Salvio giuliano

Benvenuto!

Ciao Salvio giuliano! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel o Wikimedia Forum (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Nemo 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rfc etc.

Ma ancora gira quella proposta? Non ce l'ho *assolutamente* con te, però ogni volta 'sto genere di proposta che torna...fra l'altro temo che vi sia un po' di fraintendimento sulla proposta originaria e sul valore del famoso punto 2, ciao! --Vituzzu (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In realtà di quella proposta so pochino — a voler essere onesti, so pochino di Meta nel complesso: è la prima volta che passeggio da queste parti. Ne ho stilata una velocissima versione in Italiano perché mi è stato gentilmente chiesto su en.wiki... A parte quello, ho seguito molto a distanza la vicenda; certo, so che c'è stato bailamme su AN, qualche blocco qui su meta e una serie di discussioni sulla cancellazione della pagina, ma lì finisce il mio coinvolgimento. Se posso chiedere, però, a che fraintendimento ti riferisci?

Personalmente, a me la proposta non convince totalmente, ma credo che si basi sur un principio di fondo corretto: laddove un progetto è ben sviluppato e contiene un sistema endogeno di ricorsi volti alla risoluzione delle controversie aventi ad oggetto la condotta dei suoi utenti, trovo che sia sbagliato importare su Meta una disputa che sia già stata esaminata in più sedi senza che alcun errore sia stato evidenziato. Mi dà l'impressione di forum shopping... Ma, come ti dicevo, è una idea preliminare, tanto che non ho ancora espresso la mia opinione sulla proposta...

Ciao. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ops, in realtà io mordevo il corollario, cioè l'idea che siano inconcepibili progetti senza arbcom e se un progetto non ce l'ha allora bisogna fare qualcosa su meta, lo so che c'entra poco con la proposta di adesso, ma nel calderone finisce pure questo!

Che poi la questione è incredibilmente en.wiki-centrica...

Alla prossima! --Vituzzu (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

question

Hello , I was notified you re-closed the "discussion". I hope you'd agree that an editor cannot be banned for simply sicking a dispute resolution, for filing an absolutely legitimate RFC. I was banned for alleged harassment and alleged defamation. Surely before you closed the "discussion", you as a fair and uninvolved admin read my RFC, and you'll have no difficulties to come up with 2-3 differences on each count (alleged harassment and alleged defamation) that at last I would know what I am banned for. I'd only like to remind you please that stating something about another person is neither defamation nor harassment as long as these statements are supported by evidences. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The community discussed your ban and I, as the uninvolved admin who closed the discussion, could not ignore the consensus emerging from it. With three exceptions, all editors who chose to comment on the proposal !voted in favour; there was no way for any admin to close the ban proposal in any other way. The community's voice was loud and clear: having exhausted their patience, they chose to ban you.

That said, I read your RfC and, to be honest, I was not favourably impressed by it. I think it is inappropriate to import here a controversy which has nothing to do with meta and everything to do with en.wiki. It's not like en.wiki has no dispute resolution methods. It has many and you unsuccessfully tried them, until you ended up blocked. To then come here and start the umpteenth discussion regarding Gwen Gale smacks of forum shopping at the very least. Now, I believe I have never interacted with either you or her, and I'm not saying Gwen is infallible; she may have made mistakes and she may have made bad calls, but, in that RfC, you were basically throwing the kitchen sink at her and digging up errors from years ago... And to rehash the very same dispute over and over again, in many different venues (en.wiki, meta, Wikipedia Review — and, it seems, even Encyclopaedia Dramatica and MyWikiBiz —), persevering until you receive the answer you were looking for can become harassment. You were not banned because you started one RfC; if that were the case, I'd agree with you that stating something about a person is neither defamation nor harassment, provided you can show evidence. You were banned because you could not drop the stick and kept on dragging the horse's carcass from one place to the other in search of a sympathetic audience. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for response.

I'm not questioning you are an uninvolved admin, but many factors should be taken into account to determine a consensus.

For example, how about taking into account false statements made in so called discussion, like for example this one by user:Roscelese; "*Support ban. Mbz1 has been harassing Gwen Gale for literally years". Here's the timeline of the events. How many years I was "harassing" Gwen Gale?

