Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Columbo, List of Columbo episodes". Thank you.
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Can you give me a link to the guidelines concerning editing while a talk is still in session. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I always suggest to avoid edit warring: if an edit is really that inappropriate, someone will certainly undo it. In my opinion, one of the pros of following WP:DR is that it allows you to attract the attention of uninvolved editors who can support your point of view, provided, of course, it is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You were listed as a party to a content dispute at a post on the DRN. Per that discussion, I have opened a Mediation Cabal case here. If you feel you are no longer involved, please feel free to remove your name from the case page.
All discussion will take place on the case's talk page. Please read over the ground rules on the talk page, found here and put your sig below in the indicated spot. After that, and after you have watchlisted the page, please post a short statement in the section below 'Ground Rules' which describes your side of the dispute and what resolution you wish to see.
Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, User:Hehest has a long history of displaying Kanndada language chauvinism. Recently, he reverted my removal of native scripts from lead (according to a recent RfC). My warning to him has resulted him in responding in a very uncivil manner calling me 'douchebag'. Please see this RicardoKlement ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio giuliano. Can we have this moved to Arbitration enforcement as per my comments here. Thank you, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think ChronicalUsual is back again. Can we get the Sockpuppet investigation open again?
user:SuperMaher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuperMaher
SuperMaher was created just 2 hours after chronical was banned, and he is already and expert on how the Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | ||
Thanks for the clarification on User talk:Whenaxis! These CSD tags can be tricky sometimes... MacAddct1984 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
Please unbloked me . I want only get bot-flag in our wiki . I dont speak English very nice and can't make request from bot flag .-- «(…°°…)» talk 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Until then, I cannot unblock the account because its username is a violation of Wikipedia's relevant policy. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, saw the post by Darkness Shines on the BLPN, spent the morning trying to rectify the article (overeffusive and overreffed, a bit OR, then DS went overboard tagging everything with cn templates or "fails verifiability" when in fact the sources actually supported the claims). Now, you have deleted the post, can you give me some background info, I havce tried to reach out to User:TopGun to show that I am not intent on edit-warring/destroying the article but I would like to know something about what I have just walked into. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just in case if you'd like to follow up on the discussion related to the block you made.. [1] - I made a full clarification to Nyttend also linking the deletion discussion. I had improved the sources of my text and was not restoring it to neo title, and the recreation was expected as per the deletion discussion. Nyttend proposed to move my draft and merge so that the IBAN wasn't violated. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't the effect of the merger been that neither party can edit the page now? Several other people have been editing the page, so it doesn't seem to me that this gave TopGun an unfair advantage. Nyttend ( talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That said, in general, two interaction-banned users can edit the same article, provided they do not undo each other's edits. Of course, in this case, considering the shortness of the article's history, the end result is pretty much that: neither of them can edit the article any longer; however, I personally believe that the unintended result of the history merge is that TopGun got the upper hand in the content dispute – which is what got Darkness Shines going –, as the version which Darkness Shines can no longer edit is the one he prefers and that's rather similar to the one which was deleted after the AfD... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
On your AUSC appointment, I'll probably have some oversighting work for you in the near future (if you will use the tools for normal oversighting business too). :) The Helpful One 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'll not be able to help you with the oversight requests, because I think it would be inappropriate for a member of the audit subcommittee to act as an oversight or checkuser. I believe I should avoid giving the impression of being biased. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking the user perpetrating the defamation. However now it is continuing via an IP address. I feel this is considered sock-puppetry. Is there any way to block this. There is continued ad hominem attacks. These have escalated since the user was blocked. Thank you Applesandhoney ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. I couldn't change the content back until it was blocked as the edit only lasted a minute or so before it was attacked again. Applesandhoney ( talk) 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you for catching the obvious sock-puppetry of this user. I see you blocked them indefinitely. Applesandhoney ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please extend the lock on this page. We now have another IP address posting the same content. The IP user is also engaged in sock-puppetry. Applesandhoney ( talk) 13:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Copied from
JamesBWatson (
talk) page. As the original administrator to get involved can you discuss this with him.
