User talk:Daccono

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked
Your account has now been unblocked, as behaviour and technical evidence seems to indicate your innocence. Please take care to discuss controversial edits on the talk page; always discuss if in doubt. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

John Hunyadi
Please stop edit warring on John Hunyadi. Read WP:3RR and the first link I gave you. Any further edit warring by you on that article can result in a block. You may wish to seek dispute resolution or some other way to resolve the conflict. Killiondude (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just blocked you for 12 hours because you decided to revert war again, directly after I just warned you above. Please take this time to examine the Wikipedia pages about revert warring and dispute resolution that I linked above. Killiondude (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Igor Smirnov
I undid your revision to the Igor Smirnov page. The reason is that the law passed on 1 September 1989 used the term "Moldovan language" in its text. The exact wording of the 1989 law was: "Article 70. The state language of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic is the Moldovan language. The Moldovan SSR guarantees thorough development of the Moldovan language and its function in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the republic." We can talk more on the discussion page if you still think the wording can be improved. Thanks jamason (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Question for administrator
Is it rightful, according to wikipedia rules, to re-insert in an article a verifiable information added a banned user? As per guidelines, "editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content.". This is exactly what I did here, but someone claimed that my edit was not congruent with the rules. I specify that I fully agree with the edit and I think we should not remove a good information just because of the bad reputation of its uploader. Please let me know if I am doing something wrong. Daccono (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that policy you cite basically just tells you to not revert banned editors if reverting would restore inappropriate content. If you do so, it's your responsibility. But the section above that talks about how helpful edits do not need to be reverted. Our one goal here is to build an encyclopedia . Reverting positive contributions to the encyclopedia just because a user is banned (or for any procedural reason, for that matter) is counterintuitive. So the general rule in these situations is to use common sense. If the banned user's edit is not helpful, revert. If it's obviously helpful, don't revert (or don't think you need to). If you're not really sure whether it's helpful, you should probably err on the side of caution and revert. But at the end of the day, blindly reverting any addition made by a banned user really doesn't help anyone, and whether to revert or not is left to your own discretion. In this case, there's clearly a disagreement, so I would recommend you explain exactly why you think their edits should remain, and discuss the issue with Hobartimus. If you need any more help, just ask. Regards,  Swarm   X 11|11|11 17:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You were mentioned here: WP:ANI Hobartimus (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe1992 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request no.2
Without prejudice to  any  possible outcome of this unblock  request, I'll just  point  out  that:  'a "civil war" between socks of the same person', is one of the oldest  tricks in  the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have to be terribly, terribly careful here in order to avoid a string of miscarriages of wiki-justice. It surely stands to reason that different people, editing from another country, using a language which is a second language to them, may very well word things in an extremely similar way (because of the ways in which second languages are taught, just for starters).  It's also reasonable to take into account that entirely different users, from one country, can hold extremely similar views to each other.  Consider a parallel where a Romanian or Hungarian wiki was trying to distinguish a dozen different members of one (radical) political party in an English-speaking country, all of whom could speak basic Romanian.  In all these non-confirmed cases (which I have been looking at, on and off) I personally couldn't decide "beyond reasonable doubt" either one way or the other.  I;d be hard put to it to make a firm decision even on a balance of probabilities. I think the most just way forward is to work from a presumption of innocence, and just keep an eye out for any blockable-disruptive behaviour.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Pesky I think you are not talking about the Iaaasi/Daccono case and sock issues (which started long before you started actively editing wikipedia in 2011, just look at some of the sock dates here), but in more general terms. Since you are not familiar with the original case, Your main issue seems to be something else entirely namely how Wikipedia's policies deal with say a dozen members of a radical party from England editing Wikipedia in a coordinated way. That's a different issue entirely. It sounds like the party gave orders for wikipedia articles being edited or had other outside influence if really that many people came from such a small circle. It would also help to understand your main concern, if you would link this case you are talking about with these dozen radicals. If they really tried to register en masse to influence Afd votes for example they may very well run into some trouble, beacuse of local policies similar to the WP:MEATPUPPET policy (you say this happened on another wiki). The issue with the political party is more about how Wikipedia can protect itself from coordinated manipulation and coordinated attacks. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is something which is only used in criminal cases such as murder trials. So I'm not sure why would that be relevant here. Also I hope you see that the issue here is not only whether they are actually the same person. There can be issues between entirely different persons living in different countries. Let's take an example. Let's say you ,Pesky, - who we know are 100% NOT to be a different person or a banned user from another country -, decide that you don't like that a banned user is in fact banned. So you agree to act as his proxy (just for the sake of example). The banned user writes the text, issues the instructions and you follow it. Meaning it's effectively the banned user editing through your account. Say you do this long enough so it becomes obvious to admins. Should you be blocked in this case? If you are not blocked you would have the power to effectively lift Arbcom sanctions, Community bans, topic bans or any other sanction Wikipedia even has. I think you see why it would be problematic to give such broad powers to any one person to overrule the whole community. Hobartimus (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don`t think it is appropriate to delete anyone`s unblock request, guilty or not, that person has the right to ask for his account to be deblocked. I personally don`t think Daccono is really a sock of Iassiii since his account passed several check users, and by insisting on it, he simply got blocked to prevent further disruption and to calm things down. By the same standards, I am also a sock of Iassiii, if I have 1 or 2 more check users... So what is the point? Should I edit articles I did till now or run away to avoid a block because I have similar interests as Iassiii? Hobartimus, you are usually right about Iassii`s socks, but in this case you should reconsider the circumstances. Anyway, deleting an unblock request is simply wrong, especially on their talk page also it is against WP:TPO. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)