User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 51

Jon Driver
Hi, sorry, I don't like to argue with a fellow admin but there is no way he has consensus on his side. Von Restirff has been fighting a one-man battle against reliable sources! TerriersFan (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote you claim you have consensus on your side. I did not mean to take sides, I just wanted to point out that the reason he was edit warring was that he thought he was upholding consensus and emphasise that this did not justify his actions. I apologise if I was unclear! Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After having this conversation you have blocked me. You should've asked an uninvolved administrator to take a look per WP:UNINVOLVED. The block you gave me has been lifted by a more experienced administrator and he wrote: "The last edit is different, not a continuation of the prior edit war (which was about cause of death)." and "block was 10 hours after edit warring stopped". Did you make a mistake? Von Restorff (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was quite definitely uninvolved and my block was confirmed by two other admins, so, all things considered, I'm not really sure I made a mistake, but, as I said, I defer to the judgement of my fellow sysops. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio didn't make a mistake. I choose to unblock you because I believed you weren't intending to continue an edit war based on the talk page discussion, the editor who reverted you's edit summary, and my discussion with you. However you still had been edit warring, and Salvio is quite justified in blocking you for that. You certainly should consider it a pass to do what you were doing before. Prodego  talk  21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Sorry, I am not going to debate on that level. He did make a mistake, but he does not want to admit it and that is ok, even though it is a bit dissapointing for an administrator. It looks quite bad that he did not ask an uninvolved admin to make a decision in this case. It looks even worse that he obeys a request for a specific block-length from another involved admin and does not even bother to check if the claim made by that other admin was true (guess what, TerriersFan lied to Salvio!). diff diff2. @Salvio: your block was not confirmed by two other admins, did you make that up? Von Restorff (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Prodego. It's really appreciated! That said, Von Restorff, two different admins declined two different unblock requests, confirming that my block was correct. And this is my last comment, since you imply that I have been lying. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote "since you imply that I have been lying". Where did I do that? If you make a statement that is untrue but you believe it to be true that is not a lie, right? I think you honestly believe that two admins confirmed that your block was correct, but in reality they did not. They reviewed the unblockrequest, they did not determine if the block was correct or not. In this case it is very obvious that they did not even bother to check what the debate and editwar was about. According to Blocking_policy they should have, but unfortunately they did not. Von Restorff (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. TerriersFan even tried to hide the evidence... p.p.s. I did write that TerriersFan lied to you (and I have the difflinks to back that statement up), but not the other way around.

Impersonator
Could you check User:MxZemike, I want to make sure the RFA is clean. Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked him and no other accounts were created using the same IP; I also wanted to check his IP range, but it is way too large... I'm sorry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for checking.  MBisanz  talk 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * My pleasure. And many thanks for the barnstar; I'm going to add it to my collection.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mind deleting those revisions like Qwyrxian did? and . And the user seems to be abusing his/her talk page by threatening me again. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course! Unpleasantness revdeleted and talk page privs revoked. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Salvio. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Srisharmaa
Ho hum, User:Srisharmaa has done it again at Varna (Hinduism). This time, they've also reinstated external links that previously they were objecting to! - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's try a different approach. I have banned him from editing the article for a fortnight; I want to see if we can get him to discuss the issue. Should he violate the restriction, please, let me know and I'll block him. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,As I am new to WP,I did "undo" the external link without seeing the other links I was objecting previously.I realized the error and made  the article to appear as it was previously.Sorry,for my error.And I have corrected the article.You may see my recent edits.

As far as Sitush is concerned he is not answering my questions in Talk page,and he seems to look like a Dictator.I request to go through the Varna (Hinduism) talk page and read our discussion.If you feel that what he did is fair,I am ready to accept your decision to Ban.

I am providing the Link,[].Kindly look at the link and tell me how it is unacceptable to add the link[]--Srisharmaa (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death. Myself and another contributor to the talk page discussion agree that the link is inappropriate, while I've also pointed out that Qwyrxian similarly removed it at another article only a short while earlier, and for the same reasons, ie: breaches WP:EL. Srisharmaa just does not want to get it, as Blade has recognised on the article talk page. There are only so many ways to say the same thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But you haven't yet proved how it is against the policies!.Kindly reply to this ONLY question that I have been asking you!.--Srisharmaa (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is explained clearly here. After asking "Have you read our discussion?", it unfortunately doesn't seem that you read that post, nor clicked on the links included.  Do please save yourself frustration and read the policy links that have been provided to you.  JanetteDoe (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

noting
just thought I'd say that I mentioned you in this thread. — Ched : ?  16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy, I really appreciate it! If I can, I'll try to chime in there. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ACC backlog
If you have a moment, it would be appreciated, I know this is not your regular cup of tea but if you can help thanx   Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I might try to get my feet wet, but, as far as the tool is concerned, I'm not a checkuser.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanx for bringing that up I need to talk to Simon :P.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh. There goes my excuse.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Battles at ANI deserve decorations:
Please do not feel oblidged to state any thanks. Good man.— Djathink imacowboy  23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You got away from me, now I'm getting away from you. You'll have to dig a bit to find out who I am. 'Bye Sal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.107.248 (talk • contribs)

