|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Talkback
Message added 14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Widefox (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SMS Talk 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau(JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir.[1]
March 2012
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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=Sorry? Were exactly have I mentioned the person with whom I have the IBAN? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=481718124&oldid=481715817] And this is not an IBAN violation, I am allowed to ask about such things if I think there is a violation going on, communicating and coordinating off wiki to get others to do your work is a violation. It was OK for an SPI to get filed against me? Am I not allowed to also ask a question regarding suspicious behavior?[[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 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=Sorry? Were exactly have I mentioned the person with whom I have the IBAN? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=481718124&oldid=481715817] And this is not an IBAN violation, I am allowed to ask about such things if I think there is a violation going on, communicating and coordinating off wiki to get others to do your work is a violation. It was OK for an SPI to get filed against me? Am I not allowed to also ask a question regarding suspicious behavior?[[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 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=Sorry? Were exactly have I mentioned the person with whom I have the IBAN? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&diff=481718124&oldid=481715817] And this is not an IBAN violation, I am allowed to ask about such things if I think there is a violation going on, communicating and coordinating off wiki to get others to do your work is a violation. It was OK for an SPI to get filed against me? Am I not allowed to also ask a question regarding suspicious behavior?[[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Why did you bring him back into this story? I knew it would end like this. JCAla (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because he deleted the sock article, I asked him if it would be OK to redo it and he said yes, I asked him if the restoring of it to user space would become an issue, he said no. It of course did become an issue and now that I have asked about it he has blocked me. Sal said asking about this was not a violation. I never even mentioned any names when I inquired about off wiki communication being used which has to be a violation. Magog obviously has something against me, he has blocked me every time at the drop of a hat. His first block of me was for doing one revert for fucks sake, he is just block happy. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- From WP:IBAN: exceptions include "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." Making a snide remark implying meatpuppetry directly at the other editor ("I am... disappointed in you"[2]) and in no way asking for administrator for help or filing a request asking for possible action is not in any way "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" concerning the ban itself. It is an escalation of the tit-for-tat war words that was going on before and that this ban was precisely crafted to avoid. If you are honest with yourself, I think you will see it (and please, let's discuss your behavior, not mine, WP:NOTTHEM and all). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Well thank you for at least once responding. I had to do it the way I did, otherwise it would have been a violation. If I wrote "I believe there are off wiki communications between Mar4D SMS & TG" you would have blocked me for saying TG. I just pointed you to the thread in question with no mention of names to draw your attention to the fact that I am certain there is off wiki communication ongoing, this was evident from the SPI which was filed. I have done my very best to avoid naming names or interacting, it is not that bloody easy to try and get across a concern about something without breaking the IBAN. I was doing my best not to. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- And yes, I know this is my fault for not being clear enough, I am not trying to blame anyone else for this. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Simply not mentioning TopGun's name doesn't mean it's not an interaction ban violation. Neither does mentioning his name necessarily make it a violation. That is a wikilawyer way of looking at things. It's the sentiment behind the statement. If you had come to my talkpage and said "I think TopGun is violating the interaction ban, this is why I think it; could you take action?" or filed a sockpuppet report with TopGun's name, it would not have been a violation because it would have been done in a good-faith effort to deal with the problem. But making a comment directly at him and implying that maybe there was an interaction ban isn't in any way trying to get the problem fixed. That's the difference. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok I get that, I was not trying to be a sea-lawyer. I basically did it the wrong way, fair enough. But you must realize I have been walking on eggshells over here, anything which may have looked like a violation was instantly reported. The proof of that is on yours & Sal's talk pages. I was trying to be careful and fucked it up. All I can say is sorry next time I will be straightforward. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- A prime example, I removed a copyright violation, all TG had done was use the Reflinks tool on the article, that was reported as am IBAN violation. That is why I commented out content instead of removing it on the restored article, and that was again reported as a violation. Like I said, I have been walking on eggshells. