User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ChronicalUsual

Is it possible for you to find new socks just by checkusering the old ones?

Such as

ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DanielUmel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In theory, it's possible: I can determine the IP ranges these two accounts used to edit and, then, check them, to see if there are accounts which loudly quack. In practice, however, to do so, I need a good-faith belief that our puppeteer has been socking recently. Are there accounts you consider suspect? Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess. Here are some new accounts which have been acting like CU used to act.

MalesAlwaysBest (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Genoj' (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Martinski (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
GraceMoney (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am not too suspicious of them, and I doubt Martinski is CU, but I just want to know if CU made any recent accounts lately. These are simply new accounts that talk with similar rhetoric to Chronical. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay now I am positive socking is going on.

Asagimmick (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)}

Sopher99 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! I have just discovered a big sock drawer and have indeffed the socks I could identify. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So MalesAlwaysBest is not CU I take it. Thanks for your help. Sopher99 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly: he appears to be on another continent, so I doubt it's him... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Did MAB appear linked to anyone else? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There were other accounts editing from the same IP range MAB was using; that said, from what I could gather, that range is assigned to a state library, so, while those accounts are a  Possible match, taking into consideration behavioural evidence (basically, they made no edit even remotely related to Syria and the Arab Spring), I concluded that it was  Unlikely MAB was linked to them. So, no, I don't think he's socking at the moment... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright. He seems a little too well-versed to be a newbie, but I guess he might be a former IP user. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One last account, which I doubt is him as it was made 20 months ago, Maurcich (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Sopher99 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the age of the account and the fact that he has not popped up on any of the checks run so far, I doubt that's CU either. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So I figure

Some new blood is need in the admin corp, a more straightforward speaking kinda guy, who has weird red writing on his self nom[1] Help. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, that was a short-lived RfA! I did not even have the chance to oppose you... Seriously, however, if you give it six months, I'll be happy to nominate you. But you have to promise you'll handle the various silly queries better... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Being asked a question is almost certainly better than a questionare, which obviously nobody got :) Perhaps I am to old for wiki lol, however if you figure in 6mths I am capable go for it, you know I will of course be the same As I said, I prefer facts over fiction. Have a good new year, do not drink to much vino bianca de la casa, give she who may not be named a good time also. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't want you to change, but if you wish to become an admin, you will have to show that you take the process seriously; it's what the RfA community wants to see... After all, with the tools you'll gain the ineffable privilege of being yelled at by pissed people. It's a serious matter!

That said, regarding your suggestion: since I am married, we no longer do those things... Luckily, I have a secretary. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I wondered if you would spot the double-entendre. I'm not even sure if DS intended it but, doubtless, the verbal dexterity will now be claimed & rightly so! <g> DS, Salvio is right re: RfA: it is either to be taken seriously or not at all. Each time I vaguely consider the idea, I go blot my copybook in some dispute or another & so end up rejecting the notion. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Topic ban and AfDs

Your recent imposition of a topic ban for Doncram, on the topic of Caste, has created what may be a delicate situation with respect to a couple of AfDs that I initiated for caste-related articles that Doncram had started. In both instances, I was requesting userfication until such time as the lists were well enough developed to be suitable for article space. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes closed as "KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted." Although that AfD was supposed to be a multiple covering two articles, the second article was overlooked by most participants and the closing administrator, so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scheduled Castes, which is still ongoing. Comments there have been similar to those at the first AfD. Doncram has been the main (or sole) proponent of both articles, but he will be unable to follow through on his promises to "fix the issues" in article space if he is on a topic ban.

I considered raising the question of "what to do about the ban?" at the current AfD, but I think it best for me to remain silent on the matter because history indicates that Doncram will be unfavorably disposed to anything I say. Since you have stepped in to the situation by imposing the ban, I wonder if you could provide some sort of adjudication regarding the handling of these pages. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Orlady. First, let me point out that this is just my opinion; that said, my proposal would be to leave List of Other Backward Classes alone, for the moment; if nobody fixes the issues noted in a reasonable period of time, then it can be renominated. I realise that the person who promised to fix them is Doncram and he now cannot do that, but I consider it fair to allow others to get involved, if they so wish. Regarding List of Scheduled Castes, on the other hand, if the AfD ends with a consensus to userfy and nobody volunteers to have the article moved to his userspace to work on it, then I'd say said consensus should be voided and the page deleted, because Doncram cannot work on the article in question and, so, the reason for userfication no longer applies. I'm about to ask Doncram to express his opinions, here, if he so wishes, but this, to me, appears to be the fairest solution... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That AfD discussion seemed stale and, as it seemed technically incorrect, I have just closed it per WP:SK. If this seems improper then please revert my action. As for the issue of userfication, note that I am willing to host the page in my userspace if a consensus for userfication should develop there. There didn't seem to be much sign of it so far though. Warden (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since speedy was no longer a valid close once someone agreed with the nom, I have reverted Colonel Warden's close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that your closure was not valid, Warden; that said, thanks for letting me know you're willing to take charge of the draft, should the page be userfied. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I assumed he'd host it in his userspace to work on it; if he doesn't, mfd is thataway... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow. I've often wondered how to get a list of files under a username root because I sometimes forget what I have & it takes ages to trawl through browser history. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Deonis_2012

