which the article in question (of the edit war report against DBig - yet another report than the one mentioned above) belongs. I am also keeping note of the edit war report page since editors have repeatedly failed to notify others when reporting them. And the report also couldn't be missed when looking at DBigXray's talk page. When people see a topic they are more than familiar with, they may comment. JCAla (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC) JCAla (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly, quoting your comment "Comment (from a silent observer of the article in question)" (when you never edited the article and I've been editing it since a long time. I don't care what you read on Magog's talkpage as I've nothing to hide, any one can go there and read what I wrote - it is self explanatory. What I find problematic is, you rephrasing a proper report to adminshopping (do you call what you did right above as the same?). You shouldn't butt in to the reports I make, the articles I edit when you already have such issues with me at different places. That is plain trolling/hounding/stalking.. whatever you call it. I'll let salvio comment as I have no hopes of you redacting your walls of text from the AN3 report. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know that your name was "article". What I find problematic is that you seem to believe that everyone who doesn't agree with you should stay away from any article you ever edited, although the editors you ask to butt off have been editing these or very similar articles themselves in the past. I find it problematic that you term them "my articles" and decide they are off-limits to others. I could understand it if I (or Vibhijain for that regard or anyone else) never edited India/Pakistan war-related articles, but we did. I could understand, if I had never taken a look at DBig's talk before, but I did. I could understand if I wasn't aware what is happening at the edit war report page, but I am, since people (including you) repeatedly failed to notify others when you reported them. So, again, when people see a topic they are more than familiar with, they may comment. JCAla (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel any ownership of the articles I edit. But a user who disagrees with me on every single thing arriving at all articles that I edit is hounding. You did not edit any of the articles that I edit except Taliban. Now you edit almost all of them and now you follow my edits (whether through contributions or through viewing them on others' pages) to barge in to oppose me. There's nothing to say to it. I did inform the user of the report... your comment seems to further verify you administer others' action.. why don't you go for an RFA? Even though we have our differences, I'll still be willing to nominate you so that you know what all you need before you start administering others' edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I say this for the last time here: I do not follow you to articles. And I am sure, a host of other editors whom you have accused of doing so, do neither. You in turn have followed me to articles (such as Muslim Brotherhood [13]) which are completely out of scope of the topic area we are BOTH editing. You also followed me to ANI in a matter which was completely out of scope of your content area. I ask you to point to even one instance in which I followed you to an article which is not in the topic area we BOTH edit, you won't be able to do so because there was no such instance. And as you asked, the difference between your reports and my "report" above is more than obvious. While you always seek blocks of others ("JCAla should be blocked for adding more walls of text to a report that was already being treated like that by the user who got reported."), I merely asked for you to be asked to self-rv ("I think he should be asked to self-rv as long as he fails to present a reliable source which would contradict the reliable source that was provided and that he removed.") JCAla (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done explaining my edit about Muslim Brotherhood article on every conduct issue to you.. don't you get bored of repeating it? I don't edit that article, my edit was not controversial (and I did edit in that topic area at Muslim world's related articles). Your insistence of not hounding me after saying that you observe and respond to articles that you don't edit with me and my edits at others' talkpages surely is offensive. Don't tell me you'd redact your comment if I asked you to self rv. Btw, Salvio gave a clarification about reports above; making unrelated reports saying "but you did this elsewhere" in response to being reported is disruptive. Can you just stop calling me back to this discussion again and not flood here? --lTopGunl (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Revdel request