How about taking into account users who voted to support the ban while heavily involved with me, for example, tarc , who admitted it was wikihounding me for years. There were 5 users heavily involved with me, including the filer en:user:Jehochman, and one somehow involved. Do you see any problems with that at all?

You say:"I read your RfC and, to be honest, I was not favourably impressed by it. I think it is inappropriate to import here a controversy which has nothing to do with meta and everything to do with en.wiki. It's not like en.wiki has no dispute resolution methods. It has many and you unsuccessfully tried them, until you ended up blocked. To then come here and start the umpteenth discussion regarding Gwen Gale smacks of forum shopping at the very least." In case you do not know, I was under a self-requested block, and the only dispute resolution available for me was emailing to arbcom. They refused to take a case with no explanation why. That's why I have never gotten a dispute resolution. If you do not believe me, let's have a sitting arbitrator to confirm my words: "But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1."

I hope you'd agree that I did not violate Meta policy. Here it says: "Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed."

You complain I collected differences from past years. Yes, I did. Is there other way to prove that the admin misused the tools over and over again?

About 2 months ago admin Guerillero said that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her. I only provided differences to clarify this statement.

You said that I refused to drop the stick. No, if all this RFC was only concerning myself, then it would have been the case, but I documented tens of cases, where different users were hurt by Gwen Gale.

She is hurting not only users. She's hurting Wikipedia's itself. Have you read this article? ""Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy.""This is about Gwen Gale too. Do you know that after that article was published a few days ago one user said to Gwen "I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia.", the other editors mentioned she's biting newbies.

I've absolutely nothing to do with ED's article. I even do not understand half of the words used in their article. Otherwise I hope you'd agree that repeating the truth in as many places as possible is neither harassment nor defamation. It is a fight for a cause in my situation a fight for rising awareness about a bully-admin who is hurting, no, not even users, but real human beings. It is said: There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting. That's why I am very proud of what I've done!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins are not judges: we do not get to enter judgements non obstante veredicto. Of course, we can interpret consensus, but, in the end, we are bound by it. In the case of your ban, even discounting the opinions of all those who were involved with you, the consensus was clear. And, besides, the opinions of those involved are not usually ignored on Wikipedia, but it is the responsibility of the closing admin to assess their weight, depending, mostly, on the strenght of their respective arguments — and, sadly, sometimes even on the sheer quantity of ayes as opposed to nays, when their imbalance is so marked —.

The motion to ban you has carried and you now stand banned; I cannot do anything other than suggest you take advantage of the standard offer. Stay away from en.wiki, completely ignore everything happening there and anything Gwen Gale does and, in a couple of months, ask to be unbanned.

Regarding Gwen's actions, there comes a point, in many discussions, when, due to simple exasperation, your interlocutor will no longer listen to you, no matter how much sense you may make or how right you may be. He simply ceases listening to you. I am a lawyer and a husband; trust me, I have seen it happen. You have reached that point. ArbCom looked at your evidence — I interpret Elen's words as meaning that they could not see anything wrong with it and not that they simply overlooked it — and did not think any action was warranted. You tried contacting Jimbo; he didn't respond. This means that a. there is nothing wrong with what you have uncovered or b. even if there is something wrong, nobody is going to listen. Either way, there is no point in dragging this issue on. Just drop it, forget about Gwen Gale and about en.wiki. If she is really that abusive, someone will certainly notice and will start an RfC on en.wiki or she will end up before ArbCom and be desysopped. Bad apples are usually spotted and plucked, even if it takes time.

And, moreover, when the community has the perception that an administrator — or an editor — is being subjected to a campaign of harassment, then they tend to close ranks and disregard everything that's said about him or her.

Please note that this will probably be my last message on this issue; I think I have properly justified my actions as an administrator and I have also given you a couple of — unsolicited — suggestions. You may take them or you may refuse to listen to me, but I don't think anything useful can come of further discussion on the issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response!

I would like to make a few final points just for the record, and you could simply ignore them.