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Given what was just posted on your talk page see here. Like I said, every possible move I make is reported as a fucking violation, usually out of context. And why is my talk page on his watchlist? Just tell me what is not a violation as regardless of what I do it gets fucking reported as one, so life would be a little easier, as at the moment whatever I fucking do gets reported as a bloody vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Simply not mentioning TopGun's name doesn't mean it's not an interaction ban violation. Neither does mentioning his name necessarily make it a violation. That is a wikilawyer way of looking at things. It's the sentiment behind the statement. If you had come to my talkpage and said "I think TopGun is violating the interaction ban, this is why I think it; could you take action?" or filed a sockpuppet report with TopGun's name, it would not have been a violation because it would have been done in a good-faith effort to deal with the problem. But making a comment directly at him and implying that maybe there was an interaction ban isn't in any way trying to get the problem fixed. That's the difference. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- And yes, I know this is my fault for not being clear enough, I am not trying to blame anyone else for this. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Well thank you for at least once responding. I had to do it the way I did, otherwise it would have been a violation. If I wrote "I believe there are off wiki communications between Mar4D SMS & TG" you would have blocked me for saying TG. I just pointed you to the thread in question with no mention of names to draw your attention to the fact that I am certain there is off wiki communication ongoing, this was evident from the SPI which was filed. I have done my very best to avoid naming names or interacting, it is not that bloody easy to try and get across a concern about something without breaking the IBAN. I was doing my best not to. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- From WP:IBAN: exceptions include "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." Making a snide remark implying meatpuppetry directly at the other editor ("I am... disappointed in you"[2]) and in no way asking for administrator for help or filing a request asking for possible action is not in any way "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" concerning the ban itself. It is an escalation of the tit-for-tat war words that was going on before and that this ban was precisely crafted to avoid. If you are honest with yourself, I think you will see it (and please, let's discuss your behavior, not mine, WP:NOTTHEM and all). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Probable sock
User:Najamkhan16 probable sock of User :Wikiwriter786 IP 200.98.197.34 is posting from Brazil, SA, doubt it is a sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lol the ISI get caught again [3] How crap are they? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Did not expect this. User:September88 is also User:182.177.22.143 based on geolocation + some common sense, based on this [4] I cannot help but think she logs out to support her cause, both IP's geolcate to the same spot. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You can't really say that's the ISI, I mean you've done excellent work on anti-vandalism but making such rash statements like this with no logic does not help. (Wiki id2(talk) 17:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
- In this you are in fact incorrect, I know how to ping an IP. It is even easier when it is a static one as used by most government institutions, Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
... in good ol'Punjab. Are you sure enough to file a SPI? JCAla (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Positive, no doubt at all. Static IP's are piss easy to backtrack Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- User:182.177.22.143 is Rawalpindi (ISI HQ) and I am trying really trying to refrain from commenting on that any further. User:39.47.36.30 is Mohra Nur, Islamabad neighborhood. But how do you know it's September88? JCAla (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Because I am very very good, and this of course [5] [6] Busted springs to mind. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- User:182.177.22.143 is Rawalpindi (ISI HQ) and I am trying really trying to refrain from commenting on that any further. User:39.47.36.30 is Mohra Nur, Islamabad neighborhood. But how do you know it's September88? JCAla (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I filed an SPI based on your research. JCAla (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good one, I'll get he others soon enough as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No no and no
[7] Can someone ask Ashlin to pop over so I my tell him why this is terrible. Sources, no good, use western academic sources only, any fro mthe region will be seen as biased. I have sources for what you have written, just ask should you need some or some research done. No internal to ISI, so any random reader will think "who"? You name names from your sources, who are they? What makes their opinions notable? More research and better sourcing my friend. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your talk page is open for one purpose only: to contest your block. Please stop abusing this privilege. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I assumed I could post anything on here? Had not realized I was breaking a rule. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not only that, but, as TopGun has correctly informed me, you've once again gone and broken another IBAN violation. I was considering unblocking you based on your own recognition of your faults. Please do not make any more comments directed at TopGun, about TopGun, or anything to do with TopGun unless you are specifically asking an administrator (through a formal or informal process) to address what you perceive to be a violation of IBAN on his part. No making sly comments toward him without using his name. No making comments about him without using his name. No talking about his mother or his father or anything he said for the past 15 years. That's it. It's that simple. Stop trying to get around that rule, and you will stop getting blocked.
- FYI, you are this >< close to getting indefinitely blocked. And no, I don't care what the enforcement is on anyone else; we're talking about your behavior and you alone. Please take the next 48 hours to consider your behavior. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I assumed I could post anything on here? Had not realized I was breaking a rule. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)