A while ago this user (not ChronicalUsual) was banned Deonis_2012 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Now many ips from the ukraine (where he was from) have popped up with the same pages Deonis edited

He is one of those "the Syrian situation is propaganda" users, and the ips have a similar rhetoric and style editing the Syrian conflict

These are just some of which I catched


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.113.250.30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.135.185.79
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.133.140.107

Can anything be done? Sopher99 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If Deonis socks using IPs, those can be blocked, of course; in this case, they seem a bit stale, however, so I'm not going to wield the banhammer. That said, under the privacy policy, CU are usually expected not to link named accounts to IP addresses, so, personally, I'd feel more comfortable if you were to report IP socks to SPI, so that other admins can block them... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
These are dynamically assigned IPs, so blocking would be useless anyway. I've twice filed an SPI for them, but no action could be taken. Now a RFPP report has led to the Syrian civil war page getting slapped with a full-protect because of this block-evading, copyright-violating linkspammer. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll drop a line on the protecting admin's talk page; I believe the best solution would have been semi-protection for a longish period of time... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please put your thoughts on the case here. Confirm or deny so I can end the edit war on the Syrian civil war page. Sopher99 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deonis_2012

I'll get there as soon as I can. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you have been granted permission to change the protection status. Sopher99 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (I hadn't noticed yet...). I have semied the article for three months. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And as if any further evidence was needed to link these IPs to the master, 92.113.251.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just added a map—a copyright violation (surprise, surprise!)—which Deonis 2012 himself uploaded to Commons, where he is still roaming free. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. 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) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the moving 2012 Delhi gang rape case. --sarvajna (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I realise that you thought that swift action was needed, but, next time, please do not make a cut-and-paste move, because it breaks attribution. If you can't use the move button, just find an admin you trust and ask them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha, I had approached RegentsPark (after I committed the blunder) but looks like you were quick in detecting it. Thanks again --sarvajna (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the authentic proof from UK tabloid Daily Mirror about Jyoti's name

Here is the link abt Jyoti Singh Pandey and her friend Awindra Pandey, 28 revelead by Jyoti's Singh Pandey.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victim-jyoti-1521178

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victims-father-1522185

User talk:Abhinavname 14:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not interpret my actions as an endorsement of the current name of the article: the reason I moved the article back is that, after you boldly moved it in the first place, another editor objected and, so, now, in the spirit of WP:BRD, you should start a discussion (using WP:RM), to determine what the consensus of the community regarding the issue is. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Abhinavname, as mentioned on my talk page, there is already a discussion going on the talk page. So please wait for the consensus --sarvajna (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

Please semi-protect the Syrian civil war Talkpage. The same banned editor Deonis_2012 keeps coming back through different Ips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deonis_2012/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_3

Sopher99 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Semied for a week; I don't like protecting talk pages, but this is indeed getting ridiculous... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

He's been all over the page Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Semied for three months. Hopefully, he'll have gotten bored by then... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Rangeblocks

Hi Salvio, we have a very narrow IP range hitting Lohana roughly once a week, doing the usual unexplained removal of sourced content and insertion of puffery. That range is around 192.223.243.* and usually 192.223.243.6 or 192.223.243.5. Per User talk:192.223.243.6 etc, these are shared IP addresses.