This discussion is already going on here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I have picked you at random from the list of people who handle Revision Deletion. I want part of the revision attributed to me at 15:50 3 June 2012 to be deleted. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=next&oldid=495393920 My account has been hacked by opponents (See Armenian Genocide Talk page). I wish the changes attributed to me at line 37 on the right hand side of the page to be deleted. The only change I made on the date and time in question was at line 89 on the same side of the page, and this should definitely be retained. Please advise me how to proceed. Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Hi Diranakir. Unfortunately, what you are requesting is technically impossible; I can only delete entire revisions. Also, I suggest you change immediately your password, because if your account has been compromised, I am forced to block it per WP:COMPROMISED... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your response, Salvio. I would like the entire revision deleted in accord with what you say. I will re-enter my revision for line 89 subsequently. I will be arranging for a new password in a short time. Does that mean creating a whole new account with a new user name? I would prefer keeping my user name if possible and changing only my password if that is possible. Please advise. Diranakir (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Click here and change your password. That said, I'm going to revdelete your edit, because, from what I can gather, it contains what may be perceived as inflammatory (the lines that were not added by you). I'm stretching policy just a little, so my action could be reversed by another admin, though I obviously hope this does not happen. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC) D'oh. Belay that, I was wrong. No need to change your password and your account was not hacked; sometimes, you can delete something without realising it. I have done it a couple of times too; it's no big deal, just self-revert and then remake your edit. I was under the impression something had been added by someone else and attributed to you. I apologise for alarming you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Salvio: I believe I was hacked. I got nowhere near the passage in question when I made my revision. This because it was the subject of a very hot dispute which needed a cooling down period and I stayed away from it very carefully and deliberately. But that aside, how do I accomplish self-revert and does it result in the article simply reverting to its just previous version? Thank you. 67.169.127.31 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC) No, you were not hacked. Don't worry. As I was saying, there are times when a person inadvertently deletes something while adding something else. It's just a case that what you deleted was the subject of controversy. To self-revert, just click on the blue undo button — in this case, another editor already undid, so it's not needed any longer. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Salvio, FYI, just in case you've not seen it: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Armenian_Genocide. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Diranakir is WP:FORUMSHOPPING because he didn't like the answer he got at WP:DRN. Might I suggest that either this discussion or the one at DRN be closed and collapsed? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Salvio: I do not see the editor's deletion you refer to above. Everything looks the same. The revisions show me deleting sentences from the previous version which I did not do. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 I want to delete the revision under my name on the right side of the page. I don't find the blue button on the page. Please advise. Diranakir (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I am a volunteer mediator at WP:DRN. What Diranakir is claiming did not and can not happen. It is not possible for someone to modify a diff while leaving your name on it. (Admins can delete, nobody can modify.) This was explained to Diranakir in great detail by two different mediators at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Armenian Genocide. Diranakir's continued false accusations against Gazifikator after being informed that they are impossible is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification

I mentioned you here Wnt (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

If I get blocked by Magog for reverting an obvious sock I fully expect you to step in and stop his abuse given I self reverted. Darkness Shines (talk),

ANI thread re: Robin klein

You have been mentioned at ANI here. - Sitush (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've done the needful. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ta. And while I am here, what do you know about rangeblocks? I am having some difficulty with a dynamic IP who keeps inserting unsourced/removing sourced at Kulin Kayastha but the range seems pretty small to me. Is a rangeblock feasible? I'd be reluctant to see it semi-protected because there have been some useful anon edits. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, forget that. I'll send it to RFPP. There has only been one useful anon contributor of late & they have not returned for a couple of months. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The rangeblock would have covered 117.194.65.128/25 - which are 128 addresses -; but I have semied the page for a week. Should editors from that range keep on disrupting, the block can still be imposed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A Comment

Dear Salvio Giuliano, Thanks for letting me know about the topic ban. I respect your decision. However, I was not the only one involved in the conflict. This conflict began because a citation was deliberately tampered with by User:Ashley thomas80 way back on 14th dec 2011 [14] and it went unnoticed. I wonder why only I am banned when the citation over which much of the conflict happened was tampered by User:Ashley thomas80. The discussion went on even just few hours back between User:cuchullain and User:Ashley thomas80 [15]. Do look into that and please try to reconsider this ban or please try to reduce it. If not anyway I respect your decision. You were fair to me the first time. I did not intend to be disruptive. If my actions seemed so then I apologize for it. P.S. does this ban mean I cannot even participate in discussions on the talk page. Jut wondered whether editing ban meant even ban from discussions. I wish I had detected the deliberate deletion of the citation. It was rather late when it was brought to notice. This conflict and this situation may not have happened. Anyway, thanks and best regards Robin klein (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Robin, your ban explicitly covers all namespaces and thus includes talk pages etc. Furthermore, your ban is a consequence of long-term problems with your contributions and the issue of the Baum citation to which you refer (yet again, on yet another talk page) is somewhat irrelevant when placed into context. Your first edit to your new article was at 18:01 on 2 June, which is almost exactly 24 hours after an IP had initiated the talk page discussion to which you refer and, in any case, any confusion regarding that citation forms only a small part of the problems inherent with your POV etc in the new article, Kerala Nasrani Christian music. It is also your responsibility to check your own contributions, as I noted here. FWIW, I think that you have been quite fortunate as some other admins may have put a permanent topic ban in place. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, what Sitush said. Your topic ban applies to all namespaces, which prevents you from making edits relating to Saint Thomas Christian everywhere on Wikipedia (articles, talk pages, user talk pages etc.). Regarding the deliberate deletion of the citation, that's just one single incident; you were not restricted due to that, but rather because I personally thought there was a pattern of problematic behaviour on your part. I'm really sorry I had to impose this restriction! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

