User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 74

Buddhakahika

Hi Salvio, I've just seen you post on an ArbCom case, so hopefully you are still around. Do you have time to do a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika? You've been involved in prior investigations there and may recall that they tend to be fairly prolific and disruptive. I've already CSD'd a bunch of their recreations. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The SPI appeared on my watchlist and I was about to take a peek at it, but then got distracted by the ArbCom case; I'll review it momentarily. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try to remember not to ping you about it in future now that I know it is on your list. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, do feel free to do that: there are times when I have the attention span of a walnut, so it doesn't hurt to ping me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Gnat, Salvio, not walnut ;) One of those little flies that buzz around everywhere, never standing still. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My attention span is even shorter than that of a gnat, that's why I chose the walnut... That and I do love walnuts... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Very good, apart from the "I love walnuts" bit which is just plain weird in my opinion ;) Have you ever tried pickled walnuts? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nopes, never tried them. Actually, I didn't even know pickled walnuts existed. I have looked for a couple of pics on Google and, well, they do look weird; certainly not something I'd consider inviting. Then again, I have to confess that, at the best of times, I find English cuisine to be somewhat baffling... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd give them a miss, too. I'd imagine that the pickling was entirely for reasons of preservation rather than in order to enhance the flavour etc. Italian restaurants seem to be making a bit of a comeback where I live: four have opened with a few hundred metres of me in the last year or so, challenging the Indian/Chinese dominance of the last few decades and, of course, the supra-national rubbish that is McDonalds etc. I don't mind an Italian meal; my brother went a step further and is married to one (an Italian woman, not a bowl of pasta - that would be plain weird). - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my good Sitush, your brother is a man of refined taste. Though having been married to an Italian woman myself, I can attest that there are times when one definitely does regret not having married a bowl of pasta... And, cough, I also have to admit that occasionally eating at McDonald's is one of my guilty pleasure; it's far from healthy, but come on the food there tastes good. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You like McD's? In fairness, I've only ever had something from one of those places once, when my other brother suddenly got a craving outside Twickenham Stadium just as we were about to go in to watch a match. Coincidentally, that was England vs Italy. Your lot lost, but I do admire the way that the Italian team has developed over the years - one day, they'll be contenders.

Have you seen the crap at Talk:India_Against_Corruption#The_alleged_copyvio. These attacks on me are becoming more extreme (or inventive, take your pick) as time goes on. I seriously beginning to doubt myself. And another sock of Buddhakahika has just been found. Is this trip really worth it? - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

one day, they'll be contenders, from your fingers to God ears, though I fear it'll take way too long for my tastes. I was lucky enough to actually be present when Italy beat France in 2011, but that was quite the exception: we seem to have grown quite attached to the wooden spoon, sigh.

About the other issue, yes, unfortunately I have followed the continuing harassment that the various IAC meat puppets have been subjecting you to and I'm sorry we can only do little... I don't know what to say, actually: this isn't as bad as their previous idea, but it's malicious and disheartening. The only thing I can say is hang on, Sit, you're doing the right thing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

• Op-ed: Media Viewer software is not ready

• Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity

• Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue

• WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just curious

Curious why you viewed the Lindashiers comment at the ArbCom thing as "bad faith." I didn't think it particularly helpful, and it was kind of snarky, but not sure why it was clear up to removal status... I'll defer to your decision, of course, and I have little interest in prolonging that particular situation, (right issue, wrong time, IMHO) but I am curious what line was crossed there that differed from the lines crossed by some of the folks on the other side. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd imagine it's because Lindashiers is a sockpuppet of the India Against Corruption clan, who are around basically to harass Sitush off the project so that they can assume complete control over the IAC article. Lindashiers started a new phase in the campaign by (apparently) trying to frame Sitush for copyright violation, and comments like this were presumably added simply to divert attention from the falsity of their claims (note the mention of the copyright report). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What he said.

Meat puppets apparently connected with the IAR have been harassing Sitush for a while now; lately, they have started trying to use Wikipedia's processes against him – and their latest attempt involved making false accusations of copyright infringement. In my opinion, leaving Linda's statement on the RFAR page would only have served to further her harassment of Sitush and so I removed it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk: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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

• In the media: Turkish Twitter outrage, medical translation, audience metrics

• WikiProject report: A trip up north to Scotland

• News and notes: Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third

• Traffic report: Tolstoy leads a varied pack

• Featured content: Which is not like the others?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

RevDelete of 17 comments on Gender gap task force

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Redaction_of_17_odd_comments.3F - you seem to have revdeleted a lot of comments, one of them mine. Please explain. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As explained in the post by isaacl Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Limitations_and_issues if something that needs revdel is unnoticed, any edits between the offending edit and the revdel are also revdeled, because the offending content is repeated in each of the subsequent revisions. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am the person who requested the redaction. As noted above, yours were not deleted. I've offered a more complete response on the talk page. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's very little I can add, but I have left a reply there. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