1. I do not question your action as administrator. I am simply sadden that now there's your signature under that...
2. You write: "If she is really that abusive, someone will certainly notice and will start an RfC on en.wiki or she will end up before ArbCom and be desysopped. " I believe that what they did to me should be the best prediction to what will happen to anybody who will dare to speak up against "protective admin". This land slide that is going on here on Meta because of my RFC (that nobody read before it all started) is abnormal, and demonstrates something very sinister that I cannot explain.
3. I will never return to English Wikipedia. A regime that could treat a human being as I was treated is outside norms of civilized world.
4. A few days ago a kid threatened suicide because Gwen Gale bullied him while involved. I would not like this happen ever again. That's it.

Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

User banning proceedings on WP:AN or WP:AN/I are really wiki-lynchings. The reasons given are just disguises for an irrational mob descent into viciousness and grudge settling. Of course that makes arguing that a ban is unfair a waste of time, even if obviously true, because it is intended to be as unfair, and mean spirited, as is possible. (Just my personal opinion, obviously.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are appeal venues as you know: ArbCom and Jimbo can independently review and overturn bans, and sometimes they have done so. In one case I saw recently ArbCom had done just that: overturned a community ban two years ago. Unfortunately, the unbanned editor was unable to steer clear of behavior similar to the stuff that got him community banned, and was eventually banned again by ArbCom mainly for recidivism. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have watched, and thought, about WP's wiki-lynchings for a number of years. I am aware of the appeals process and, based on my observations, it is worthless...really more a pretense of review than an actuality. There is nothing to be done about it though, as they say in Italian: tanto è inutile. Nevertheless, it was vicious to use the WP:AN banning/lynching as a payback for Mbz1 taking an issue, that is for her unresolved, to Meta. Since it is also unfair for me to turn Salvio's talk page into a discussion forum, I will say no more on the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello Salvio,

I'd like to ask you for a favor please because now you are kind of my blocking admin. When en:user:Night Ranger closed ban discussion, it redirected my talk to my user page. The redirect was removed, but all the messages I had there are lost from my talk page. I removed archiving options at the day I asked to be blocked, and I would like very much to have everything that was posted to my talk ever since back to my talk page. In other words may I please ask you to move all the messages from here to my current talk here (atop) because as my talk is now it is even missing "blocked" messages. Thank you for considering my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. If there's anything further I can do for you, feel free to ping me here. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! One more thing please, if i may please. There are a few barnstars at my user page. I believe these should be removed because respected users who gave them to me probably would not like to be associated with me in my current situation. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I had already archived the messages for her on her own request when she posted this here. It seems lto me she likes having people dance to her tunes.Maunus (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback

Hey Salvio giuliano, I have a bit of a request to ask from you. We pulled down our banners nearly a fortnight ago for what was a highly successful international fundraiser and brought the curtain down on last years fundraiser. This week however we will be changing payment processors and during the testing of the new system it would be useful to use the time productively on on testing banner text.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to help us improve our italian text using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.

We are going to run the test on tuesday so if you dont see this message till 24 hours after it was sent you can ignore me :) Many Thanks though.

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sblocco

Chiedo lo sblocco globale dell'utenza intestata a Sghezza: neanche qui posso registrarmi perchè l'utenza è stata bloccata globalmente dopo che ho fatto la richiesta seguente user talk:Tnxman307#Unblock a un amministratore di en.wiki. Mi connetto dalla biblioteca nazionale di Bari: ma chi mi ha bloccato globalmente e perchè? Sghezza 12 maggio 2014

Ci sono varie differenze fra un semplice blocco ed un global lock. Il secondo consiste in una misura imposta da uno steward che t'impedisce d'entrare nel tuo conto - a differenza del blocco, che, meramente, non ti permettere di modificare Wikipedia. Come semplice amministratore su en.wiki io non ci posso fare nulla. L'unica cosa che puoi fare è provare convincere uno steward. Mi dispiace, ma per quello che chiedi non sono la persona giusta. -- Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Global CSS/JS migration

Hello Salvio giuliano. You have global scripts in User:Salvio giuliano/global.js, which you import using your local JS pages. Since August 2014, your global.js and global.css pages are loaded automatically on all wikis. Since you already import them yourself, you may experience script errors or tools being added twice. Do you want me to fix this by removing the imports from your local pages using Synchbot (without changing any other content)? —Pathoschild 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information now

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosurewikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergencywikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery - 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)