About my nickname

Salvio, sono un perfetto "asino" nel redirecting (penso che anche il "renaming" segua le stesse regole/stringhe di codice). Comunque, a parte il fatto che al momento non ho un'idea minima su come "richiamarmi", quando scelsi il nickname, quasi 5 anni fa, credo che le regole fossero più rilassate qui sulla Wiki riguardo i nomi, infatti tu sei il primo a farmi notare la probabile inadeguatezza del mio nick in tutto questo tempo (pur con la presenza nella en.wiki di parecchi utenti italiani o parlanti altre lingue romanze che altresì possono cogliere il significato della parola in questione). Credo che qui sulla wiki sia presente una regola chiamata "clausola del nonno" che permette delle eccezioni a chi ha un nick che magari non rispetta a pieno la policy wikipediana, in quanto il nick è stato creato precedentemente alla modifica delle regole. Ah, ed inoltre merda è black american slang per murder, anche se ovviamente non andrei mai a fare strage di cozzari solo perché mi stanno sul coso :P . Ecco, Olbia_murder potrebbe andar bene :-))) .--Olbia merda (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dico la verità: sul momento, mi ha sorpreso abbastanza il vedere che nessuno aveva mai commentato sul tuo soprannome; quando, oggi, per caso è apparso sulla mia watchlist mi ha fatto alzare un sopracciglio. Poiché sei un utente che è qui da un po' e poiché nessuno ti ha mai detto nulla, non ti ho bloccato — in questi casi, si impone quello che è detto "softblock", che, sostanzialmente, ti permette di creare un nuovo account immediatamente. Peraltro, mi dici una cosa totalmente nuova riguardo il black american slang; non ne avevo davvero idea. E LOL per i cozzari. Posso chiedere, se vuoi dirlo, di dove sei? Conosco abbastanza bene la Sardegna, pur essendo Lombardo, sebbene le mie conoscenze si concentrino maggiormente fra i maurri... Diciamo, però, che se chiedessi di essere rinominato, facendo domanda qui, sarebbe sinceramente preferibile; purtroppo, il tuo nick attuale è davvero inappropriato... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Son di Sassari, e sì, you're right, credo di aver capito come fare la richiesta, vado e cambio il nick. Ciao :P .--Olbia merda (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

You got mail Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is a person under an Iban allowed to revert the other editor if said editor mistakenly violates the Iban? This of course means I cannot self revert the mistake and will be no doubt blocked. See Magog's talk for the gory details. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand how that was an IBAN vio. This was the last version of the content in question that TopGun left standing. Then, DBig conducted this edit which DS reverted, mistaking the content for a left-over of Nangparbat's sock's earlier edit. DS had been called into action against the sock for that very article on his talk. How is that a vio? DS reverted to the very version TG left. JCAla (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If I didn't revert it again means I was sticking to 1RR, and DBX fixed it anyway. If I remember correctly you were the one who got it clarified that it is still a vio when you remove content later reverted by another. That's getting involved in an editwar... don't endorse anything on my behalf again, infact stop commenting on me where the dispute does not concern you. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I thought I was reverting Nangparbat, I want to know if my mistake being reverted to ensure I get blocked is a violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. 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) 07:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Vyasan, again

You topic banned Vyasan in May - see this - but they are still contributing at Talk:Nair, as recently as today. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting him. I have given him a week off — feel free to undo his edits to the article's talk page, if you wish. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Would appriciate if you check it quick

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.

--lTopGunl (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Please see User talk:Drmies#Awkward BLP query - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)