User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 97
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Return of a sockpuppet
Hi Salvio giuliano, I believe WhitFruit is back. I've got my three month old baby asleep on my lap right now, typing on my phone with hand. I am not sure if I reopened the sockpuppet investigation correctly (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhitFruit. My apologies if I messed it up. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have fixed the formatting (or, at the very least, I hope I did), but unfortunately right now I don't have the time to really look at the SPI. As soon as I can, I'll take a look. Cheers. Salvio giuliano 16:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Undeletion request
Hi! I've been going through User:Lettler's article creation history and found one I think is notable and can be kept (definitely not any of the sportspeople, since I think they would all fail our current NSPORTS requirements). Specifically Paul Saint-Martin, which I checked out on the Wayback Machine to verify its content. I would like to take responsibility for the article. Would you be willing to undelete it? SilverserenC 18:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
My first thought...
...was, 'OMG, Salvio has a bot that's run amuck.' But, now all's right with the universe. Good job :^) Tiderolls 14:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Now I'll look up a psychiatrist for a consultation. That was a nasty case of multiple personalities on my part... Salvio giuliano 15:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I got confused by the first edit and was about to ask if it was you but then they gave themself away and made my job easier. Linguist111 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is your bot approved? I would assume you know it's supposed to be but just wanna make sure. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well that answers that question. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aye, that's the second bot I didn't know I had
. For future reference, I've never had a bot and would not know where to start to code one, so if you see any account purporting to be a bot operated by me, feel free to assume the worst possible faith. Salvio giuliano 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Alright sounds good. I saw that "bot" pop up in SWViewer and checked who it claimed to be a bot account of and saw it claimed to be your bot account but saw no link to the relevant BRFA so I figured I"d check with you first before reporting it cause your a CU, OS, and admin so I had a feeling that you would know that all bots need to be approved but wanted to check and make sure. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a fairly prolific LTA having fun. Cheers for your making sure before reporting my bot. Salvio giuliano 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep! When I saw them leave those block templates on your talk page my first thought was "Huh... that's odd behavior for a bot. Maybe they're jsut testing it?" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a fairly prolific LTA having fun. Cheers for your making sure before reporting my bot. Salvio giuliano 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Alright sounds good. I saw that "bot" pop up in SWViewer and checked who it claimed to be a bot account of and saw it claimed to be your bot account but saw no link to the relevant BRFA so I figured I"d check with you first before reporting it cause your a CU, OS, and admin so I had a feeling that you would know that all bots need to be approved but wanted to check and make sure. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aye, that's the second bot I didn't know I had
- I got confused by the first edit and was about to ask if it was you but then they gave themself away and made my job easier. Linguist111 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
Technical news
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
ANI
Hi, I mentioned you at WP:ANI#Metro2fsb.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 February 2023
- From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function
- News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan
- Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos
- Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter
- Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour
- Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles
- Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea
- Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT
Why would you not agree with the fact it is a definition worth sharing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nootropic Wargolynch (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not that I disagree, it's just that what you're doing is called edit warring and it is disruptive. You and the other editors are in the middle of a content dispute and those should not be solved by continuing to revert each other's edits, but rather by following WP:DR. Salvio giuliano 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
A-League page deletion
Can I at least have a copy of the formatting for the Cameron Windust page for when he inevitably pops up in some news article somewhere, or did you just go ahead and delete my work on him without saving that so I have to do it all over again from scratch? Cheers...
At the very least should've moved it to draftspace like Sasha Kuzevski is given it's extremely likely he will be "notable" in time. Matt jobe watson (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have draftified the article, it's not at Draft:Cameron Windust; however, drafts are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion. In any case, since the AfD was closed as deleted, you will need consensus to move the draft back to mainspace, or it may be deleted again. Salvio giuliano 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Could you keep an eye on Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 2#Riley Gaines accusations please?
Hey. In light of your brief block of Roxy for BLP violations, could you keep an eye on this talk page section please? Roxy is continuing to skirt the lines of what is/is not acceptable for BLP and GENSEX comments. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Hi,
Just wanted to note - I didn't think you were "too lenient" at all. My thought was to wait to see what others (like you) thought, and also a bit of ROPE.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify. Blocking is already "something", without also accidentally stepping on anyone's toes.
Thank you for all you do to help and support Wikipedia, and I hope that you're having an awesome day : ) - jc37 07:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks and don't worry. For a long time I had a notice on my talk page telling administrators that I generally trust their judgement and, so, they should feel free to change any of my actions without too much fuss. The notice has long been removed by now, but that's still my philosophy. In this case, as I said on ANI, Uni was asking for a block very loudly, so I am not surprised I wasn't the only one who decided to oblige him. Anyway, have a nice day and see you around. Salvio giuliano 07:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Note
In case you missed it...
I'm not even sure which alternate character(s) the duplicate account is using.
The account is now indeff'ed.
