User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 78

Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

Email

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

User:Saphyr66

Out of interest, how did you catch that (feel free to email)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC) from his rhetoric,it is clear this is Hannibal's or Deonis2012 latest sock,i had that feeling too,that it was him.Alhanuty (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The ARBATC log settlement

I appreciate the direct response at the BARC page, but maybe you didn't notice that this settlement was not honored. What I'd said before the part you quoted was "I formally request removal of the diff of the warnings from the log." The log to this day still says "warned" about, not "reminded" of, DS regarding ARBATC, and we've been over in great detail how the "warning" was laden with a proven false allegation, by an admin who literally refused to go read the ANI discussion at issue, and just made up his own mind out of thin air what the facts were. Someone did try to fix that wording after that request closed with the agreed settlelment, but then was shortly thereafter reverted by admin-guess-who. If ArbCom is unwilling to make an entirely justified one-word change – which might actually induce the un-retirement of one of the editors who quit in principle over this dispute! – then I think I'll be pardoned for not buying in to the new, shinier ArbCom just yet. I can surmise how I'd be treated if I actually filed a follow-up grievance about this with ArbCom, given that Carcharoth was actively playing prosecutor last time, digging up extraneous "dirt" and trying to relate it to the case at hand. That's also why I didn't appeal the invalid block I was issued (the only block, ever), also incidentally predicated upon this "warning" (whoever did it; I don't even remember the blocker's username). I certainly wouldn't take this to AE, the playground of the architect of the whole mess.

It's not some silly "wounded pride" thing. It has a direct chilling effect on my ability to participate, with years of negative repercussions, one happening right now, today, with someone who's used it before to drive me into quitting for months at a time, several times. (I've done that rather than create noticeboard drama.) I've tried very, very hard to just WP:DGAF and let it go, but others will not let me. It's turned me into a prey animal for anyone who's feeling predatory and has a bone to pick. I have people try to use that warned-not-reminded distinction against me repeatedly to "win" arguments with not-so-subtle threats, including one admin who did it right before launching a big RFC he knew I'd oppose. (My involvement in it has been criticized again and again as Spock-like – "MOS robot" – but I took that approach out of having no other option but self-censorship; any show of human, emotional heat would have been leapt upon instantly and used to hang me. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.) I could give a number of other examples, but I'm not here to browbeat. The point is, it puts me at a "second-class Wikipedian" disadvantage in any dispute, and is repeatedly being WP:GAMEd, year after year. One of the others has told me privately of similar experiences and is mostly just a gnome now, feeling directly fearful of hounding if they dared get into any controversies. And the really troubling part about it: It was a "warning" issued for using dispute resolution at AE to address a user-conduct issue that ANI upheld shortly after we were wrongly accused. The disruptive party was indef'd, and his very complaint at AE was made in violation of a topic ban to begin with. The entire thing should just be expunged completely. For my part, the one-word change agreed to should be enough.

PS: I had no idea my "case", or "clarification request" or whatever the term is, actually had any effect on the DS revision process at all. No one told me, that I recall. Glad something good came of the situation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your case, among other things, led ArbCom to have a rather long review of their procedures. The result was a new policy, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. One of the innovations is that warnings are now called alerts, are no longer logged (but rather tracked through an edit filter) and are valid only if the standard template message is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts), which, to my mind, is quite an improvement. Anyway, I have changed the various "warned" in the log to "alerted", since that's the term we use nowadays. Is this enough? Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The edit does resolve my immediate "the deal wasn't kept" issue. I have to question why those log entries still exist there at all if they no longer constitute "awareness" after 12 months. They appear to serve no purpose. New actions are not being logged there, so it still gives a wall-of-shame impression, as if these handful are the only editors on the project to ever trigger any concerns relating to the ArbCom decision in question on that page [not just this one; any similar page with a list like that]. It draws inaccurate and unfair attention to particular editors simply by virtue of when the actions happened. I will check out the #Awareness_and_alerts material; I've been so avoidant of RFARB and AE for so long, I'm sure a lot has changed in the details. Just did so.

Ah, here's what I'm getting at: Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions and become alerts for twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure (3 May 2014 [1]), then expire. So they are expired anyway. It's unclear who is permitted to remove them as having expired. Every notice on that page has expired. Given that logging of such notice should have stopped 3 May 2014, more than a year ago, the #Enforcement_log of all the older ArbCom decisions should just be deleted. Is this something ArbCom has to do, or a request at WP:AN should be made to clean up, or something an ArbCom clerk should fix? Can just anyone do it?

I was aware of /2013_review, and commented there (in Archive_3), but hadn't detected that it related directly to our case in any direct way. Neotarf and I had raised our case as illustrative of several issues, but it didn't look to me like anyone was paying attention to it, at that time, other than NE Ent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding old notifications on case pages, it's on the list of jobs for the clerks/me to go through and collapse the notifications sections however before doing that each one needs to be checked the ensure that thee warning only related to the standard discretionary sanctions remedy and not another one instead/as well as. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Callanecc. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User Adilswati misuse of talk pages and on/off wiki collabration with Pashtun nationalists to edit war over language map

May god give you health. Reported user is edit warring on diffrent articles of province Khyber pakhtunkhwa and want to place a map showing pashto even in distrcits where other languages are spoken. Please see his contributions [1]. He is also inviting other pashtun nationalist users Number one User: Tigerkhan007 [2] and writing openly against Punjabi and Hindkos. He said also invite friends to fight punjabiz. Number 2 User: Usman khan being instructed in Pashto to use diffrent IPs mobile phones even girl friends mobile internet to thrash Punjabiz [3] and sharing of face book account to disscuss stratergy privatly [4]. Number 3 User Adjutor101 On his talk page he is using offensive wording like Tusi / tuso for Punjabi / Hindko people see [5] Number 4 on User Jasimkhanum10 he advises "baghair login la editing kawa" which means do editing with out log in. bcoz Jasimkhanum was Topic ban for three months, Intrestingly he followed instructions and got ban for socking for one week. see [6] [7] Dirty Abuses in pashto against Hindko / Punjabiz. You can consult pashtun speaker for translations and read his Pashto contributions all over. I have just given few examples.