E4024 SPI

Hello,

I'm not understanding why the result of this was inconclusive. The sock, Why should I have a username?, is highly active. I'm almost certain the IP's are the same. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Those previous socks are not "stale", they were blocked. Their blocks just ended recently. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The previous accounts are, speaking as a checkuser, indeed stale: you see, on Wikipedia, CU data are only available for three months, after which they are purged from the system. This means that if an account hasn't edited for more than three months, I'm no longer able to check it. In this case, I could check the Why should I have a username? account all right, but none of the others which means that I'd have nothing to compare the results to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

• Featured content: Oil paintings galore

• In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii

• Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary

• Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland

• WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time

• Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editions

Hi: Please, check this. Now we are having trouble with this user in Spanish WP. (Update: already blocked). The same kind of problems you had here. And if you see his recent history here, you will find the same old disruptive editing. Thanks in advance.--Fixertool (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me. The Spanish Wikipedia is an entirely different community and I am an admin only on the English Wikipedia, so I can't block the editor in question for disrupting the Spanish project. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course I understand that. I just wanted to tell you: put an eye on this case here, on the English Wikipedia. Maybe he's doing the same thing here again. Just remember he agreed to stop reverting here. but look at his recent editions or edit resumes like this: [1] (again: I'm talking about here, this community). That's all. (Sorry, I apologize for my English.) Thanks. --Fixertool (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender issues RFAR

Re: your message on my talk page adding me as a party to the Gender Issues case request. My understanding is that a clerk was secretly asked to add my name to the case on the arbitrators' private mailing list.

I see no reason for adding me as a party to this case request. I am not interested in gender topics and have never edited in that area. I am not a member of the Gender gap task force and never have been. I may have voted in some interaction ban discussion, but many people did, and at this point I don't even remember. So I have to ask again, why am I being named as a party to this case?

You may recall the last time arbitrators added editors to a case, without evidence or findings of fact, in the disastrous 6-month-long Tea Party movement case. Eventually the committee had to go back to following its own procedures, and provide more traditional evidence, with examination of diffs. The public dislikes secret evidence and secret motives.

Unless a compelling public reason can be provided, I would ask that my name be removed from the case. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Neotarf is knee deep in all of this. When the evidence phase opens, I will be submitting diffs to support this claim.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What happened here is entirely different from what happened during the Tea Party case, because you are being added before the case even begins, which is, basically, the Committee following their procedures. Furthermore, about the need for ArbCom to provide traditional evidence, I quite agree; here, however, no evidence has been submitted yet. More than that, the case hasn't even been opened. When the case opens, you'll be allowed to provide evidence about the behaviour of others and, if you want, to respond to the evidence which may be submitted concerning your actions. Which means that you are in the same position as all other parties to the case, except for the fact that you were added not by the filer but by a clerk per my request.

Concerning the reason you were added, I have already told you that I believe your conduct bears scrutiny. It's quite possible I was entirely wrong and, if that's the case, don't worry, there will be no finding of fact about you and no remedy; the fact you are a party to a case does not necessarily entail that you will be found guilty of anything. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there someplace that actually states the policy on adding parties? I looked at the Main page, Policy page and Guide and didn't see anything. Did I miss it? It seems absurd that just any editor can come to Arbitration and throw in a bunch of names. But there is no policy for a number of editors adding other parties or on Arbitrators adding them? Such secretiveness is a problem and maybe a more explicit policy is needed? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom can add people after the fact. I'm not sure if regular editors could do such a thing. Arbcom sets the rules, but they will be the first to remind you this is not a court. I think they added someone after evidence collections was finished once too. They have very broad powers over these proceedings. I'd imagine their powers are defined by the WMF in some documents. Sal here might be able to point you in the right place Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I believe this is one of the few aspects of arbitration which is regulated by custom rather than policy, but I'm not 100% sure, so don't quote me on that.

Anyway, the rule of thumb is that upon filin a case request, the filer names the users he thinks should be parties to it, after which arbs may add and remove parties either motu proprio or upon request. It occasionally happens that a non-arb adds other parties to a request filed by someone else. The results vary: if the RFAR has just been filed and very few or no editors have commented on it yet, then the change sometimes sticks; aside from that, it usually doesn't and, generally, the addition or removal of parties after the opening of a case can only be done by an arb.

Furtermore, parties may be added at any time until a case closes. I disagree quite strongly with this practice, in that I believe that no parties should be added after the evidence phase closes (or, if they absolutely need to be added afterwards, then it must reopened), but that's just my personal opinion. And while I reserve to act on that belief, my colleagues are obviously not bound by it.

Finally, while it's true that such a request is usually made on the clerks' mailing list, it is a boringly simple "howdy guys, would one of you please add X as a party to case Y". It's incredibly ordinary and there is usually no discussion among arbs or with clerks which could lead to bias/prejudice before evidence is presented. An arb could very well do it himself, if he wasn't lazy... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you've already said that your request to the clerks' mailing list was not based on evidence, someone must have asked you to add my name to the case. Who was it? —Neotarf (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody. Nobody asked me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed someone was trying to silence me. In that case, I request that you either remove my name from the case, or add all other persons to it that fulfill whatever criteria you used to add my name. —Neotarf (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

• From the editor: The Signpost needs your help

• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism

• News and notes: Wikipedia article published in peer-reviewed journal; Wikipedia in education

• WikiProject report: Animals, farms, forests, USDA? It must be WikiProject Agriculture

• Traffic report: Shanah Tovah

• Featured content: Brothers at War

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

• In the media: Opposition research firm blocked; Australian bushfires

• Featured content: From a wordless novel to a coat of arms via New York City

• Traffic report: Panic and denial

• Technology report: HHVM is the greatest thing since sliced bread

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

• Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?

