| Revision as of 13:41, 29 June 2012 editDarkness Shines (talk | contribs)31,762 edits →Involved parties← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:42, 29 June 2012 edit undoDarkness Shines (talk | contribs)31,762 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| == |
== Magog the Ogre refusal to follow policy == | ||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:42, 29 June 2012
| This is Darkness Shines's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
 Archives | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Harassment by Sock and Co.
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Nangaphobia Sad to see users supporting and glorifying a banned sock just to harass you. Admin shopping has begun]] on Salvio's page against you, please keep your cool, regards. --DBigXray 10:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- You may be acquainted with this gentleman Special:Contributions/86.166.57.203 Ankh.Morpork 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Already tagged him :o) Twice in one day, he never gives up. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Kashmir separatist movement
How long shall this continue? If this TfD also closed as no consensus or anything like that, I think we should go to WP:DRN or open a WP:RfC. What say? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- It would have to be an RFC first, DRN board is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hope that will be not needed, the AfD will rub it on its own. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For your tireless and continuous work against POV pushers and those who are here only to add certain viewpoints. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you, life would be a great deal easier should people actually live by NPOV and not just push one. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Issues raised about Rape in Pakistan at WT:DYK
Hi Darkness Shines: Letting you know that I've pulled the hook from the queue and reopened the nomination for further discussion since issues have been raised about it, including by the reviewer. Sorry, hope you are still online to respond. I noted you adding another reference just now. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source is fine, I have added another hook. Please let me know if i have done it correctly. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added a URL to the reference (managed to get the right snippet in the window! yay!), tweaked your suggested new hook, labeled it ALT1 and dropped it to the end. I'm hoping this can be hashed out at the nomination template so it can get passed again; let me encourage you to watch and respond there. I have to go offline to sleep soon, and in any event I may have interfered enough here '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
I've blocked you for POV-pushing. Given your history , you know better. The edit in question that pushed it over the line is this: . The other edit listed on my talk page also played a minor part. Please take a week off to consider your editing style. Hopefully, after your unblock requests have been denied, maybe you will take heart the fact that the problem is with you, not with me (as if common sense couldn't have told you that before, me residing 15000 miles away from this conflict, both physically and metaphorically); you can yell and scream all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you've continually been POV-pushing across articles, and you know darned well what you're doing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
| Has no place here |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Adding academically sourced content is not a blockable offence. And why am I being blocked by an involved admin who voted to have me banned from wikipedia? I request I be unblocked as I have not broken any policy's. If academic sources say G-B is occupied then so should the article we have on it, and no I did not think it that contentious given the source used. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block appears fully justified to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{ Hi Darkness Shines. As your unblock request stands now, it is likely to be quickly declined as it does not really appear to be a request. Instead it looks like more of a question directed at the blocking administrator. I'd be happy to review your case if you would present a reason based in policy as to why you should be unblocked. Thanks, Tiptoety 03:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well I have though I know it to ba an entire waste of time. I have broken no policies here but again get blocked by an admin so heavily involved it is beyond parody. I am going to work. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- You made a blatantly POV edit, and you know you did - your current block is fully justified. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- So? You think it POV, it is sourced to the academic press, go complain to them about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- You made a blatantly POV edit, and you know you did - your current block is fully justified. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unblock II
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in WP:BLOCK which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, WP:INVOLVED is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. I must insist I be unblocked wit ha not in the unblock that this was a very bad block. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As is the general consensus of the discussion that you have hatted, above (and which contains your first declined unblock request), you made blatant POV changes - and cherry-picking sources that support your preferred POV does not change that. It was a good block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unblock III
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in WP:BLOCK which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, WP:INVOLVED is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. Re BSZ refusal, I did not cherry pick a source at all, I came across that whilst researching for something else. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in ] which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per ] # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, ] is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. Re BSZ refusal, I did not cherry pick a source at all, I came across that whilst researching for something else. ] (]) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in ] which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per ] # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, ] is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. Re BSZ refusal, I did not cherry pick a source at all, I came across that whilst researching for something else. ] (]) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in ] which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per ] # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, ] is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. Re BSZ refusal, I did not cherry pick a source at all, I came across that whilst researching for something else. ] (]) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Prepare for arbitration
Magog the Ogre refusal to follow policy
Initiated by Darkness Shines (talk) at 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff. 1
- Diff. 2
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by Darkness Shines
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).