A question

i am currently under an ArbCom endorsed sanction which prohibits me from writing on India related topics. However, i would like a one time waiver of this prohibition to make some points about racism against blacks in the ArbCom case featuring Malik Shabaz. The reason for the waiver is that in explaining my view i wish to refer to an allegedly racist incident which took place between some Indian cricketers and an australian cricketer who was half black in which an indian player had called the australian who was half black 'monkey' (which is surely worse than 'sonny boy'). The australians had complained about racism to the match officials who decided not to take any action since the indians claimed the australians had been calling them 'bastards' which is a highly derogatory term to use against anyone in India but which seems to be almost an affectionate term amongst australians. I would like to expound upon this a little bit. Please advice.Soham321 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

During an ArbCom case, in general, when an editor desires to post evidence touching on a topic he's banned from, he has to get permission from one of the drafters; at the moment, since the case hasn't opened yet, we have no drafters and, so, any arbitrator will do. For that, you have my authorisation to make that comment on the RFAR page and, if anyone objects, you can give them a link to this post. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Please comment on Talk:Brian Austin Green

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Austin Green. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Request

Hi Salvio, i am currently under an ArbCom endorsed sanction which prohibits me from writing on India related topics on any WP page or talk page. However, i would like a one time waiver of this prohibition to make some points about racism in the talk page of the WP page of Voltaire. I am contesting a serious accusation made against Voltaire in the Views on Race and Slavery section. I have drawn attention to the problematic accusation on the TP of the WP page about Voltaire: Unfair Criticism? Someone has responded to my 'Unfair Criticism' post, and in framing my response i need to incorporate a quote or quotes of Voltaire where he talks about, among other things, India and Indians. (I need to do this to try and show that Voltaire was not a racist.) I am not interested in the least in making edits on India or Indians while the sanction against me is in place, but i think this is an important enough issue that i should be allowed to participate in this debate (about Voltaire not being a racist) without there being any restrictions on what i say in Voltaire's defense. So, just for this limited purpose please let me know if it is possible for the ban on me to be lifted with respect to my participating in the talk page of Voltaire. Soham321 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't help you here, I'm sorry. Only the admin who originally imposed the sanction can unilaterally grant an exception, otherwise you'll have to ask at AE or AN or, alternatively, open an amendment request at ARCA. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Soham321 (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I came here to say that I wasn't inclined to lift your ban for that purpose, but that if Salvio felt differently, I wouldn't object, nor force you to make a detour via WP:AE or WP:ARCA or other red tape. But since Salvio lobs it back to me, with AE or AN or ARCA as your only other recourse, I will instead answer you in some detail on my own page. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

e-cig case

Hi Salvio. Can you please tell me what is going on re. the e-gis arb case which is long overdue? Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm not following the case (and actually thought I had been moved to inactive status on it, which I'm about to do), so I can't help you. I'm sorry. You'll probably have better luck asking one of the drafters. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Inactive? And why is that, Salvio? Care to elaborate?--TMCk (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Because, owing to real life committments, I didn't have time to follow the evidence and workshop phases and, so, it would not be fair of me to participate in the adjudication of the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You accepted the case in the first place, right? So where can one find the sense in that? You make me seriously wonder, Salvio.--TMCk (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, when I voted to accept the case, I did not imagine that real life would get in the way... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh Salvio. Seems like your little brother is accepting more cases for you, one just 4 days ago.--TMCk (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Email

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Please comment on Talk:Papineau (electoral district)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Papineau (electoral district). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Email

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Deonis2012 is getting so annoying with his sockpuppet accounts,and he still has access to the talkpage of his original account.Alhanuty (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wording

Salvio giuliano, would you be able to double-check/clarify/tweak the wording on [8]; at the moment I'm having trouble fully parsing it in the vicinity of "no appetite", which may mean that others might be having difficulty as well. Hope it helps, Sladen (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to clarify my vote. Is it easier to parse now? Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, definitely.[9] And from that I can now word backwards and see pairing-of-the-commas and so the meaning of the original wording too. Many appreciations, —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Deonis and Hannibal sockpuppet

Deonis 2012 is back in a new account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saphyr99.Alhanuty (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to the arbs

Since I can't post this on the Arbitration enforcement 2 talk page.

I want to thank the arbs for the strict controls that will be enacted for this case and wish that all cases and including AE and RFA had the same controls. I would add that diffs should point clearly to what they say they do, and if context is included we might have a truer picture of the situations or as true as possible given the limitations of a computer and screen. In the past I have seen diffs used that point to edits that had nothing to do with what they were supposed to reference, diffs used that were supposedly of cmts made by one editor but were made by another, and cmts taken out of context. That there is even a hint of a possibility that diffs are required, and will be carefully read here makes me feel hopeful for our WP processes and thankful as well. If we had these kinds of control across Wikipedia I think this would be a much pleasanter place for many. Thank you again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, you can post your comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. The page was under full protection for an hour earlier today but that was just so that preliminary statements could be moved over from the Evidence page. It's just semi-protected now. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015