I dunno - you may want to Usurp the account as an alternate? - jc37 08:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again, it seems I have an admirer... I think my admirer is a fairly persistent LTA who's having fun impersonating administrators (I find it strange that the blacklist didn't catch the username "SAIVIO GIUIIANO", but, well, not much harm was done). Salvio giuliano 08:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh ok. I was just starting a thread at AN/I about it. - jc37 09:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- As an aside, I think I'm destined to edit conflict with you today. Many, many times. lol - I'm leery about pressing submit even on this edit : ) - jc37 09:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Recent deletions for db-blanked
Hi, please undo your deletion of Draft:Tinto (Upper Bayang) and Draft:Upper Bayang. Both of these were only partially (not wholly) blanked by their creator, due to improper WP:CUTPASTE moves. There are open history merge requests for both of these, see Tinto (Upper Bayang) and Upper Bayang. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2023
- In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage
- Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?
- Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK
- Featured content: Eden, lost.
- Gallery: Love is in the air
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!
- Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song
Hi. Can I have the full article of Formula One career of Lewis Hamilton. It was recently deleted, and I want to add that article to my user space. Thanks. Izzlex94 verstappenchamp (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Unitized Group Ration
Hi @Salvio giuliano! I wanted to ask your advice about a move over redirect for a new AfC Draft:Unitized Group Ration. The current page is Unitized Group Ration, which has been a redirect since 2008 and has two edit history lines. Per WP:MOR, I was going to submit technical move request, but the AfC script would not let me accept the article as long as the redirect exists. The new article is in good shape and the editor maintains it should be a new page, rather than being merged into where the current redirect leads. I haven't previously encountered a similar situation with an AfC and I also don't want to risk possibly messing with an old redirect without consulting first; would you kindly advise? Thank you so much! Ppt91talk 02:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ppt91: since Unitized Group Ration had a trivial edit history, I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion WP:G6. So you should be able to accept and move the draft now.
For future reference, you can request speedy deletion through the{{db-move}}template. If, on the other hand, there had been a non-trivial edit history, the correct approach would probably have been a WP:ROUNDROBIN move, for which you would need a page mover. Salvio giuliano 07:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)- @Salvio giuliano Thanks, I appreciate it. And sorry for the trouble! Ppt91talk 15:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The indefinite blocking of Elizium 23
Hello Salvio giuliano. Concerning your indefinite blocking of Elizium23 on 2 January 2023, I'm wondering if you were/are fully aware of all the circumstances of the cases that Elizium was alluding to (though, perhaps unfortunately not clearly spelling out), in his comments that got him in trouble. ''Veronica Gail Worth'' ( Elizium's "putative woman", who married the 91 year-old heiress recovering from a serious stroke), apparently had gender reassignment surgery sometime in the 70s or early 80s. It is mentioned in her 1986 divorce papers. The woman was also, apparently, something of a grifter, having been arrested, along with her ex-husband, for fencing stolen property around the same time as her divorce.
As for the more serious issue concerning the raped and impregnated nine-year old girl, I have to say I was taken back by Elizium's suggestion (again, not fully explained) that this may not have been a "simple rape", but rather, one that involved collusion by other adults. It seemed farfetched, though at no time did Elizium excuse what he suspected might have been going on, quite the contrary. I felt this way until, lo and behold, I recently read news stories, that I missed at the time, about the raped girl's mother vociferously defending the criminal suspect.
I must add something else. Reading the ANI exchanges that led to Elizium's demise, I see that it all happened in about an hour and a half. Elizium could have taken a break, gone out for lunch, and come back to find that he had been indefinitely blocked without raising a word in his defense. I also notice that this was an editor who had been around for some fifteen years and had never previously been blocked for even a couple of hours through tens of thousands of edits. The ball is in your court. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Umm, Elizium posted at the thread in their defense. In addition, the thread lasted about 3 days before Salvio's block. Finally, Elizium hasn't posted to their Talk page since the block. They are certainly capable of appealing the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Elizium's last post was at 18:25. Black Kite first raised the issue of a block at 18:55 (beginning with the epithet F***ing Hell). Salvio announced he would make the indefinite block at 19:58. So it all basically happened in about an hour and a half. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing in "apparently had gender reassignment surgery sometime in the 70s or early 80s. It is mentioned in her 1986 divorce papers. The woman was also, apparently, something of a grifter, having been arrested, along with her ex-husband, for fencing stolen property around the same time as her divorce" justifies describing her as a putative woman. Her criminal record, if any, has no bearing at all on her gender and neither has the fact that she may have had gender reassignment surgery in the 70s or 80s. If she identified as a woman (and, for all we know that's the case), then there's no putativeness about it.
Your argument about his argument concerning the child's rape is just bizarre and I have to confess I'm not sure I follow.