Block
Please ask another uninvolved administrator to block 75.21.107.248 as a sock. Normally I would put a list of difflinks here but a duck is a duck is a duck. Von Restorff (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

oh:
What a sad bunch. Did anybody see how damned fast TParis came to indefblock here? And I still see grave dancing words like "if you want an indef block, better not to go out in bad terms with people", and "I think you interpret a lot of things to be attacks against you when they are not, which is a pity. I would hope that you could come back in future and we could talk more, maybe see about ways to communicate without so much drama." A bunch of pompous twaddle. Don't get brainwashed by this stinking swamp. Please. Listen to you, all of you sound like cultists. This place will not last, and you all fail to realise you count for nothing here. Then I have to listen to an admin who is being attacked like me, but is too slow to catch on, and a sanctimonious edit warring fool who pretends to like me. That is what this place does to you! I'm old! Too tired to take all this - but I know at least 95% of you are kids. Get away whilst you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.85.118 (talk • contribs)
 * Please have a nice cup of tea and relax. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dja, please, please, please, just walk away for a bit. Have a cup of tea and relax. You're quite visibly upset and you're digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Do something else for a bit and come back when you're calmer. If you continue, you'll just make it harder for you to get unblocked. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sal, they got to you long ago. You get shit kicked in your face; you just let them do it without really fighting back. Just like a cult. You only pretend to fight back - when it gets rough, it's 'Calm down! Have a cuppa!!'

Load of BS.

For those familiar with George Orwell's novel 1984: you, on WP, you're all like Winston, in the torturous grasp of O'Brien. It is not enough for you to tell him what he wants to hear. He expects you to truly believe it. You know why Winston was being tortured: too many thoughtcrimes racked up, then they got him for a sexcrime.76.195.87.205 (talk)

Change that to 'battleground' or 'incivility', change the arrest to 'block', and O'Brien becomes WP. And guess who Big Brother is? What does it matter! He has you all to himself already! And if you threaten him, he won't threaten you - he'll indefblock you! It even sounds like Orwell's DoubleSpeak!76.195.87.205 (talk)
 * Calm down dude, its just a website, not a government. If Wikipedia was anything like the society described in 1984 I would've been silenced long ago. Spend some time outside, drink a cup of tea, and return to your computer when you are feeling relaxed. Just because the block-length is indefinite that does not mean the block is permanent. Von Restorff (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