"Thank you for protecting this page from vandalism. This page has a history of blocks. A user Koshervigilante ( talk) was blocked for defamation of living persons. That user was blocked by administrator Salvio. The page was reverted by an IP with the same info and Salvio semi-ed it for 2 weeks. During that time a new user Kashrus-vigilante popped up in its place. Salvio blocked this user as well for sock-puppetry. After the 2 weeks were up and there were continued IP attacks (Just reverts of the original defamation.) the page was semi-ed for a month. Just 4 days later an account called Applesandhonee reverted it one more time. This account is a single purpose account that is a sock of Koshervigilante copying his original venom to this page. He was caught by a vandalism bot ClueBot_NG which in turn flagged him and you blocked him for 48 hours. Can you check the history of these edits and find a way to end this puppeteer. How can this page be protected form him? Thank you." Applesandhoney ( talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Trijnstel ( talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, you might want to consider unblocking or reducing the block on DS. It looks like he was trying to get some attention to the fact that he was out maneuvered, possibly in good faith, by TopGun. I'm not totally up to speed on the history of these two editors so I might have overlooked other things but, based on this alone, DS's actions look relatively innocent. Just a thought. -- regentspark ( comment) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Arora, I remember youooo. This is the one that you asked me to remind you about, which had previously been semi-p'd for 6 months. IP geolocates to the same place, and has the same ISP. - Sitush ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If WP:OR is added to an article, and has then been modified by another user, is it a violation to remove it? Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I had hoped the interaction ban between the two of you would solve the countless problems caused by your interaction, but, ever since it was imposed, the number of ANI threads about either of you has increased. This really boggles the mind!
Please, don't even look at TopGun's edits. Start really ignoring him. If you cannot keep away from him I fear that the only solution will be a topic ban, since the interaction ban is obviously not working... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Columbo, List of Columbo episodes". Thank you.
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Can you give me a link to the guidelines concerning editing while a talk is still in session. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I always suggest to avoid edit warring: if an edit is really that inappropriate, someone will certainly undo it. In my opinion, one of the pros of following WP:DR is that it allows you to attract the attention of uninvolved editors who can support your point of view, provided, of course, it is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You were listed as a party to a content dispute at a post on the DRN. Per that discussion, I have opened a Mediation Cabal case here. If you feel you are no longer involved, please feel free to remove your name from the case page.
All discussion will take place on the case's talk page. Please read over the ground rules on the talk page, found here and put your sig below in the indicated spot. After that, and after you have watchlisted the page, please post a short statement in the section below 'Ground Rules' which describes your side of the dispute and what resolution you wish to see.
Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, User:Hehest has a long history of displaying Kanndada language chauvinism. Recently, he reverted my removal of native scripts from lead (according to a recent RfC). My warning to him has resulted him in responding in a very uncivil manner calling me 'douchebag'. Please see this RicardoKlement ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio giuliano. Can we have this moved to Arbitration enforcement as per my comments here. Thank you, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think ChronicalUsual is back again. Can we get the Sockpuppet investigation open again?