• In the media: College player falsely linked to sports scandal by Wikipedia; the Nobel Prizes

• Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened

• Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace

• Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext

• Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data

• WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center

Hello, I ran across this article today, and nominated it for AfD. Then I clicked on the AfD entry and found my nomination was maybe the second, and the first nomination was closed as delete... I noticed you were the one who closed the AfD for Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center. So I thought rather than doing anything else, I would ask you about it and what if anything I should do. Should I nominate it for a second AfD or was this entry just somehow passed over? Or maybe re-created? Thanks~ :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The recreation of the article was allowed as a result of this DRV discussion. As a side note, given the result of that discussion, my feeling is that the AFD will be closed as keep, so it's probably useless to nominate the page for deletion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, the result of this DRV discussion was to endorse delete. DRV says: "Deletion endorsed. Recreation of substantively improved drafts are at editorial discretion (substantively moot, as an improved version is present)." Does that mean that deletion was endorsed, then someone recreated the deleted article and improved it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

More or less. I originally closed the AfD as delete, because the consensus was there was no evidence the centre was notable; another editor questioned my closure and asked for it to be review at DRV, where he provided evidence establishing notability. Since it's common practice for articles to be undeleted while they're being discussed and since the commenters reached the conclusion my original closure was correct, but, based on the new evidence provided by the other user, the article could be recreated, the undeletion was left to stand and the article hasn't been touched since. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

• Featured content: Admiral on deck: a modern Ada Lovelace

• Op-ed: Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution—a wiki-protest

• In the media: The story of Wikipedia; Wikipedia reanimated and republished; New UK government social media rules; death of Italian Wikipedia administrator

• Traffic report: Death, War, Pestilence... Movies and TV

• WikiProject report: De-orphanning articles—a huge task but with a huge team of volunteers to help

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

BengaliHindu

BengaliHindu has been blocked for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BengaliHindu socking but Checkuser Report was inconclusive that it was a only a possible match . 5 of the 10 edits of Abhijit4law are clear copyright violations whereas BengaliHindu has no history of copyright violations as far I can see.Further he been editing for nearly 5 years with over 5600 Edits with no previous blocks.The other editor has Nirmalya1234 has only 3 edits 2 reverts and 3rd one copy paste text which an established editor will not do .Blocking Admin is right and it is within his discretion.But feel here BengaliHindu needs to be unblocked per WP:AGF here as the behavioral evidence is not very clear .As you are Checkuser can you clarify on this and take a call on this .Thank you Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think only an established editor knows about SPI rules and how to avoid behavioral match by making edits which do not match with his own edits.--MehulWB (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. .He posted an unblock request which I have taken to ANI as you seem to away.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock Blocked ?

I saw that you reverted edits by GeorgiePorgiePuddingPie. I also see that you blocked that editor. Am I correct in assuming that you did this based on the duck test that it quacked like the banned troll Jim Siduri? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right. The quacking was deafening. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

• Featured content: Go West, young man

• In the media: Wikipedia a trusted source on Ebola; Wikipedia study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral

• Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend

• Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles

• Recent research: Informed consent and privacy; newsmaking on Wikipedia; Wikipedia and organizational theories

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF recusal

I would imagine you have not seen the evidence I posted at WP:GGTF/Evidence#Salvio involved party. Since the workshop is now closed it is becoming more urgent that you consider your position with respect to this case.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

I saw it when you first posted it and no, I'm not going to recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

• In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories

• Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:LONGTERM

Take a look here. Are proxy servers being used? This one resolves to Venezuela? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They have been using proxies for months. Fut Perf reverted one at ANI today. If you believe the original Roy biography, he is a "reformed computer hacker". - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The above IP just got 6 months blocked as an open proxy [2]. It might be worth checking every new IP that posts on the subject for this as it allows for longer blocks. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Silently, I have been checkusering all sock/meat accounts I've been coming across for some time now; unfortunately, they all use proxies, so checks usually come up empty... Which means that the only thing we can do with this guy (these guys) is play whack-a-mole... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Salvio, do you do much work at Commons? This account (blocked on WP) has been quite busy with shenanigans at Category:India Against Corruption and related cats. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I try to avoid commons like the plague to be honest... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Me too. :) Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet another

[3]. Have emailed you with the background. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you people prefer that Indian editors are assaulted and/or criminally prosecuted ? This is also an election issue over at WMIN and on the mailing lists [4], [5].Juhimukherjee (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Above is another sock/meat/evader, and they're advertising. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, talk page and email access revoked. (They're now using email to harass also.) - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fut. Perf. for doing the needful. If any of your talk pages are being hit by these socks and you want semi-protection, please let me know. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)