@Salvio: I hope you don't mind me being a tps, I got a little curious after reading this. Von Restorff (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke
I'm not convinced that he used a sock puppet - could you take a look at the most recent comments and unblock request at User talk:Yogesh Khandke please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have commented there. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No reflection on your block, but Qwyrxian's comments were convincing and given the possible doubt it seemed pointless to continue the block, so I unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; I understand your actions: as I said there, I'm fine with an unblock if consensus is against me. And in this case, it was. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're warning Fae?
Maybe Fae was straying over the line a bit as described in User_talk:Fæ. But you were an active participant in Requests_for_comment/Fæ, signing six different opinions on the project page, voting against closing the proceeding on the talk page and making three other comments there. And so far as I know you were never among those saying that User:Delicious carbuncle's linkage of Fae's account with his real name and sexual characteristics was WP:OUTING. You never objected to his statements on and about the RfC such as that "putting pictures up of naked little boys is the glorification of paedophilia" - despite WP:Child protection, and despite the fact, as I discussed at the RfC at too much length already, that the one picture involved was a PG-rated photo by what Wikipedia's article describes as "the most important gay visual artist of the pre–World War I era". Maybe DC didn't notice that the source image was edited days after the Ash account was frozen to make it an uncropped, more revealing version, but I was just appalled to see him continue to argue, there and even on ANI, that merely featuring a work by von Gloeden was the problem, and nobody even stopped the process, let alone enforcing any relevant policies. Now before this blows up into another excuse for people to chime in here and again drag Fae through the mud, probably sticking his real name up next to the uncropped picture he never had, like on Wikipedia Review, I'm going to emphasize here that I'm not even hoping for any warning against DC out of this. I just find it unacceptable that Fae, who has had very little if any protection from Wikipedia policy throughout this dispute, is so quickly threatened with it. This is truly one-way law. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact I participated in Fae's RFC is what makes me an involved admin and that is the reason I felt I had to mention ArbCom in my warning. Because, honestly, I have no other choice: I cannot act in an administrative capacity and am certainly not going to start an ANI thread (or, even worse, another request for comment), which would allow other editors to impugn my good faith and label me as an anti-gay bigot and I'm also aware that the are bits of evidence that Fae cannot post publically and, so, ArbCom would be a more appropriate venue. I believe Fae when he says he's been harassed and threatened in real life and I sympathise. I really do. But he has to accept that not everyone who disagrees with him or says something he doesn't like is a homophobe. Take Errant's case, read the message Fae was replying to and tell me if his tone and words were appropriate. He completely misunderstood and made some very serious accusations; and this is not the first time he has acted like that. And since bringing this concern to him in a more friendly manner did not achieve much, the only other option I had was to inform him that, should he persevere, I feel I'll have to take action. Because, quite honestly, those accusations are disruptive. In the first place, they are offensive and hurtful, but they also "normalise" terms such as "homophobia" and "homophobe". Personally, I take racism, homophobia, anti-semitism etc. in a terribly serious manner and, as far as I'm concerned, think they should lead to an immediate indefinite block. However, when accusations of homophobia are levelled against people who criticise your actions as an admin, then this takes away much of the stigma that's attached to them. And that's unacceptable. Regarding the RFC about Fae, I did not consider it to be caused by homophobia. There were (and are, as far as I'm concerned) certain legitimate concerns relating to his use of the tools and Wikipedia's rules dictate that those be discussed in that venue. I agree that Delicious Carbuncle's actions on Wikipedia Review were unacceptable (and possibly dangerous), but I think he was harshly chastised back then (and rightly so!) and has refrained from acting in such a reckless manner since then  though I'm not really familiar with what happens on Wikipedia Review. And I also have to admit that there was a point when I simply lost track: the issue was being discussed, contemporarily, on Jimbo's talk page, on AN (on ANI, I cannot remember) and on the RFC main and talk pages. I just could not keep up with it. That said, to summarise, I'm sorry Fae has been targeted by harassers (I really am), but this does not make it ok for him to describe others as homophobes simply because they hold a different opinion or happen to think that some of his actions were at least problematic.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should emphasize that except for the one comment about it, the things I commented on above were all here on Wikipedia, not on Wikipedia Review. I'm glad to hear some of what you say above, but I would still be appalled if you took Fae to ArbCom over something like this.
 * Also, check your page history. A blocked socking troll should usually be "WP:DENYed", I suppose, but you shouldn't miss that he's calling you a "Muslim administrator" on YouTube.  (Good news is, that's one less Islamic terrorist editing our articles than we thought we had!) Wnt (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you give me a link to the youtube channel, please? Apparently, this guy knows more about me than I do... More seriously, I don't want to drag Fae before ArbCom; and I sincerely hope he'll understand my point in warning him. I don't want to be mean to him or to single him out, while giving his harassers carte blanche. I just wish he would stop accusing other people of being bigots... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Recall