user:SuperMaher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuperMaher
SuperMaher was created just 2 hours after chronical was banned, and he is already and expert on how the Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | ||
Thanks for the clarification on User talk:Whenaxis! These CSD tags can be tricky sometimes... MacAddct1984 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
Please unbloked me . I want only get bot-flag in our wiki . I dont speak English very nice and can't make request from bot flag .-- «(…°°…)» talk 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Until then, I cannot unblock the account because its username is a violation of Wikipedia's relevant policy. I'm really sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, saw the post by Darkness Shines on the BLPN, spent the morning trying to rectify the article (overeffusive and overreffed, a bit OR, then DS went overboard tagging everything with cn templates or "fails verifiability" when in fact the sources actually supported the claims). Now, you have deleted the post, can you give me some background info, I havce tried to reach out to User:TopGun to show that I am not intent on edit-warring/destroying the article but I would like to know something about what I have just walked into. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just in case if you'd like to follow up on the discussion related to the block you made.. [1] - I made a full clarification to Nyttend also linking the deletion discussion. I had improved the sources of my text and was not restoring it to neo title, and the recreation was expected as per the deletion discussion. Nyttend proposed to move my draft and merge so that the IBAN wasn't violated. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't the effect of the merger been that neither party can edit the page now? Several other people have been editing the page, so it doesn't seem to me that this gave TopGun an unfair advantage. Nyttend ( talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That said, in general, two interaction-banned users can edit the same article, provided they do not undo each other's edits. Of course, in this case, considering the shortness of the article's history, the end result is pretty much that: neither of them can edit the article any longer; however, I personally believe that the unintended result of the history merge is that TopGun got the upper hand in the content dispute – which is what got Darkness Shines going –, as the version which Darkness Shines can no longer edit is the one he prefers and that's rather similar to the one which was deleted after the AfD... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
On your AUSC appointment, I'll probably have some oversighting work for you in the near future (if you will use the tools for normal oversighting business too). :) The Helpful One 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'll not be able to help you with the oversight requests, because I think it would be inappropriate for a member of the audit subcommittee to act as an oversight or checkuser. I believe I should avoid giving the impression of being biased. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking the user perpetrating the defamation. However now it is continuing via an IP address. I feel this is considered sock-puppetry. Is there any way to block this. There is continued ad hominem attacks. These have escalated since the user was blocked. Thank you Applesandhoney ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. I couldn't change the content back until it was blocked as the edit only lasted a minute or so before it was attacked again. Applesandhoney ( talk) 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you for catching the obvious sock-puppetry of this user. I see you blocked them indefinitely. Applesandhoney ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please extend the lock on this page. We now have another IP address posting the same content. The IP user is also engaged in sock-puppetry. Applesandhoney ( talk) 13:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Copied from
JamesBWatson (
talk) page. As the original administrator to get involved can you discuss this with him.
"Thank you for protecting this page from vandalism. This page has a history of blocks. A user Koshervigilante ( talk) was blocked for defamation of living persons. That user was blocked by administrator Salvio. The page was reverted by an IP with the same info and Salvio semi-ed it for 2 weeks. During that time a new user Kashrus-vigilante popped up in its place. Salvio blocked this user as well for sock-puppetry. After the 2 weeks were up and there were continued IP attacks (Just reverts of the original defamation.) the page was semi-ed for a month. Just 4 days later an account called Applesandhonee reverted it one more time. This account is a single purpose account that is a sock of Koshervigilante copying his original venom to this page. He was caught by a vandalism bot ClueBot_NG which in turn flagged him and you blocked him for 48 hours. Can you check the history of these edits and find a way to end this puppeteer. How can this page be protected form him? Thank you." Applesandhoney ( talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Trijnstel ( talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, you might want to consider unblocking or reducing the block on DS. It looks like he was trying to get some attention to the fact that he was out maneuvered, possibly in good faith, by TopGun. I'm not totally up to speed on the history of these two editors so I might have overlooked other things but, based on this alone, DS's actions look relatively innocent. Just a thought. -- regentspark ( comment) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Arora, I remember youooo. This is the one that you asked me to remind you about, which had previously been semi-p'd for 6 months. IP geolocates to the same place, and has the same ISP. - Sitush ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If WP:OR is added to an article, and has then been modified by another user, is it a violation to remove it? Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I had hoped the interaction ban between the two of you would solve the countless problems caused by your interaction, but, ever since it was imposed, the number of ANI threads about either of you has increased. This really boggles the mind!
Please, don't even look at TopGun's edits. Start really ignoring him. If you cannot keep away from him I fear that the only solution will be a topic ban, since the interaction ban is obviously not working... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)