I'm not very clueful when it comes to rangeblocks. The options would appear to be:

  • rangeblock
  • long-term semi-protection
  • keep on reverting once a week or so

Your advice would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The range would be 192.223.243.4/30 and it would cover four IPs; that said, I've checked their contributions and I don't think that the disruption they've caused so far warrants a rangeblock. I have, however, semied the article for a month because of a large number of good-faith but unhelpful edits from IPs. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to stop and say thank you for taking the initiative on restoring that page so that Doncram and the other non admin commenters like myself could see it. Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure; if that RfC is being used to support opening a case, I think it's only fair that also non-admins can see it... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I do too. Especially when the one its about isn't an admin and can't see it. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser

You missed a trick last month. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops The reasons is that all technical evidence regarding Tobias Conradi was stale and I was unfamiliar with him as a sock master... Which is another way of saying thanks for letting me know, as I'll be able to catch him next time. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there enough of a connection to warrant merging the cases, or should be begin an investigation for the purpose of determining this? Ping me if I need to start the case or merge them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I trust Uncle G's identification, at least until it's disputed, so, please merge the cases. I'd do it myself, but I know I'd end up fouling up something... Thanks, Dennis. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm flattered by your faith that I won't screw it up either :) Update Ok, I think I did it right, doing a histmerge and updating to the new master. I see you already got the tags on the socks. I added a note in the archive where the merged parts begin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you And you didn't even screw up... . Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

MalesAlwaysBest

Definitely him again. MalesAlwaysBest (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
PimpSoTight (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sopher99 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You may want to check this one as well[2] same first edit to the same article as the new MAB sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The technical evidence I got indicated that they were a more than  Possible match; adding behaviour to that, it became  Likely and so I blocked. I did not check Rtens (talk · contribs), though, because that single edit, though suspicious, was not enough to warrant a check, in my opinion, as it was a result of Help:Contents/Getting started. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

On being involved...

Here, Salvio, you made a comment about Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum images in which you said "Now, probably I am too old to understand how such an image can be deemed educational, but I was rather surprised when the deletion debate was closed as keep – by an editor who, by the way, could also be reasonably considered involved". This is obviously referring to Commons:User:Russavia, who is an admin and bureaucrat on that project, for he is the one who closed it. User:Fae asked you at that same thread "Salvio giuliano, you are making a claim that Russavia, the administrator that closed this deletion request was "involved". Could you please spell out how, rather than leaving it to innuendo and gossip?", but it did not receive a much needed response from you. Can you now kindly explain why you made the statement that User:Russavia is involved. Thanks FishBarking? 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume by your continuing contributions, and yet seemingly missing the above question, that you're either unwilling or unable to provide an answer - would you mind clarifying which of these it is, please? FishBarking? 19:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello? Just checking you'd noticed this^^^, in case you were thinking of ignoring it, like you did at Jimbo's talk page. :) FishBarking? 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Any chance you are actually going to answer this question? I'm not in the habit of being ignored, especially when it's a serious question needing a serious answer from you. Failing that, I may very well raise an RFC on the matter. FishBarking? 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, well you've had enough chances. I will be opening an RFC on your conduct in this issue as soon as I can get around to it. Consider this to be your formal notification. Don't say we didn't warn you :) FishBarking? 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hello BarkingFish, I noticed this thread on my watchlist and needless to say it inspired curiosity. I'm not entirely sure what history you are attempting to resurrect, and make no assumption regarding your motives. I do think it is important however, that you cease extenuating Salvio's quote into a realm of further ramifications than faithful consistency would engender. It is somewhat of a leap to suggest stating that someone could be "reasonably considered involved" is wholly equivalent in effect to the same editor having said the same someone "was or is, involved." Please ensure that your RfC does not continue to omit this important modifier. Thank you. --My76Strat (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi My76Strat. All I'm trying to do, like Fae did at the Jimbo thread, is get a straight answer out of the guy. How could someone with no involvement in the thread, even be considered to be involved? He skirted the issue there, and didn't answer, and he's doing the same with me. This is not the kind of thing Wikipedia expects from someone just starting to sit as an arbitrator. I certainly, expect clarity and a plain, straightforward answer, not hiding and pretending something doesn't exist. FishBarking? 13:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

On India/Pakistan/Afghanistan, do they also cover Bangladesh? Specifically this article[3] as I am sick of a SPA account and am considering filing against him. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