I just saw this. I really can't say I blame you.-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 19:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, do not take this the wrong way, but I don't know how to interpret your remark, considering your involvement in the recall petition which has caused me to change my mind... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Salvio. I just thought I'd pop by an say I thought it was a shame you've removed yourself from recall. Courcelles' recall petition has not yet been certified, and even if it were, I don't think consensus would be that recall should happen. Either way, as long as your criteria has discussion involved, which yours does - I think that unreasonable requests will fall by the wayside. Of course, it's your choice, but as one of the administrators I thoroughly respect and look up to, I don't think you have anything to worry about.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Worm. Recall works as this Courcelles issues is demonstrating - even if there was actually six users in correct standing to support it - for a single issue like this there would never be a consensus to dysopp in the following discussion. Your a good admin and consensus would reflect that if ever such a destined to fail reactive recall request was ever opened on your account. Please consider replacing the cat - You  really  can  12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you both for your kind words, but, honestly, I'm not changing my mind. The fact that such a frivolous petition was kept open for two days, instead of being closed immediately with a trouting for all supporting it, is enough to convince me of the need not to be open for recall. Courcelles' block was reasonable, though politically unwise; had I been in his shoes, most probably, I wouldn't have bothered blocking Malleus, but that was only because it was almost too easy to foresee the charlie foxtrot that was bound to ensue. That said, to start a recall petition over that was a terrible, terrible idea; recall is appropriate when there is a pattern of inappropriate administrative decisions, not when you disagree with a sysop and you want to appease another editor, by giving the latter his pound of flesh. Even though the petition went nowhere, it was kept open for too long and I'm certain it was quite stressful for Courcelles. Personally, I believe that to appropriately fulfill my duties as an administrator, I need to be able to exercise my best judgement without fear of retaliation and, since recall petitions have now started to be used to achieve a chilling effect on administrators, I have elected to remove myself from the category of admins open to them. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Courclelles dealt with it so correctly - many terrible things happen here - it is how you stand in the face of them that matters  - As far as removing your self from recall goes, its meaningless - if you misuse your tools you will be desopped anyway, whether or not you are in the recall cat,- IMO you are less able to use your authority, and as such, have less authourity,  since your removal of yourself from the recall cat. - Regards -  You  really  can  21:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:BADDIE610
Who you just blocked was also probably User:Sam5959 ‎based on their contributions. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. Thanks for reporting him.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That one was easy, I have a question for you. Is it allowed for a user to have two accounts? I follow random links a lot and came across a user who had one user name turned into two? Old account Saqib Qayyum redirects now to  user:Saki, but the old name is also moved to User:S Q2 Shouldn't there be a notice on the second account that it is an alternate? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Double standards
Hey Sal, I'd like you to take a look at a recent case of hounding by Darkness Shines on Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Here's the chronology of events: TopGun leaves a notice on my talk page inviting me to comment on the talk page of that article on a topic in which him, I and a few other editors are commenting. I post my comment. Seven minutes later, DS pops out of thin air and decides to butt in. DS claims on his talk page that he has my talk page on his watchlist and that he followed me from there. I've asked him to remove my talk page from his watchlist and not follow me, but he appears unfazed. He has also violated his WP:IBAN, since TopGun is involved. It is irritating, could you give him a kick?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * O do grow up, that is not hounding. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's more . TopGun has made multiple edits to that page and he made one yesterday. Hours later after TopGun's edit, Darkness Shines made an edit to this same article. He has never edited this article before. I have reason to believe that DS is also stalking TopGun and violating his IBAN.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the next article I edited and you may figure out why I was on the Soviet war one, and editing that article is not an iban violation. Stop blockshopping. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio, are you going to do anything? Now he's brought his ass here, again an article which I'm involved in. Bloody hell.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FFS Mar, I was looking to see what some IP was going on about on my talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DS, wrt the previous incident, the one involving Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the fact that you have watchlisted Mar4d's talk page, seen TopGun's message and commented on the talk page is not kosher. Please, remove his talk page from your watchlist and refrain from giving the impression you're now following him; otherwise, I fear I'll have to sanction you too. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sanction me for what? For looking to see what the IP you blocked was going on about? Or for editing an article he has never edited? Wonder how he even knew I had edited it? I have taken his page from my watchlist, which BTW was one of the ways I kept an eye out for Nangparbat as he regularly posts there. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Close the ANI
Can you please close this ANI? If you can't, can you tell me where to ask? AshLin (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the point of bringing up this stale ANI? You filed a 1RR vio on me which actually wasn't a vio and asked on talkpages of 3-4 admins who you thought would block me and now this. Stop it while there's time. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you having soliloquies? JCAla (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no, see his similar post at Magog's page. And well, are you coming back to passing personal comments now? -- lTopGunl (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous
Hi Salvio giuliano. There's an editor who's disrupting several pages including WikiProject Dispute Resolution and Occupy Wall Street. I just recently came across this disruptive post on the project's talk page after following his contributions. Becritical brought to my attention a dispute on Occupy Wall Street involving this editor, I warned the editor on his talk page about his disruptive editing on an unrelated matter on Occupy Wall Street, he merely removed my warning without discussing. In addition, another admin warned him for his edit warring on Occupy Wall Street after I did. Because he consistently removes warnings on his talk page, other visitors aren't aware of his past editing. I'm asking that you block this editor or at the very least, remove and RevDelthe disruptive comment on the WikiProject talk page. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Whenaxis. I'm really sorry, but, at the moment, I don't have the time to appropriately follow up on this matter (you'll see that this is my second edit today and also will probably be one of the last for tonight). I apologise for not being able to help you, but I'm overwhelmed with things to do right now. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. Thanks :) Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)