Finally, as Bbb23 says, Elizium had the opportunity of defending himself, which he actually did. Finally, all things considered, I am not going to lift my block, though Elizium is obviously welcome to appeal it at any time. Blocks are preventative and are supposed to be lifted as soon as they're no longer required to prevent disruption. So the ball is actually in Elizium's court. Salvio giuliano 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)- When Elizium made his final edit on the thread nobody was recommending that he be blocked, much less be blocked indefinitely. That all came in the last hour and three minutes of the thread. So, no, he effectively did not have a chance to defend himself (unless he witnessed the edits and chose to remain mute). If he stepped out to lunch, or did some household chores, he could have, and probably did, miss the denouement. Why hasn't he appealed the ban since? Perhaps out of disgust.
- As for Elizium's comments about the poor nine-year-old girl, at no time did he suggest that something terrible hadn't happened to her. Rather, he suggested that it may not have been rape as we commonly tend to perceive it, some crazed individual who can't control his urges, but rather something more hideous, a planned attempt by multiple people to impregnate a very young girl. Do I think his surmise is correct? No. But when I read about the girls' mother passionately defending the suspect, I do wonder. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Quick mention
Hello, I will be reinstating the article for Johanna Leblanc as it was nominated by a user with only 7 (at the time) edits, and was a clear violation of Wikipedia's single use account policy. The 2 suggestions for deletion were made before appropriate references were added and one was neutral; if there are any suggestions I should be aware of make me aware. Thanks. StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @StreetKnockerzEnt: Just to be clear, there were three (not two) editors arguing in favour of deletion in addition to the nominator and the editor who remained neutral did not do so because he thought Ms Leblanc was notable – he even said " I can certainly see the argument for deleting this" –, but rather because of who the nominator was. Finally, all new sources had been added by the 19th and the article was deleted on the 25th; three editors edited the AfD page after all sources were added, CT55555, Lamona and IndyNotes. None felt that the article should be kept.
Furthermore, the problem with the nominator was not that he violated "Wikipedia's single use account policy". Or, to be more precise, if you think that account was a sock puppet, you should not make unfounded accusations, but rather file an WP:SPI investigation, providing evidence that they are a sock. Accusations lacking evidence are not taken seriously.
Finally, if you recreate the article, it's liable to be speedily deleted per criterion WP:G4. However, if you are convinced that Ms Leblanc should really have an article, I suggest you create it as an WP:AFC draft, so that you can receive input from more experienced users. Salvio giuliano 09:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
User:Wjemather
Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.
That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.
One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".
Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.
I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Wikipedia community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.
Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.
Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about:
Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:
It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.
I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few recent examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:
Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...
Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Wikipedia, for no reason ...
And those are only two examples of a half a dozen interference type of undoings in the last 24 hours. It takes time and trouble to go and post these here, so I'll stop there for now.
Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.
After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim.
Since no one has been able to get through to them because of their unreasonableness, we hope maybe you could have a chat with them to see if you can get through. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Would you restore List of mass shootings in Australia?
You said earlier that you would be willing to restore such pages assuming that the user had a good reason. I feel that trying to recreate the article would be a waste of time as other similar articles were already suitable for mainspace (List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom and List of mass shootings in Switzerland; the latter even went through AfD as well, where it was decided the information should be kept.) The sock never had an issue on the content side of things, from what I know. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since the emerging consensus at WP:DRV is in favour of endorsing the deletion, I feel uncomfortable undeleting the article unilaterally. It's not my place as an individual administrator to second-guess or overrule the community... Salvio giuliano 20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like the consensus at WP:DRV focuses more that G5 was applied correctly (which it was). Several editors have echoed that the page topic is suitable, and not necessarily that it should stay deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm open to revisiting this after the DRV has closed, to see what the final consensus is going to be, though I have to be honest, from the look of things at the moment, I'd say it's unlikely I will undelete the article. Salvio giuliano 20:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mean there are three that support restoring it and two that don't. However, I respect your decision to refuse to try and strongarm it. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article had ten edits: the first five (creating and expanding the article) were made by MelatoninEmbryo (talk · contribs), who was subsequently indeffed as a sock; the next four edits were by an IP and all of them were to add one category each; the tenth (and final) edit was to tag it
{{db-g5|HughD}}. If you restore the page, remove that tag and all of the content that was added by the sock, literally all you have left is four categories. The page would then be deletable under WP:CSD#A3. There is nothing salvageable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)- Huh? There is nothing wrong with the content of the sock puppet. It's their content that I want, because there is no rule on Wikipedia that says sock puppet material has to or must be deleted. WP:BANREVERT says that good edits can stand. I find their edits to be good. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article had ten edits: the first five (creating and expanding the article) were made by MelatoninEmbryo (talk · contribs), who was subsequently indeffed as a sock; the next four edits were by an IP and all of them were to add one category each; the tenth (and final) edit was to tag it
- I mean there are three that support restoring it and two that don't. However, I respect your decision to refuse to try and strongarm it. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm open to revisiting this after the DRV has closed, to see what the final consensus is going to be, though I have to be honest, from the look of things at the moment, I'd say it's unlikely I will undelete the article. Salvio giuliano 20:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like the consensus at WP:DRV focuses more that G5 was applied correctly (which it was). Several editors have echoed that the page topic is suitable, and not necessarily that it should stay deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)