They do not cover Bangladesh, but, in my opinion, they do cover the article in question, because it deals with the Tribunal tasked with investigating crimes allegedly committed by the Pakistani Army. That said, this is just my opinion; my advice would be to file an AE thread about the SPA and see if other admins concur with me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It'll have to wait a week as he just got blocked for a week for sockpuppetry[4] I will write one up in userspace, I have not filed one before and no doubt it will be a pain to complete :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Sal, but what is it called? Is there one like WP:ARBPIA? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It's either WP:ARBIPA, WP:ARBIND or WP:ARBIP: pick the one you prefer... And I'd be glad to help you file the request, but I fear I'm just as inexperienced as you are: I have never started an AE thread... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sal, it seems a warning may have had to be given, do we have a template for that? Can you look the request over when you have a minute and let me know if everything else is correct, thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Well as he is claiming the sock was his wife and as there is one born every minute I have filed the AE request. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, that went well... I apologise for suggesting you pursue what turned out to be a waste of time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sal. YGM Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. 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) 23:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nusbacher AfD

Thanks for closing. To prevent confusion or further argument, please could you append your views as closer on the issue of salting, and the redirect from Arye, while you're at it? Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate for an AFD closer to opine on that too? I have already salted the article and, of course, deleted the redirect, but I don't think that the AfD close is the correct place to discuss those aspects... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Good question. Not sure. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the redirect should have been salted as well as deleted - otherwise somebody will create an article there which has worse problems. However, if the AfD discussion doesn't support that, then so be it. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right, I had not thought about that... I have just salted the redirect as well, though that's not an action I took as a result of the AfD, but rather as an independent use of my tools to protect BLP hoping the explanation makes sense. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, fine. Thanks again. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re your mail

I have posted here requesting that restriction be lifted, I would appreciate your comments on the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Possibly ChronicalUsual Again

ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DanielUmel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Galdamski (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

You know what to do. Sopher99 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that was him: sock indeffed and tagged. You really should run for adminship, so that you'll be able to block the guy yourself... Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been accused of "neutrality violations" and missed being banned for ambiguous 3rr rules breaks by a hair so many times that's never going to happen. Sopher99 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

SopherRapist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Morgarisk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sopher-child-abuse (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Another potential one two three. First and last have been username blocked already. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This has to be my favorite set of names he created thus far. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought the last one may have been MAB as he is now blocked for socking[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on geolocation, I'd say this is our friend CU, though this time his UA was different. The following are a  Confirmed match:
This time we can forgo tagging the accounts, considering the lovely names... Salvio Let's talk about it! 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Damn. All this time my mother was ChronicalUsual. To think you know someone. Sopher99 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This style of writing seems very familiar, [7] I shall have to study his previous socks to get a better handle on him. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Intervention needed

I would highly appreciate if you can warn the editor User talk:IvanOS because of his repeated vandalism on article Varivode (Case 1,Case 2) and for his subsequent disruptive slow-moving edit war on this article. I warned editor about this User talk:IvanOS#December 2012. Then he stopped to remove content but he started edit war with the aim to somehow conceal contents that in past he delete. I do not seek for some serious sanctions at the moment, I think that for begining warning will be enough. Best Regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't consider those edits vandalism, but I have a feeling those edits are POV-pushing. That said, I am not familiar enough with the topic area to feel confident unilaterally making such a call... I'd prefer it if you started an WP:AE thread, where I'll try to comment, indicating that I consider Ivan's edits POV-pushing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that this what he now do is vandalism, vandalism was deletion of content but he stop to do that. I think that POV-pushing in best definition of his current behavior. So for now I'm going to cancel my appeal for intervention because I think that user will not be warned for his current behavior. I think if he would be reported there it can lead to some sanctions and I just wanted someone to alert him for his inappropriate behavior because when I do that it is not the same as when that do someone neutral (I personally have some incorrect moments and sometimes we fought on the same articles). I'll probably design article in way that his intention to somehow hide part of content will be overcome. At the end of the day, I am not sadist who likes that other users be punished, I just think that his current contributions are questionable and I would say even malicious and someone should say that to him.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[8][9] Painfully obvious based on his comments on my talk over the last few days. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Those two along with two others[10][11] now blocked by DQ, however he is not familiar with Nang so could you check so we know who to tag them as? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Erm, I must admit I don't know who this guy is... His geolocation (and UA) is incompatible with Nangparbat's: two different continents, actually. As far as geolocation is concerned, there is a small intersection with PimpSoTight (talk · contribs), but the UA does not coincide and the behavioural evidence is not there. So I'll just admit that this guy was partially smarter than the CU tool (or me, at least...). Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or is that tight pimp guy MAB? Looks familiar Well, I shall tag the socks as Rage_of_200_Million as that appears to be the first one. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not just you: that guy is  Confirmed to be MAB. I bagged him a couple of days ago... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_59&oldid=1149832197"